Serena2012

I can?t upload photos, but my experience of the Northern section of East Dulwich Grove over the past two days: Queuing traffic stretching down EDG from the junction of Lordship Lane even further than the junction of Elsie Road for an hour from between 8.15/8.30 both days Queuing traffic of similar length for two hours between 12.30 and 2.30 both days Queuing traffic of a similar length for around 3 hours from 3.30ish yesterday evening. Traffic is at a standstill again now. How is this acceptable? This is against a backdrop of there being hardly any idling traffic on this stretch of road previously. In fact, I can only remember it happening once before, despite having lived here for the best part of a decade. There have been a lot more sirens as well, as emergency vehicles desperately fight their way through the tailbacks. And as for those taking photos claiming this isn?t the case, I?d love to know on which roads you live.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Which end of the roads have they stuck the new > planters? The Grove Vale end. This is putting enormous pressure on the junction of EDG and Lordship Lane, resulting in a significant amount of idling traffic on the Northernmost stretch of EDG. In essence, the traffic on Lordship Lane is also very heavy, and there aren?t sufficient breaks in the traffic to allow vehicles to turn from EDG onto Lordship Lane quickly enough to prevent a build up of traffic on EDG.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It was always busy on East Dulwich Grove, but this > morning traffic driving up to the Village was at a > standstill and cars were belching out fumes. Walk > down the road at 8:00 tomorrow to see for > yourself. Maybe stand there for 30 minutes and > breath in the lovely fumes. I strongly believe in > people taking up cycling, walking and driving > electric cars. I also support healthier streets.. > but for all residents, not just the lucky gated > few that now have all their traffic on my road, > outside my house, polluting my family. Hear hear Heartblock. I couldn?t agree more. And YES RahRah, the traffic on the Northern section of EDG today is worse than it has ever been.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > slarti b Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > @bestnamesetc > > Which roads do your childern use to get to > school, > > The ones the councillors are diverting > traffic > > onto? > > > My kids walk to school. Anyone driving their kids > to school shouldn't be allowed to live in London. My kids will also walk to school, and by and large, for those who are state educated, or indeed privately educated at nearby schools, this is feasible. The difficulty arises in the context of the area?s private schools (and indeed, state schools with very large catchments), where you have parents from all over South London driving their children to school. I don?t condone this behaviour, BUT I can totally see that if you live in Clapham, Brockley or Forest Hill and have a child at Alleyn?s, JAGS or Dulwich Prep, if they?re too young for school coaches, with public transport East- West being so poor, the only realistic way of getting them to school, unless you?re a very confident cyclist (and even then, cycling more than one child is tricky), is to drive. I say this, as someone who now has queuing traffic outside their home for the first time as a result of these changes. It has been obvious from the start that closing roads without addressing the reason people jump into their cars to begin with (which is that public transport infrastructure in this part of London is very poor) is a recipe for disaster.

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? Living in the area, and walking around, my own perception is that all of the ?main? roads in the area have become significantly busier, with a lot more queuing traffic since the first tranche of closures were implemented. This is something that many of the other posters on this thread have commented on.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What if you look at Rye Lane? This is a discussion about the closures in Dulwich Village specifically so in this context, Rye Lane is irrelevant.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's been fairly obvious from the start that these > proposals have a (no doubt unintended?) racial > bias. Absolutely. I cannot claim to be a statistical expert, but the census data I?ve reviewed paints a stark picture. If you compare, for example, Byron Court on the Lordship Lane Estate, postcode SE228PB (Nomis output area E00019869) (which I selected as it sits very close to both Lordship Lane and Dulwich Common, two of the roads most negatively impacted by these changes), in the last census this postcode?s population was 51% BAME, 49% white. 64.8% of those living in this location did not have access to a car or van. 26% of homes in this location were owner occupied, of which 12% were owned outright, with 59% being socially rented. Contrast this with Calton Avenue (postcode SE217DE, Nomis output area: E00020522). In the last census, this was 92% white, 8% BAME. Only 9.4% in this postcode did not have access to a car or van. 88% of homes in this area were owner occupied, of which 50% were owned outright. Just 3% were socially rented. In a similar vein, using postcode SE217EF, I looked at the middle section of Court Lane (Nomis area output: E00020528), 88% white; 12% BAME. Only 6.5% did not have access to a car or van. Even more eye-wateringly, 48.2% of households had 2 or more cars or vans. 95% of properties were owned occupied, of which 55% were owned outright. Just 1% of homes were socially rented. This is particularly concerning given: 1. The growing body of research suggesting that even a very small increase in fine particulate air pollution (of 1 microgram per cubic metre of PM2.5), significantly increases the severe morbidity and mortality in the context of Covid-19 2. The fact that idling traffic (which is what these changes have caused), is far more polluting than free flowing traffic. 3. The research published by Public Health England, (see for example, ?Beyond the Data: Understanding the impact of COVID-19 on BAME Groups? which concludes that COVID-19 impacts those from BAME backgrounds disproportionately.

