exdulwicher

singalto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I needed cat food so popped into Sainsburys DKH. I > was surprised to see that it wasn?t just pasta, > rice and loo rolls that had disappeared from the > shelves but also cat food and litter, toothpaste > and sanitary products! Weird... Worst case scenario, cat food is suitable for human consumption. I doubt that Whiskas Risotto is going to be a thing anytime soon but y'know, if you can't get any pasta...

Parkerstone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dear all ED residents. > Be aware that Dulwich park parking is no longer > free. > I am very angry with this. My wife cannot take our > 3 childeren to the park anymore. We are aware - there's at least another two threads on the subject... /forum/read.php?5,2085194 /forum/read.php?5,2011302 And as a point of pedantry, the park is still free. I walked through it only yesterday and did not pay anything! You just have to pay if you want to park your car in it.

Parents are often delighted to have their children drive to school, it means they don't have to drive them! Tackling that is going to involve several factors: 1) Healthy Streets / CPZ etc by the council which makes it more difficult and/or more expensive for children to drive themselves to school. 2) Schools themselves - either via policy or perhaps going the other way like incentivising "other" travel. The problem here is that schools actively try to avoid doing anything outside the school gates - they'll say it's not their responsibility, it can't be enforced, etc. 3) Parents and children - the only real way through here is make driving to school socially unacceptable in the way that (say) drink driving is now unacceptable. That'll be a decade of work though, in spite of Greta Thunberg's efforts. With (3), it's very much "not their problem". It's not their roads being clogged up, not their streets being used for parking so they don't really care. They've packed their child off to school, job done. We're back at the point that they'd love fewer cars provided that their child can still drive to school and park unrestricted.

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark want cars off the road. That is their > aim. That's not really the worst aim in the world. I feel your comment is a bit over-dramatic - they don't want (and they'd never get) all cars off the road altogether, they just want fewer cars and especially fewer short journeys, the 1-mile drop the child at school / the "I'll just nip to the shops quickly" drive. I mentioned it a few pages back and others have said similar. Fewer cars is a good thing. If you use a car daily and *need* to use one then fewer cars means your journey will be smoother and less time stuck in traffic. If you walk or cycle, fewer cars means a safer and more pleasant environment. If you get the bus, fewer cars means the bus has less time stuck in traffic and so more reliable bus journeys. If you live in/around the village, fewer cars means a quieter street, less pollution, easier for your kids to play outside, easier parking for you. If you own a shop or business in the village, fewer cars means easier travel and parking for those customers that do need to use a vehicle to get to you. The problem is that most people want fewer cars - provided it's not THEIR car. Everyone thinks that the neighbourhood should be green and peaceful, provided that THEY don't have to change anything about THEIR life. Everyone else's children should walk/get the bus but THEY have to drop their little darling right at the school gates because..... It's going to require some changes to the established way of life. You can still drive your car but it might be more efficient/quicker to walk, cycle, scooter, bus your journey instead. That's the aim - it's been done hundreds of times in towns and cities across the world, it does work (including up in town with Congestion Charge and now ULEZ plus things like the closing of Bank Junction to everything except buses and bikes). It also requires some buy-in and some "nudging" in the right direction. Someone mentioned a couple of pages ago about Southwark "leading people to where they want them to be" and asking why common sense can't be used instead. Well common sense clearly hasn't worked - if it had, people would not be sitting for 20 minutes in traffic to travel quarter of a mile along Calton Avenue because common sense would have kicked in and they'd have realised that you can walk that distance in half the time. If you currently drive that because cycling / walking feels dangerous because of the sheer number of cars (catch-22 right there), then reducing that number enables you to walk or cycle more safely. Cycling around town is quite nice at the moment. Maybe we need more viruses to change people's way of life... Save a fortune on infrastructure...

