Rockets

I agree but it lacks any real substance or a definitive timeline for review and the fact Cllr McAsh suggests cheap fixes for Matham Grove etc suggests more may go in before they get to identify the source of the problem (which we all know they know what it is). It's a step in the right direction but the council needs to put the same energy into the review as they did the closures - they went in overnight so if they need to remove them they should come out overnight as well. The most telling part is the complete lack of coordination between the councillors in neighbouring wards which has led to the problems being caused by the closures - each focussed solely on trying to appease their constituents (ahem neighbours in some cases) and cared not one jot for the impact for others.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Because that is what is meant by ?there are fewer > roads for people to find their way around the > closure?. > > I for one am glad that the LTNs are in place to > stop this from happening. But don't you realise that by closing the junction of Dulwich Village that it amplifies the problems elsewhere in circumstances such as this? The A205 has been shut before but the gridlock has never been this bad and this is solely down to the fact certain roads have been closed. What you're saying is keep cars to A-roads. Only the most hardened pro-closure lobbyist (such as yourself) would categorise Court Lane as a "side road".

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is a hole is the south circular and peoples > solution is to divert all the displaced traffic > down side streets? I thought you were terribly > worried about traffic from side streets being > displaced on to main roads? > > I would ah e thought that this is exactly the time > for ensuring people have safe alternatives to the > car! Oh dear you miss the point entirely.....rahrahrah do you not ever get the sense you're losing the argument?

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The situation was made worse when some dickhead > managed to push over the temporary plastic > barriers (installed on the pavement to replace the > permanent barrier some other dickhead knocked over > a couple of months ago) and an additional section > of permanent steel pedestrian railings...on the > corner of College Rd and the South Circular. The > steel barrier is now poking out into the roadway > and can't be moved. That happened right in rush > hour peak. > > > ...but probably that was also the fault of a > Stalinist planter outside a hairdressers... I'm sorry - what point are you trying to make here?

Of course traffic would have been bad with the A205 being shut but it is certainly made worse because of the LTN closures. That's commonsense as there are fewer roads for the traffic to try and find a way around the closure - especially east/west. If you think it is bad today imagine what it would have been like if the additional closures the council wants to put in place would have been in. It is, of course, an extraordinary situation but you have to acknowledge that having roads closed does create an impact and this is the second example in a week. The same happened after the motorcycle accident on the southern end of Lordship Lane this week. Police closed the road in both directions and traffic travelling southbound had no option but to go east and the areas around Upland, Goodrich, Dunstans became gridlocked as it was the only route around the closure due to the closure at DV. Of course, that was for a much shorter period of time but it does show the impact closing roads has. Interesting to see Cllr McAsh has been caught in the traffic chaos (one presumes on a bus or bike) and he responded to a post from the EDSTN lobby group as they got their defence in early (anybody else noticed that the pro-closure lobby groups are going into overdrive ever since Cllr McAsh's post on the LTNs).

Same thing happened after the nasty motorcycle accident on Lordship Lane earlier this week (an accident incidentally that queuing traffic contributed to) as when the police closed Lordship Lane near Overhill the traffic had no option but to go east and as a result all of the roads around Goodrich etc were gridlocked as they had no other option.

All, whilst many of us welcomed Cllr McAsh's comments yesterday upon closer inspection there is little substance in his post and some alarm bells are ringing for me. I posted on the Councillor thread but am pasting below some of the questions as I think a lot of the points raised by his post deserve some discussion and my concern is that there is not a definitive timeline for review being shared by the council (yet) and the displacement is now impacting all roads across the area (Underhill, Overhill, Crystal Palace Road, Upland Road, Wood Vale etc) as people try to work their way around the displacement. What we need right now is the same swift decisions the council made to implement these closures to review them and make the urgent changes to try and turn back the dial on the damage they are doing. - When will the council be reviewing the data - data collection went in some time after the closures so what is the timeline for the review? - We kept being told by the council that pollution monitoring was too expense so how are you able to do that now and what baseline will you be using? - Are we expected to live with the negative impact for the next 6 months whilst the council collects the data? - Will the next phases of the closures be put on hold or does the council still plan on implementing them? - Your comment regarding Matham Grove etc worries me as you seem to be focussed on putting measures in place to deal with the displacement rather than focussing on the source of the displacement. This would suggest to me that you think action to remedy the problem may not be forthcoming or a long way off. Is the council commitment to resolving the source of the problem? We do not need a sticking plaster approach to this. - Given your admission of not consulting with shopkeepers on Melbourne Grove (and your subsequent apology) will you be forced to remove those immediately as this is in direct contravention of the powers given to you by the government to put these in place?