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.

Edited as I stand corrected in view of James Barber?s email below. To be clear, I had heard this from what I would ordinarily consider a reliable source, so I was not deliberately spreading misinformation. I was also very clear in my post that this was unsubstantiated.

My concern is that the next phase of the OHS (i.e. the bit that never happened) was the modelling phase which, had it been published would have allowed interested parties (on both sides of the fence) to fully understand the implications prior to implementation. Instead, they?ve jumped head first into implementation without any heed as to the likely consequences. The closures of Melbourne North, Tintagel, Elsie and Derwent (brought about by the Goose Green councillors, who commissioned their own hugely biased survey, targeted only at the residents of the roads standing to benefit, without any attempt whatsoever to engage those on neighbouring streets) were not part of the OHS. As far as I am aware, in the context of the closures of these 4 specific roads, there has been no modelling whatsoever. I am told by councillor McAsh that their assumption is that the combined impact (of all closures irrespective of location) on EDG would ?not be significant? (whatever that may mean). I have literally no idea what evidence he has to back this up, as perhaps unsurprisingly, he has not been forthcoming in sharing this. My own first hand evidence of tailbacks and idling traffic in circumstances where this did not happen previously; a junction with Lordship Lane that is utterly saturated, and even more dangerous than it was previously, as well as gridlock on the Goose Green roundabout would suggest to the contrary, but it appears that because I happen to live on a ?main? road, my views do not matter one jot!

James - And as one final point, as I think this is often missed in discussions about rerouting/ displacing traffic. Contrary to what Southwark appear to believe, the stretch of East Dulwich Grove running between Lordship Lane and Melbourne Grove, is in fact very narrow, and no wider than Melbourne North. This is precisely why there are parking restrictions almost its entire length (and by that, I mean no parking at all on either side of the road). Moreover, it is so narrow in part that two sizeable vehicles, including buses, cannot pass without one stopping to let the other go by. With that in mind, and taking into account the significant issues with the Lordship Lane/ East Dulwich Grove junction, increasing traffic on this stretch of EDG is hugely problematic, as the road simply isn?t able to cope with it. My suspicion is that the knock on impact on bus journey times will be significant. I?m genuinely concerned that neither the Goose Green councillors nor Southwark have properly considered the implications.

James - I agree that failing to address the problems all these closures are causing/ likely to cause for the Lordship Lane/ EDG junction is a recipe for disaster. The reality is, that as a result of the closures that have already happened, Lordship Lane is busier than it?s ever been. This is making it hard for traffic from EDG to turn left onto Lordship Lane and vice versa, as the breaks in traffic travelling in the opposite direction that need to happen to allow them to do so are far less frequent than they were previously. The proximity of this junction to the Goose Green roundabout is also problematic, and living nearby, I?ve already, in recent weeks witnessed the roundabout at a complete standstill more than once, simply because traffic wanting to turn from Lordship Lane onto EDG can?t do so quickly enough, and accordingly the queue formed stretches onto the roundabout. My sense is that it will be really difficult (due to the proximity of the junction to the Goose Green roundabout) to put in a solution that meets the twin objectives of increasing pedestrian safety (which is what a zebra crossing would do and the junction is crying out for), without risking the creation of even more tailbacks that would gridlock the Goose Green roundabout. We?re certainly getting far more queues of idling traffic on EDG wanting to make the turn onto Lordship Lane, in circumstances where I can only remember this happening once in a blue moon previously. Closing Melbourne North; Elsie et al will no doubt make this worse. Whilst I wouldn?t be completely averse to the trialing of school street closures on all these roads, I?m concerned that the blunt instrument currently being used will result in utter chaos at what is already a dangerous junction, as well as gridlocking the roundabout. This will have negative consequences both for bus journey times and anyone needing emergency assistance. Separately (and as an aside), my sense is that the volume of traffic on Melbourne North has decreased significantly since Melbourne South was closed (not least as most of the short cut, allowing you to leapfrog a good chunk of Lordship Lane is gone), so whilst I don?t doubt there will still be some rat runners on this stretch, I?m not convinced the 4.6K figure quoted is an accurate reflection of the traffic on Melbourne North since Melbourne South was closed. I?m not convinced therefore that the ?problem? these permeable closures sets out to resolve is quite as acute as it was previously.

