slarti b

Lynnea Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >according to modelling car traffic is likely to double when lockdown ends/normal'ish life resumes as public transport > capacity will remain likely significantly reduced. Can you provide a link to that research to show that likely to double please and also does it explicity claim that traffic in London will double? I think there will be many factors at play, people using cars rather than public transport yes, but fewer people going into work. Schools (responsible for much of the peak traffic in Dulwich) not opening fully for many months. Also, in London we now have a 24\7 ULEZ and congestion charge zone and expensive parking; these will be big disincentives to going to work by car. So, subject to yout links, I am sceptical traffic will double. On teh other hand, if you are correct and car traffic doubles, then blocking off the DV junction is just going to divert traffic, much more traffic by your suggestion, onto Dulwich Village and EDG. If you then apply the rest of the OHS measure ( as teh councillors hgave propsoed as a phase 2 for teh COvid measures) that traffic will divert onto Croxted Road, Lordship Lane EDG Half Moon Lane etc. What are your thoughts on that? Edited to clarify I am asking for evidence that Lonond traffic will double

march46 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's great to see support for the aims of Healthy Streets from the onedulwich group. I'm interested > to know specifically how the group proposes to achieve the stated aims of 'reducing traffic > volumes, improving air quality and making cycling and walking easier and safer'? If you take the time to look at the proposals it is not massively different to the OHS scheme apart from the replacement of teh DV full closures with timed closures. In conjunction with the changes proposed in areas A & C the One Dulwich scheme will remove 7,000 through traffic movements a day, based on the councils own figures. Is that good enough for a start? If it were instituted as a stand alone measure for area B, not ideal becuase you need a holistic view

eastdulwichlocal99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The One Dulwich campaign may like to churn out various research on the limitations of the proposals but I imagine >it?s principally formed by a group that live in Dulwich Village who don?t want extra traffic flow on their respective > streets and the potential negative effect on house prices. Simple as that. Have you looked at the COuncils proposals for their own OHS scheme? Based on the numbers in their slide deck over 6,000 cars a day will be diverted from the centre of Dulwich Village onto "Major roads". This will be Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove, Crosted Road, Half Moon Lane and Dulwich Common. The council has refused to address this issue in the consultation. So One Dulwich get cricised on one hand becuase it is not stopping all traffic at the Juntion and by yourself ecause it is going to stop some existing traffic. Oh well. Can I ask what you would prefer to see ?

Katy, The current proposed Covid measure is a temporary closure of the DV junction. In the interest of transparency can you tell us what the Councillors plans under the Covid measures are for Eynella Road, Townley Rd, Dulwich Village and Burbage Rd? It appears they are trying to implement pretty much the entire OHS scheme without scrutiny or further consultation. I am tied up at work and will respond to your other points tonight.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They appear to be a group looking to water down the already depressingly timid efforts of > Southwark to improve the environment. Rahrah, you may not be aware of the history. This low traffic neighbourhood scheme, or a very similar one, was first proposed by local residents 5 years ago as an alternative to the councils changes to the DV junction (which have, not surprisingly, failed). The council refused to consider them as too ambitious. What the council is now proposing is not that different but, critically, adds a full closure at the DV junction. This is, unneccessary, disproportionate and seems to be a vanity project with an undeclared agenda to create a Newens\Leeming square. If the councillors were prepared to work with residents in the consultation area they could come up with a scheme that would adress teh junction issues and be accepted by their constituents. Sadly, up to now they have preferred to try and impose their dogmatic views with the assistance of external pressure groups and misleading statistics.

