Rockets

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Emergency first response paramedic car stuck in > the gridlock... Only adding as it was blaring out > it sirens for a good few minutes and I was trying > to record a presentation. Gridlock continues both > lanes now. Can Rahrahrah bring his magic wand to > make it all disappear? Heartblock - we all feel for you. Many of us have been asserting that for every one of the people dancing joyously in the Margy Square in Dulwich Village or those heralding how cyclists have reclaimed the streets from cars that there were many more being negatively impacted by the displacement from these closures and it looks like you are getting the brunt of it. I would consider contacting Cllr McAsh - we give him a hard time on here but he will want to hear from people who are on the negative impact side of the closures. We all need to assert pressure on the council to show that it is not all sunshine and flowers now they have closed these roads and that even though they present "survey" results that show how tremendously happy people are on the closed roads that there is a majority who are not.

Rahrahrah - quick, get on your bike with the magic traffic evaporation tool you have developed to clear the streets - it worked wonders yesterday....;-)

Closing this one, the message has been made, and there's plenty of similar threads - Admin One of the shopkeepers on Melbourne Grove has set-up a petition against the road closures around their shop. The link is below for those interested. https://www.change.org/p/helen-hayes-help-us-not-to-get-road-closure-in-east-dulwich?utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=custom_url&recruited_by_id=b9ef0770-e198-11ea-a32a-a7c05e9e4c3f

Here is Cllr McAsh's update in full...make of it what you will but there are plenty of lines to read between and there is quite a bit of getting his defence in early.... Interesting he acknowledges there are being problems caused by the measures - although he is clearly trying to position it as a bedding in/generic increase in traffic perspective. You can leave a comment on his blog too...might be a good way for some of those missing their communication channel on here to give some input. ELECTING A NEW COUNCIL LEADERSHIP On Monday 7th September the Labour Group (which includes all Southwark Labour Councillors) will host its AGM. Cllr Peter John has not stood for re-election as Leader so we will soon have a new leader of Southwark Council. A hustings was organised for local Labour Party members on 2nd September and Labour Group will have a further hustings on Saturday the 5th. It would be interesting to hear from Labour members who attended the hustings about who they preferred for the post. The council?s AGM will be on the 16th September. Posts elected there will be in place until next May. LOW TRAFFIC NEIGHBOURHOODS Like many local authorities around London and the country, Southwark has implemented a number of ?low traffic neighbourhood? (LTN) measures, including in Goose Green. What is an LTN? The idea behind an LTN is to encourage cycling and walking, and discourage car use. This is achieved by closing some roads to motor vehicles, and making others accessible from only one end - thereby removing it as a through-route but maintaining car access. The latter measure has been, or will shortly be, implemented in five locations in Goose Green: Melbourne Grove north (near Grove Vale), Melbourne Grove south (between Tell Grove and Ashbourne Grove), Derwent Grove, Elsie Road and Tintagel Crescent. There are others nearby in Dulwich Hill and Dulwich Village wards. Why now? LTNs have existed for many years but they have become much more common in recent months. Why? Social distancing rules mean that fewer people are using public transport. Journeys which were previously taken by bus are now taken by car, by bike or on foot. But increased car traffic makes the other two options less safe, less pleasant and therefore less appealing. LTNs attempt to rebalance this and encourage ?active transport? - which is much healthier and much more environmentally friendly. The process Normally when the council alters the road layout it would first go through a lengthy consultation - like in the case of the controlled parking zone. However, covid made this impossible. Reduced staff capacity and limitations created by the lockdown and social distancing rules made it hard to run any consultations effectively. And, in this case, there was a need to act quickly: as lockdown lifts new habits will set in so if the roads become inhospitable to pedestrians and cyclists this will be harder to change later. So most councils, including Southwark, opted to implement the measures as ?emergency? orders. This means that they can be in place for up to 18 months. After this, they may become permanent, but that will depend on how successful they are. What do residents think? Despite restrictions on council-wide consultations, we councillors did put out a survey. It was only circulated digitally but, given this, the response was relatively good. We shared the results in the last newsletter but they are here again for reference. In summary: residents on these four streets were overwhelmingly supportive of the measures. However, we have also received complaints and criticisms of the measures - primarily from those living on nearby streets. Evaluation It is inevitable that there will be initial problems caused by the LTN measures. Many road users are still unaccustomed to the measures and try to go through streets which they can no longer use as a through-route. This means that the traffic on the streets they can use has risen. This is exacerbated further by the general increase in car traffic that we have seen across London. The hope is that when everyone becomes used to the new roads, the number of cars (and the associated pollution) will prove to be lower than it would have been without the measures. At the moment, it is too early to tell. We will also evaluate the impact from an equalities perspective: even if the community benefits as a whole we still want to know who are the ?winners? and ?losers? from the measures.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's pretty clear to me that there is not the > widespread gridlock some people are claiming. > There are high levels of traffic during rush hour, > but it was always so. I do wonder whether the > temporary respite caused by the lockdown has led > people to forget what the roads were like before. By that argument are you now saying that actually the supposed increase in traffic caused by Covid (and remember this was the catalyst for these closures apparently) has not materialised therefore negating the need for the closures?

