Rockets

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.

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.

Serena2012 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mr.chicken Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Dulres3 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > > Are you using protected characteristics as > > > pejoratives? > > > > Are you quoting me out of context in order to > make > > me sound prejudiced when I'm clearly not? Do > you > > support One Dulwich? > > > > > > > > Ah yes a "holistic solution", one that > > doesn't > > > involve you actually specifying what this > > magical > > > solution is, just that it's out there > > somewhere. > > > This is the thing, none of the people > objecting > > > actually have a solution which is better or > > even > > > as good. And no, doing nothing is not as good. > > > > > > > I haven?t seen any solution from the other > side > > of > > > > A simple "no I have no solution and I think a > mild > > inconvenience in a local drive is far more > > disruptive than the disruption of 4000 people > dead > > per year due to pollution" would have sufficed > as > > an answer. > > > > > > Why can't the pro pollution, pro traffic jam > lobby > > come up with something more convincing than > "nuh > > uh"? > > Having looked at the census data for the roads in > question, the reality is that what these proposals > do is to push traffic onto main roads that have > far greater population density (because they have > more flats); far more social housing; and far more > vulnerable people in the context of Covid-19 (as a > result of their ethnicity). These also happen to > be the roads that house the majority of the area?s > schools. > > Far from reducing air pollution, what these > changes have done so far is to cause idling > traffic in circumstances where it did not exist > previously which significantly increases air > pollution, as does sending those undertaking > essential journeys on a wild goose chase to get > from A to B. I am all for initiatives that improve > air quality. However, they need to be carefully > considered and balance the needs of the community > as a whole. Simply closing a handful of roads and > diverting all the traffic into lengthy tailbacks > elsewhere cannot be hailed a victory in anyone?s > book. It is far too blunt an instrument, and (if > anything) risks increasing the annual death tally > from air pollution. Spot on Serena - unfortunately the pro-closure lobby is way too blinkered to open their eyes and see what is actually happening. These closures, at best, will likely deliver a 10% reduction in traffic which actually causes much bigger displacement problems elsewhere but the pollution NIMBYs won?t ever admit that. Mr Chicken - take a walk down the roads that are being negatively impacted by these closures and then tell us you think it is worth it. If you still aren?t convinced take another walk when the schools go back and see if you re-assess and then another when WFH comes to an end. This increased congestion on these roads won?t go away.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > You know things are bad when even The Guardian > > starts complaining about things that are > supposed > > to be improving the environment....;-) > > > You could say this Guardian writer will now > consider how to kill two birds with one stone when > taking thinks to the dump and perform other tasks > that include driving at the same time. > > This is the plan - the moan is exactly what the > response to the climate emergency is looking for > and it's "nudge" theory I think. If they've gone > to far they'll retract it a bit but it's exactly > the effect they are looking for. But when does the nudge go too far...this looks awfully familiar to what is happening around here...the law of unintended consequences.... What the > council doesn?t appear to have banked on is the > law of unintended consequences. To make the scheme > even greener, the few arterial roads with two > lanes in each direction have now been cordoned off > into single lanes with the other serving as a > cycle route. The result is gridlock. Bus journeys, > that the council are trying to promote, that used > to take 10 minutes now take a minimum of 30 > minutes. Worst of all, ambulances on sirens and > blue lights trying to get to the nearby St > George?s hospital also get stuck in traffic as > there is nowhere for cars and lorries to get out > of their way.

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > John Crace in the Guardian yesterday (every area > is the same!!): > > Thursday > One of the joys of a staycation that I could do > without is that it gave me the opportunity to take > a whole load of garden rubbish to the dump. What > made the experience even more punishing ? normally > this is the sort of activity that gets relegated > to a grumpy Sunday morning ? was that all the > local rat runs to avoid the stationary traffic up > Trinity Road in Wandsworth have been cordoned off > and the six-mile round trip took well over 90 > minutes. About a year ago, the council apparently > did an online consultation ? I somehow must have > missed the email alert that was presumably sent > out to everyone in the borough ? but those that > did engage tell me that the response was near > enough 100% against the proposals. And yet > Wandsworth have now used lockdown to make dozens > of residential streets not just inaccessible to > through traffic but to residents as well. The idea > behind the scheme was sound enough: to promote > greener travel by getting more people to use > bicycles and to walk where possible. What the > council doesn?t appear to have banked on is the > law of unintended consequences. To make the scheme > even greener, the few arterial roads with two > lanes in each direction have now been cordoned off > into single lanes with the other serving as a > cycle route. The result is gridlock. Bus journeys, > that the council are trying to promote, that used > to take 10 minutes now take a minimum of 30 > minutes. Worst of all, ambulances on sirens and > blue lights trying to get to the nearby St > George?s hospital also get stuck in traffic as > there is nowhere for cars and lorries to get out > of their way. Wandsworth insists this is only a > short six-month trial and that it will be reviewed > at the end of the year. No one is holding their > breath. You know things are bad when even The Guardian starts complaining about things that are supposed to be improving the environment....;-)

