dougiefreeman

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dougiefreeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I just submitted a petition to the southwark > > council website - will post here once approved > > > Has this petition been approved or have southwark > buried it (in a planter) ? They?ve either not looked at it or are deliberately ignoring it. I?ll call and chase tomorrow.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > northernmonkey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I?ve set out on the petition thread that if > these > > roads should be reopened, we should also open > up > > all the closed off or restricted roads in East > > Dulwich to maximise driving ease...> Surely if > all these closures were reopened then > > the gridlock in the area would disappear. > > I don't know why you're being so unambitious. If > we really want driving ease, we should start by > getting rid of speed bumps (just leads to stop > start driving), traffic lights (install > roundabouts at every location), removing all bus > and cycle lanes (more car space means more car > speed, it's just common sense), remove at least > one pavement from each road (more lane space - > most of the time there isn't even anyone walking > along pavements, what a waste), reopening Dulwich > Park to traffic (there are perfectly good roads > there and there would still be tons of green space > to look at as you drove by), reducing bus > frequency (I appreciate that old people and kids > need to get around, but some of those buses take > up as much room as three cars!), and raise speed > limits to sensible levels. Barry Road, Burbage > Road, Court Lane and Crystal Palace Rd could all > be 50 mph zones with modern cars and brakes, > especially if there were more railings to stop > pedestrians blocking traffic. Although perhaps a little tricky to locate amongst such virtuosic satire, you have actually made a rather sensible suggestion imo with regards to the removal of all speed bumps. The additional wear and tear on vehicles across the whole of london accounts for a huge level of unnecessary car part replacements every year. Just think of the environmental benefits of the mass reduction in production of tyres, brake pads / discs, gearbox and clutches, suspension parts and then of course the extra fuel burned as cars slow down and speed up repeatedly. That?s got to be worth a try right?

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You were consulted when you voted for this > government: > > Making traffic regulation orders during > coronavirus (COVID-19): > https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/making- > traffic-regulation-orders-during-coronavirus-covid > -19 > > Yes, you may disagree, but the government has made > these emergency orders for the purposes of the > GREATER GOOD specifically: > > a) reduce load on public transport by making > walking and cycling easier > b) increase social distancing with larger > pedestrian areas > c) get people to lose weight > > > dougiefreeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > stecoward101 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > 2 Points here > > > > > > 1. 'Who says we want a rat run?' If you had > > been > > > consulted on that question would you have > said > > > yes. > > > > > > 2. The business' don't want a consultation. > If > > you > > > look at the posters in their windows there is > > not > > > a single word about consultation. They want > the > > > planters removed. > > > > > > Can I again reiterate Cars can still access > the > > > shops but now only one way. > > > > > > Thanks for reading. > > > > Just in response to your second point. > > In order to have a properly consulted > conversation > > about this, the planters need to first be > removed > > - they should never have been installed without > a > > proper consultation in the first place and so > you > > can understand why businesses are prioritising > > using their voice to lobby first for the > reversal > > of these measures. > > > > It may of course, after consultation, turn out > > that the overwhelming majority are in favour (I > > doubt it) and then the planters can be > installed > > with the backing of a proper democratic > process. > > But since there has been no such democratic > > process as of yet they really should be removed > > until the council set one up. > > > > Would you be in favour of parliament deciding on > a > > prime minister and then asking the public > > afterwards to vote on whether they approve or > not? I did not vote for this government. Those TROs do not give Southwark Council carte blanche to make snap ill-thought out decisions without considering the adverse effects it may have on local businesses - whatever the benefits may be. The transport sec has already had to step in where the powers have been abused in other boroughs. Here: https://road.cc/content/news/shapps-tells-councils-stop-abusing-funding-277095

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Despite what people are saying/ranting on this > forum, there are traffic measurement devices in > place on all affected roads. I checked on my bike > yesterday. > > Pollution monitoring is expensive, the pollution > levels can be extrapolated from the traffic > volumes to a good enough degree and used in the > modelling. > > Modern cars have stop-start devices to kill the > engine when staionary, hybrids of course emit zero > pollution when stationary. > > The ULEZ in one years time will see most cars > being euro 4 (petrol) or euro 6 (diesel), I don't > think a stop-start system is mandated for these > euro emission standards, but most modern cars > (post 2015) have stop-start as it does help the > manufacturer meet the euro rating. > > The relationship between idling and pollution is > going to be complex. If road congestion is low, > then motorists will tend to drive faster and brake > more ... increasing the pollution emitted for a > given distance driven. > > > betternowthanthen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > With all this terrible traffic, I bet Southwark > > did not monitor air pollution/traffic levels > > before the barriers were installed, and sure > won't > > after the installation, and a reason would be > that > > air pollution and traffic would be x2 or x3 > worse > > in that area, such it takes at least x2 to get > to > > A-B using those very useful and load baring > roads! Are you saying there is monitoring on Grove Vale, EDG, Lordship Lane, Townley Road, Dulwich Village or just the roads that have been closed? If so, where and what devices are they?

