Rockets

Townleygreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > >Rockets said: I am more and more convinced the > LTNs are being used as a political tool ahead of > the mayoral and local >council elections - they > are being used as a trojan horse. I really didn't > think the Tories could be that smart but >the more > I look at it the more I realise they may be > playing the long game here. > > In Southwark, the Lib Dems are the opposition. I > think there are no Tories at all. > Could apply elsewhere though. Yes and I think London-wide it is going to be very disruptive and is hitting Labour run councils hard. The Tories know Labour are very entrenched in parts of London (one-party councils etc) and they also knew LTNs would be like cat-nip to the likes of Southwark and they would jump at the opportunity to roll them out and would be reluctant to let them go if people didn't like them. Tory run councils have either not rolled them out or are pulling them out - there have been protests in Labour stronghold councils like Islington, Hackney and Brent. I didn't think the Tories were smart enough to do this but the longer it goes on the more you can see change (even on a seat by seat level in councils) which will be disruptive and unsettling for the new Labour leadership. I suspect Sadiq might be in trouble at the next mayoral elections and see the Lib Dems and Independent councillors winning more seats at the council elections next time round.

I am more and more convinced the LTNs are being used as a political tool ahead of the mayoral and local council elections - they are being used as a trojan horse. I really didn't think the Tories could be that smart but the more I look at it the more I realise they may be playing the long game here.

But apparently, according to Cllr Livingstone, 52% of Londoners support the LTNs...we should all just step down and accept them as we are obviously in the minority.....;-) Important poll: 52% of Londoners support #LowTrafficNeighbourhood measures. Only 19% oppose them. Important poll: 52% of Londoners support #LowTrafficNeighbourhood measures. Only 19% oppose them. P.S as with all surveys probably good to check the source! ;-)

Yes this is why these closures are deeply, deeply flawed and I think the fact Cllr McAsh has said that they will look at impacts on pollution and congestion in the area (although given the track record of the council manipulating data for their own means there has to be deep scrutiny of whatever they find) means these closures are doomed. There will have been a substantial increase in pollution across local roads and the area as a whole with these closures (unless, of course the reduction in many car journeys due to Covid means the comparison from prior to and post Covid throws in an anomaly)- but from what we can all see with our own eyes is clear - pollution is a lot worse due to these closures. In fact, the A205 closure will have pushed those levels even higher over the last week.

FairTgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > slarti b Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Our councillors are claiming that the traffic > > chaos we have been encountering locally since > the > > road closures and other restictions were > > implemented are nothing to do with the closures. > > > They claim that congestion is instead the > result > > of an increase in traffic compared to > > pre-lockdown. However, The data I have seen > from > > DfT (covering UK) and TfL ( for London) > suggests > > that traffic volumes are actually still below > > pre-lock down levels. If so, this undermines > the > > councillors claims. > > > > Can anyone give me a link to any hard data (not > > opinion articles) on traffic volumes pre and > post > > lockdown? In particular the source of the > > COuncillor's claims? > > > Cllr McAsh used a survey in the Guardian - for > London as a whole. Not specific to here. They did > all quote first week September which was obviously > going to show an uptick as schools went back and > people who had not been able to work with kids at > home may have been able to return. It is possible > that would drop back as people got back into > routines. To be fair to Cllr McAsh he is only following what the likes of TFL do - all of the stats bandied around regarding car use only ever look at London as a whole. It is very interesting that in the council's own figures when they were monitoring the DV junction for OHS that year-on-year there had been a reduction in car use through the junction - which could be suggesting that car use was declining. Yet the pro-clousre narrative is that car-use if growing exponentially. The problem is that beyond the scary headlines the truth is often a lot different and because the likes of TFL and councils don't do the proper analysis we never know what the true picture actually is. It could well be that private car ownership and use is declining but it is being replaced by more Ubers and home deliveries but TFL and the council don't know this. If you don't know what the problem is you can't possibly know how to fix it and measures to thwart private car use can lead to bigger problems if the problem is actually home deliveries etc.

Just an FYI the A205 is open again now. And before any of the pro-closure lobby accuse me of driving along the A205 we walked to The Rosendale for a very nice Sunday lunch! ;-)

It is interesting that the council is now putting flyers through people's doors in the Peckham Rye area to alert them to the Phase 4 closures. I wonder if they realise now that a survey posted by a councillor (a la Goose Green) is not sufficient to be considered legal notice or a consultation. Incidentally there seems to be a lot of local resident opposition to the plans in that part do the area as no resident is not impacted negatively. It looks like the council may get a lot more opposition as they can't count on those who get closed roads in front of their houses to support the plans like in other areas.