I was really quite shocked how dead parts of London are now: take a walk through Covent Garden and Holborn to see the impact this is having on small and big businesses alike. We walked down Park Lane a few weeks ago and not one of the hotels there were open and the usual super-car valet parking outside the Dorchester was empty bar one less that super-car. We also walked around St Paul's and it was sobering to see the impact on the businesses who provide services to office workers. Scary times for our beloved city.

Anyone else wondering how a tree manages to catch fire in the middle of the night?

Goodness me, are XR still actually around I thought they had extincted themselves following their last round of PR faux-pas: super-glueing themselves to electric trains and getting Emma Thompson to fly first class from LA to join their protest...? ;-) Imagine their surprise when they get into the cities to begin their blockades only to find that the councils blocked the roads ages ago. I don't know about anyone else but XR seem to have zero focus and never seem to know what they are trying to achieve. A bit of a rag tag group of anarchists and hippies who really have no direction at all and after reading that Guardian article they seemingly haven't used the lockdown period to get any. XR does more damage than good when it comes to the anti-pollution lobby.

January for us too. Glad I don't work in office space real estate. Although you have to worry for the businesses in London that survive on the basis of office workers or tourists.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JohnL Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > What is beginning to annoy me is that this > looks > > like a local Tory campaign and the Tories are > > introducing this policy nationally. > > > Totally agree, vilifying Labour Southwark Council > to detract from Tory central Government who > introduced the policy. By this reckoning you must presume that Southwark would willfully implement any central government policy without any pushback at all..... I think what you will find is that local residents are pushing back, and those residents represent every political persuasion, after years of the local council ignoring the views of those who are directly impacted by a host of measures they have implemented.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > andrewc Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Are there any studies that support the idea > that > > more roads reduce traffic? > > > None. More roads equal more traffic. > > When one is accustomed to privilege, equity feels > like oppression. You won't find anyone on here suggesting we need more roads. Just a balanced, fair and equitable use of existing road infrastructure that takes all road users into account - not draconian road closures that please a small minority of road users and residents yet heaps misery on everyone else. And what is happening is not equity, far from it as it is obvious this is displacing traffic from one area to another and only the most blinkered advocate for the closures would deny that. Remember, 89% of the cars will now be going a different route - is that success and achieving the stated goals, no not even close?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My understanding is the Goose Green Labour > Councillors live: > > James Ashworth-McLintock (James McAah) - Nunhead & > Queen's Road ward > Victoria Olisa - Champion Hill ward > Charlie Smith - Dulwich Hills ward > > So no, none of them live on Melbourne Grove. > Please don't make or relate much accusations. James I think the poster may have been confusing the rumour with the DV councillors living on Calton Avenue or one of the roads positvely impacted by the closures. Is that incorrect too?

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is a meta analysis of 33 studies on traffic > calming. > > "the meta-analysis shows that area-wide urban > traffic calming schemes on the average reduce the > number of injury accidents by about 15% > > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/ > pii/S0001457500000464 AndrewC - you do love nothing more than to post 20 year old analysis and reports - it's not actually helping your case you realise...I would probably stop Googling and take a walk down the streets impacted by the council's closures - it's a far more effective way of assessing the real world impact rather than dusting down reports nearly two decades old to desperately try to prove a point....

Cllr McAsh is more than aware of the negative impact these closures are having on the majority of his constituents - remember he was out canvassing door to door on Melbourne Grove lobbying for support for the Melbourne Grove closures on the basis of traffic displacement from the Dulwich Village closures. As many on here predicted the Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove junction is now more dangerous than ever for pedestrians and the pollution levels on Lordship Lane are rocketing and many have been asking whether he is concerned about this and yet we have heard nothing. There seems to be zero accountability for the changes he lobbied for, an unfortunate political weakness amongst politicians nowadays.