Rockets

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There was a cycle lane before the barriers were > put in, however being frequently blocked by > drivers selfishness so it was necessary to put a > barrier in. > > > n dulwich northerner Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > march46 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Interesting how you blame the council, when > > there > > > was always traffic there > > > > Of course, and because their attempts to > improve > > things have been misconceived. While the N > Dulwich > > traffic lights' new right filter may have > > mitigated the tailback the council caused by > the > > Calton/Court Lane closure, they coupled the > filter > > with limiting the left lane to cyclists (see > any > > in the photos?) which means that vehicles > heading > > for Village Way or Red Post Hill are stuck in > the > > tailback. Would you not agree that the barriers are now causing more congestion and pollution than there was before?

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People just don't sit in traffic like that if they > could walk or cycle. > > Oh they do! > We did some modelling work years ago on something > similar and the actual inconvenience that an > individual has to be subjected to to force change > is quite incredible. This is part of the reason > that LTNs and other traffic measures take months > to bed in, not just a week or two. > > This has been mentioned before in these threads > but as with most things, there's a series of > reasons, it's never just one. > > For some people, they're in a warm comfy home > entertainment centre on wheels and (especially if > they're not paying fuel due to it being a company > car or work vehicle or they view their car as a > status symbol), they really don't care. Even if > there are quicker ways to get from A to B, they'll > take the car. "need" doesn't come into it. Sitting > in traffic in your Aston Martin is simply an > opportunity to show everybody else that you own an > Aston Martin. > > A surprising minority actually HAVE to drive - > there is no other way they could complete that > particular journey without considerable extra > expense / inconvenience. The problem is that most > people see themselves as being in this category - > there's a related sub-category of people who don't > know any other way. They've grown up being taken > to school / the shops / leisure trips by car and > they just continue that, it's their comfort zone, > what they've always known. They'll find it > inconvenient, they'll moan about traffic but it > takes quite a lot for them to actually think "hang > on, there must be an other way". Usually (not > always), these people are the ones convinced that > everyone else should drive less, thus freeing up > the road for them. > > There are people who WANT to do it by other means > but they're scared (of traffic, usually) and there > are plenty who have to use other options (public > transport or active travel) because they don't own > or have access to a car. Usually, the latter > category have no choice other than to put up with > conditions or not do . > > I'm hoping you knocked on every car window and > asked how long / far their journey is and if they > could use alternative methods but I expect it is > the usual finger in the air scientific conclusion > made on assumptions and lack of local and > realistic baseline data ? > > A little over a third (35 per cent) of all car > trips are shorter than 2 km, just under a third > (32 per > cent) are between 2 and 5km and the remaining > third are longer than 5km. Data from TfL: > http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-14-who-tr > avels-by-car-in-london.pdf > > Fairly obviously, not all of those journeys are > people carrying a fridge or a double bass or > returning from the shops with a new 60" TV. > They're not all disabled, they're not all taking 3 > kids to 3 different activities, they're not all > carrying precious cargo that simply could not be > done any other way. At least half of them fit into > the first two categories above - the "don't care > and will drive anyway" and the "I'm convinced I > have to drive". It would be interesting if we could map car usage onto PTAL scores. I suspect those who think they have to drive is driven, in large part, by access to public transportation - which we know is terrible in this part of London. It's why the council's own recommendation was to implement schemes in areas with high PTAL scores - Dulwich does not have high PTAL scores - in fact it has low PTAL scores, which is why lots of people have to drive.

n dulwich northerner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark Council caused this congestion by > closing Calton Ave and pushing the traffic along > Dulwich Village north, then botching the northern > end traffic lights by limiting the left lane to > cyclists. Specifics, not banalities.... Spot on!