Metallic - to be fair there's not a lot on the DV RA website that makes me think their concerns go much further than the "hardship" the residents in DV are having to endure....their thoughts are outlined below and they are lobbying to get Phase 2 put in quickly to close DV to traffic...which of course makes the problem a lot of worse for others outside of DV. Here is a clip from their website; In summary, we expressed the following views which reflect the balance of opinion among the 40+ residents we have spoken to: ? the junction closure has caused significant issues and in some cases real hardship for residents, particularly those living on Dulwich Village ? the phase 2 measures are needed to fix a problem which Southwark should not have created in the first place ? the key issue for our residents arising from the phase 2 measures is access; in combination, they mean that during the restricted hours, it will be very hard for residents on Dulwich Village to access their homes by car from the south, or for residents on College Road/ Woodyard Lane to head north (for instance to Kings Hospital) ? this raises many issues around carers, deliveries, hospital visits, mini-cabs ? we also pressed for increased frequency of the P4 bus, though in practice steps being taken by TFL are likely to reduce access to the P4 It also makes one wonder whether other RAs from across Dulwich are attending the meeting on Oct 20th and if not why only the group in support of the Phase 2 closures made the list. It will be interesting to see if their "delegation" is called upon by the council. What the council seems to be avoiding is a cross-area public meeting on this. I very much hope Oct 20th is a democratic event and not something that just appears as one-sided and biased as other council actions around this issue.

I think the cardboard section at the OKR site had been removed during Covid to allow for social distancing between the bays. The first time I went there during Covid (incidentally because the council stopped collecting recycling that was not in the blue bin - they had done previously) I was surprised there was no longer a cardboard section but glad to read it is back.

They are trying to rig it as they did the CPZ representations. They are trying to make it as difficult as possible for any dissenting voices to be heard and for democracy to prevail. Cllr McAsh would have been aware of this hearing date yet did not mention it. One suspects the councillors have alerted and mobilised the opposition. It's probably going to be a whitewash. It is ludicrous that they can admit their own (unlawful) failings in terms of a lack of consultation, can admit the current closures are causing pollution problems yet steadfastly stick to rolling out further closures. If this was the Tories they would be up in arms.

It will be interesting to tune in. Looks like the deadline to submit questions has passed...why do I suspect the pro-closure lobby would have been given a heads-up about this. I very much suspect the council will say they won't do anything until the 6 months has passed for each closure and will push ahead with their, unlawful, closures. Also interesting to see that someone set an e-petition up in support of the closures and it managed to get 29 signatures.....

As I feared. The council is seemingly accelerating and pushing ahead with ALL of the next phase of closures. They will only consult with residents after 6 months but ?before 18 months?. They are not going to listen to anyone and Cllr McAsh?s words are as hollow as I feared. The attached was just posted on NextDoor from a resident in the Peckham Rye area. They are not prepared to listen to the wider community. The only plus side is the chaos these remaining closures will cause will ensure more people engage with the campaign to get them removed. This council is completely out of control and we are very much suffering from the worst effects of a one-party state. They are will fully ignoring local residents.

All the councils are desperately trying to cling on to the closures but they all know the clock is ticking against them.

I think what Margy is trying to tell her pro-closure neighbours is that she has done her best to get the displacement traffic from the A205 closure diverted away from Dulwich Village. The irony is of course is that Dulwich Village is now experiencing exactly what other parts of Dulwich have to live with since the closure of the DV junction. You reap what you sow.... Also it appears some idiot drivers have been removing the cones outside the Grove Tavern - probably thinking this is another LTN and finding out it most certainly isn't!

Yes and DKHB does have a certain pattern to their ahem "discussions". We may have to rename them DogKennelHillBully! ;-)

And, of course, the numbers quoted by TFL are London wide and as you get further out of London so the journeys, invariably, get longer due to the lack of proper public transport infrastructure the further you get from the centre. So I very much suspect in an area like Dulwich the skew is much further towards the longer journeys, especially given Dulwich's proximity to the A205. And of course TFL acknowledges that the more children you have (you might have noticed there are a lot of children in Dulwich - Nappy Valley and all that) the less the opportunity to cycle.

