Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Siduhe, yes it is bad and your/my observations backed up by Southwark?s own figures that show on one measure an increase in traffic if 25% and on another 36%.

The jams are awful and change daily in terms of time of day and length of time. Of course living for 30 years on this road and observing change or your observation compared to your previous experience will be dismissed by the more observant and far better abled to assess traffic movements.

Maybe living in an LTN improves cognitive function.

No I will not be posting proof of my observations on this forum, I send the proof to my local councillor in hope that they actually do something as per the Councils recorded increases in traffic.

Ok busy time at Uni from Monday... so goodbye forum for a bit...

It's no good arguing amongst ourselves over if traffic is higher or lower than what each other sees (I see no ships 😱)


What we need to see is the figures that Southwark publish and the results of the consultation.


Then we can debate what has happened, how accurate their interpretation is and what happens next


As I understand it a decision may be due soon but I could be wrong on that.

Calton Avenue Average daily cycle flow.


Sept 18 768

Sept 20 1039


35% increase.


Figures from One Dulwich report.



first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Northernmonkey said:

>

> "If the September figure was chosen as a baseline

> and compared with Sept post measures, from memory

> it would produce something in the region of a 35%

> increase in cycling".

>

> Weasel words NM. Phrases like "from memory" or

> "something in the region of" are not useful or

> convincing.

Just to say, that photo of the queue - that queue was there more days than not pre-ltn - I know as I have walked/cycled my kids to school down Ed Grove for 9 years. The stretch from Melbourne to Alleyns always the worst and we often dismounted from the bicycle and walked on the pavement for that bit and walked faster than the traffic.


On the upside, I now see many many more people walking and cycling and have spotted some great new bikes out there that carry children. A segregated cycle lane down Ed Grove would be very beneficial and no doubt reduce the number of drivers on the school run.

Otto2 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A > segregated cycle lane down Ed Grove would be very beneficial and no doubt reduce the number of

> drivers on the school run.


There may be some practical difficulties but if they could be overcome that sounds reasonable. And a segragated cycle lane down Calton Avenue could also benefit cycling without the Calton Avenue closure that is causing so much congestion and pollution on the boundary roads. That is the sort of reasonable conmpromise that the Council should be considering arther than trying to force though draconaian measure based on dodgy data.

There is space for potentially a bi directional cycle lane all along the section by the dutch estate - it would then need to turn off on thorncombe road, travel along glengarry as a quiet street and then would need some rearrangement of the pavement / parking by the shops to get to Melbourne Grove where it could link up north / south with the filtered streets.

northernmonkey Wrote:

> Calton Avenue Average daily cycle flow.

> > Sept 18 768 >Sept 20 1039 > 35% increase. Figures from One Dulwich report.


Isn't it good that One Dulwich are so open about their data, shame we can't say the same about Southwark council. And as I wrote previously, One Dulwich have actually chosen the lowest Sep 18 baseline in their report. They could instead have used the Dept for Transport's raw data for Sep 18 (901) or the estiamte for Sep 19both of which would have reduced that increase.


But, in comparison lets look at Southwark's report shall we?

Nov 18 ( or maybe Dec 18) 259

Sep 20 1,039


Increase of 301%!!!!!!


Of course that innacurate and fraudulent "301% increase" is the sort of figure that minorty activists like to tweet to claim LTN's are working.



But do you could consider that 301% figure in Soutwarks report reasonable? Or the previous 47% increase in traffic through the junction claim ? Or do you think that Southwark deceiving the public is just " a bit iffy" and fine if it supports your cause?


Open your eyes.

Isn't increased boundary road traffic One Dulwich's main concern?


If they care so much about this why aren't they looking more closely at the data on EDG and offering their

*expert evidence* to prove that EDG is indeed gridlocked for over four hours a day every day?

Sorry Alice - you are saying that the Dulwich LTN hasn't worked because cars are turning right out of Townley Road onto Lordship in the direction of Forest Hill is showing that the LTN's haven't worked?


I'm interested because there are no southbound restrictions on Dulwich Village or Burbage Road so its unlikely to be displaced traffic travelling from the west to go south east. Traffic coming from the East would always have gone down Lordship or somewhere east of that where there are no LTNs, so what is the effect you're commenting on here please?

At a guess some of it is traffic trying to get out of the LTN area and head west or north west? As they can?t exit via Court Lane into DV or Turney or via Townley onto edg during restrictions? I?m thinking the traffic turns right into the 205 from LL?



northernmonkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry Alice - you are saying that the Dulwich LTN

> hasn't worked because cars are turning right out

> of Townley Road onto Lordship in the direction of

> Forest Hill is showing that the LTN's haven't

> worked?

>

> I'm interested because there are no southbound

> restrictions on Dulwich Village or Burbage Road so

> its unlikely to be displaced traffic travelling

> from the west to go south east. Traffic coming

> from the East would always have gone down Lordship

> or somewhere east of that where there are no LTNs,

> so what is the effect you're commenting on here

> please?

northernmonkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry Alice - you are saying that the Dulwich LTN

> hasn't worked because cars are turning right out

> of Townley Road onto Lordship in the direction of

> Forest Hill is showing that the LTN's haven't

> worked?

>

> I'm interested because there are no southbound

> restrictions on Dulwich Village or Burbage Road so

> its unlikely to be displaced traffic travelling

> from the west to go south east. Traffic coming

> from the East would always have gone down Lordship

> or somewhere east of that where there are no LTNs,

> so what is the effect you're commenting on here

> please?



You misread my post, which perhaps was unclear. I was referring to traffic on Lordship Lane from Townley Road to the A205 jam packed, idling and polluting. Previously they would?ve been able to go down Calton or court avoiding the much longer detoured journey.

No dulwich central that is not what happened.


You asked why One Dulwich were not out collecting evidence of gridlock on EDG (sealioning, by the way) and I replied it was unnecessary because Southwark council's own data showed that to be true already.


You then brought up some irrelevant nonsense about 24,000 fewer cars

@dulwichcentral

southarks report says traffic down 24k vehicles a day across the area (says 23k on page 2 - not sure whhich is right)

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review

but who knows?

no raw data even tho this was promised

no traffic data released in august, even though this was promised

one dulwcih looked at 1 statistc (cycles up 231% on calton ave) and it wasnt accurate.

so we dont have much hope do we?

do councillors expect campaign groups to do the traffic counting for the council?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • So top of Lane. Local Sainsbury, middle Co Op and M and S and bottom Tesco Express…..now everyone should be happy except those that want a Waitrose as well…0h and  don’t forget M and S near ED Station….
    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...