legalalien

Lots of traffic on EDG but this is partly due to one Lane being blocked where the water main repair is needed - there?s a temporary traffic light. As a result Carson DV unable to turn right into EDG and because of the new one lane thing cars can?t go straight ahead into red post hill either. I imagine traffic is backing up at the other end of eDG as well. Hard to draw conclusions as to what would happen absent the pavement repairs.

Yes, some people in favour - Southwark Cyclists and Clean Air for Dulwich. KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wow that's simply insane. > Anybody here think this change is good - even a DV > resident ?! > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But Ex- the council appears to view the ETROs as > a > > licence for stupidly...take a look at the > > attached...who thought this was going to be a > good > > solution at the DV/EDG junction? You can only > > presume the person who planned this is 1) > really > > stupid or 2) looking for ways to create so much > > congestion that people choose another route. > > > > Who would have had to have signed this off? > There > > appears to have been gridlock in DV today as a > > result - who is being held to account? We keep > > hearing from councillors let it bed in, we need > > time to assess but in my mind if the council > > continues to do things like the attached they > > should lose the power to do this. > > > > Any sane person can look at that photo and > predict > > what will happen - you don't have to be a > planning > > genius to see what will happen. This is why the > > council are under so much pressure and why the > > majority of residents are up in arms about > these > > closures - they're just stupid.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It says ?the post you?ve been looking for has been > removed? Hmm. Works for me but I am logged in. Suspect you have to register with the nextdoor site and select the appropriate neighbourhoods to see stuff. Anyway, mainly complaints about delays in Croxted and Rosendale as you might expect..

Not sure if this link will work but here?s the ?concerned with the closures? link on nextdoor from folk on the other (HH, Rosendale, Gipsy Hill) side of things... https://nextdoor.co.uk/news_feed/?post=17592195198437&comment=17592211247165&is=notification_center A number of them are not thrilled with the knock on effects.

I think it is maybe a function of the structure of councils and the fact that councillors look after the interests of their wards (as they perceive them based on their social group within their wards)rather than looking at the big picture - although presumably that?s the job of the cabinet / the various committees. With so many councillors from one party it feels like some of the checks and balances are missing as it would be human nature for Labour Councillors to trust that other councillors would do the right thing in terms of the big picture. That?s just a suspicion. I think it might be dawning on some people hence the good questions that some councillors from other wards have been asking. May be worth emailing them (Cllrs Burgess and Werner) directly.. have been pondering doing that. But then there might be a ?closing ranks? effect. I?m not sure what to think any more. One thing I have concluded is that it?s important to keep local media healthy and we should maybe all spend more (some!) time reading local news, as they do report on stuff. See https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/ https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/category/south-london-news/southwark/ heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks for voicing my concerns, it is unbelievable > that a Labour Council is putting in schemes that > benefit the wealthy streets with fewer schools to > the detriment of the poorest streets with the most > schools.

Another pic

The Lane has bollards so straight ahead traffic does have to wait behind any right indicating traffic that is yet to move out into the middle of the junction. That includes the P4.

I thought that might be it. It?s something the Safe Routes people were asking for a while ago I think. Does it not need a TMO? Anyway, let?s see what happens in practice - I imagine the timing is going to be key, and I expect many cyclists will continue to do what they do currently, ie come up the right hand side of cars to get to the front of the queue. How does the conflict between left turning traffic and the cycle lane get resolved? Is there a left turn arrow?

Hadn?t seen this before but it is interesting reading: a traffic management study of Dulwich commissioned by Southwark, final report in April 2018. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Dulwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf Lots of interesting info about the profile of trips within / to and from Dulwich, and also info about things like relative air quality, casualty hot spots etc (locally and as against Southwark averages) - basically hot spots are LL and Dulwich Common. Was quite surprised how the number of car trips to schools stacked up - significantly fewer than most places. What is also striking is the very small number of responses given to consultations (scroll to end).

Just saw this post on our local next door forum thing. Is it true? They have been doing some sort of road works along the side of DV. (I think the poster means Dulwich Way/ EDG rather than Half Moon Lane) ? 12 hr ago Dulwich Village and Half Moon Lane Junction. They?ve put in a right filter at last from Dulwich Village onto Half Moon Lane BUT they have put in a cycle lane on Dulwich Village so through traffic can?t go up Red Post Hill. One assumes buses and ambulances can go that way? It?s a fairly main route to the hospital so not sure why they?d close it?

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-02/GLA%20Part%204%20-%20The%20campaign.pdf Here?s the electoral commission stuff which covers the ?imprint? requirement ie the wording you refer to but they do say that they don?t otherwise regulate campaign content and can?t comment on its legality. Don?t think it would be passing off territory as there?s no element of passing off the promoter?s services as tfl goods/ services. Looks like the Electoral Commission are concerned but probably legal? https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/uk-general-elections/report-2019-uk-parliamentary-general-election-was-well-run/depth-campaigning-2019-uk-parliamentary-general-election#misleading-campaign-techniques-risk-undermining-voters?-trust

Don?t like the sound of it. Can you post a pic?