Sqiggles Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark needs to go back to the drawing board to find a less fundamental proposal > that has the full support of the community. I think this thread has demonstrated that no proposal will have full support from anyone. Can't leave it as it is - it's not really working well for anyone. Can't change it back to how it was, that was no better. Legally, it has to push people towards more active travel options (and public transport is absolutely part of that). That's in spite of today's Budget continuing the decade-long freeze on fuel duty (yay, keep driving cheap, more people drive!) and announcing billions of pounds more for road schemes. But yeah, whatever happens, not everyone will be happy.

It's getting pasta joke now. ;-)

People are being urged not to panic buy pasta based on the actions of a fusilli individuals. ;-)

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are the council allowed to do reinvest money > raised from that to other services - I thought > they were, by law, only allowed to spend money > raised from parking charges back on road > infrastructure? Yes and no. All income from parking charges and penalties has to be invested locally rather than going to central government or becoming a profit. Doesn't say it has to be invested in roads.

They very frequently do. Otherwise people just use them as a dumping ground to park their car (and you can imagine Melbourne Grove, with its proximity to ED station being used for exactly that purpose). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_end_(street) Some interesting plus/minus points on their use in traffic management here while noting that, as living areas, people prefer them to living on a through road.

bobbsy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And the 5mph also applies to bicycles travelling > around the park...few people if any stick to that. Speed limits do not apply to bicycles because speed limits listed in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and also Rule 124 of the Highway Code relate to motor vehicles and not to bicycles. There are one or two exceoptions - some of the Royal Parks have tried, with extremely limited success, to apply them to bikes and there's been maybe 2 or 3 high profile prosecution attempts in Richmond Park (where speeds of 40mph can be had on the long descent to Roehampton Gate). Also, 5mph on a bike is far too slow, the cyclist will find it very difficult to balance at tat speed leading to wobbling and veering - which is more dangerous that just riding along at 10mph - the speed of a fast runner or a trotting horse. There are kids on skateboards and scooters doing more than 5mph too!

goldilocks Wrote: > In terms of the 50% stat - its not clear whether > it was on specific roads or on an area wide basis > - regardless of this just walking through Dulwich > village at peak times and using your eyes makes it > pretty clear that there is more traffic on the > roads than the roads have capacity for, so unless > your proposal is to build a flyover for Dulwich > then something needs to change. > There's info on it in the appendices to the consultation here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/our-healthy-streets/our-healthy-streets-dulwich Worth reading, although it does go into some detail - it's the kind of "sit down with a coffee and have a careful read" type stuff. As an addition to that, @Rockets was asking about cyclists using the DV junction. It's part of Quietway 7 (ignoring the current rebranding exercise around Cycle Superhighways / Quietways) and as the name suggests it's supposed to direct cyclists along quieter roads / back roads etc with lower traffic volumes to make it safer and more appealing for cyclists. The route takes cyclists across DV from Turney Road, up Calton to the JAGS junction, across to Greendale. Except that, from the council's own data on Calton Avenue, it is over-saturated, it's not "Quiet" at all. It's also quite narrow so it makes filtering very difficult for cyclists when it's jammed with vehicles. So cyclists don't use it - it's unpleasant and dangerous. The cycle traffic light sequences on DV junction are also out of sync - they've never been entirely right. Issues around one set going green and the next set red, cyclists getting green while pedestrians are still crossing, cycle lights going green but then dumping the rider in the middle of the junctions as the vehicle lights go green... Even the set at Townley / EDG (JAGS junction) only allow about 5 seconds head start although on the plus side the wands that got put in there do a good job and most traffic actually obeys the Advanced Stop Line markings. Assuming the rider is coming through the village heading north, the best way to access Greendale is through Dulwich Park, thread through Court Lane / Woodwarde / Townley and straight onto Greendale. Cuts out the DV junction and the snarled-up mess of Calton.

