Rockets

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wandsworth have knee jerked at the inevitable push > back from a long indulged and entitled minority > being asked to share a bit more space with others. > Interestingly though, the traffic jams caused by > increases in people cycling and driving coming out > of the lockdown (and as a result of people > avoiding public transport in the face of COVID), > have not eased. It will be interesting to see what > people put congestion down to now that all the > planters have been removed AND the alternatives to > using a car in areas like Tooting, are to become > less appealing once more. But that's the point we have been trying to make for ages. The approach by councils to carpet bomb these closures in place lead/led constituents to think one thing: the closures are causing the problems. Everyone knew that car use would go up post Covid but that is being lost in the noise created by the closures. The closures have become an easy target to blame all the traffic ills on them. The councils were incredibly short-sighted and could not see what was going to happen and now have completely lost control of the narrative, they did not think in a joined-up manner and, as we saw across Dulwich, each councillor tried to pander to a few local residents and now have a huge mess on their hands. Remember, Cllr McAsh was lobbying for the closures on Melbourne Grove on the basis of the increase in traffic expected when DV closed as part of OHS - at no point did he say, hang on a minute that closure in DV is going to create a nightmare for my constituents. All councils, and councillors, will now be looking at political survival more than the rational behind the closures and I expect to see more decisions like Wandsworth's to follow.

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've got to say my experience is similar to Abe's. > I wouldn't say other cyclists are the "biggest" > danger (metal box hitting me at speed is plainly a > bigger danger than a lycra'd up person on two > wheels) but they are certainly the most "frequent" > cause of me having to change direction, slam on > brakes and/or receive abuse as a cyclist. > > I'm a driver, pedestrian and commuting cyclist, so > I don't really have any skin in the cyclists v > cars debate. I use the car rarely these days (for > big shopping loads only) and am generally in > favour of measures to get those of us that can, > out of cars and walking or cycling. TBF, I'm also > comparatively slow cyclist on a not very smart > bike who stops at every red light, so I recognise > that other cyclists are going to want to go around > me and I'm fine with that. But generally I find > most car drivers are fine so long as you regularly > look behind you (so they know you know they are > there) before you move out into the road or turn > right. And if you don't go shooting down their > inside but wait behind or go around on the outside > in stationary traffic, again most drivers > (including vans, trucks and buses) are fine giving > you space in my experience as long as they can see > you showing some basic awareness they are there. > > I think it's great there's been a massive uptick > in cycling but some of the behaviour I see really > scares me - and it's not just the lycra'd up > brigade (although they are the most likely to give > you abuse when you stop at a red light they would > rather have gone straight through and vaguely > inconvenienced them into changing direction). The > majority of people don't look behind them before > they move out into traffic, there is a lot of > swapping lanes without looking and shooting up > inside traffic and very little attempt to signal > before turning and, my god, the number of people > wearing headphones and cycling in traffic is > genuinely astonishing. > > And to be clear, there are loads of sensible, > aware cyclists too, but I think the standard of > behaviour has generally deteriorated since more > people started cycling and it drives the overall > cyclist behaviour down. As soon as one person > jumps a light, others follow and it normalises it > etc. I see that every day on my commute into work > (a lot of which is on segregated cycle lanes > and/or have "bike first" traffic lights where > there's no excuse for any cyclist running the red > light). A few people will pull up on red but as > soon as one person goes shooting through (whether > it's a pedestrian phase or a cars coming the other > way phase) everyone else follows. > > One of the things it's made me think about is that > those sort of behaviours aren't too risky when > you're on a cycle path or quietway but get really > dangerous when you're cycling in proper traffic. > I'm coming to the view that no-one should cycle in > full London traffic without having some kind of > training - it was the best thing I did when I > started cycling. > > Edit to add to rahrahrah's point - yes - an idiot > is an idiot whether they are driving a car or > cycling (and even may be the same people I would > guess) but generally, my experience is that > standard of driver behaviour towards cyclists in > our area is better than the behaviour of a lot of > those cyclists. 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.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Rockets - 'cancel car culture'? 😂 Did you like that one - I thought it was a good one - it came to me in a moment on inspiration.....;-)?