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whatever you say, Mr(s) R, whatever you say. > You?ve a bigger axe to grind than I have and it > shows. I own no car so I?m putting my money where > my mouth is. People in vehicles cause congestion, > not councils. People who are made to drive down fewer and fewer roads cause congestion. Congestion only happens when demand outstrips supply. The council restricts supply so, vis-a-vis, demand increases = congestion. Quite simple.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks to too many people making journeys that > could be made on foot or on a bicycle, this > morning..... Or alternatively...caused by the council closing major routes across Dulwich thus forcing those cars doing journeys not able to be done on a bike or by foot along an ever decreasing number of routes thus causing congestion. Additionally at that junction you could also suggest: caused by the council putting wands in to create a dedicated cycle lane thereby reducing the road to a single lane width, thus creating huge congestion as cars backlog trying to clear the right filter. And in relation to the Goodrich/Dunstans morning gridlock you could say: Caused by an ever increasing number of cars that are trying to find routes around the congestion caused by the council's closure of roads in Dulwich Village which has created long lines of congestion along Lordship Lane southbound leading drivers to try and find an easterly route away from the gridlock.

They have made a complete mess of these projects. The call last night really demonstrated the hash the council has made of this. Lucy Saunders from the charity really exposed the council. I was so impressed with her presentation and the fact their approach was professional, measurable and accountable. It really shone a light on how amateurish the council's ham-fisted attempts have been. If they had followed the more transparent path the charity is taking we probably wouldn't be in this mess the council has left us in.

If you believe the councillors and the pro-closure lobby what we are all seeing happen in front of our eyes is not really there. Nope, isn't happening - there is no displacement and the cars are evaporating! We are, according to the councillors and their friends, the small vocal minority....! I would implore people to document evidence of this happening and send those pictures to your councillors (make sure Cllr Kieron Williams is added too) - I think it is the only way they are going to sit up and take note that what they are doing is making things a hell of a lot worse.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It?s not gridlock. It?s busy but it cleared. > Hyperbole serves no one well. > 🤷‍♂️ > Can?t wait till the road is barriered! Trust me, as the photo demonstrates it was gridlocked at the roundabout and was tailing back up the hill at Dunstans and down Goodrich from Donkey Alley. It has been like that most mornings at school drop off time. That, as my photo shows, is not hyperbole but fact (unless of course you think I photo-shopped the picture!). Photographic evidence is so useful at the moment to deposition the "there is no problem" hyperbole from the pro-closure lobby. Is it going to be barriered - I thought I heard that the council was standing that one down after opposition from Goodrich school and residents?

To give Cllr Newens credit she has been chasing Thames Water via her twitter feed as she highlights the fact that nothing has been happening and it has been causing disruption. Thames Water replied to her original tweet that: "We'll be unable to remove the barriers until the permanent reinstatement has been applied and had a few days to settle because of safety concerns".

dulwichfolk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The video is on YouTube (link sent previously in > thread) now if that?s how you like to spend your > evening... > > They are lucky the Guys and Thomas lady was there > as they are the only ones doing anything > properly. > > The idea about making google/Waze change their > algorithm....do they think they can control that. > > As for emergency service they might have all > ticked the boxes but then why are ambulances still > attempting to go through these LTN areas and > having to reroute... > > > Interesting how this all works. I think the discussion around Waze etc was about making sure the closures were flagged on the systems (I may be wrong though). Waze, Google etc use user posted data to show whether roads are closed or blocked because of an accident, burst water main etc. I think it is naive of councillors to think (if this is what they meant) that sat nav companies would prioritise main road usage over others. The USPs for systems like Waze is that they find the quickest and clearest route using other user data shared over the cloud.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Goodrich/Dunstans roundabout is now gridlocked > on a daily basis. > No, it isn?t. Errrrrrmmmm....Exhibit A - this morning. I rest the case for the prosecution m'lud....