To be honest if I was James I would probably not be coming on here; such is the level of negative sentiment towards the council over these changes he would be on a hiding to nothing and he would become the focal point of residents' ire at the council. It's why I suspect some other councillors are happy to be anonymous. Credit where credit is due James did engage on this platform for quite a while but the optics of his withdrawal are not good - especially when he was drumming up support for the changes via EDF. He also has the most to lose. As an ardent advocate and campaigner for the changes he seemed oblivious to the negative impact it was going to have on his own constituents. Councillors like Margy in Duwlich Village can grandstand with her neighbours to show what a positive impact she has had on Dulwich Village and those people in the Village who are benefiting from this will vote for her again. For James it is far more complicated and he is probably worried about his re-election as he hit us with the CPZ and now this at no time has he paid any attention to the majority view and has done nothing to fight any of these changes. He hasn't been seen on here for over 6 weeks and he has probably been on holiday and been busy with his union and school activities but I suspect his absence is more to do with not wanting to stick his head above the OHS trench!

eastdulwichhenry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ed_pete Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Bstch 3 - approved. Cameras to stop traffic > > heading north through Dulwich Village at peak > > times. Also aame on Townley to stop traffic > > exiting to EDG 8-10 , 3-6 > > > > > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetail > > > s.aspx?ID=7153 > > Re Townley, that's a step in the right direction > but the biggest problem on Townley Road is the > parents dropping kids off at Alleyn's, and it > doesn't sound that will achieve that. It needs to > be no traffic at all at those hours. Except I > suppose for the coaches. They are a nuisance too, > but kids have to get to school somehow! But why - Townley is probably the least populated road in the whole of the area - why deem it ok to close that to force traffic along more populated routes to sit in traffic? It makes no sense unless you are hellbent on preventing any east/west travel across Dulwich. What is the issue you see with Townley currently - all I can see is that there is a problem at drop and pick-up time but it is next to three large schools so surely that is to be expected?

ED_moots Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To me this document states Southwark will use > covid lockdown (which we're out of for now) to > expedite plans to reduce car use by 50% in the > Borough. Its a bold target, being executed poorly, > and with little/no consultation of Southwark's > constituents. > > http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/documents/s898 > 03/Report%20Streetspace%20Plan.pdf > > So yes, a war on car use, certainly. QUTOE: Southwark?s Streetspace Plan advises that the council should aspire to maintain 50% less driving than before lockdown to meet our climate change commitment, to maintain as many transport, health and environmental benefits as possible, and to help create a modal shift to active modes. The reality is that to reach their 50% target reduction they have to attack the areas where car ownership is highest in the borough. We have heard time and time again from both the council and the anti-car lobby that "only 40% of Southwark residents have access to a car" as if it is some sort of crime and something to be ashamed of. Of course, car ownership is driven by socio-economic factors but it is also driven by location and accessibility to transport and what those who tout the figure miss is that a very high percentage of the borough's residents live within walking distance of one of the 8 tube stations in the borough and have much better transport links than in Dulwich. Is car ownership for this area really that high? Compare it to neighbouring Bromley or Croydon and you will see that it is in line. or lower, when compared with similar parts of suburban Greater London. People need cars in this part of the city. For the last few years the council has been attacking the Dulwich area and its perceived high car ownership rates (attacking perceived wealth also sat well with the Labour party's hard-left leaning approach before the election). First they extended double-yellow lines to make it more difficult to park, then they forced through a CPZ and now they are blockading large swathes of the area to make it more difficult to get on with day-to-day life for those who need to use a car. To get anywhere near a 50% reduction in car use things will have to get an awfully lot worse as the current closures may reduce car use by 10% (at an absolute maximum) given the lack of transport links in this part of London. The unfortunate consequence of this is that the lives of the residents across the area will be, in the main, negatively impacted by these changes whether they own a car or not, but we are all collateral damage in this game.