It is a retreat because they are not working and creating more problems than they are solving and politicians want to distance themselves from the problems they are causing. At the moment they are impacting far more people than they are benefiting and as people see gridlocked streets caused by displacement they are challenging whether the plans are going to actually make things worse. The far bigger worry remains that such a poorly executed attempt to make change will impact the longer-term viability of properly addressing the issues as no politician will want to go near it.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you go outside your house you can see how much > space is given over to cars. There is tons of > metal sitting on every single street, most of it > rarely moving. > If we want to make it easier for people to use > alternatives, then we need to create safe, quiet > and clean routes for cycling and walking (and > invest in public transport). > Most people are terrified to cycle on roads often > dominated by bigger and bigger (pseudo military) > vehicles... Many regularly ignoring the speed > limits. We have created a hostile environment for > anyone wishing to take to two wheels. Is that > really an constructive situation? > There is a role for cars clearly, but the amount > of space they are allocated is completely out of > proportion and it crowds out other types of > transport. > The entitlement many feel when it comes to their > cars needs to be challenged for what it is. The > reaction to some really mild attempts to create > space for (mainly) pedestrians, just highlights > how indulged the car lobby have become imo. Mild attempts to create space....oh dear....yes it is lovely walking or cycling down Court Lane - I am often the only person or cyclist doing so but the moment I turn onto Dulwich Village the hell returns with interest. All sense seems to have been lost in this debate by the pro-cycle lobby. All many of us are saying is that the route the council is taking to try and deal with these issues is a very blunt, ineffective instrument that will cause far more issues than they resolve - issues that will negatively impact all road users. The cancel-car culture that is being peddled by the pro-lobby is just not realistic. There is a reason so many people choose to own and use cars - it's because the other forms of transport fail to deliver what they need. And closing a load of roads in Dulwich will not resolve those issues it makes them worse and actually more pronounced.

eastdulwichhenry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yes - if there's one thing West Londoners like > to > > brag about, it's how much they love living > under > > the Westway and how there's no traffic! > > Lol. This is the problem with road building. > However much you do it, and however > well-intentioned, the roads still fill up and > traffic on the local streets rarely goes down that > much. Los Angeles is the craziest - all those ten > lane Freeways, criss-crossing the entire urban > area, but they're still jammed to capacity. Yes and none of us are advocating building more roads we just don't want to see a load of them closed to through-traffic as the displacement and collateral pollution increases are horrendous.

eastdulwichhenry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Everyone glibly says traffic is being displaced > elsewhere, but I'd like to see the evidence of > this. My anecdotal experience is the Lordship Lane > and East Dulwich Grove are not busier than before. > They've always been very busy, and remain so, but > there are still plenty of gaps in traffic too. > Similarly, traffic through Dulwich Village was > very congested in the first few days after the > Calton Road closure but now seems back to > something like normal. Presumably the council will > be monitoring all this with empirical data so that > informed rather than knee-jerk decisions can be > made when the trial preiod ends. Lordship Lane was nose-to-tail from outside Moxons to the Goose Green roundabout for the hour I sat having some food on the Lane on Saturday - it did eventually clear into the mid-afternoon but of all my many years being on the Lane on a Saturday I have never seen it like that). Take a walk around the junction of Dulwich Village and EDG or outside the library at about 3pm and you will see for yourself the impact of the displacement. The council has only just started monitoring. When the DV closures went in they only put monitoring in on the closed roads and not any of the surrounding roads (yeah....go figure) but they have now been forced to put monitoring in across the area more broadly but, of course, they will have nothing to measure it against as the monitoring only went in after the closures were put in place.

I wonder if there are residents on the closed roads (any of them) who may like the quietness and change to their situation but do also harbour concerns about the impact the changes are having on roads and residents elsewhere.