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thats not what i heard at all - amazing how take > aways can be so different really! > > She said that as Dulwich was one of the first, had > the way that comms happens with LFB changed since > then and is there best practice developing. I > think what was interesting was that the LFB were > clear that there had been consultation on all > areas. They flagged the Tooley St scheme as > having some confusion so explained how they had > addressed this by talking to the teams on the > ground and doing site visits. > > > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Wtaf. Just had fire guy say they would have > liked > > to be involved a bit more In the LTN thing and > > Margy has said she realised that the emergency > > services have not perhaps been involved as much > as > > desirable in the dulwich thing and how could > this > > be improved. It?s a statutory requirement for > gods > > sake! May have misheard (confirmation bias), > will > > listen again in the morning. > > > > They?ve just asked fire guys whether they have > > been consulted on everything - they say maybe > on > > majority but some have been quite fluid. The great thing is we can all rewatch it again tomorrow to reconfirm our bias!!! ;-) It was clear to me that she admitted there had not been good communication between the council and the emergency services about the Dulwich LTNs. Additionally, if there had been consultation how does anyone explain the fire service telling the councillors on this call that they would prefer removable bollards to planters? One of the Cllrs asked that very question at the end. That doesn't suggest there has been any sort of proper consultation as we have a load of planters in place......

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was just correcting the idea that it was a new > cycle lane - it isn't > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yes but that protection with wands means the > > junction no longer functions properly and is > > creating massive congestion and pollution > > problems. Do you not think in light of this the > > council should review the use of the wands? > > > > BTW has the A205 or Lordship Lane been shut - > > complete gridlock on the eastern side of > Lordship > > Lane tonight? Yes the lane has been there for a long time but the wands are limiting the road to one lane and thus creating traffic queues throughout the village as traffic cannot filter past those wanting to turn right. You would have thought someone from the council would have thought about that......this council pig has a lot of ears....

The fact the council seems to be finding out on this call that the fire service would prefer removable bollards over planters is so telling. Clearly, there has been no proper consultations with them at all as I am sure that would have been discussed. Are the council now going to have to rip the planters out and put in removable bollards - how much tax-payers money are they wasting on this? This call has been fascinating as it is obvious our council hasn't got the first clue how to manage this and are making basic mistake after mistake......it's a complete dereliction of duty.....

Cllr Newens admitted there was not good communication between the council and the emergency services when they implemented the Dulwich closures. This is obviously contrary to what our councillors have been telling us throughout this process. Amazing.......

Interesting response from the charity lady that no-one has done this level of detail before so displacement is tough to judge but you can expect displacement onto main roads but they think it reduces over time. Their work is designed to prove is definitively. She has been very impressive but I would also challenge her assumption that sat navs will direct people onto main roads when LTNs are implemented following a question about displacement onto residential roads. Sat Navs will find the clearest route so not sure that stands up to scrutiny. The sat nav algorithms will find the quickest route whether they are main roads or residential roads. Cllr Werner followed up on this point about what work the council can do with sat nav companies. The question this call poses to me is why can a charity do this and appear a hell of a lot more professional than our council who seem to be taking a very haphazard approach to these measures?

Cllr Graham Neale - claiming the council was being ambushed by a small but vocal minority (he reiterated that small but vocal minority twice) - I presume he was referring to the 3 proposed areas or more broadly? The small but vocal minority seems to be a bit of a narrative the council is trying to weave.

And interesting their selection criteria are: High child obesity Poor air quality High levels of social housing Higher proportion of Black ethnicity Schools Local Parks AND.....they are looking at displacement issues and the impact on surrounding streets..... The council is getting absolutely schooled by a charity on how to run an LTN implementation programme!!!! ;-)

When Cllr Ochere said the report stated the first two LTNs had been well received and he put on record there was consultation on-going about that he referred to Brunswick - is the other one the Dulwich set? Very interesting that Guys and St Thomas are paying for monitoring to establish a baseline and the council chap said there is no baseline in Dulwich as they had to implement them quickly.

Yes but that protection with wands means the junction no longer functions properly and is creating massive congestion and pollution problems. Do you not think in light of this the council should review the use of the wands? BTW has the A205 or Lordship Lane been shut - complete gridlock on the eastern side of Lordship Lane tonight?

The new measures around Goodrich School are creating daily gridlock as the council has effectively created two-way roads that can only accommodate cars one way. The Goodrich/Dunstans roundabout is now gridlocked on a daily basis. Is anyone at the council prepared to show any leadership one wonders? They have made an utter pig's ear of every one of these measures.