Cue the music....;-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Rockets - I posted a few photos from each spot. I > haven?t faked, edited or ?selected? to fit a > narrative. At the end of the day you can?t take > photos showing no cars where there is back to back > gridlock. I know we?re in an era of alternative > facts, but ultimately there is an objective, > observable reality, whether it?s convenient or > not. But you have selected spots that aren't the worst affected haven't you? You do realise as well that this thread now becomes a Tony Hart gallery of gridlock or clear roads.....;-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Take a walk yourself. Either there is back to back > gridlocked traffic or there isn?t. I have been > straight forward, I?m not putting time stamps on > my photos, just get of your sofa and go have a > look. There are two spots where traffic was heavy > as described. The worst congestion is definitely > heading south from the library. Whether this is > worse than before or not people may disagree, but > to my mind this was always a hotspot during rush > hour. I was joking about the time-stamps.....;-) But I did get off my sofa, as you so nicely put it, and ran through the village, saw the traffic, posted a comment and then you replied with a contradictory response as if you are desperate to prove there isn't an issue.....I remind you.... Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I believe some schools have gone back today and as > I ran through Dulwich Village this morning at > around 7.30am there was stationary traffic from > the Village roundabout going northbound all the > way to the East Dulwich Grove junction. The folly > of these closures is there for us all to see and > we know the council is going to try and close the > village northbound to chase the displacement away > from the area but these closures are not working > and are creating far worse problems than before. Rahrahrah: I ran through Dulwich Village this morning at 7:30. It was pretty quiet. So what's this mean?

Rahrahrah - enough with the photos! You took at least 40 photos (your IMG numbers tell a tale) and shared a selection of them with us - what's to say you weren't a bit selective about which ones you shared - perhaps get them time-stamped as well next time as you could have been waiting for quiet moments or waited until the light phasing was in your favour ;-) But please don't interpret that as a request to see all the others....;-) We aren't imagining what we see.....and nothing you post on here is going to convince anyone about what is actually going on in reality. I do have to say you have been remarkably skilled with your photos - the roads are so quiet it looks like Christmas Day there is so little traffic! If that is the case I am sure the council will be letting us all know what a tremendous success the closures have been pretty quickly.

ED_moots Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Metallic Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > Yet people on this thread are claiming that > > > > Dulwich Village is back to back trafffic?! > > > > > > I went to look this morning. Yes, back to > back > > to > > > back to back to back, coaches, cars and vans. > > > > What fun to breathe that in if you live in > > those > > > cottages opposite the Dog. > > > > I passed through the Village on foot at 8:30 > this > > morning and it was extremely quiet. What time > were > > you there? > > > > It seems that some people are claiming that all > > the traffic has been diverted from the Village > to > > the South Circular and others are claiming the > > Village is at a stand still with back to back > > traffic. Meanwhile people are pointing to maps > > published in the Mail. > > > > Walk over there and just see for yourselves. > > > I took a video at 8.47 this morning on Dulwich > Village. Solid traffic from Gallery Road > roundabout to the EDG lights. You must've just > missed it rah, most vehicles were vans and lone > commuters which perhaps explains andrewc's photos; > not parents living down the road but working > people who maybe unlikely or unable to change > their commute. My kid is injured so we tried > hopping on a bus but they weren't letting kids on > - presumably shielding other bus users - which > reduces options for those further afield or with > multiple school drop offs. Yes they appear to be running one bus for kids and one bus for everyone else - which makes planning a journey by bus even more challenging if you travel on a school route.