stecoward101 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 2 Points here > > 1. 'Who says we want a rat run?' If you had been > consulted on that question would you have said > yes. > > 2. The business' don't want a consultation. If you > look at the posters in their windows there is not > a single word about consultation. They want the > planters removed. > > Can I again reiterate Cars can still access the > shops but now only one way. > > Thanks for reading. Just in response to your second point. In order to have a properly consulted conversation about this, the planters need to first be removed - they should never have been installed without a proper consultation in the first place and so you can understand why businesses are prioritising using their voice to lobby first for the reversal of these measures. It may of course, after consultation, turn out that the overwhelming majority are in favour (I doubt it) and then the planters can be installed with the backing of a proper democratic process. But since there has been no such democratic process as of yet they really should be removed until the council set one up. Would you be in favour of parliament deciding on a prime minister and then asking the public afterwards to vote on whether they approve or not?

Dear Cllr McAsh I also have a followup question. Pretending for a moment that the LTN scheme turns out to achieve its long term goal, has the council assessed the short-term risk to children's health (with respect to spikes in air pollution caused by the road closures) given the number of schools on Grove Vale, Lordship Lane, Townley Road and East Dulwich Grove (the roads currently dealing with the significant additional congestion)? If so, can you please provide links to the data / information. Many thanks

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?ve set out on the petition thread that if these > roads should be reopened, we should also open up > all the closed off or restricted roads in East > Dulwich to maximise driving ease. > > In summary this would include: > > Oglander Road: (remove paved area at Grove Vale > end to allow a straight cut through up to > Bellenden Road and beyond), Ondine Road : remove > one way section- benefit as above > Coppleston Road: Make 2 way throughout > Bellenden Road: make 2 way throughout > Oakhurst Grove: remove bollards near junction with > Kelmore Grove - to allow access through from East > Dulwich Road and remove pressure from the Peckham > Rye junction. > Milo Road- remove barriers to allow easy access > from Lordship Lane through to the village > Friern Road- remove barriers to allow for > alternative to getting stuck down the side of > Peckham Rye. > > Surely if all these closures were reopened then > the gridlock in the area would disappear. In 10 years of living in ED (and being a driver in ED also) I have never felt congestion was an issue. In fact I would go as far as to say ED felt noticeably quieter than all surrounding areas. I have never seen congestion like that of what has been in since the LTN meddling.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dougiefreeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The extension of the ULEZ > > will do far more to clean up the air. > > Let's pretend all vehicles from day 1 of the ULEZ > run on unicorn farts. How's that going to fix the > congestion? There won?t be congestion if all the closed roads are open.

jamesmcash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This particular piece of string is a maximum of 18 > months. Please tell me we do not have to endure this bedlam for 18 months. I can save you the trouble and tell you right now it?s not working! You?ve just concentrated traffic that was being handled by all the streets on to an unfortunate few. That does not seem fair to me and quite frankly dangerous to impose higher pollution on those streets for such a long period of time.

Cllr McAsh - I am curious as to how these measures (LTN) are deemed justifiable without any kind of formal public consultation?

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You're just proposing how it was before - which is > how we end up with congestion for hours every day > and rubbish air quality. Doing nothing is not an > option. Congestion is far worse right now than it has ever been *because* of these closures. Whilst the fortunate ?few? are benefitting from lovely clean air, everyone else is having to put up with increased air pollution. The extension of the ULEZ will do far more to clean up the air. Why can?t we allow time for that to bed in before messing with all the roads? I personally think these closures should be reversed for the time being as they are clearly not working.

I just submitted a petition to the southwark council website - will post here once approved

I just submitted a petition to the southwark council website - will post here once approved

I just submitted a petition to the southwark council website - will post here once approved

Visit http://forums.pepipoo.com It?s free to register - and there are a ton of experts there to help you with making your case. You have absolutely nothing to lose by appealing so it is always good to do it.