Cllr McAsh.... ...an additional question.... On Saturday traffic was nose to tail for much of the day along the length of Lordship Lane travelling northbound to Goose Green, the problems seemingly being caused by an increase in traffic coming down East Dulwich Grove as a result of the closure of the Dulwich Village Junction. Are you concerned about the increasing pollution levels for your constituents as they shop on Lordship Lane and do you fear that when further closures in Dulwich Village and Townley Road go in the problems will get worse again?

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > An alternative is allowing only 50% of cars out on > every other day - they did this in Athens years > ago I think they call it Road Rationing. > > It moves away from "nudge unit" politics into > banning people from taking out cars on certain > days however. Was it not the case that in Athens they had odd-number and even-number alternating number plate days to try to combat the pollution and a lot of Athenians just went out a bought a second car to ensure they could alternate and avoid the ban? Wandsworth seem to be piling part of the blame for removing their LTNs on TFL and the measures they are implementing...this becomes more and more political and I do wonder whether all Tory councils will remove them.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So the solution to pollution and congestion on the > South Circular is to take traffic off A roads and > push it back onto residential, speed humped roads? > Weird. No the solution was to not create a problem by closing the DV junction in the first place. If they hadn't have done that traffic would not be queuing southbound from the library to the Grove Tavern. It's really not that difficult to comprehend what is happening since the closures went in. Maybe it will be temporary, as the council suggests and cars will evaporate. But what if it isn't - it is making pollution worse so completely negates the point of the closures. Lordship Lane this afternoon was awful, I actually thought there might have been an accident - I have never seen it that bad along the main shopping part of the Lane before and the pollution must have been higher than normal.

Townleygreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets, I think you mean Southbound at the Grove > Tavern junction, towards F Hill. You're right...I was never very good at geography...updated now!

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Short of tracking the entire populations > movements, there?s no way to differentiate between > a journey of 2k and a journey of 15k to an area > poorly served by public transport." > > That's not true - but no-one ever reads the > methodology for data gathering and traffic > analysis which, shocker, is actually quite > developed and very complicated. They just slag off > the "data" because they don't like the conclusion > or don't understand it. Take a look at the "data" gathered for the OHS consultation on the DV closures (before Covid); the lack of granularity in the data is shocking. The council could tell you how many cars passed through the junction every day but they had no idea where they went beyond the junctions in the village - which is vital to determining the likely impacts of closing said roads. If those journeys were all under 1 mile then yes, the impact of the closure could be positive. If the journeys were 3 miles or more then the likely impact would be negative on surrounding roads as displaced traffic tried to find another route. But the council had no clue and I suspect they know but don't want to hear the answer as it would mean people would have questioned the sense in doing it.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Yes but traffic was nowhere near as bad on that > section of road prior to the closures being put > in.....but you know that already." > > You're suggesting that traffic was heavy north > sound on Lordship Lane between The Plough and the > skate park at the Old Harvester because of an > east/west closure on Dulwich Village? Yes I am. It's logical. The DV junction was a key route east/west across Dulwich and it is now closed so traffic is being forced to take other routes. The delays southbound on Lordship Lane around the Grove Tavern is because of traffic queuing to turn right onto the A205 and I suspect much of that traffic would have used to have gone via the DV junction. It was the issue we all kept flagging with these closures from the outset - they push traffic onto Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove and parts of the A205 and create congestion and increased pollution as a result. At about 1.30pm this afternoon Lordship Lane going northbound was nose-to-tail from outside Moxons to the Goose Green roundabout. It cleared about an hour later - I was sitting in Signoria cafe watching it but I suspect it was being caused by the flow of traffic coming from the North Dulwich end of EDG trying to filter onto Lordship Lane - once again increased because of the closure of a key east/west route. When they close Townley during rush-hour it will get worse again.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, traffic in this part of London is terrible, > isn't it? Something ought to be done about it. Yes but traffic was nowhere near as bad on that section of road prior to the closures being put in.....but you know that already.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Abe_froeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Thanks Ex Duwlicher, the first TFL document > > confirms the proposal came form TFL which the > > mayor is in charge of : > > > > "On 15 May, we also announced our > > proposal to increase the congestion > > charge from ?11.50 to ?15 daily, extend the > > hours of operations to include evenings > > (up to 10pm) and weekends, temporarily > > close the residents? discount to new > > applicants and make other consequential > > changes. " > > > > "Our" being TFL / the Mayor. > > You're nitpicking in an effort to blame "the > Mayor". It's literally in the document that the > Government mandated TfL to maximise revenues (like > removing fare freeze, removing free travel, > reinstating congestion charge). > > Yes, TfL decided to increase it at the same time > but it was essentially an arm-twisting and it > certainly wasn't "TfL" acting alone. > > You can't blame SK for TfL going bankrupt in one > sentence and then blame him for increasing CC in > the next! > Given the pandemic and the crash in fare revenue, > TfL would have gone bankrupt under any Mayor in > the world. This is splitting hairs in much the > same way as certain councillors are now attempting > to twist the narrative around LTNs. > > It comes to something when you have a Tory Council > shouting on social media about LTNs being > "imposed" on them - by a Tory Government. They are > literally bidding for money from their own > Government, doing what they're told and then, when > it seems unpopular locally, they're backtracking > and seeking to blame anyone else - that usually > being TfL. > > None of this is going to work if it splits into > violently pro and anti and everyone spends their > time nitpicking, shouting down, blaming, > finger-pointing and basically trying to govern by > populism. Sadly though, that's the way that > politics has gone in the last 5 years or so - > there's seemingly no desire to work together to > address critical issues, it's a case of "them and > us", you're either with us or against us. > > Not a healthy place to be in, it generally doesn't > work out as giving "holistic solutions" or > well-implemented compromises, it ends up with each > side shouting "WE'RE RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG!" at each > other. Ex - you're spot on. Politics has become so polarised that there is no longer any middle-ground and no-one can bring themselves to compromise. Prior to the election we were faced with the awful dilemma of voting for the far-left or the far-right and nothing in between. And this has filtered down to local politics as well. We can all but hope that Keir can wrestle power off the hard-left and bring Labour back towards the middle and force the Tories to come back towards the middle - if not we are all in for an even worse time. But back to the subject of the thread: Lordship Lane gridlocked from back beyond the library at the Plough all the way up to the Grove Tavern junction.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?But then I realised it is a Tory govt and they > aren't very smart so probably could not have > cooked up such a devilish plan.? > > Dominic Cummings could have though But he would have been caught in the act! ;-)