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here is a recent study on the effect of school > street closures. > > > https://www.napier.ac.uk/about-us/news/school-stre > et-closures I have to confess that I am supportive of school streets, which are in any event, not 24/7 closures, 365 days a year. However, what Southwark are implementing here goes way beyond school streets. Not least as many of the roads standing to benefit including, Burbage Road, the section of Turney proposed for closure, Calton Avenue, Court Lane, Melbourne South and Derwent Grove have no schools on them. In fact, it is clear that many of their proposals will worsen the air quality at the area?s schools.

I?ve had a look and can?t seem to find a petition. I would sign one in an instant if it was set up!

Southwark are very much using the Streetspace initiative to bring the OHS proposals in via the back door, so in reality, we can expect to see all of those being implemented, plus some other pet projects (such as the totally self-serving 24/7 closures of Elsie, Derwent, Melbourne North and Tintagel Crescent in the Goose Green ward where school street closures would have sufficed). What angers me the most is that unlike OHS which had a big budget, and plans to model traffic flows before implementation, and to carefully monitor and tweak these changes, this is being brought in on a shoestring. With no transparency or accountability and very little intention to monitor the impact on the boundary roads bearing the burden of these changes. These boundary roads being the roads that house the majority of the area?s schools. The Village itself will ultimately be fine, but OHS was always about preserving an oasis in the leafy streets of Dulwich, by shifting the burden of pollution elsewhere. It is a disgrace that the full results of the OHS consultation have not been published in circumstances where all its recommendations will soon be implemented.

roywj Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is clearly significantly more traffic at a > standstill during rush hours in Dulwich Village > travelling towards the crossroads at Village > Way/EDG/Red Post Hill. This will get worse when > schools return and will increase pollution for > Dulwich Infants, Dulwich Hamlet & JAPs schools. > > There is also clearly significantly more traffic > at a standstill during rush hours on East Dulwich > Grove looking to turn right into Townley Road. > This again will get worse when the schools return > and will increase pollution for JAGs. > > Both issues above can be clearly linked to the > road closure on Calton Avenue. I understand that > there was a traffic problem on Calton Avenue but > closure of the road has created the problems above > affecting pollution levels outside local schools. I think in practice, it is highly likely the council will impose further restrictions on traffic through Dulwich Village (perhaps, for example by limiting movement northbound to buses; residents and bikes), so it may well be that come October (or whenever they are implemented), the impact on the village schools will be less. There are however no plans to mitigate (or indeed, anything concrete) to monitor traffic on the A roads, so in reality the situation on EDG, Village Way and Half Moon Lane is only set to get worse.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Out of interest, can anyone who is in favour of > these closures please articulate to me why they > are necessary?" > > The dream is to make car ownership so unattractive > that everyone sells their cars and takes chances > with coronavirus on a local bus instead. I totally get that this is no doubt Southwark?s aim BUT unlike Court Lane and Calton Avenue these are very very short roads intersecting two main A roads, in close proximity to the station and the main shopping thoroughfare on Lordship Lane. Those residents who are able to do so no doubt walk journeys in the immediate vicinity already (anyone who knows this area well will know that parking is somewhat nightmarish, so I very much doubt the residents of these roads are regularly driving the 5 minutes to the station or M&S). For those wanting to undertake longer journeys/ who need to use their cars for whatever reason, blocking one end simply gives the residents the option of driving out the other end, which at most will increase their journey by 10 minutes. I just don?t understand how these measures will change behaviours. For those residents driving their kids to the local private schools, closing the Grove Vale end will make little difference as they were almost certainly going to be driving down EDG to do so anyway. I totally get why you might want to implement school street closures on some of these roads, but anything beyond that seems to me to have everything to do with nimbyism and very little to do with active travel or attempting to reduce air pollution. With that in mind, I find the enthusiasm with which the Goose Green councillors supported this proposal to be completely bewildering.

