Rockets

Admin, I hope you can see that the point I was making was that locking some threads on the basis of subject is a dangerous precedent to set and becomes difficult to police. What for example if I had responded to DogKennelHillBilly about why I feel so passionately about the road closures? Would you then be forced to lock the thread about talking about why you locked the threads....the optics of that would not be good! ;-) You have a really tough job and my view is the forum polices itself very efficiently without intervention and by blocking some new threads (some of which were completely legitimate posted by people who were trying to raise concerns linked to the closures) it becomes a very slippery slope. Keep up the good work on everything else though!One thing I think we can all agree on is that it is great we have a forum and this subject has certainly been a catalyst for debate!

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I cycled to Catford on Thursday - traffic solid > a205 - haven?t been there for years. My point is > those drivers didn?t find alternative route/mode. > So why not? > > Thursday was when that car went into the wall at > the top of DKH. Junction was closed for ages and > it wrecked traffic in Camberwell, Peckham, all > along LL out to Forest Hill... > > Not really a fair comparison to say that traffic > was awful therefore it's the fault of the > permeable streets. It's why I don't really bother > with the anecdotes (from either side) with a still > photo and a story of "I was travelling along and > traffic was free-flowing / gridlocked > therefore..." because there are far more factors > at play than just the permeable streets that > someone walking along an individual road is > unlikely to be aware of at first (like an > accident/road closure somewhere else, a broken set > of traffic lights, a badly parked lorry etc). But Ex- anyone who walks down Lordship Lane can see the congestion is a lot worse than before as the EDG junction and Goose Green roundabout struggles with the increase in traffic. That increase could have nothing to do with the road closures but the narrative becomes automatically that it is. To be honest I think the big issue is the closure of DV and without that the Melbourne Grove closure would be less impactful but combined it is causing a big problem. If we all had one vote on this I would vote to remove the DV closure and let Melbourne Grove stay but the way things are going at the moment I think it is more likely they all get withdrawn en masse.

The problem is people will often interpret words as they wish to see them! ;-)

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Admin doesn?t need to be ?careful?, it?s his > forum, why the threatening tone? I?m glad that > many of the traffic threads have been closed, the > subject has been overwhelming the forum and mainly > limited to the same comparatively few posters > which has put off a lot of visitors. There?s many > other things to discuss. Oh deary me,...really... threatening tone...let me explain "be careful" for you: because they are setting a dangerous precedent by making decisions on what can or can't be discussed and where and when. Everyone in Dulwich is talking about these closures and this forum reflects that.

I think admin needs to be careful on this as many of the new threads are being posted by people not, like myself, who have been at the heart of the debate and posting a lot. These threads are being started by forumites who are trying to express their views or get questions answered and you can't expect those all to be channelled into a single thread. I was very surprised to see which ones were being locked and admin needs to be careful they are not being seen to suppress debate - which is what this forum is for after all. You can't walk down Lordship Lane without hearing people complaining about the road closures so this forum is merely reflecting the feelings of many East Dulwich residents (for and against the closures). Also this forum tends to be good at self policing and truly repetitive threads tend not to get responses and drop very quickly.

Serena2012 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Alice - It is, but if you were to apply the Elsie > Road school street logic (whereby the entry and > exit from Goose Green is on Tintagel Crescent), to > Harris then you would put a gate keeper on > Wheatley as well. > > Ultimately, the current status quo which involves > planters and the closure of a number of very > affluent streets which don?t even have schools on > them (and where student footfall is almost > invariably lower than on EDG) definitely isn?t > working, as it is causing huge volumes of > congestion and therefore increased air pollution > on the roads that house the majority of the area?s > schools; whilst also (almost invariably) slowing > down buses and emergency vehicles. Whilst we await > the ULEZ, I suspect school streets which > discourage driving to school, and make it safer > for children to cross the road in the vicinity of > their schools are a good middle ground. Indeed they are as they target specific issues at specific times of the day and yet allow free flow of movement at other times. Interesting to read some of the comments to the school twitter posts. Once again, whilst some are happy others are not.

And still we hear nothing from the council. This is what happened at Loughborough Junction, council ignored the feedback from residents on what was going on and then had to wait until the emergency services told them their road closures were endangering lives (well they ignored them to begin with until the local MP intervened at the behest of the ambulance services). Southwark and our local councillors seem to have their heads in the sand too, hoping the problem evaporates....

FairTgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Spartacus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > There is a factor that the argument for road > > closure fails to take into effect for > businesses. > > > > I mentally call it the blues brother shopping > mall > > effect. In the original film they drove through > a > > shopping mall calling out the businesses in it. > > Whilst it's not a shopping mall, cars > traversing > > through a shopping street can result in driver > / > > passenger spotting a business that they didn't > > know existed there, thus encouraging them to > stop > > or return another day. This also has the > opposite > > effect of when cars don't pass the business it > > becomes out of sight, out of mind ! > > > > Don't get me wrong as pedestrians and cyclists > > will have a similar effect however more often > than > > not car drivers that experience the phenomenon > > will be from just outside of the area thus > adding > > to the trade a business will normal get. > (Cyclist > > and pedestrians are normally more local) > > > > Equally if an area is harder to get to or park > in, > > trade will naturally migrate to places that are > > easier for drivers, it's the unintentional side > > effect out of town shopping centres, retail > parks > > and large supermarkets had on business in town > > centres from the 80s onwards. > > > > So before people say "but the road is > accessible > > from one end", think about what knock on effect > it > > has on businesses located on it from passing > trade > > and how it encourages people to shop elsewhere. > > > > As I said before, these closures need a proper > > consultation and pre implementation study > followed > > by a full post implementation study rather than > > the council rushing them in under the guise of > > "the moneys there now but we will lose it if we > > don't spend it" then spending more money when > they > > have to, like Wandsworth , do a u-turn ! > > > Thankyou Spartacus. So much of this is bang on. > For the past weeks all the businesses have heard > from customers is; > > 'It is too hard/takes too long to get to you' - - > because of increased traffic on surrounding roads > 'We can't park' --- as 1/3-1/2 parking spaces have > gone at the same time to make room for road > closure > 'I would normally pop in on way back from > Sainsburys (insert other shop) but too hard now' - > as would have to go to Lordship Lane and turn > right onto EDG and turn into MB Grove from the > other end. > > All it takes is one very small barrier for people > to not bother. > It's why so many businesses have their doors open > - it is well documented an open door is one less > barrier to the customers and an invitation in. > > > One business on Melbourne Grove says appointments > are down 45% down in the past two weeks. They have > been here for 24 years and never experienced such > a sharp drop. This can't be purely coincidental. > > Yes, there is access from the other end of MG but > what they are hearing is that those who do drive > for very valid reasons, elderly, disabled, from > further afield, or need car for a larger > uncarryable load, multiple kids etc are not > stopping any more. > > Customers are approaching the businesses of their > own volition and saying, 'I am less likely to > visit you'. > > We all agree car usage must go down, especially > for short journeys but you need to make it easier > for people to make the change - invest in an > infrastructure that encourages active travel - put > in some more cycle lanes, limit car owner ship, > incentivise car share schemes, add in more useful > bus routes, subsidise public transport further. If > safety/speeding is the issue look at one ways, > speed bumps, ANPR cameras, timed restrictions. > > Encourage people to use alternative methods with > education and campaigning, but allow people the > access they need when and where they need it, by > car if they need to. > > Don't grab some money, block off some roads, cross > your fingers and hope for the best. > > I am sure there will be some snippy replies 'Who > cares about X cafe/restaurant/shop/hairdresser etc > business', or more calls to boycott them by some > kind residents but seriously, have a heart! Many > have been operating here for over 15 years, and > there are some brand new ones just trying to find > their feet. They've all just seen their > livelihoods take a battering with lockdown, > probably another on its way. > > Let's not forget they have been totally sidelined > when it comes to this scheme on these roads. No > conversation whatsoever. > > Why should they have to wait 6 months to see if > this 'beds in' and what if it doesn't? 6 months of > watching their business die over key Christmas > trading periods thanks to unconsulted road > closures with lockdowns going on around them. > > Is now really the time to be experimenting with > livelihoods in this way? > > We should be supportive and rally around local > businesses with initiatives like the brilliant > raffle scheme not tear into any that say, quite > rightly, 'This is not OK'. I really don't think this council cares about the shops in East Dulwich. They have displayed a totally apathetic view to them during all consultations and have consistently tried to sideline their concerns. I am still very interested to hear from Cllr McAsh about whether he is concerned about what is currently going on within his ward. His re-appearance on this forum seems to be have been short-lived - he has been too busy penning articles for Novaramedia.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't remember being consulted about all the > people being able to store 2 tons of their private > property for free at the sides of the roads, but > here we are. > > Has anyone ever asked or leafletted properly and > followed that up? No. I am not entirely sure what your point is here - parked cars weren't suddenly dropped in overnight - people have been parking cars on roads for lifetimes - so no real need for a consultation on that as nothing has changed in that regard. Went down to Lordship Lane again today (I walked, just in case you are about to suggest I drove a car!) and once again it was tailing back and now Matham Grove has a constant queue of traffic as cars try to find a way around the EDG junction. It's an utter mess that the council needs to fix. These changes are not going well

