first mate

Again, you are getting very confused Earl. Please show where I have stated I am a scientist? Given your Trumpian ability to present and argue using 'alternative' facts, I repeat, we are not a slow city, people want to get around fast. Therefore, if more people take to cycling because they cannot use a car - this is a stated aim of Southwark- it is more likely that the incidences of careless cycling we are seeing will also increase. What are we going to do about it? Any ideas- and no, it is not just about illegally modified e-bikes. "Seeming to suggest" is a very low standard of evidence 🤣

I think we have to factor the ongoing costs of Vanity Square in terms of impact on those with limited mobility etc.. A cost analysis of that long term could be interesting. That aside, I am glad that you have finally made some admission that the cost of this non-mandated space is excessive. It has taken us months to get here though. I have cycled near that space on numerous occasions now and I honestly have not noticed masses of people socialising - the only proof this happens is photos of cyclists (possibly invited by LCC and from all over London) converging for a meet, or of local anti LTN protestors. That is it. As for Christmas day, well if you think spending millions warrants a one day social event then I think we are lost. Plus, it is not as though there are plenty of other places in Dulwich Village for people and Carol singers to congregate as the need arises.

No more spurious or embarrassing than trying to conflate closure and pedestrianisation of a major junction with access of cars to Dulwich Park in the 60's. That aside, are you seriously trying to argue that our local council, for example, is not trying to get people out of cars by changing road design/ access? Are you seriously proposing that our councillor in charge of streets is not on the record as saying he would like to see all cars removed from our streets so that people can walk and cycle?

I refer you back to the Dave Hill article. If cycling increases and we engineer road infrastructure to force people in that direction then we will get more speeding on bikes, more bad behaviour, more illegal modification of e-bikes. We do not live in a slow culture, people want to get from A-Z in the fastest possible time.

It is an outrageous waste of taxpayer money, in a wealthy area, in a cost of living crisis. Closing DP as a cut through, if it was ever genuinely used that way by many, which is doubtful, is beside the point and that closure did not cost millions. Trying to compare closure of DP to cars with closure of a main thoroughfare and junction is ludricous. The only relevance of Dulwich Park to this issue is that it is a large green area where people can meet and socialise- there is also a cafe. This rationale was used by the council for creation of Vanity Square- "a place to socialise", they said. You know and I know, there was absolutely no need to create a small square in which to socialise in Dulwich Village. The area is chock full of places to meet and socialise already. To put a new multi million pound 'carless square' creation on the doorstep of a new housing development offering storage for 20 cars is bonkers and something of an own goal.

No, just highlighting the odd and ironic juxtaposition of the Council's choice to impose a multi million pound but small car free square, right next door to a new development offering parking for 20 cars. Come on, it is a bit unfortunate.

Also remember when Cartuli was Le Chardon and then Thistles, or was it the other way round? Remember Le Chardon as being rather good, had some nice meals there. Franklins used to be called SE22 and Rodney Franklin used to run an antiques shop Camberwell way and you could get a really good Sunday roast there. I also used to like Chandelier, they did good Kedgeree and it was a nice space to visit.

And this was utterly predictable but the cyclisterati, high on their Brooke's saddles, refuse to admit there are any potential problems with the bike and e-bike revolution they are intent on forcing through.

As you well know DKH those properties have only recently been built and up until building actually starts there is always room for plans to change or for council planning to intervene. A "pipsqueak" of a development, offering storage for twenty cars next to a "pipsqueak" of carless junction amendment, costing the council millions. Labelling the latter as a Marxist conspiracy is your phrase, not mine.

I'm interested in the reality of council spending priorities in our area in a cost of living crisis. I am interested in the fact that they can spend millions on non-mandated road works with the express purpose of reducing car use while simultaneously greenlighting a housing development with underground parking for 20 cars, right next door to those road works.

Trying to figure out how the allegedly cash-strapped council drummed up millions to spend on such a small space on some non-mandated roadworks. It is not a great look to impose Vanity Square which meant to deter local traffic and drive it onto boundary roads, meanwhile a brand new development of two car households springs up, literally right next to the square.