I do think they need to a bit. A lot of the short journeys that have been identified as a problem could be replaced by walking rather than cycling - if we could change people?s views on what is socially acceptable. An attempt at changing that through some comms (rather than building stuff) would be relatively inexpensive you?d think...) Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Such a view further supports my view that because > cycling is deemed to require very visible > infrastructure it registers much more in people?s > minds than walking/wheelchairing. How do the > authorities promote walking and pedestrian rights > as successfully as they do cycling? Do they need > to?

Let?s hope those particular pieces weren?t funded from the ?750 awarded to the residents association for their street parties including the Halloween Party.. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s87448/Appendix%201.pdf Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I did chuckle to myself as I walked down Melbourne > Grove today - the residents have done a great job > decorating the street for Halloween and putting up > the gravestones but I love how one of them is > trying to make a point by creating a couple of > headstones with "Rat Run" on them.....and Cllr > Newens suggests there is a problem with trolls > from the anti-closure lobby!!!! ;-) > > I wonder if the Rest in Pieces headstone is in > fact a reference to the businesses on Melbourne > Grove being impacted by the closures.... > > > > 568787456?s=09

At that point I will be petitioning to rename LL and EDG ?the Dulwich Village Bypass?... Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Metallic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > smooch Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > now there's an idea. > > > walking thru the village this morning around > > 11.30 > > > and the main road was completely chock full > > > towards east dulwich grove - across the > > junction > > > with turney. i just don't get it? would love > to > > > hear what all the residents of Dulwich > village > > > actually feel about it. > > > > > > Should also add that the road was completely > > > blocked at around 2.30 on sunday afternoon so > > > clearly nothing to do with the school run - > > again > > > tailing back to the mini roundabout. > > > > > > some residents and businesses on east dulwich > > > grove have already expressed their serious > > > concern, but I suspect the council is > unwilling > > to > > > actually 'hear' them. Councillor James has > > bravely > > > made some conciliatory noises but is not in a > > > position to do anything. > > > > Everyone I know hates the plans in the Village. > > > And the few cyclists who actually LIVE in > Dulwich > > Village are probably countable on your fingers > and > > toes. > > > > I wish people would stop meddling in the life > of > > our community. The ruination of Lordship lane > and > > Grove Vale businesses, the closure of Melbourne > > Grove, I bet there are very few people who want > > our district to go down the drain. > > I think many of the pro-closure supporters in the > Village are desperate to get the next phase of > closures in place so traffic has to find a route > elsewhere around the village. No doubt Cllr Newens > and Leeming will celebrate how quiet the village > is as the rest of us have to live with their > displaced hell!!!! ;-)

there will be another decision, on Post Covid 19 Highway Schemes Batch 6, in December. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50024341&Opt=0. No idea what these might be, but as with others will keep an eye out.

Just one more thing that is nagging at me about the background to the (north) Melbourne Grove closure. The South multi-ward forum meeting on 25 February (the one with the Neighbourhood Fund allocation to Clean Air for Dulwich), also considered: (1) applications for funding from the Cleaner Greener Safer capital programme. Ideas for the CGS fund come from applications from the local community, and "All Cleaner Greener Safer projects require consultation with stakeholders, including the project applicant, local residents, Tenants and Residents Associations and local community groups where appropriate." (2)allocation of the Devolved Highways Fund. There's a description of this in the report, "an explicit objective within multi-ward areas is that they be used to actively engage as widely as possible with, and bring together, Southwark?s diverse local communities on issues of shared or mutual interest. The Devolved Highway programme is an important tool in achieving community participation." Again, ideas are to come from the local community and the consultation requirement is the same." The appendix of approved projects includes these things, approved for the Goose Green ward: 1316156Vale Residents' Association - cycle parking on streets close to East Dulwich Station (CGS or Highways) 1316166Implement measures to reduce rat-running between East Dulwich Grove & Grove Vale (CGS or Highways) 1317441Greater Dulwich healthy route (CGS or Highway). Is the middle one the current blockage of Melbourne Grove North, or was there some plan for speed humps or similar? What is the third item - "Greater Dulwich healthy route"? Bear in mind that these applications must have been made by around October/ December 2019 to be approved in Feb 2020, so all pre-COVID. It's not entirely clear to me who applied for the second and third item. Also Vale Road Residents? Then we get the comment from Cllr Livingston at the June ESC meeting that the early projects were made in response to high levels of support as shown in the (then just launched and not highly publicised commonplace site); and the StreetSpace site itself says this (dated 15 Sept): We have just installed a new set of trial Streetspace measures in East Dulwich, following numerous suggestions on this site. People told us: ?These streets (Derwent Grove) are rat runs with dangerous speeds being reached by drivers cutting through these relatively short, straight roads. Social distancing on pavements is impossible forcing pedestrians onto the roads.? ?This road (Melbourne Grove) is a rat run and has problems with speeding traffic. If there was a permeable filter pedestrians, cyclists and children could use the street and not be at risk from speeding drivers cutting from East Dulwich Grove to Grove Vale.? I would be interested to know whether the funding from CGS and the Devolved Highways fund was used for these closures, as the consultation requirements for those funds clearly weren't met. It all just seems a bit odd. Edited to add: there are similar applications for allocations from CGS and Highways for the first two items in the previous year as well (with different application numbers) although I don't think they were approved.