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I am shocked at how bad the traffic is on > Lordship > > Lane right now - it's scary how bad things have > > got so quickly following the implementation of > the > > closures - it's obvious the EDG/LL junction and > > Goose Green roundabout cannot handle the > numbers > > of extra cars being forced through them. > > > > The problem is the council doesn't care about > > Lordship Lane, in fact I think a lot of them > > actually despise it. > > Presumably you were driving through on another > essential journey with your kids, and definitely > not contributing to the traffic volume No, my wife and I had walked up through Sydenham Woods, to the Rosendale for lunch (taking advantage of the extended Eat Out to Help Out) and then back through the village and along East Dulwich Grove to go to M&S. It was the same walk that I noticed all the parking tickets on the cars on EDG. I would be careful jumping to conclusions in future....

I am shocked at how bad the traffic is on Lordship Lane right now - it's scary how bad things have got so quickly following the implementation of the closures - it's obvious the EDG/LL junction and Goose Green roundabout cannot handle the numbers of extra cars being forced through them. The problem is the council doesn't care about Lordship Lane, in fact I think a lot of them actually despise it.

Which begs the question: where are those people parking now? Didn't the "commuters from Kent" card get played during the East Dulwich CPZ consultation?

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > https://usa.streetsblog.org/2012/03/23/why-bicycli > sts-are-better-customers-than-drivers-for-local-bu > siness/ I can't wait until we see the East Dulwich equivalent of the Mineral Belt Trail in Leadville, Colorado. ;-)

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From the BBC website today > > BBC News - Low Traffic Neighbourhoods: Anger, hate > and the politics of the planter > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-54180 > 647 Every day the pressure mounts on the closures. I think the BBC article hits the nail on the head with some of the challenges LTNs are facing. Public awareness of the problems they are causing is growing all the time. When do the next phase of closures come in (Townley, Dulwich Village northbound, Turney, Burbage etc?). I do wonder whether the new leader of Southwark council might be forced to take action.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People used to drive from roads like Heber, > Uplands Ullverscroft etc and park near the station > - especially when it rained as per above. Expect > those commuters would just walk (like they always > should have - but were enabled by not being > restricted) Interesting isn't it that time limited CPZs have been very effective in areas like Herne Hill in deterring commuters yet protecting the local community shops and Southwark opted for the all day option. Read into that what you will!

roywj Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lordship Lane is not in the CPZ area so will be > unaffected. A lot of people commenting on the CPZ > who do not actually live within the zone. Sounds > like sour grapes to me. > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > first mate Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Yes, well you might but it was always argued > > that > > > commuter parking was the central issue, this > > could > > > have been dealt with by the time limited > > option. > > > Goodness, we had tales of commuter stalkers > in > > > cars harassing householders and all sorts. > The > > > health centre and schools were never > mentioned. > > > The all day CPZ has facilitated CPZ creep in > a > > way > > > that was never necessary. > > > > Why they didn't go for the 2-hour window is > beyond > > me - but then again we know what the real > > motivation for this is - another example of the > > council not listening to the constituents. > > > > We will soon find out how much of the problem > was > > commuter related because if those who were > > lobbying for it on the basis of commuters were > > right we will see huge swathes of empty spaces > > around the station. > > > > I really worry about the impact on Lordship > Lane > > as the combined factors of the creep from the > CPZ > > and now the horrendous congestion caused by the > > closures will have a detrimental impact. But it's pretty damn close and the neighbouring roads which will suffer from the displacement. I am not suffering from sour grapes - just, and always have been, worried about the impact all of these changes will have on Lordship Lane and the wider community. A bit like the road closures - a few people will benefit whilst the majority suffer. Hardly sour grapes being concerned about the impact on others.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, well you might but it was always argued that > commuter parking was the central issue, this could > have been dealt with by the time limited option. > Goodness, we had tales of commuter stalkers in > cars harassing householders and all sorts. The > health centre and schools were never mentioned. > The all day CPZ has facilitated CPZ creep in a way > that was never necessary. Why they didn't go for the 2-hour window is beyond me - but then again we know what the real motivation for this is - another example of the council not listening to the constituents. We will soon find out how much of the problem was commuter related because if those who were lobbying for it on the basis of commuters were right we will see huge swathes of empty spaces around the station. I really worry about the impact on Lordship Lane as the combined factors of the creep from the CPZ and now the horrendous congestion caused by the closures will have a detrimental impact.

