Rockets

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > except that, D and S, OneDulwich is fake. It wants > the best for Dulwich Village Not all of Dulwich. Not entirely accurate. They certainly started as a group based around the streets in Area B but saw that these changes impact people across the area and are representing the area as a whole - they have asked supporters to help them consolidate any such measures being implemented by the council into a single concerted effort). The reason they are gaining so much support is that the council doesn't view the area as a whole (as demonstrated by the 68% of people who voted for no CPZ and the council tweaking things to ensure they got to put a CPZ in place). The constituents are responding to the need for an area-wide consultation and approach to these issues and a far more balanced and pragmatic approach - and given the attacks on One Dulwich by the pro-closure lobby they are definitely doing the right thing! The council needs to take note and change the habit of a lifetime and actually listen to the majority!

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Rockets - TFL are not responsible for all London > roads, or the costs of the damage cars cause. The > amount of money spent on cars (and cleaning up > after cars), is huge and far greater than > infrastructure for walking or cycling. I can?t > believe it?s even something you?d honestly > challenge Rahrahrah - I am merely challenging you on your hyperbole - you often quote things that have little grounding in fact. That's another thing that frustrates people about the way this is all managed by both the council and the pro-change lobby - they quote nonsense and massage the figures to their own advantage - and the most glaring example of this is the 47% increase in traffic that the council grounded their DV Healthy Streets propaganda on - a complete lie. People dance in the streets and have street parties whilst around the corner life becomes worse for those impacted by the displacement. The issue here is that these changes are causing utter chaos, increasing congestion and pollution and you, and the other lobbyists, won't acknowledge that. Instead you implore the council to put more blockades in to try and deal with the problems they have created.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We all agree something has to be done about > pollution... but not if it makes driving more > difficult. 🤔 Err no, not if it makes driving more polluting....remember the last DV alterations led to a ?moderate? increase in pollution.....

Rahrahrah, to address some of your points: >It's not that unrealistic to share a little of the public realm, through the opening of a couple of streets topedestrians and cyclists is it?Actually, most local journeys are incredibly short and could be done on foot. A little over a third (35 per cent) of >all car trips are shorter than 2 km. Some journeys need to be done by car - that's fine. But they are the minority >and a 5 minute diversion isn't going to make them impossible. Yes but by default that means two-thirds are longer than 2km which suggests the majority of journeys may not translate well to cycling or walking. Also, if you factor in children or bags of shopping the distance people are prepared to walk or cycle reduces dramatically. Within the same TFL report, from which you take the one third stat, they went on to say that the further out of London you go the more car use becomes more prevalent. They also go on to say that areas with poor transport links also have higher car use. As do those areas with a high number of families with children. All of the previous statements are interlinked and apply to Dulwich. You suggest that the number of journeys needing to be done by car is in the minority but I am not sure the stats back you up on that one. You say a 5 minute diversion isn't going to make them impossible. You're right, but that does increase pollution and congestion on the diversion route - which is counter to the whole point of having these measures. TFL's spending goes in this order: London Underground, Buses, Rail (including CrossRail) with Roads a distant 4th place. And I suspect if you were to analyse the space dedicated solely to car use over the last 5 years it has declined massively already - just think of all the dedicated bus and bike lanes that have been installed in recent years. I am not saying that is a bad thing but as some point you have to say this is getting a bit silly. I understand why you take 2 lanes of Vauxhall Bridge and dedicate that to cyclists (although bar the rush-hour the lanes pretty much sit idle) but can't see how closing off Melbourne Grove or Dulwich Village will have the same impact. I am not sure the evidence backs this up and for some time people have been saying that cycling has peaked in the capital - it's growth has trebled since the 90s but it still represents just a fraction of the number of journeys made in the city on daily basis (be that by public transport or cars). The cycling lobby say this is because more infrastructure is needed; opponents say it's because London is a megacity and too sprawling and the weather too unpredictable to entice the majority to switch to bikes. We get pitched examples from Amsterdam about how cities can become cycling friendly but Amsterdam is a fraction of the size of London. As someone who has commuted long distances on a bike to and from work in London I can tell you that some days it was utterly diabolical, especially in the winter. It's why the majority of those who do commute in London on bikes are an extension of the Mamil tribe - hardy souls who love cycling more than they love being comfortable or able to feel their extremities! ;-) For all the people posting celebratory pics of the DV closures and their children cycling and lauding what a victory it was I can guarantee you than none of them got on a bike today in the rain if they had to go somewhere! Nor will the majority of them be encouraging their kids in February to hop on their bikes to get to school and then cycle home in the dark. We all agree that more has to be done to combat pollution and to enable different modes of transportation more effectively but you don't manage that without a cohesive and well-thought out area wide plan that is inclusive and cognisant of all transport modes - chucking a few planters in roads is not a sensible approach and has been shown time and time again to create more congestion and pollution - see Loughborough Junction for a very local example. And given the numbers of households signing up for One Dulwich (800+ and counting from all across the area) it looks as if a lot of people are lusting for a more sanguine and balanced approach. For all our sakes, I very much hope they prevail.