James, Some follow-up questions from your post. Whilst it was good on words, there seems to be less on actions and it all seems a little open ended with little in the way of solid commitment to do anything other than review the data. So: - When will the council be reviewing the data - data collection went in some time after the closures so what is the timeline for the review? - We kept being told by the council that pollution monitoring was too expense so how are you able to do that now and what baseline will you be using? - Are we expected to live with the negative impact for the next 6 months whilst the council collects the data? - Will the next phases of the closures be put on hold or does the council still plan on implementing them? - Your comment regarding Matham Grove etc worries me as you seem to be focussed on putting measures in place to deal with the displacement rather than focussing on the source of the displacement. This would suggest to me that you think action to remedy the problem may not be forthcoming or a long way off. Is the council commitment to resolving the source of the problem? We do not need a sticking plaster approach to this. - Given your admission of not consulting with shopkeepers on Melbourne Grove (and your subsequent apology) will you be forced to remove those immediately as this is in direct contravention of the powers given to you by the government to put these in place?

James - Well done, you have listened and reacted and we all appreciate that. Your post is clear and I am glad to see that the council is taking an area-wide view of the challenge now. We all want to see the pollution issue tackled and I am hopeful that the council can bring all those from all sides of the argument into the discussion to come up with equitable solutions to tackle the problem.

Ex- you need a disclaimer: These views are personal and not at all reflective of the distain in which "impartial" modellers and planners hold for cars and their drivers!!! ;-) In all seriousness you pull up Alleyns on their open days or Founder's Day in that case would you also advocate closing roads near churches due to the parking issues caused when they hold weddings, funerals or baptisms? Why attack Alleyn's? We all know there is a big anti-private school sentiment held within many of our councillors so should we presume that the Townley Road closures are prejudicial and aimed at them solely due to those prejudices? Schools (be it state or private) cause problems as lots of teachers park their cars in the surrounding streets and a lot of parents who drive to drop their children off (granted it is particularly bad at private schools as the catchment areas are much larger).

Therein lies the problem for those who say "well all these journeys can be done by foot or bike". They can't - it's not binary - there are nuances - just because a journey is below 2km doesn't mean it can magically but done out of a car (BTW why does TFL use KMs?). Granted some of them can but I have seen zero evidence to suggest that enough people are able to make the switch to not cause terrible displacement issues elsewhere.

People are fighting back against the one-sided view of the world being projected by the pro-closure lobby. Everything is not as rosy as they would like the world to believe........ I am seeing more and more people responding to their tweets exposing what is really happening...it seems they have a policy of only responding and engaging with their supporters though....

So let's look at this pragmatically. 35% of all car trips are shorter than 2km. - You can certainly eliminate some of these but you can't eliminate them all. 32% are between 2km and 5km. - Much harder to eliminate these 30+% are over 5km. - Much much harder to eliminate these So the rational discussion you have to have is can you eliminate enough of the car journeys so that the remainder do not cause more problems finding other routes? Even if you managed to eliminate 30% of all car journeys (and I don't think anyone from the pro-lobby can show any closures that have done anything close to this) you are still left with a significant displacement problem. Every LTN causes a displacement tsunami - that much is clear - the question is 1) can you eliminate enough cars to prevent a massively negatively impact or 2) can the surrounding roads absorb the displacement? On both counts in Dulwich the current evidence suggests overwhelmingly the answer is no.