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Abe_froeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The Mayor is desperate for people to get back > onto > > public transport because TFL has gone bankrupt > on > > his watch. (They won't though because the Mayor > > also said that people will die if they travel > on > > the tube). > > That's politics in play right there. > > TfL would have gone bankrupt anyway no matter who > was Mayor given the Covid crisis. Half their > funding comes from fares and that's collapsed. > So the Government bailed out TfL (quite rightly). > They then put a host of conditions onto that > bailout such as the increased congestion charge > (both pricing and hours of operation). That wasn't > SK running that through, it was central Government > but it suits them very well to have everyone > blaming the Labour Mayor. > > There's similar political posturing going on now > over Hammersmith Bridge - Grant Shapps said it's > been in a terrible state for decades which > presumably also means the point when Boris was > Mayor of London... However it's being blamed on > SK. But the infrastructure money comes from > central Government so it's more or less been in > the hands of the Conservatives for the last > decade! > > It's all just political point scoring. Sod the > constituents, politics is now just arguments on > Twitter as one Minister or councillor seeks to > belittle another. The thought had crossed my mind that this initiative was promoted by the Tories with them knowing full well that it would be like catnip to some London boroughs and they would begin carpet bombing closures and ultimately annoying the hell out of the constituents and potentially destabilising the political landscape. But then I realised it is a Tory govt and they aren't very smart so probably could not have cooked up such a devilish plan. I do think the Mayor's office is going to take the brunt of this and the fact Lambeth weren't interviewed for the ITV London news piece suggest the council may not be too keen to stick their head above the trench on this.