eastdulwichhenry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've just taken my first walk up Melbourne Grove > since the restrictions came in, and it's made such > a difference. Hardly any traffic, peace and quiet, > this is long overdue. I just hope the council has > the guts to face down the petrol heads and apply > more of these pinch points. I've been as guilty as > anyone of overusing the car for local journeys, > but our streets are just too clogged and polluted > and unsafe right now and frankly this is long > overdue. Thank you Southwark and London authority. How was it on East Dulwich Grove or Lordship Lane? Did the peace and tranquillity you so enjoyed extend to there or was traffic and pollution a lot worse because Melbourne Grove has been closed? ;-) And are we to presume you will be selling your car now you have seen the light?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you want to reduce traffic, improve air > quality, and encourage walking and cycling, then > you have to restrict the number of car journeys. > It's pretty simple. > > The majority of people in Southwark don't have > access to a car. Most streets have two lanes for > parked cars / long term vehicle storage and two > more for moving traffic. This doesn't leave much > room for people. The amount of resource given over > to car drivers is completely disproportionate and > the reaction of people to a few pretty timid > attempts to reallocate a little space to make it > easier for people to get about, is pretty > incredible imo. > > 'One Dulwich' seem to be calling for local > residents to be exempt from restrictions applied > to others. If you live on Court Lane, or Carlton > Avenue, you're looking at perhaps another 5 > minutes in the car to get round the diversions. > Alternatively, if you're not going far and you're > part of the majority of people who are able to > cycle or walk, perhaps you could do so. After all, > they claim to be in favour of healthy streets. Just because the majority of people don't own a car in Southwark is not a justification for punishing those people who do - your comments highlight the reason so many people get annoyed by the utopian view of the world taken by some on the forum who hail the "turn all the streets to cycle only" narrative. It is a narrative and aspiration that is wholly unrealistic. I cycle. My whole family cycles. I also have a car. I cycle when I can but use my car when I need to - be that on journeys that are too long to cycle or involve transporting people or things that I can't get on my bike. I also drive when the weather is terrible - I don't like arriving looking like a drowned rat - I also prefer driving when it is cold, wet and dark. I used to cycle 10 miles each way to my office but don't anymore as my office moved even further away. This is how most people use their cars and blocking roads may reduce car use by 10% (if you're lucky). If people's eyes are blinkered by their belief that everyone can cycle or walk then they can't see, or are ignoring, the bigger challenges faced by a huge metropolis. Which is why a more inclusive and measured approach to traffic management is required. Not one that relies on the false promise that "Close the Streets and the bikes will follow". It just doesn't work like that. Rahrahrah - I presume you don't own or need a car?

Can I suggest anyone who has not yet commented takes time to negatiate the council's really biased questionnaire and posts their thoughts on the improvement works here by following the link below. It's really important that the council sees a true reflection of feelings towards these works as it seems those who asked for it have mobilised to post their "we love it" comments on the page. [dulwichvillagestreetspace.commonplace.is]

Dulres3 - absolutely spot-on. This is why so many are registering their support for One Dulwich. We all want less car journeys. We all want less pollution. We are all trying to walk and cycle more But we still have to use a car.... The utopians on here would have you believe you shut a few streets and you can scrap your car...it doesn't work like that in real life.....