cwjlawrence Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @dougiefreeman thank you so much for your > thoughtful and detailed post. I suspect that > we're actually very well aligned and after exactly > the same outcome which is a cleaner less polluted > East Dulwich in which we can all live. > > I don't think that there is anything in your post > that I disagree with, apart from the fact that I > think we all need to be affected very > significantly. Please excuse the turn of phrase, > but the journey of travel over the last 30 years > has been towards greater of car journeys and > therefore the infrastructure of the city has > adapted to the use of cars which will be difficult > to unwind. Despite what some of the pro-closure lobby would like to try and lead people to believe the two camps on here are not too far apart. Per Dougie and you Chris, we all agree that something has to be done but just that the council is making a complete mess of their ham-fisted attempts to find a solution. It is clear that the most damaging closure has been that of the DV junction and I would suggest that the council needs to address that one immediately (and address it does not mean make the problem even worse by closing DV to through traffic or closing Townley Road as is their current suggested solution). I think the problem is that each of the councillors is pursuing their own personal agenda and giving scant regard to the impact further down the road (pardon the pun!). Perhaps if the council had had the guts to actually have dialogue their constituents instead of hiding behind Covid as a reason for zero communication then they probably wouldn't find themselves in this mess.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > @serena2012 a fair enough, I do think there > are > > > legitimate criticisms of the way the council > > has > > > gone about this and the way that they are > > > measuring the impacts. I don?t doubt that > there > > > are many with genuine concerns. But there are > > at > > > least as many who are simply annoyed that > it?s > > > harder for them to drive short journey and > use > > > side streets as cut throughs. > > > > > > The Village changes are challenging, because > it > > is > > > such an affluent area - it?s east for people > to > > > cry foul. Rye Lane less so though. And across > > > London, we are now seeing car journeys > increase > > to > > > above those of pre lockdown levels, due to > > people > > > wishing to avoid public transport. This makes > > it > > > more urgent to create some spaces which are > > > ?relatively? congestion free, so that there > are > > > alternative routes for those wishing to walk > > and > > > cycle. I?m confident that the local LTNs have > > led > > > to fewer car journeys. I know I can?t prove > it > > > (this is where the council should be doing a > > > better job collecting the data) but I see the > > > number of kids walking down Melbourne Gtive > and > > > Carlton Avenue to school. I see it and my own > > > experience is that I?m using the car less > too. > > > Those campaigning to ?get rid? of LTNs aren?t > > > offering much by way of realistic > alternatives > > and > > > I don?t consider ?spreading the pain so that > > all > > > areas are congested? to be an alternative. > > > > > > Apologies for typos- typing on the go > > > > Rahrahrah - at last, something we can agree on. > I > > agree too that the LTNs have led to fewer car > > journeys but, paradoxically, Covid was already > > doing that as people reassessed their transport > > means in light of the pandemic. Yet the numbers > of > > people able to make the change aren't > sufficiently > > high enough to have a positive macro impact on > the > > rest of the area as traffic is funnelled down > > fewer roads. > > > > Look at that data I shared on the Waltham > Forest > > LTN. There was a 28% increase in traffic on a > road > > 3.1 miles from the LTN after it went in. Surely > > the only rational explanation for that is the > > displacement from the LTN is creating a > > displacement tsunami? And remember that Waltham > > Forest LTN happened well before Covid so you > > cannot pin that increase on that. > > > > And stop defaulting to the weak "get rid of and > > not offering alternatives" narrative. There > have > > been plenty offered on here - none of which the > > pro-closure lobby is seemingly keen to discuss. > I > > wonder why? > > > l/waltham_forest_the_suburb_that_pioneered_the/ That Reddit post is another classic example of the pro-closure propaganda that can be readily found (and often referenced by councils and councillors) but is not base don fact. It's only when you scratch beneath the surface and analyse the council's own data that you can get a handle on what is actually happening and it appears to me (unless you live in the closed area) that there is a definite negative impact on the wider community. Just look for yourselves. Do as I did and look at where the "boundary" roads are that Waltham Forest council has acknowledged have had an increase in traffic - the one that is 28% is 3.1 miles from the closures. 3.1 miles away (that's from Dulwich to the Oval) and they are feeling the negative impact of the closures. https://enjoywalthamforest.co.uk/work-in-your-area/walthamstow-village/comparison-of-vehicle-numbers-before-and-after-the-scheme-and-during-the-trial/ So, unless the council plans to ringfence the whole of Dulwich or every car disappears then the displacement problem will persist. Lewisham have seen sense and are amending some of the closures and I think Southwark should follow suit pretty quickly thereafter.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > slarti b Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Can any of the pro closure people, > > Rahrah,Northern, CJR Lauranc, tell me which > roads > > in the local area you believe cars and other > motor > > vehciles should be allowed to use, and any > > conditions on that use, eg delivery or access > > only, not during school hours etc? > > There are currently no roads that motor vehicles > can't use. There are a small number of streets > which are filtered - you can still drive a car > down them, just not cut through. Ha ha - filtered! Love it. They're closed. Or did I miss the Road Filtered sign on the front of them! ;-) I am also a real fan of the the "you can still drive a car down them, just not cut through". What you mean to say is you can't drive down them if you want to get to somewhere they were built to get you to!!! ;-)

It's the displacement tsunami in full effect....remember Waltham Forest LTN seems to have caused a 28% increase in traffic on roads 3.1 miles way....