Are the council now saying they have created a school drop-off problem by closing Melbourne Grove at one end i.e. it has actually encouraged parents to drive their children to school? Is it a problem at school times? Adding a school street to an already closed road seems ludicrous and seems completely counter to their protestations that they care about the shops on Melbourne Grove - I can't imagine this is going to help those shops one bit and likely drive more custom away. Does anyone get the sense the council hasn't got the first clue that they are doing? Peckham Rye closures get binned, the DV/EDG junction is made even worse with the huge bike lane (was this at the behest of Southwark cyclists per chance - they moaned that the cycle lane in the Peckham Rye recommendations was not wide enough and the council bowed down to their cycle paymasters....!!! ;-)) - all adds up to a comedy of errors and instills very little confidence in anyone that the council should be given these powers.

The "proof" is very very questionable and does not bear up to any kind of detailed scrutiny. Apparently a lot of the "great" experiences of the Waltham Forest LTN are based on computer modelling and not any kind of definitive monitoring. My biggest concern is that it seems increasingly as if Southwark are going to base their proof of success (or otherwise) on modelling and not any actual monitoring - which surely has to be a minimum pre-requisite for these projects. @littleninjaUK on twitter is well worth a follow as he looks into a lot of the data provided as facts by the pro-closure lobby and councils and much of it is paper thin. The consensus though is that what people can definitively say is that LTNs create increases in traffic on surrounding roads which does not dissipate over time. Even the council in Waltham Forest admitted that a road 3.1 miles away from the LTN saw a consistent 28& increase in traffic after the LTNs went in.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets - absolutely! There's a real problem here > in that Government and, to a lesser extent, > councils have pottered along for years > (decades...) doing things very gradually, very > piecemeal. A lot of that is simply how Government > functions anyway, it's all very slow progress for > various reasons. That's not necessarily a > criticism, just a factual statement. > > Austerity has removed the opportunity for councils > to do anything like as much as they've wanted. > > Now, with Paris Agreement and kickstarted by > Covid, there's sudden rapid changes in policy, > urgent pressing need to "do things" (some of which > is the more politically convenient "being seen to > do things whether or not those things are > positive"). > > It's the equivalent of living in a house for 30 > years and doing little more than painting the > skirting boards in that time and then suddenly > discovering that the place is falling down and > needs full scaffolding, re-plumbing, re-wiring and > re-decorating. There's going to be disruption no > matter which way you go about it. And taking you metaphor once step further the problem is the council seems to have decided to focus on the properties that are, in fact, in least need of repair.....

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Abe_froeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Thanks Legal Alien > > > > That finally confirms the war on motorists that > > has been denied on here for so long: > > > It's Government policy - Paris Agreement plus a > couple of other sections of various policies > commit Government to urgent decarbonisation / > lowered carbon emissions. > > There's a summary of the dichotomoy here: > https://theconversation.com/car-dependency-uk-gove > rnment-cant-cut-driving-and-build-lots-of-roads-at > -same-time-134965 > > On the one hand, lowering congestion / more > efficient journeys / keeping the economy going; on > the other hand the very pressing need to urgently > cut emissions. Transport (vast majority of which > is cars and vans) contributes about 28% of carbon > emissions nationally. > > It's only perceived as a War on Motorists because > literally nothing has been done to stop motoring > (quite the opposite) over the last 30 years and > now there's the first pockets of resistance (and > that is all it is, it's far from a "war") that > suddenly everyone is up in arms. Compared to what > some cities have had to implement (like total or > partial bans on all private vehicles on certain > days), this is not a war, this is a few potshots! > > The council are implementing Government policy. Of > course there's a debate to be had about HOW that > policy is formulated by Government, fed down to > councils and implemented by them which is the role > of a Scrutiny Committee in public office. I think you hit the nail on the head: many are questioning how the council are implementing them (especially in light of the council's own guidance over implementation criteria the last few years) and why they are focussing on areas like Dulwich Village and East Dulwich that don't come close to meeting their own criteria (high PTAL scores, low car ownership, areas of depravation). It looks more and more like councillor vanity projects are taking precedent here.