We are caught between the very worst ends of Labour: marxists on one side and champagne socialists on the other....;-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @rockets. > > So 67% of car trips under 3 miles. I would > describe that as 'significant'. But can they all be walked or cycled? A 6 mile roundtrip would be a significant distance for many would it not - especially given Dulwich is surrounded by significant hills on most sides? As I have said before I think you can make a dent in the 35% shorter than 2kms but that's about it. That leaves 60%+ that are most likely always going to be done in a car. And I would be very interested to know what TFL counts as a car journey and whether private hire and taxis are included with that.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A significant number of car journeys in london are > only a couple of miles btw. Let's dive a little deeper into that because I know Cllr McAsh said in his blog that the majority of journeys in London can be walked or cycled. Here's TFLs data 35% of all car trips are shorter than 2km. 32% are between 2km and 5km. 30+% are over 5km. What I can't find from TFL is whether taxis and private hire vehicles are included in these stats - which would of course skew them massively in central London. People can make their own minds up now based on the actual data.

Wow, they come in force next Thursday I wonder if that means all the roads get closed then or whether it permits them to install them anytime between Thursday and when they expire. This will be the death knell for these plans as they will cause such chaos that the council will have no option but to remove them all. I wonder if Cllr McAsh sent his "we're listening" blog as he knows the closure of DV will improve EDG and move the problem off his ward and onto someone else's.....hmmmmmm.... Rahrahrah - feel free to lobby admin to remove this thread as you do every time you read something you don't like! ;-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > ----------- > > > So then, by default, you must recognise that > the > > closure (do stop using filtered - it's not > coffee > > and it makes you look a bit blinkered!!) of the > DV > > junction is having a major effect on other > roads > > due to the closure of the A205? > > The roads aren't closed though, they are filtered. > Every street can be driven on and to. Residents > can also use their cars, get deliveries etc., it?s > just not possible to drive straight through from > one main road to the next. There is no journey > which cannot be done by car as a result of the > LTNs (although routes may be less direct), so in > no sense are roads 'closed'. Some roads do get > closed / pedestrianised - but that's not what > we're talking about here. > > > > I had lunch on Lordship Lane today and the > traffic > > northbound was queuing all the way back to Mr > > Lui's from the Goose Green roundabout. > > So how what's the point you're making? This would > be helped by diverting traffic down court Lane, > through the village, down EDG to Lordship Lane and > then the Goose Green roundabout? Because I think > most people would probably just go straight down > Lordship Lane. Do you know anything about the road layout of Dulwich? Do you not think that some of the traffic coming down Lordship Lane today might be trying to go west but can't because the A205 is closed....surely by closing one of the only ways to get west from Lordship Lane that forces more traffic down towards the Goose Green roundabout and EDG - thus creating tailbacks along Lordship Lane.........

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > (do stop using filtered - it's not coffee > > and it makes you look a bit blinkered!!) > > The road is only closed at one end to through > motor traffic. It's open to motorised access and > open to through non-motorised traffic. Closed is > not the right word. Filtered is. Per Abe - they're closed. That's why the council labels them as such with big red signs that say ROAD CLOSED. And as you will know from your highway code a big red sign is a warning sign - so it is warning you the road is closed.....;-) You can call them what you like but per the council and the highway code the roads are closed.....

It will be interesting to see what happens in neighbouring Lewisham as it seems they are working more quickly to resolve some of the issues caused by the closures. I suspect many councils want to see what others do first.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sparrowhawk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Once again, it's hilariously obtuse to try, with > a > > straight face, to imply that Court Lane is a > 'cut > > through' or 'narrow residential street'. I've > > lived in Dulwich since the 1970s and that road, > > while residential, has always been a critical > part > > of the network for both local and through > traffic. > > It is wide, straight, perfectly capable of > > carrying a sensible amount of traffic...but is > > currently sitting almost empty. While other > roads > > sit in nose-to-tail traffic and pollution as a > > result. > > Court Lane is probably the exception, granted. > It's a relatively wide road (or at least one with > less on street parking than others). So then, by default, you must recognise that the closure (do stop using filtered - it's not coffee and it makes you look a bit blinkered!!) of the DV junction is having a major effect on other roads due to the closure of the A205? I had lunch on Lordship Lane today and the traffic northbound was queuing all the way back to Mr Lui's from the Goose Green roundabout.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Before a few streets in Ed were filtered to > traffic, the closure of the South Circular in both > directions, wouldn't have even been noticed. The > roads moved freely and pollution barely existed. > Yesterday's traffic was almost certainly down to > lorries no longer being able to block EDG whilst > trying unsuccessfully to turn into Melbourne Grove > - that used to keep things moving. You ok rahrahrah - that's one hell of a U-turn you've just done! ;-)