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are we looking at the same picture? There are > cars parked on both sides of the street - the > jewson lorry wouldn't be able to get through as > there are cars on the left and queueing traffic > coming towards it. Agree its stopped - but this > doesn't mean it was delivering to Charter - more > that it just can't progress and cars were inching > through gaps like they used to do every day on > these roads. > > Do you really want 11 year old children trying to > cross through that? > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > first mate Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > The slight irony is that very large > delivery > > > > vehicle may well be for the Charter School > > > build. > > > > > > > > > Or simply cutting through from the Jewsons > next > > to > > > ED station. > > > > Err, the lorry has stopped, the cars are trying > to > > go around it - the grey car in the foreground > is > > going around it. I suggest the lorry was > waiting > > to deliver to the new Charter School (maybe > they > > didn't realise the rules regarding deliveries). > > Yet more wilful manipulation of fact by the > > pro-closure lobby. > > > > Meanwhile....1.30pm yesterday afternoon on > > Lordship lane...and that is definitely not how > it > > used to be.... Yes we are. Maybe I am wrong but I thought there were dropped kerbs at that point of Melbourne Grove meaning cars would not be parked on the right hand side there? I saw it as the lorry is trying to turn into Charter and cars are trying to go around it whilst cars wait to filter back the other way when those cars have cleared. Given the position of the on-coming cars it doesn't look as if they think they will need to go backwards and they would have seen that lorry coming from a long way off - most people give way to lorries that size! Doesn't this go to highlight how subjective this has become? You see it as one thing, I see it as another. No I do not want to see any 11 year old trying to cross there but nor do I want them to be breathing in fumes as they walk to school alongside the gridlock elsewhere as all you have done is moved the problem elsewhere. Actually if you want measures to protect school children then make it a school street and have timed closures - would that not have been a better way to go about it?

peckhamside Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well said Malumbu. > I will not be signing. > Car drivers- I'm sure some of you could be > walking. > I will be inconvenienced by closure of P.R. East > side but it is a small price to pay for health and > safety. But what if, as is happening throughout Dulwich at the moment, it makes roads other than those closed more polluted and less safe and, what if, the large majority of people can't switch to walking? A lot of us are doing our bit and walking and cycling more but aren't convinced enough people will be able to make that switch to avoid the inevitable displacement tsunami caused by these closures. Do you think all the traffic using Peckham Rye East Side (especially those turning right onto East Dulwich Road) will just stop using their cars or will they try to find a route via backstreets?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The slight irony is that very large delivery > > vehicle may well be for the Charter School > build. > > > Or simply cutting through from the Jewsons next to > ED station. Err, the lorry has stopped, the cars are trying to go around it - the grey car in the foreground is going around it. I suggest the lorry was waiting to deliver to the new Charter School (maybe they didn't realise the rules regarding deliveries). Yet more wilful manipulation of fact by the pro-closure lobby. Meanwhile....1.30pm yesterday afternoon on Lordship lane...and that is definitely not how it used to be....