There are workmen working on the traffic lights at DV /EDG this morning.

Not LTN related, but for anyone interested in some more info about how Councils work. I was pondering what rules applied with regard to Councils funding lobbying campaigns by third party groups (or promoting policies generally). It's covered by the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity - where "Publicity" means any communication in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or a section of the public. The code is "recommended" practice but it does have teeth through the relevant sections of the Local Government Act 1986. There are the kind of principles you'd expect around cost effectiveness, objectivity, even handedness etc. "Publicity by local authorities may seek to influence (in accordance with the relevant law and in a way which they consider positive) the attitudes of local people or public behaviour in relation to matters of health, safety, crime prevention, race relations, equality, diversity and community issues." BUT: "Any publicity describing the council?s policies and aims should be as objective as possible, concentrating on the facts or explanation or both. Local authorities should not use public funds to mount publicity campaigns whose primary purpose is to persuade the public to hold a particular view on a question of policy." If they "provide assistance to third parties to issue publicity they should ensure that the principles in this code are adhered to by the recipients of that assistance." I also found it interesting that "Local authorities should ensure that publicity relating to policies and proposals from central government is balanced and factually accurate. Such publicity may set out the local authority?s views and reasons for holding those views, but should avoid anything likely to be perceived by readers as constituting a political statement, or being a commentary on contentious areas of public policy." I guess that makes sense / applies to communicatons from the Council rather than individual councillors. Code at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5670/1878324.pdf for anyone interested in taking a look.

Pity about the time machine - missing the chance to check out the Velocipede. https://www.dovermuseum.co.uk/Information-Resources/Articles--Factsheets/Sawyers-Velocipede.aspx

Great Exhibition?

Making online comments on Southwark Streetspace and experimental measures Hi all - you'll see from the above that AywardS has posted a link to the general Streetspace Southwark commonplace site for commenting on measures / desirable measures on Southwark streets. Just clicked onto it and was surprised to see so many green comments/ the fact it didn't resemble the commonplace site I had previously commented on... there are in fact four separate sites to comment on the experimental measures in Dulwich Village, East Dulwich, Peckham and Walworth. So: General site for suggestions is https://southwarkstreetspace.commonplace.is/comments Comments on Dulwich Village measures is: https://dulwichvillagestreetspace.commonplace.is/ Comments on East Dulwich measures is: https://eastdulwichstreetspace.commonplace.is/ Comments on Peckham measures is: https://peckhamstreetspace.commonplace.is/ Doing it this way does mean that looking at the general site/ map is a bit misleading for those unaware of the additional sites. I can see that some people are putting their comments on the experimental measures on the main site, still. I have no idea whether the council overlays the various maps in order to get a complete picture.

I think you can meet up outside at pubs subject to rule of 6. Outdoors, you can meet in groups of up to 6 people. This includes in: pubs and restaurants leisure and entertainment venues places of worship https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-covid-alert-level-high#visiting-other-venues-including-restaurants-pubs-and-places-of-worship

Half Moon in Herne Hill at lunchtime is a well controlled environment. Have not been in the evening.

Details from Southwark (impressed by the prompt response): you can join the meeting, here is the link Join Zoom Meeting https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fzoom.us%2Fj%2F99763915591&data=04%7C01%7C%7C70452ee2c264461d4b3708d87b2c10bf%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637394776470957909%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=VtPQVKguH6XIih5q2Y21Etyb%2BMbMe0lijg5SVMC71cE%3D&reserved=0 Meeting ID: 997 6391 5591 Passcode: 788208 (I checked and they said fine to distribute it) "As it?s a meeting in public rather than a public meeting , questions are at the discretion of the chair . If you have a particular point you may wish to raise, or have addressed, it you may wish to contact the chair, Cllr Jason Ochere, in advance. Email is probably best : [email protected]. The meeting is recorded and placed on YouTube pretty promptly, usually next morning. "