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The goal is to reduce car use, I think most can > agree on that. > > Unlike parking proposals which can be seen as a > form of taxation these road closures clearly have > only one intention. The trouble is that road > closures effect different people in different ways > and it is hard sometimes to see the bigger > picture. And in the short term things get worse. > > It may be that the closures are misguided but the > pain of it has a purpose. We all subscribe to the idea that car use needs to reduce but council also wilfully ignores the fact that a very large percentage of traffic is not local traffic - you may close roads off and 10% more people cycle because they live within a stone's throw of their destination and they have found that driving becomes a massive inconvenience but the vast majority of journeys still take place - they just get funnelled down an ever decreasing number of route options which ultimately increases congestion and pollution and makes life a misery for many more people than those who benefit. Remember, the first round of DV works which were designed to improve the pollution led to a "moderate" increase in pollution. I use "moderate" as that was taken from the council's own report so we can probably interpret that as significant rather than moderate but the bottom line is the works created more congestion and increased pollution. These latest works are doing the same but moving the pollution elsewhere to an area the council will not be monitoring.

James, Lordship Lane pavements have been widened at one point outside Moxons. Is that it? Hundreds of suggestions were made to you via this forum and the interactive map set-up by the council - how many of these suggestions have actually been actioned? It appears the council have been found sleeping at the wheel when it comes to assisting social distancing on Lordship Lane......

rheller Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I cycled from East Dulwich to Dulwich Village > Infants School then back to East Dulwich Charter > School this morning to drop off both my children. > I was cycling between 8.30 and 9.30 and the > traffic was fine - it wasn?t backed up or > congested. Townley Road didn?t have much queuing > traffic and neither did Dulwich Village. It was a > pleasant experience and it certainly felt safer as > a cyclist. > > I cycled back home along Melbourne Grove - again > this seems to have settled down and it was an > enjoyable and calm cycle along the road. May I ask - in the depths of winter when the days are cold, wet and short would this be your preferred way to get to the school? If you were to drive which route would you take? Everyone who can is doing more cycling now as the days are warm, dry and long and many are working from home allowing more flexibility to drop and pick children up from school. When many return to work and days draw in many may not have the option to cycle.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where?s the pavement being widened? I think James is referring to the one section outside of Oddonos and Moxons where the council put some temporary widening measures in place a week or so ago. There doesn?t seem to be any anywhere else as far as I am aware. James, are there any plans for any other measures to assist on Lordship Lane? As I am sure you are aware there are many more choke points along the road and given traffic seems much heavier along Lordship Lane since the street closures the council has implemented across the area it will be interesting how the council plans to further aid social distancing.

One Dulwich are the catalyst for people across the area to have their voices heard. What the council has done, by repeatedly listening only to the voices they want to hear, is create a culture of distrust in everything they do. One Dulwich is the constituents? response and one that, if I was a local councillor, I would be concerned about as it really shows the numbers of people who feel like they are being ignored. The councillors love a revolution so let?s see how they manage this one....one of their own creating...;-)

But they do have money to install new pavement paving slabs in parts of the area - the latest being Overhill Road....makes you wonder if there is a Trojan horse at play here....

I think the most interesting read in that document (from the feb 4 post) is that the council actually has long-term ambitions to close Dulwich Village to all vehicular access northbound from the roundabout at College Road and Gallery Road....

I went for a run this morning at 6.30am and it was noticeable how much busier the A205 and Dulwich Village were. I think what the council have done is created an even busier thorough-fare through Dulwich Village - there used to be a natural dispersal of cars along Calton and Court Lane but now people are faced with the prospect of joining a line of traffic along the A205 (which incidentally was tailing back from the Grove Tavern to Dulwich College this morning - this may or may not be linked but it was odd for that time of the morning) and will instead take their chances through Dulwich Village and then work their way around the road blocks. By removing the turn into Calton and Court Lane Dulwich Village is now a fast main road - there are no longer cars slowing others by waiting to turn across the junction - which used to control traffic flow and speed outside the shops in the village. It's funny isn't it that road management seems hellbent on preventing dispersal - it's a bit like designing multiple exits OUT of a sports stadium and telling everyone to use a single entrance.