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That comment was made in respect on one specific > scheme, not all permeable barriers generally. I > appreciate that the article is not clearly written > in that respect. > > You guys need to understand the hard facts about > consultation in this context. The central > government gave an extremely short window to > councils to access money for experimental and > COVID-related measures. They were not allowing > councils to go through their normal processes. > Doing the consultation would have meant the > experiment wouldn't have happened because there > would have been no money. The experiment is > ongoing. The time to take decisions is once the > experiment is finished and there is actual data. DKHB - Sorry you're wrong. Have a read of the documents. Emergency services (Fire, Police and Ambulance) have indicated they will not support schemes which promote hard road closures, as they will increase response times. Their preference is for camera enforced closures without physical prevention for vehicles. They also requested that emergency vehicles are exempt from the bus gate.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @serena2012 a fair enough, I do think there are > legitimate criticisms of the way the council has > gone about this and the way that they are > measuring the impacts. I don?t doubt that there > are many with genuine concerns. But there are at > least as many who are simply annoyed that it?s > harder for them to drive short journey and use > side streets as cut throughs. > > The Village changes are challenging, because it is > such an affluent area - it?s east for people to > cry foul. Rye Lane less so though. And across > London, we are now seeing car journeys increase to > above those of pre lockdown levels, due to people > wishing to avoid public transport. This makes it > more urgent to create some spaces which are > ?relatively? congestion free, so that there are > alternative routes for those wishing to walk and > cycle. I?m confident that the local LTNs have led > to fewer car journeys. I know I can?t prove it > (this is where the council should be doing a > better job collecting the data) but I see the > number of kids walking down Melbourne Gtive and > Carlton Avenue to school. I see it and my own > experience is that I?m using the car less too. > Those campaigning to ?get rid? of LTNs aren?t > offering much by way of realistic alternatives and > I don?t consider ?spreading the pain so that all > areas are congested? to be an alternative. > > Apologies for typos- typing on the go Rahrahrah - at last, something we can agree on. I agree too that the LTNs have led to fewer car journeys but, paradoxically, Covid was already doing that as people reassessed their transport means in light of the pandemic. Yet the numbers of people able to make the change aren't sufficiently high enough to have a positive macro impact on the rest of the area as traffic is funnelled down fewer roads. Look at that data I shared on the Waltham Forest LTN. There was a 28% increase in traffic on a road 3.1 miles from the LTN after it went in. Surely the only rational explanation for that is the displacement from the LTN is creating a displacement tsunami? And remember that Waltham Forest LTN happened well before Covid so you cannot pin that increase on that. And stop defaulting to the weak "get rid of and not offering alternatives" narrative. There have been plenty offered on here - none of which the pro-closure lobby is seemingly keen to discuss. I wonder why?

My goodness, when you scratch a little deeper the Waltham Forest results are shocking. So when I looked at the ?bordering road? that has seen a 28% increase in traffic on Google maps it looked a very long way from the LTN area. Here?s the location they saw the 28% increase: Shernhall Street - traffic count North of Maynard Road, approximately outside the Methodist Church 7,231 9,276 2,045 28 per cent increase That measuring point is 3.1 miles away from Ramsay Road which is the northern most street in the LTN area. 3.1 miles away and they were feeling a 28% increase in traffic which makes you wonder what the increases are within half a mile of the closures. It?s basically like saying the Oval will feel a 28% increase in traffic from the DV closures. Even the street with the lowest increase (Hoe Street 2%) is 4 miles from the northern most closure point. It is growing clearer and clearer to me that all these great examples the pro-closure lobby cite are in fact anything but and the information being presented to the public is being manipulated by the councils and planning departments to try and create a positive message when none exists. A bit like a bomb being dropped somewhere the blast zone and damage travels a long way from the epicentre. Can any of the pro-lobby provide anything to counter this?

Interesting that the pro-closure lobby cites what is happening in Waltham Forest as a shining light of the LTN yet go to their Streetscape site and things don't look too rosy....well very rosy given the overwhelming red comments submitted... https://newhamwalthamforestltn.commonplace.is/schemes/proposals/give-us-your-feedback/details Also it is worth looking at the numbers from Waltham Forest themselves. 5 of 12 surrounding streets experienced increases in traffic when they did the trial. This dropped when the trial was made permanent but on the 3 border roads traffic increased on all of them. https://enjoywalthamforest.co.uk/work-in-your-area/walthamstow-village/comparison-of-vehicle-numbers-before-and-after-the-scheme-and-during-the-trial/ It's amazing what happens when you do your own research. Also very interested to hear what the maximum amount of traffic "evaporation" was seen in any of the 60 schemes worldwide that have the median average of 11%. Even Living Streets posted an article last year that said the following.... In half of the case studies, there was a 11% reduction in number of vehicles across the whole area where roadspace for traffic was reduced, including the main roads. https://www.google.com/amp/s/londonlivingstreets.com/2019/07/11/evaporating-traffic-impact-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-on-main-roads/amp/

dulwichfolk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Around 1220 ambulance with blue lights flashing > today going down grove vale indicates right to go > down Melbourne grove, can?t so continues to drive > still indicating right in the end has to go via > lordship lane traffic to eventually get to a house > on east dulwich grove near green dale. > > This is the real life affect of these closures. "Collateral damage" or "Not due to the closures". I wonder which one the pro-closure lobby will categorise this as?