Dear James The fact that certain streets might be in favour of a CPZ due to their proximity to the station is kind of irrelevant. Whilst I empathise that it can be frustrating not being able to park outside your house (or in some cases having to park on another street altogether - I have experienced this regularly in all three parts of the area I have lived in recent years) residents simply do not have any ownership of the road outside their property. Nothing has changed, that would have been the case when they purchased their property - the roads are for the general use of all council tax paying citizens. If you want to guarantee a parking space, move further out of town where you can afford a drive way. I love East Dulwich but I can not afford a home with a drive way - therefore I have to accept that parking my car may not always be easy. That is a sacrifice I make to live in this area. We all, as residents of East Dulwich, collectively pay for the roads and any action taken to implement a CPZ (however small the area may become) will affect ALL residents in one way or another. As such the council SHOULD be acting with the overwhelming majority AGAINST implementing the CPZ. Aside from mounting a legal case against the council, are there any other official means of appealing or fighting the decision to ignore the overwhelming majority and implementing the CPZ (in any form) anyway?

If I may suggest heading over to http://forums.pepipoo.com Scan in both sides of the PCN from Southwark, block our your reg number / personal details - register on the forum for free and post what you've posted here and they will help you out. There are many experts who will help you and certainly tell you if you have a case. It seems most councils just reject appeals by default - the cynic in me sees that as an attempt to deter appellants from continuing - as many would be spooked and pay up after the informal appeal. Anyway - the guys over there have helped me succesfully appeal most PCNS I have received over the years and also a couple of towings that happened several years back.

Nothing to add to this, but bumping as I, as I am sure like others, would like to hear Cllr McAsh?s response to this exact comment. Bravo Rockets, you hit the nail on the head here. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James, > The challenge you face is that this whole process > has highlighted why so many people have lost faith > in politics and politicians. It was obvious to > everyone what the result was going to be, and that > was the result the council wanted a CPZ to raise > revenue and skewed the process to ensure it > happened. When the majority in the consultation > area voted against it the council reduced the size > of the area to create a "majority" and even then a > large number of the roads impacted voted against > but get it anyway - that is not democracy. > > You represent a ward that overwhelmingly voted > against the CPZ yet you pull the party line > putting party politics ahead of the desires of the > majority of your constituents. This is why people > are sick of politics. You represent a ward where > traders are massively concerned about the impact > of the CPZ on their livelihoods yet you, and your > party, have neglected them allowing them to become > collateral damage. > > The more we all look at the results the more we > realise what a whitewash this has been. > > At some point I hope an elected official will > actually stand up for the views and desires of the > majority of their constituents - I would vote for > them and I am sure lots of others would. > > 69% of the respondents in the consultation area > voted against it yet the area still gets a CPZ > that will impact all. How is that democratic?

By full survey, does that mean digging up the road? We didn't get a letter through about it..

Maybe I?ve missed something but anyone know what all the spray paint markings on Barry Road are for? They?re absolutely everywhere..

We just got home (about 10.30pm) and spotted a cat (black with white) lying on the road - sadly must have just been hit. Another man was already on the other side of the road before we got out of the car - he moved it to the foot of the nearest tree (outside number 70) and covered with a blanket. I posted a note on the tree - hoping the owner will find him/her by morning otherwise we'll give the council a ring to come and see if there's a microchip.

I don't know where you are in the Charente but my folks live near St Jean D'Angely and they and many of their friends (french and english) regularly joke/comment about how appalling service is in general all over the region. My folks are fluent french speakers and, although probably easily identifiable as brits, they are not treated any differently to their native friends. Good service is also convenience; my wife and I visit them fairly often and it never fails to amaze us just how much of the working week french shops / establishments spend ferme! Slow service is one thing - Berlin for example is known for generally slow service in cafe's, bars etc but staff are mostly polite and courteous. Unprovoked rudeness is something quite different - a displeasure that I have not yet experienced in 8 years of living in East Dulwich.

One driver, travelling waaayyy too fast south on Barry Road, smashed into three cars (writing off two of them in the process) and then finally coming to rest in my neighbours LR Defender (which stopped it in its tracks). Thankfully the driver is OK - shaken but OK. And mercifully nobody was walking on the pavement or sat in their parked cars. Pretty messy but the road is moving so you should be ok to pass.

I live above Morleys so right outside where the car ended up. Didn't see the accident but saw the immediate aftermath before the emergency services arrived. My brother went down and chatted to someone to find out what happened - the guy he spoke to said that she had just missed him, hit the central island and flipped over twice. She must have been going at a fair pace to flip twice and end up where she did. Anyway, it seemed that they got her out pretty quickly - I'm not sure what state she was in but the ambulance, fire crew and most of the police left pretty sharpish. I have just watched the car be upturned by the recovery lorry and it doesn't look like the front frame around the windscreen was crushed in anyway so I would hope that she made it out without anything too serious. Car probably a write off though.