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Today at 3.45pm Go take a look on Google Maps just an hour later - bet the pictures you could take if you went there now aren't quite so car free now. College Road is red, the A205 is red/black back to Rosemead School travelling eastbound, Dulwich Village is red/black, EDG is red/black, all of Lordship lane is red.....

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ultimately, if you want to reduce pollution, you > have to reduce the number of car journeys. It has > been shown time and time again that when you make > it more difficult to use the car for short > journeys, the number of journeys reduces. Not all > traffic gets displaced onto other roads. > I would like to see better monitoring of the > impacts, as there are likely to be some unintended > consequences. I would also like to see more > investment in alternatives - public transport, > local hire bike schemes etc. But ultimately, we do > have to take some action to improve the local > environment and creating some low traffic > neighbourhoods is a good start. > The idea that there is a 'war on the motorist', or > that Southwark want to 'punish people who drive' > is absurd. Motor vehicles are given massively > disproportionate amount of space, resources and > general deference. They dominate almost every > street in Southwark, despite most people not > owning a car. Cars are hugely indulged despite > their pretty significant downsides for everyone. > I would appeal people to let the schemes bed in > and try to honestly assess their impact over the > coming months. But rahrahrah - even Exdulwicher who works in the business says these schemes only net about a 10% reduction in car traffic - these schemes won't "bed in" as not enough people will stop using their cars. That means 90 odd percent of the traffic has to find another way. And your comment on Dulwich Village not showing red on the Daily Mail map is because the map is not zoomed in far enough to show non A-roads. That's how Google Maps works you would have to zoom in further to see how non A-roads are being impacted.

That map shows exactly what many on here were predicting - that Dulwich will soon be encircled by constant gridlock - although I hasten to add that I am not using Google Maps on the Daily Mail as the gospel! What is interesting is that it appears both sections of the A205 west and east were struggling - at 8.30am it is normally only the west bound section that is congested but it appears eastbound too now - no doubt as people avoid using Dulwich Village. It will probably be even worse come evening rush-hour. Also, Lordship Lane now seems to be very red.

Unfortunately this was inevitable. It is a particular trait of politicians nowadays (of all persuasions) that once people start scrutinising what they are doing and press for accountability the politicians run for the hills. What is particularly galling about Cllr McAsh is that he actively used this forum to seek support for his schemes and then just discarded it when people starting asking the difficult questions (which he obviously didnt want to have to answer). Unless you contact him by email (divide and conquer anyone?) there is no way to interact with him. I am sure that he will probably return at some point (when the council elections are looming) to say that the forum had become toxic or some such PR spin to explain his abandonment of it but the reality nowadays is that far too many politicians are utterly disassociated from their constituents and are ignoring the issues that are important in a local area.

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Suoerquick order of planters for the new SE22 > sites. I wonder how long Dulwich Village will > have to wait for the cameras to really muck it up > totally. I suspect they wanted to get them in before/as the schools went back so they can blame the congestion and chaos on an increase in school traffic. Look how quickly Cllr Livingstone was to grandstand to his echo chamber on twitter yesterday.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > heartblock Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > Frustrated car drivers making dangerous > turns > > > in > > > > the road... children walking to school > > > breathing > > > > in traffic fumes. Time to rethink road > > > closures. > > > > > > The answer to traffic fumes - make it easier > > for > > > people to drive anywhere they like! > > > > > > But you have to admit a moving car emits less > > fumes than a stationary car - so why create > > gridlock and stationary traffic if you are > trying > > to reduce pollution? > > You're not supposed to have the engine on when > stationary. > > https://www.edf.org/attention-drivers-turn-your-id > ling-engines#:~:text=Turn%20off%20your%20ignition% > 20if,driving%20it%2C%20not%20by%20idling. They are supposed to but they do don't they - you're confusing the dream world with the real world and we deal with real world consequences and we can all say, categorically, that these closures are causing more congestion therefore more pollution on those roads not closed.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I believe some schools have gone back today and > as > > I ran through Dulwich Village this morning at > > around 7.30am there was stationary traffic from > > the Village roundabout going northbound all the > > way to the East Dulwich Grove junction. The > folly > > of these closures is there for us all to see > and > > we know the council is going to try and close > the > > village northbound to chase the displacement > away > > from the area but these closures are not > working > > and are creating far worse problems than > before. > > I ran through Dulwich Village this morning at > 7:30. It was pretty quiet. So what's this mean? Well as I didn't run through the village this morning I cannot challenge that and but what I can say is my wife did at around 8.30am and her exact words to me upon her return was: "OMG it's gridlock in Dulwich Village - who was stupid enough to believe this wasn't going to be the outcome"....and my wife is always right! ;-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Frustrated car drivers making dangerous turns > in > > the road... children walking to school > breathing > > in traffic fumes. Time to rethink road > closures. > > The answer to traffic fumes - make it easier for > people to drive anywhere they like! But you have to admit a moving car emits less fumes than a stationary car - so why create gridlock and stationary traffic if you are trying to reduce pollution?