creditwheredue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I mentioned Melbourne Grove at the start of this > thread, selfishly maybe as it?s very close to > where I live. The southern section has a 90 > degree turn which is already a road rage > blackspot, as does Colwell Road thanks to the > council?s failure to paint double yellow lines on > the inside of the turn. Ridiculous when you see > them on the outside turn in Playfield/Lytcott > which caused no problem previously. Anyway, back > to Melbourne, the crossroads with EDG is already > hell, no-one knows who has right of way. An > increase of motorists looking to cut from Lordship > Lane to EDG to get off the main road, which is > human nature is going to block Melbourne unless > plans are made from the outset rather than > monitored and action taken as a result. One way, > back to the barrier across idea previously muted, > better get their thinking caps on quick. Anyone remember when the 37 bus used to go down Melbourne Grove? That was always entertaining, having two double decker buses trying to pass along there... I'd make Melbourne one way from East Dulwich Station towards EDG and put a mini-roundabout at the top (have to be a mini one cos the buses along EDG couldn't get round a proper one). Or smart traffic lights that prioritise green along EDG, only turning green for Melbourne when there's a couple of vehicles there. Contraflow cycle lane (EDG -> ED station direction), one-way vehicle traffic. And some actual proper measures to stop parking on that inside bend as nicely demonstrated by Google Stretview

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Such a package of measures should not be > implemented at all. It is obvious this is going to > cause huge problems for anyone living outside of > the car-free area. Nevermind just Melbourne Grove > - that traffic is going be funnelled all across > the remainder of East and West Dulwich. > > I wonder what any of the current local councillors > think of the proposals as this will impact their > constituents? They can't be oblivious to it. They're legally obliged to address it, it's part of declaring a Climate Emergency. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2019/apr/southwark-council-declares-climate-change-emergency Mix of things like parking charges / CPZ, making walking/cycling/public transport easier and more accessible to more people and making driving more onerous to push people towards more sustainable transport options. Doing nothing is not an option - if they don't address it, they can be taken to court and fined a lot of our council tax money!

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Exdulwicher, Many people have asked on the forum > are you a resident of East Dulwich and its > surrounds but you have never answered. > > You seem to have an agenda regarding all things > motorised and are never short of the answer to > people's postings. > > If you do not reside in the area why do you find > it necessary to keep replying and commenting on > what is a local residents problem. If it does not > affect you why do you keep commenting? > > Its appears to me that you could be a plant. > > Many people like me do not need a phone and the > cost to put a man on the moon. > > There are many people like me who do not need an > APP to live perhaps the young should appreciate > that. > > Please let us know where you really live and why > you find it necessary if you are not a local to > keep posting? > > If you do not live here how do you know what the > daily problems are? > > Not being rude just interested. Rupert, good morning. If you click on my name, you can view all my posts - you'll see I've been on this forum since 2015 although most of 2017/18 I wasn't very active at all on here. Literally the only thing you have on me not living in Dulwich is the forum name. I'd have thought most of my posts on local matters actually show I have a very good knowledge and first-hand experience of the area? When I registered on here in 2015, I had moved away - EDF was a way of keeping in touch with what was going on in the area I grew up in, went to school in (Alleyn's if you're interested which I'm sure makes me a pariah in some circles!), lived in for a while after university, moved away from (but visited regularly), moved back to... For fairly obvious reasons I'm not going to give an address but it's Area B on the Healthy Streets plan. I've lived here, travelled in/around/through the area by bicycle, car (the horror, I do own a car, it's not even ULEZ-compliant!), train and bus. I post a fair bit on transport issues because it is literally my job (although not for Southwark). It's a topic that greatly interests me and I've seen / experienced plenty of the issues that Southwark / East Dulwich are proposing now done elsewhere (to varying degrees of success!) in the country and indeed in Europe. I've never set out to offend anyone, I try and stick to transport facts and figures. Certainly not a plant either - I've been critical of Southwark Council at various times in the past on here. Hope that's all OK and explains it?