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > An 11% reduction in car usage in one fell swoop > would be a huge achievement. It just goes to show > > how many of those journeys weren't critical. > > The figure of 11% evaporation comes from a 20 year > old study using highly subjective data, dubious > methodology and some very, very dodgy statistics. > Even the authors admit some of their working data > (eg evaporation of 149%) was incorrect and\or > unreliable. > > But even taking their dodgy figures as correct, > that still leaves 89% of traffic to be displaced. > Where will it go? I have noticed that the council has, retrospectively, put more monitoring in place around Dulwich. It will be interesting to see what conclusions they come to - one hopes they have monitoring data from before the road closures were put in place so they can make a proper comparison.....we know they only had monitoring added to the closed roads around DV and weren't monitoring the displacement roads from the start.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's starting....the pressure is mounting....TV > > news coverage tonight as well. Votes will be at > > stake now.... > > > Oh no, not the TV news! You already posted this in > the other thread by the way. Sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to post on multiple threads. I consider myself suitably chastised. The point I am making is that there is growing awareness of the problems these measures are creating. This, in turn, creates a narrative that all traffic congestion is being caused by it (whether it is or isn't). The news actually showed one of Lambeth's parking enforcement cars trying to drive down one of the closed roads so it all adds to the general perception that it's been rushed and is chaotically implemented and creating big issues. The fact that the mayor's office put up a spokesperson to defend the closures was interesting.

It's starting....the pressure is mounting....TV news coverage tonight as well. Votes will be at stake now....

Here the full league table of car sinners from TFL - for some reason it pastes upside down so Islington is the best and Bexley the worst! Islington Tower Hamlets Hackney Westminster Haringey Hammersmith & Fulham Southwark Newham Camden Lambeth Lewisham Waltham Forest Kensington & Chelsea Wandsworth Brent Barking & Dagenham Enfield Hounslow Ealing Redbridge Greenwich Richmond upon Thames Merton Kingston upon Thames Croydon Havering Bromley Harrow Barnet Hillingdon Sutton Bexley BTW did anyone see the ITV 6 o'clock local news - big segment on the controversy of the LTNs using the stuck fire engine in Brixton as the catalyst for the story. Someone has organised a march to Brixton Town Hall to protest. The news item said there were 160 LTNs put in in the last few weeks across the capital. Interesting that the mayor's office rolled out a spokesperson rather than Lambeth immediately elevating the story to mayoral responsibility rather than local council. The issue is getting more and more attention.

stecoward101 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Rockets 'and then manipulated by the council for > their own benefit'. Why would a council manipulate > the data. They want to reduce the number of cars. > > > It does not matter If Southwark have a lower car > use than most other boroughs as if it is still > high then you need to do something. > > rockets, this is not rocket science. The council manipulated the data to convince people there was a 46% increase of traffic through the DV junction to create a mandate to have it closed. It was a lie and blatant manipulation of the data to create public support for their changes. Traffic through the DV junction had been going down year on year and the only increase was that of pollution after they changed the junction layout during the first OHS "improvements". No, it's not rocket science - the council probably hope that it was as the problem for them is when non-rocket scientists like myself scratch a little beneath the surface they can expose where the council has been trying to hoodwink the constituents!

stecoward101 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Abe_Frorume I am confused why you are concerned > by this. Ensuring buses can run better surely a > good thing. Would you prefer that public transport > be hampered. > > Buses in South London are the most important > element of the public transport infrastructure. > The tube does not slow down because someone > decides to block the line. > > Additionally buses are using social distancing at > the moment so are transporting less passengers. > > Well done Southwark council for this change. Southwark and TFL have to do something as busses are getting caught up in the gridlock caused by the road closures on the roads where there can be no bus lane. I completely understand this move as if you have to do everything to encourage people out of cars and back onto public transport but I would be concerned if LL loses parking spaces at a time when the CPZ is being implemented too.

I wonder if we are particularly unlucky to get such a concentrated cluster in a small area, seemingly without any co-ordination between the local councillors on negative impact (although they did, of course, acknowledge during their door-to-door lobbying of the streets targeted for closure that there would be significant displacement).