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does anyone on here not feel at all guilty about > traffic displacement? That report on 11% > disappearing traffic is so out of date as to be > meaningless in the particular geography of our > bigger area. I feel guilty about Croxted Rd which > will have it all coming down on them, along with > Rosendale Rd. Or Lordship Lane. As a resident of one of the roads directly impacted (EDG) all I can say is that the traffic has increased significantly as a result of these closures. I am very concerned about what Autumn will bring (both in terms of further closures; the weather causing those who might otherwise travel actively to jump into cars, and the impact of the schools returning). Against this backdrop, the council?s seeming reluctance to commit to any form of detailed monitoring of the impact on the boundary roads seems utterly bewildering. I can only assume that this is because they wish to avoid the inconvenient truth, which is that all these schemes are doing is to shift the burden of heavy traffic and resultant pollution from one affluent part of the neighbourhood, where car ownership is very high, to its poorer streets. Poorer streets where car ownership is far lower, and where accordingly, many of the residents are not the source of the congestion, yet have to live with the life long health consequences. Poorer streets which house the majority of the area?s schools, and a significant proportion of the area?s social housing. They are doing so against the backdrop of a body of overwhelming evidence demonstrating the significant adverse impact air pollution has on children; in the knowledge that idling traffic is far more polluting than free flowing traffic, as well as evidence indicating that even a small increase in air pollution (of 1 microgram per cubic metre of pm2.5) significantly increases the risk of severe morbidity and mortality in the context of COVID-19. They are also doing so in full knowledge that the last census data shows that many of the streets set to bear the burden of these changes have a much higher BAME population than those that will benefit, in circumstances where evidence suggests that people from BAME backgrounds are more vulnerable to Covid-19. This in my view is utterly unconscionable.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rebs_ED Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > JohnL Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Rebs_ED Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > If roads like Derwent Grove are made > > > effectively > > > > dead ends - what do things like the bin > > lorries > > > > do? Or delivery vans? > > > > > > > > > same as they do for Cul de Sacs (the posh > name > > for > > > dead ends) > > > > cul de sacs often have turning circles, don't > > they? - no where for a bin lorry to turn in a > > narrow straight road. > > They will have to reverse the length of the roads > after collecting the bins and then reverse out of > the roads onto either Lordship Lane or East > Dulwich Grove depending on which end the barriers > are. Isn't that going to force them to perform an > illegal driving maneuver of reversing onto busy > roads? Also they can't be too pleased with having > to reverse down the length of a road. Surely the > council would need to do some sort of risk > assessment? Rockets - Just to clarify, the plan is to put the barriers at the Grove Vale end of each of these streets. I am assuming that this is to address the argument I (and no doubt others) made to the Goose Green councillors when this scheme was initially pitched, which is that the scheme would end up worsening air pollution on Grove Vale running past Goose Green school. The NO2 levels outside Goose Green school have previously been assessed as in breach of government and WHO guidelines (although I?m conscious the school has worked hard with green screen initiatives to try and mitigate this). In practice however, even in Summer without school traffic, the Goose Green roundabout is already struggling to cope with the increased burden caused by road closures elsewhere, so much so that I?ve witnessed it at a standstill more than once. There is therefore in my view a very high probability that come Autumn, the combined impact of all these closures will cause queues of idling traffic outside Goose Green school, in circumstances where they did not exist previously.

To be fair, Derwent Grove is likely to be the most problematic in terms of turning. At least with Elsie you could reverse half way down then use the junction with Tintagel to turn; and do something similar with Jarvis Road on Melbourne. Just to add, I don?t drive, and I?m not advocating these as safe manoeuvres, but I?m assuming this is what delivery vans etc would end up doing. Of course, in both cases, it involves using what is basically the entrance to a school (Charter ED and Goose Green) respectively as your turning circle, which is less than ideal for all sorts of reasons. Out of interest, can anyone who is in favour of these closures please articulate to me why they are necessary? I walk down all four roads regularly and far from being rat runs, other than at school drop off and pick up on Elsie and Melbourne, they are in fact very quiet. Indeed, it is unusual for more than one vehicle to drive past in the entire time it takes me to walk down each street. I can see the merit of school streets on Melbourne, Tintagel and to a lesser extent Elsie. However, other than forcing every single car owning resident of each of these streets; their delivery vans; their tradesmen etc onto EDG, what exactly are these changes hoping to achieve? I cannot help but think that in circumstances where the junction of EDG and Lordship Lane is already saturated and dangerous, heaping more cars onto it 24/7 is wholly disproportionate.