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why is TfL removing the digital timetable at bus > stops? it was easy to use, removed the need of > getting out your phone and fiddling with glasses > etc and was accessible to all. @alice : it's just refurbishment of the stops. There's a rolling programme of improvements, one of which is the introduction of better/more modern displays capable of showing more info. They're also sadly rather prone to vandalism so there's ongoing work to put shatterproof screens around them along with better security (CCTV, help points etc) at bus stops. They won't be gone permanently, TfL are NOT getting rid of them. Hope that helps.

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I just spent 35 minutes waiting for a non existent > P13 in the rain and sleet and with 8 other people > mostly OAP's > > Gave up and came home. > > I have not been able to do what I had to do by > bus. Wont happen again I will use my car. TfL's website and app both have live bus info. There's a good app called Bus Times London which is all London buses, all stop info, departures, live tracking and even little maps and arrows to show you which side of the road to go to. It's by a company called MapWay who do global transport apps for bus, metro, subway etc. My Mum uses it all the time - as a lone elderly woman she doesn't want to be waiting round ages. She knows exactly how long it takes her to walk to the 4 bus stops within easy distance of her house, so she just looks at the app, works out how long she's got and sets off. If the bus is late/cancelled for whatever reason, it'll show up and she's not wasting time at a stop in the cold and rain. Don't think she's ever waited more than about 2 minutes since she started using that app!

News from the plans to build Heathrow 3rd runway: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693 To be honest, that one was always doomed to failure; there's simply no way you can carry on building runways and flying while trying to hit net carbon zero. I'm sure that in spite of that, the Government will still manage to miss that target by a country mile anyway...

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Which by my reckoning would add at least an > additional 1.5 miles to a 3 mile journey...so a > 50% increase in pollution by an increased journey > length. Then factor in the number of additional > cars also making that journey because of the > closure of DV to through-traffic (remember the > council reckons there are 7000 cars going through > there a day) and the A205 and other roads become > more choked with traffic and so the cars spend > more time in high pollution idling mode stuck in > traffic.... > Brixton Station to Grove Tavern (upper end of Lordship Lane, as suggested). You can do this yourself on Google Mpas, picking and choosing start/finish points to test it. Croxted Road, left onto South Circular and left onto LL. 3 miles, currently showing at 16 mins by car. The alternative route suggested is Half Moon Lane, DV, Court Lane: that's 2.8 miles and 17 mins (as at time of testing which is 3.30pm Wednesday so near school finishing time). Maybe that'd change by a few minutes either side if you tried it on a weekend. Basically there's nothing in it - it's already quicker to go via the South Circular. You can test this out on all sorts of start/finish points and modes of transport - Google Maps allows you to look at cycling, walking, car or public transport. You'd hope that the council have learned some lessons from the Loughborough Junction issues (trying to do things single junction by single junction being the main one) so the area-wide plan seems pretty reasonable. The fact that all their consultation and a lot of the modelling work / figures / data is on their website suggests that there's a robust assurance framework in place for it.

laurak Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Park was empty yesterday. It's an expensive trip > to the swings. Well done Southwark, you now have a > nice bit of empty green land in the middle of > London! Possibly it was empty because it was a Monday after half term, everyone is back at school / work and the weather was rubbish! At least give it a few weeks to collate the impact of it, not just one day!