I think residents will keep them in their underground garages but given the recent imposition of the LTN and Dulwich Square plus Council and Dulwich Society transport sub committees apparent enthusiasm for making that area as car free as possible, it seems odd. I ask again, is it possible that developers helped in funding work to make Dulwich Square?

i wonder what if any say/input Dulwich Society Transport Committee had on all this? As we know the newish Chair of the subcommittee (installed during Covid if I have understood, when lots of new LTN sympathetic members also joined that sub committee and where sub committee meetings were allegedly well attended by a ward councillor ) is an award winning pro LTN activist. Allegedly the sub committee Chair was key to moves to get 'Vanity Square' underway. Given the proximity of the Square to the development offering storage to twenty cars it just seems strange. Could it be that site developers have helped fund the square?

there were two delis early on, the greek cypriot one run by Mr and Mrs Andreas and then over the road a deli opened run by two chinese guys, but cannot remember the name.

It seems a real lack of joined up thinking by Council, by planners etc.. With two cars each, that is an awful lot more vehicles right next to carless 'vanity square' and LTN. Still, the side roads will have to bear the brunt of that muddle. Still waiting to find out if part of the new pedestrianised area will be given over to bike, e-bike and scooter storage.

Thanks for acting true to form Mal and strengthening the points that Dave Hill makes, below. "It doesn’t help that cycling activists get touchy when this is pointed out. I recently published on social media a photograph of Lime bikes clustered by the entrance to my local Overground station at morning peak time, impeding people going in and out by foot and passers-by alike. It was an image which, I said, captured why so many people find London’s cycling culture alienating. The response was as large, indignant and predictable as usual – a days-long chorus of deflection, special pleading and denial: the Lime bike blockage was not, apparently, the fault of those who did the blocking but a forgivable consequence of failures by “corporate” Lime; there was the customary rush to change the subject to the sins of cars; the routine rule-breaking was dismissed as scarce or as something cyclists are “forced” to do by the cruel injustices they face; it was even contended that criticising cyclists is a form of “othering“, as if it were akin to racism. The latter case is made on behalf of a demographic dominated by affluent white males. Which is the greater, the narcissism or the solipsism?"

Don't know what others think but I find it perhaps a little odd that the brand spanking new (not to mention excruciatingly expensive) housing development on Gilkes, almost adjacent to the newly reconfigured junction, is advertising its properties with private underground parking for not just one but two cars. Private underground parking for 2 cars with access directly in to the houses and EV Charging Point

Does anyone know if there are plans for extensive bike, e-bike and scooter storage at the newly reconfigured Dulwich Junction?

Link to an article that provides a useful summary on reservations that some of us have https://www.onlondon.co.uk/dave-hill-leadership-is-required-to-combat-londons-selfish-cycling-culture/

I think you are right, since this is an important through route it could get very busy. Will this area have lots of storage for e-bikes, I wonder? Earl is now taking us off thread so suggest they do a new thread on the history of car access in Dulwich Park...this one is about LTNs. More pertinent is that DP is used as a through route for cycling commuters, including e-bikes.

Never a through route that I remember. People would park and visit, so really no different to now other than people pay to park. But it wasn't as though you ever had lots of people driving round the park or using it to get from A-Z. What has massively increased is cyclists using local parks as through routes and not all observe sensible speed limits. I have no issue with cyclists in the park other than when they use it as a velodrome. To get this back on thread; do we know if cyclists will have to dismount and wheel through the pedestrianised Dulwich junction?

Spot on.

I don't see those with serious reservations moving on at all. Momentum against some of these measures as well as dubious council behaviour seems to be building.

And yet here you are again, Earl, fixated on trying to persuade us that non-mandated junction re-configurations, with phase 3 only just released, costing millions of pounds, are a great idea.

Surely not. I mean words fail and there was me thinking my spoof conspiracy theory about LCC was far fetched.