Serena2012 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Northernmonkey to address your comments: > > 1. I do not live at the junction of two A roads, > in fact, our house is quite a distance from the > junction, and the only reason we are currently > experiencing idling traffic is because the volume > of traffic caused by the closures elsewhere is > overwhelming for this stretch of road. In case you > hadn?t noticed, Melbourne Grove, Derwent and Elsie > also have junctions with two A roads. All these > closures have done is to take the problems > previously experienced at some of those junctions, > particularly the Melbourne/ EDG junction and > shoved it down the road, where the infrastructure > cannot cope. There is a reason buses did not go > down this section of EDG historically and went > down Melbourne instead, and that is because this > stretch of road is very very narrow. > > 2. What needs to happen therefore is that rather > than bunging planters in and hoping for the best, > which clearly isn?t working, and is inevitably > significantly increasing air pollution, there > should be a detailed consideration of all the > options. This includes school streets alone, and > one way streets. Expecting a narrow stretch of EDG > to cope with all the additional traffic is naive, > and quite frankly dangerous. Serena2012 - unfortunately what many of us predicted would happen is happening. The council has dome zero analysis of the impact of these closures on the remaining open roads. The combination of the DV closure and Melbourne Grove etc is putting unmanageable pressure on East Dulwich Grove. Of course, when the council closures off Dulwich Village completely during certain hours of the day you may get some relief. But again, that traffic is going to have to go somewhere and the burden will likely be shouldered by Lordship Lane (which again today was tailing back to passed the M&S heading towards the Goose Green roundabout). Of course any relief from that may be tempered by the closures/restriction of access to Townley, Burbage etc. I suspect the Townley closure will force more and more traffic down EDG. I am afraid it could be about to get a hell of a lot worse. Instead of championing, and actively lobbying for, these closures our local councillors should have been assessing the likely impact of the closures on their constituents and fighting them - especially the DV closures which I think are the root cause of the majority of problems people are experiencing now. There has been a complete dereliction of duty from them - preferring to tow the party line over their constituents.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are some links to studies on the effects of > LTNs here: > https://londonlivingstreets.com/2019/07/11/evapora > ting-traffic-impact-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods- > on-main-roads/ > > I do accept the LTNs are not a panacea - there > will be some issues and some displacement > (particularly in the immediate term). But this has > to be offset against the improvements to > residential / side streets, the increase in > walking and associated health impacts and the > alternative of doing nothing / allowing traffic to > slowly take over every street. It's that same report that says half the case studies led to a 11% decrease (which leads you to suspect the other half didn't get close to 11%). Is 11% considered success if congestion increases on other roads as a result?

roywj Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lots of tickets issued today I just walked along East Dulwich Grove towards Lordship Lane and every other car parked there has a ticket - bumper bonus day for the traffic wardens and council. Very little signage on the section of EDG in front of the old hospital to tell you it is permit only which might explain why so many people are falling foul of it.