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is the dilemma. We all want healthier streets > with less pollution but the demands of getting > kids to school, looking after elderly or sick > relatives and myriad ? essential? journeys > weighted against increasingly crazy working hours > and demands on time, mean car journeys may also be > essential. It?s not people being lazy or > indifferent. However, those on the more extreme > end of council thinking will not be swayed or > engage in the complexities. It is all black and > white thinking and solutions. One of the S?wark > cycling reps even suggested that unless you can > cycle to work ( presumably that also involves > school runs) then you had no business living round > here and should move! And so we return to the original point of the thread. People ARE both fundamentally lazy and creatures of habit - they will take the easiet option presented to them and do "what they've always done". Much of that is down to the infrastructure they're given. If you provide every house with a driveway, lots of free parking everywhere and big roads, more people will drive. If you provide lots of good quality cycle infrastructure, secure cycle parking and make it more difficult to use a car, more people will cycle If you pedestrianise a high street, people will (obviously) walk. So if Southwark can come up with an area-wide plan (rather than a street here, a junction there) that promotes walking and cycling and public transport and demotes car-driving then people will (eventually) gravitate towards the easier options. The trick is making it equal to all. Not everyone can walk or cycle for every journey. Equally, not everyone can drive a car (or not everyone owns a car) for every journey. So if you promote mass car usage, you're depriving non drivers (or non car owners) of mobility. If you promote walking everywhere then you're obviously depriving people who need to drive (deliveries, people going long distance). There's a happy balance in the middle where the shorter journeys are predominantly done by active travel / public transport and the longer journeys mostly by public transport / car. Years of "encouragement" and a few token efforts like painting a bit of cycle lane alongside an A-road and then wondering why cyclists don't use it have done nothing to move away from entrenched car use. Engineeer the environment to promote more sustainable travel and it happens.

Zig-Zag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know it's a bit outside East Dulwich area, but > Southwark have made a total and pointless pig's > ear of the junction between College Road and the > South Circular. > > For reasons I can't fathom, they have narrowed the > area at the traffic light to single lane on > College Rd. Only one car can get through at a > time. If anyone is turning Right, cars wishing to > go straight on, or left, are held in a huge queue. > This is causing huge tailbacks at rush hour/school > pick-up times and increased pollution. What was > the purpose of this latest expensive messing > around with junctions? > All the reasoning is here: http://courtlane.info/2018/03/12/college-road-south-circular-junction-upgrade-consultation/ and https://www.dulwichsociety.com/news/1800-temporary-closure-of-junction-of-college-road-north-and-south-circular Somewhere, Dulwich College put in a related planning application connected with Alleyn Park, onsite parking - might be on Southwark Council's planning department pages. The problem with a lot of the junction stuff (and the same with 20mph zones, one or two of the CPZ), is they've mostly been done in isolation rather than a combined area-wide plan. Its why the conversation focusing on the coaches is only part of the story - yes, they're an issue but so is the "regular" traffic and it all needs dealing with together. Google Streetview shows the junction just after they did all that build-out work.

@Metallic, you've misquoted me, I was replying to a previous comment. College Road and Hunts Slip are both no-go for coaches. They can't turn round, they can't get out. We need to stop talking about that, it's just not an option. Also, it's outside the zones being consulted on for the Healthy Streets. Why people are still suggesting it is beyond me.

The coaches are run by a sort of arm's length foundation service (essentially contracted out), you can see the maps here: https://www.dulwich.org.uk/uploaded/documents/Coach_Service/Foundation_Schools_Coach_Service_map.pdf Some coaches do one or two schools, some will combine to serve all of them. They're not going to start doing "remote" drop-offs - plenty of kids will have instruments, heavy bags (sports kit etc) and it would add significantly more time onto the journey. Add in issues around child protection, health & safety, plus the inevitable parental outrage (they're paying ?500 for this!) and, like it or not, that's just not going to happen. It would not be the first time that Alleyn's had pledged to "do something" about the traffic that it generates and then bury their head in the sand... JAGS and Alleyns can have a "combined" drop off point easily, DC obviously needs its own. Coaches can't access College Road or Hunts Slip Road because they can't turn round and they can't get out the Kingsdale end of Hunts Slip because of the bridge so that route is not an option - it's no good discussing what-if's and maybe's, it's simply not an option. Personally I think that building out that EDG / Townley Road junction on the southern corner was a huge mistake, it severely restricted the turning circle of the coaches which impacts on everything else going through that junction. About the only thing they did get right there was the extra timing on the cycle sequence (turning the light green for bikes 5-8 seconds in advance of the cars) although even that one needed revisiting and they had to put the wands in on the Townley Road approach to stop drivers infringing the cycle lane by trying to form two lines of queuing traffic. In traffic modelling, thy do not all come under "driving" at all, that's an overly simnplistic way of looking at it. The schools should have that basic info though - worth asking. However the data is unlikely to be much use - it may say that (eg) 35% of pupils arrive at school by coach but that doesn't tell you how many coaches or the routes they're on are serving that 35%. Anyway - so long as people put their concerns into that consultation - that's the only thing that counts, not a few dozen people on the ED Forum debating it. The thread has sort of gone a little off-topic, concentrating on the coaches issue rather than the wider traffic controls proposals.