Fishboy, not entirely correct - it?s pretty clear what the council relayed to residents about the school?s thoughts on their suggestions... ?Following further discussions, we have decided to de-scope the proposed scheme in order to ensure access is maintained at all times to residents. We did approach the school about a potential timed closure operated at one or both of the junctions, however they felt it would not address the main issues they?d raised and that they did not have the necessary resources in order to be able to operate the barriers in the morning and afternoon.? They felt it would not address the main issues they?d raised. I read that as the school had relayed their wishes and what the council suggested in return didn?t work for them. Your point about people dropping children at school is a valid one and this doesn?t fix that, it just creates drop points elsewhere. The council sends traffic wardens and CCTV cars to sit outside many schools, have they sent any to Goodrich to police the school drop time?

Ah excellent, they finally listened! Better late than never. Anywhere else?

Did someone issue a dispersal order for some of the new posters on this site too! ;-) So glad the issue has been dealt with, such a shame that a few idiots can ruin it for a lot of people who were enjoying the views and early summer evenings.

As we know from Loughborough Junction, complaints from emergency services are often the undoing of ill-thought out and badly implemented council plans! Time will tell on this one too. And remember, it?s not about access per se but the congestion pressure these measures create elsewhere leading to delays in response times and putting lives at risk.

James, I note with interest that Rye Lane in Peckham has had significant efforts to aid social distancing for shoppers in place since May 1st - your boss proudly tweeted pictures of the new traffic light contraflow system to allow social distancing on May 1st. Any reason why you haven?t been able to implement any aids to social distancing on Lordship Lane - or could you not get wide community support for anything? Also, do you have updates on all the great ideas people suggested in response for your request for ideas? An update on progress might be timely.

I see the activists are hailing this all as a victory whilst pressuring the council for more! Ha ha, they'll never be happy! I particularly love the way CleanAirDulwich is trying to spin a complaint from This is Dulwich Village that the pollution levels have gone through the roof since the blockade was put in tries to spin it for more closures! https://twitter.com/CleanAirDulwich/status/1277895431901589507?s=09 And there's more from MumsforLungs, Dulwich Safe Routes and so the list goes on and on - who are these people and why do they wield such power with the council?!

If you take a quick look at Google Maps you can see that the council appears to have created a ring of red stationery traffic around Dulwich - A205, Lordship Lane, ED Grove, Half Moon Lane and Croxted Road. It's early days of course but traffic does seem to be a lot heavier everywhere on the basis of these closures. Even Melbourne Grove is showing red - is it as chaotic as it seems?

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You need to start somewhere though. > > And unfortunately, there is an air quality crisis > in London, and there are too many car journeys. > > Long consultations and hand-wringing aren't the > way forward - better infrastructure comes from > many, many small things over time with additive > effect rather than massive initiatives that happen > all at once. > > So, you close some junctions, install some lanes, > drop some kerbs, and you keep doing it. It's > deeply unsexy in terms of what you actually have > to do. And people will moan about it, as they do > all over the world. And yes, people will be > unhappy as it's the status quo being changed, and > people are averse to the status quo changing. > > What you have in this area particularly is > highly-mobilised, university educated people who > are very wedded to their cars, so not > surprisingly, they are moaning about it loudly. Is being highly-mobilised and university educated something to be ashamed of? Should we overlook the concerns of that group to favour others? I think the approach taken by the council looks to many like something being driven by political ideology to attack the people in "leafy Dulwich" and when you look at the hap-hazard nature of their plans, the lack of any support for Lordship Lane you can see why this narrative gets significant resonance.

dulwichquine Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just wondering why the council has closed the DV > junction just as the schools are closing?! If > deemed necessary to protect school children, why > not do it for when schools re-open? It's because they can fudge the figures - I guarantee you they will compare pre-Covid traffic levels to the next 3 months when they know there are no schools and some people are still working from home and claim the measures are a rip-roaring success. Cut to the late-Autumn when schools are back, the weather is dire and people are back at work and worried about public transport and it will be chaos. As we have seen before you can't believe anything the council uses to justify their current cause-celebre and I suspect we can see what they are planning already for this project...