Looks like we have these closures for a minimum of six months. Per yesterday's OneDulwich update which I have pasted from their email: On 19 June, decision-maker Councillor Livingstone said, ?The measures are flexible as the experimental nature of the trial allows us to make amendments and changes within the first six months.? But he seems to have changed his mind. In a recent email to One Dulwich on 12 September, he says, ?The council has stated that we will review the permeable filter trial after its six months? The current scheme has only been in place for two months and we do not believe that this is a sufficient period within which to fully assess whether it has been a success.? In neighbouring Wandsworth, the council has acted more quickly, and has decided its scheme isn?t working. The planters are being removed this week. In Ealing, Islington and Lambeth, thousands of people turned out this weekend to protest against road closures. Transport minister Grant Shapps ([email protected]), who gave the funds to local councils to put in emergency measures, said in the Telegraph last week that some of the trials hadn?t worked, ?We?re also telling councils that now the height of the emergency has passed, there?s time to consult people more. Where some councils have abused the cash, my message is clear: speak to local residents, get it fixed or no more cash.? Unfortunately, Southwark Council seems intent on listening to lobbyists from outside the area, and a vocal minority who personally benefit from road closures, rather than the majority who live and work in and around Dulwich.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > @Rockets I ah e always said that I disagreed > > with > > > the council?s approach. But now the LTNs have > > been > > > created, I believe we should support them, at > > > least for the length of the trial. My > personal > > > view is that we need to start allocating more > > > space to pedestrians and cyclists to make it > > > easier for people to chose those options for > > short > > > journeys. Continuing with total car dominance > > Over > > > every street is going to get us nowhere. > > > > I don't disagree with you that more space needs > to > > be dedicated to cyclists and pedestrians - but > > closing roads to through traffic is not the > > solution. We have seen plenty of schemes across > > London to dedicate large parts of the road to > > bikes and other non-car modes of transport and > > there is debate about whether they have > increased > > the number of journeys being made by bike or on > > foot and how effective they have been. > > > > A shared road usage plan, paired with a frank > > discussion on transport links, is the only way > > these issues can be dealt with effectively. > > The change this time was the government (shapps) > said coloured parts of roads shared with cars > aren't good enough. > > there has to be physical separation to encourage > people to feel they can cycle . > > https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/2 > 7/well-build-thousands-of-miles-of-protected-cycle > ways-pledges-boris-johnson/#26e0def26b2c I don't think that you'll find too many people who will disagree with that on here and that is what has been happening for a long time now across London with the cycle superhighways. The challenge, of course, is determining how to do it - it's easy to do it across Vauxhall Bridge or on roads with a lot of space but more challenging elsewhere. But you can find quiet routes to navigate your way around them - you don't have to fight your way along Camberwell New Road and around The Oval to get to town. And nor do you have to close roads to through traffic to achieve it. When I used to cycle to Hammersmith there was this great cycling website (I think it was from a cycle group but can't remember where) that plotted a route for you that avoided the traffic hotspots so I used to have a really pleasant cycle (well except the bit up and down Dog Kennel Hill - great way to start and finish a 50 minute cycle!) around the back of Ruskin park, then around the back of Brixton, along Union Road, around Battersea Park then behind Queen's Club to Hammersmith and there was probably one or two spots where you had to be super careful but it was a great way to avoid traffic. So there have always been ways to find routes where people feel safe.

When I look over my shoulder in my car I see my children - so please don't paint me with your generalising paint brush! My point was quite clear (you're choosing to try and pick a fight when there isn't one) that those two cyclists were being inconsiderate to other road users yet you seem to think it was perfectly acceptable. Fair enough we will agree to disagree on that one - but I know I am in the majority though.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > perhaps you should do some highway profiency and > read the highway code, there is nothing wrong with > riding two abreast > > daily-mail comments like yours (riding two > abreast, cylists should pay road tax etc) only > serve to give car drivers a bad rap and illustrate > your ignorance of the law > > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Siduhe Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > I agree. Cyclists are not necessarily dangerous > to > > other road users but many are dangerous to > > themselves. I used to cycle to work from > Dulwich > > to Hammersmith and some of the stunts pulled by > > other cyclists used to amaze me. As a car driver > I > > respect everyone else's right to use the roads > and > > am mindful of ensuring everyone has space. But > > sometimes cyclists seem to think they are the > only > > road users and somehow have more priority than > > others. A few weeks ago two cyclists wearing no > > helmets (not Mamils but 20 millennials) were > > riding two abreast on the A205 in front of > > Alleynian's Rugby club, seemingly taking great > > pleasure in slowing all traffic to crawling > pace. > > I understand there is a mindset of we want to > use > > the road but really...it's why cyclists get such > a > > bad rap. > > > > The other danger in London are the Boris bikes > - > > it seems by default that people who use these > have > > zero clue how to either 1) ride a bike 2) any > idea > > how to remain safe on them 3) have zero road > > sense. > > > > Everyone who cycles should be made to do some > sort > > of cycling proficiency (as we did at school) as > > they are a law unto themselves sometimes. Ha ha, there we go - you illustrate my point beautifully...don't you think riding two abreast on the A205 might be somewhat, I dunno, inconsiderate to other roads users? Just because you can doesn't mean you should. And a correction - I didn't say cyclists should pay road tax I said they should be encouraged to take cycling proficiency - you went all Daily Mail on me and put words into my mouth! ;-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Rockets I ah e always said that I disagreed with > the council?s approach. But now the LTNs have been > created, I believe we should support them, at > least for the length of the trial. My personal > view is that we need to start allocating more > space to pedestrians and cyclists to make it > easier for people to chose those options for short > journeys. Continuing with total car dominance Over > every street is going to get us nowhere. I don't disagree with you that more space needs to be dedicated to cyclists and pedestrians - but closing roads to through traffic is not the solution. We have seen plenty of schemes across London to dedicate large parts of the road to bikes and other non-car modes of transport and there is debate about whether they have increased the number of journeys being made by bike or on foot and how effective they have been. A shared road usage plan, paired with a frank discussion on transport links, is the only way these issues can be dealt with effectively.