The railway bridge has a 7.5T weight limit and two width restrictions on it, it's also had one side built out precisely to avoid heavy vehicles using it. It got severely damaged many years ago by a truck hitting the sides. The coaches delivering to schools are 12T plus. Chances of coaches using / being allowed to use Hunts Slip Road is ZERO, it's not an idea that is even going to be entertained.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is a contradiction here. If one of the > primary reasons for reducing cars/ CPZ/ etc.. is > to protect the health of children then how can any > parent in all conscience drive their child into > school or worse, allow their child to drive > themselves? That's why we're in this mess in the first place. As mentioned previously, there are a LOT of schools in and around ED area. Alleyns and JAGS are the two main ones getting the comments here because this Healthy Streets talk is mostly concerned with EDG / Townley Road and also Court Lane / DV junction (which impacts Dulwich Hamlet, Dulwich Village Infant School and JAPS on the Red Post / DV junction). And of course within that, there's the pupils and also the staff - teachers, admin and support workers - that can easily be 150 people in somewhere like Alleyn's/JAGS/Dulwich College in addition to the pupils Some pupils travel by coach - they're usually the ones travelling from a fair way outside of Dulwich like Wandsworth, Blackheath, Beckenham etc. Some will / can get the train (North Dulwich being the easiest option and that seems to be how most of the pupils for The Charter School (the old William Penn) come in, travelling from Peckham / Peckham Rye. Some will cycle or get the bus - they're usually the ones from within 2-3 miles, the sort of Herne Hill, Forest Hill, West Norwood type of catchment. Some will be driven - especially younger children. Here's the difficulty - some of those trips are at the start of a parent's drive to work ("I'll drop you off on the way..."), some of them are specific trips, often very short ones in the order of a mile at most. And some (the 6th formers) will drive themselves because it's new-found freedom, it's cool, it's independent etc. The increase in driving / being driven to school is a direct result of more vehicles on the road. It's busy/congested so it's "too dangerous" to walk so I'll drive to protect my little cherub. This then leads to the massive congestion as they seek to drop the little darling RIGHT AT THE ENTRANCE to the relevant school. Not 200m away, oh no. So there's a collection of cars (often big 4x4s) all converging on the same spot, multiplied by several different schools. And ALL of them are thinking that there are so many vehicles on the road so it's far too dangerous for said little cherub to walk. Catch-22. There's nothing wrong with owning a car and this isn't really anything to do with "punishing" car owners / users as Penguin68 says ^^. It's to do with preventing the insane super-short-distance car users who clog the roads up to avoid a 0.5 mile walk (or scooter/bike) while at the same time making it better (easier, nicer, safer) to walk, ride or scooter that 0.5 mile. Whether you like cars or not, own one or not, consider it a luxury or a necessity, surely most people want fewer cars on the streets? Less traffic is good for everyone - the people who NEED to use the roads like delivery drivers etc get where they're going more quickly. Buses are more reliable as they're not stuck in traffic. Cycling and walking is safer and more pleasant. Neighbourhoods are nicer (less pollution, less noise). It's a win-win all round. And given that the schools don't provide much, if any, parking on site (as mentioned by others in this thread, Alleyn's has more or less removed all on-site parking), the problem spills over into local roads. And because there are so many schools in the area, that's a LOT of affected roads in a very small area. Dulwich is a strange one because of the sheer number of schools, it does impact a lot on the type of traffic and the congestion points. But equally, it's obvious that the village was never designed to handle this volume of traffic and also that "doing nothing" is not an option.