Thorncombe - I couldn?t agree more. In terms of who to contact, try the following: Richard Livingstone: [email protected] (Southwark cabinet member for transport) Dale Foden: [email protected] (Head of Highways) The Goose Green ward councillors, including James McAsh: [email protected] Helen Hayes MP: mailto:[email protected] Thorncombe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who is the person to contact? > > Simply put these barriers won't change a thing and > businesses will get less passing trade. > > An alternative suggestion is perhaps one way > traffic? Surely if something has to change this > would offer a safer environment for all and ot > disrupt traffic. > > Though my experience of Southwark is that they do > consultations then right away ignore them / > actively bias surveys via leading questions. Prime > example.. > I have reviewed the ED CPZ consultation report. > 69% residents were against and 91% businesses were > against. Yet this is the quote I received from the > project PM: > > This decision was made by the cabinet member and > ward councillors and is widely supported by > residents. > > As members of this forum have mentioned, all this > would do is force longer journey's along already > contested roads. More stationary vehicles and > higher pollution. > > Quite frankly in this current situation with > public transport being recommended against it is > bizarre. Moreover we bicker about the necessity of > a car, yes a weekly shop, diy or going to the tip > without a car is possible but very difficult.I > have lived in London without one for over 10 years > but the current situation pushed me to get one. It > has ultimately improved my quality of life.

Roywj- Agreed the junction of Lordship Lane and EDG is a fatal accident waiting to happen. It?s awful, and from previous threads, it sounds very unlikely that traffic lights would work without descending the Goose Green roundabout into near constant gridlock, and as all these roads are bus routes, TFL is very very unlikely to allow this to be pushed through. The sheer volume of traffic turning right from EDG onto Townley every time I?ve walked past in recent weeks suggests to me that it?s unlikely the load on EDG will lessen once Townley is shut. I have heard that Townley might end up as a school street rather than a permanent permeable closure, which is something. Lordship Lane is busier than I?ve ever seen it at present; with huge tailbacks all along it, so it?s hardly in a position to absorb more traffic either. The reality is that rushing in these changes so hastily, and without adequate modelling is a recipe for disaster.

Thanks Roywj. That?s helpful. We haven?t received our letter. Implementation on 14 September is better than August. I wonder why the plans to place permeable barriers on Elsie/ Tintagel/ Derwent and Melbourne refer to August instead. The joys of mixed messages!

James Please can we have an update on the East Dulwich CPZ. I?ve seen that work on the road markings has commenced and that the proposals to turn Melbourne North, Tintagel, Elsie and Derwent roads into exclusive gated communities refer to the CPZ coming into effect in August. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50023482&Opt=0 However, there is no reference to this elsewhere on Southwark?s website, see for example, which still suggests that this is suspended: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/health-and-wellbeing/public-health/for-the-public/coronavirus/impact-on-council-services/coronavirus-parking-restrictions-and-controlled-parking-zones Given that it?s 11 August, if this is to be implemented before the end of the month, you?re not giving residents very long to sort out permits. Please please can we have clarity and guidance on this. I?m fairly sure that when the CPZ was initially suspended, the council explained that all residents would be notified prior to its reinstatement. I see no evidence that this has happened, despite the fact that we are a third of the way through August.

To say I?m disappointed, as a resident of the section of EDG that will be directly impacted is an understatement. This is nimbyism in the extreme. I walk down Melbourne North, Elsie and Derwent regularly and far from being overrun by rat runners, they are in fact very very quiet. Indeed, it?s lucky if a single vehicle drives past in the time it takes me to walk down each road. What these proposals will do however is to force the many many car owners living on these roads past my front door whenever they leave their houses; as well as their tradesmen; delivery vans etc. The junction of Lordship Lane and EDG as well as the Goose Green roundabout are already saturated, yet Southwark think it is acceptable to add to the number of vehicles needing to use these on a daily basis. It will come as no surprise that (based on my review of 2011 census data) the section of EDG set to suffer far worse traffic as a direct consequence of this, does not have a resident?s association; we have far lower owner occupiers than any of the streets standing to benefit; significantly more social housing; a significantly greater BAME population; and far lower levels of car ownership. It is hard to believe that a labour council thinks this is appropriate, particularly as a ?green? initiative in the middle of a global pandemic where individuals from a BAME background are already at far greater risk of contracting coronavirus and dying from it. As with the sister schemes already implemented on Melbourne South and in Dulwich Village, all these schemes do is to divide the community; displace traffic and significantly increase air pollution elsewhere by increasing the volume of traffic on roads that cannot cope with it, thereby significantly increasing the amount of idling traffic. Except for the very very few school children who live on Tintagel Crescent or Melbourne North, practically every child going to school in the area will need to intersect with an A road at some stage. Making these roads more polluted and congested than ever before cannot be in anyone?s interests.