Richard Livingstone confirming it to the Dulwich Society twitter feed saying he approved them all but the council website has not been updated. The whole lot appears to be moving forward as someone asked if the DV, Burbage and Turney were approved and he said yes - in addition to Derwent, Melbourne North etc. It's going to be chaos.

Looks like the council approved the next batch of closures as they chase the displacement. More misery for the residents of those roads not being closed ....

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > ...also, what is the evidence that Lordship > > Lane > > > and Dulwich Common have seen increases in > > traffic > > > as a result of Calton Avenue being made a no > > > through road? > > > > Have you taken a walk (or cycle) around any of > the > > impacted areas recently - if not, go and take a > > look for yourself - it's quite shocking how > much > > heavier the traffic is on those roads. As I > said > > yesterday, there was a huge tailback northbound > > through the village at 7.30am yesterday > morning. > > > > The council have now agreed to put monitoring > > along all the main roads surrounding the > closures > > to determine whether there has been an increase > in > > traffic along those road - but of course not > sure > > what conclusions they will be able to draw as > they > > have no base as they weren't monitoring before > the > > closures. Which is all a bit odd as they had > been > > lobbying for the DV closures for a long-time > > before Covid and they knew what they wanted to > do. > > It will be interesting to know whether they > manage > > to get the monitoring in place before the > second > > road of closures they are suggesting - if I was > a > > betting man I'd suggest they won't. > > > > They are not, however, doing any pollution > > monitoring on the impacted roads. I believe > that > > is due to the cost but the cynics might say > that > > it is because they know what the outcome will > be. > > Remember, their last meddling with the DV > junction > > lead to a "moderate" increase pollution so the > > current closes will undoubtedly have led to a > > significant increase in pollution but if they > are > > not monitoring we won't ever know. > > > > All in all the council are rushing these plans > > through and have not given proper thought to > the > > longer-term impacts and are now desperately > > chasing the displacement. > > This is the plan - eventually people will rethink > their transport if they sit in queues all day. > I'm not saying thats good but it seems to be one > of the way things are done these days. 10% - that's all you get....a 10% reduction in car use but at what cost elsewhere.....that is what a lot of us are worried about, that the ends don't justify the means and in fact the means are far, far more damaging.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...also, what is the evidence that Lordship Lane > and Dulwich Common have seen increases in traffic > as a result of Calton Avenue being made a no > through road? Have you taken a walk (or cycle) around any of the impacted areas recently - if not, go and take a look for yourself - it's quite shocking how much heavier the traffic is on those roads. As I said yesterday, there was a huge tailback northbound through the village at 7.30am yesterday morning. The council have now agreed to put monitoring along all the main roads surrounding the closures to determine whether there has been an increase in traffic along those road - but of course not sure what conclusions they will be able to draw as they have no base as they weren't monitoring before the closures. Which is all a bit odd as they had been lobbying for the DV closures for a long-time before Covid and they knew what they wanted to do. It will be interesting to know whether they manage to get the monitoring in place before the second road of closures they are suggesting - if I was a betting man I'd suggest they won't. They are not, however, doing any pollution monitoring on the impacted roads. I believe that is due to the cost but the cynics might say that it is because they know what the outcome will be. Remember, their last meddling with the DV junction lead to a "moderate" increase pollution so the current closes will undoubtedly have led to a significant increase in pollution but if they are not monitoring we won't ever know. All in all the council are rushing these plans through and have not given proper thought to the longer-term impacts and are now desperately chasing the displacement.