jamesmcash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As I said, I was told that the baseline measurement was not during road works. Has the council now said that this >isn't the case? If so then yes I was given the wrong information too! I very much doubt that anyone was misled >intentionally though. James, Thanks for responding on this, much appreciated. It is a shame your fellow Councillors in Village Ward aren't prepared to come on here. And yes, a council officer has now confirmed that the base period for the traffic measurements was indeed during the road works but astonishingly claims this didn't affect the traffic volumes. Given the huge disruption caused by the road works, resulting in a 33% reduction on the previous year this is clearly and demonstrably false. That a Council officer, apparently a traffic engineer, can put forward such a specious argument is in itself a cause for major concern. In terms of your fellow councillors, they gave huge prominence to the "47% increase" at the public meetings and used this alleged increase as the reason for the failure of Southwarks previous remodelling of the DV junction (In reality of course, traffic has decreased but Southwark made things worse). Surely they should have verified those figures before using them, it didn't take me long to work out they were not right? I suppose it is just about possible they didn't realise the figures were misleading but they were queried and then challenged on them and kept insisting that the figures were fully comparable. So, either your fellow councillors are naive, unable to recognise obvious inconsistencies, have no understanding of the traffic flows around the junction, incapable of looking at data themselves, unwilling to listen to anything which challenges their own pre-conceptions or... they were misleading us. In either case this is unacceptable behaviour. Sadly we are seeing this misuse of statistics continue with the draft results of the consultation. The councillors, while claiming there is a majority in favour of the closure of the junction, are refusing to release the results from within the actual consultation area. Quite frankly this is as bad as Hancock's figures on Covid tests. btw you may wish to feedback to your fellow councillors that their patronising, aggressive, evasive, deceitful and sometimes abusive emails are not persuading constituents to accept their dogmatic view. They may want to think about the next council elections - not a party political point btw, I will vote for people who stand up best for my local interests.

Just checking on the documents supporting the "temporary" closure of Dulwich Village and I can see that the council is relying on figures that are not just highly misleading (like the 47% increase in traffic) but completely incorrect. The document claim as a headline that that there are "3,500-4,000 pupils at peak hours". This headline claim is contradicted by one of the bullet points below that mention 2,500 pedestrians (not pupils) crossing Calton and Court Lane. According ot the council's own survey, during the 2 peak hour periods there are actually a total of less that 1,200 pedestrian movement, pupils and non-pupils, in and out of Calton Ave and Court Lane. This is disgraceful and, together with the claim of the "47% increase", casts doubt of the integrity and competence of teh council officers who produce these documents.

Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I saw an email from one of the councillors that said 55% want the junction closed. > If thats true half the people want it closed, and the other half doesn't. Interesting that the councillors are quoting figures that have not yet been published which favour their scheme. Did they say what proportion of local residents, ie those withing the consultation area, wanted the junction closed? The council will have these figures. Also, bear in mind that the local councillors have promoted highly misleading, if not untrue, figures, in support of their scheme in the past. Lets wait for the formal results analysed by where the respondents live. This will weed out the "rent a mob" responses by third party pressure groups.

The map of the Santander bike stations is pretty revealing,virtually no stations East and South of the A3 (CLapham Rd, Common, etc) and A2 (Old KEnt Road) https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/cycling/santander-cycles/find-a-docking-station I guess that Santander bike use would be very much based around commuters cycling to and from eg Herne Hill, Brixton East& North Dulwich stations. If so, would this sort of tidal flow work well or leave, eg bike stations in Dulwich empty during the day?

dank4000 Wrote: > Why does everyone seem to want the status quo of traffic and pollution everywhere? I don?t get it. They don't. However, many local residents think that the COuncil's plans are poorly thought out and, in the case of the Covid measures, the Councillors are using the current crisis to push through contentious changes without proper consultation or scrutiny. The problem is that anyone who questions or queries these plans is accused of favouring pollution. But remember that it was local residents who came up with a similar scheme to the OHS proposals for Area B as an alternative to the Council's flawed redesign of the DV junction 5 years ago. The council refused to consider it and ploughed on with a flawed scheme that they are now trying to replace with disproportionate measures.

rahrah You can have low traffic neighbourhoods without completely blocking junctions.

A bit late to post but we saw a female stag beetle 10 days ago, the last of the hot weather evenings. Any others been spotted?

We know that various pressure groups not from the area were encouraging their menbers to respond and telling what what to say. A real "rent a mob" approach to an on line consultation. So,if you want to find out what the local residents think, the results need to be split into those from the cnisultation area and those outside it. The council have all teh details to do this. And any figures from the local councillors need ot be treated with scepticism unless you can see the underlying data. They are the ones who were quite happy to claim a 47% increase in traffic since their previous botched remodelling of the junction when the trend was actually a decrease.

dulwichquine Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've just read the proposals for Dulwich Village junction. Has big knock on effect for nearby residential streets. > Seems pretty clear the council is just pushing through the changes it originally wanted to do through the >"Healthy "Streets initiative even though the results have still not been published. Temp junction closures > will become permanent, despite the views of local residents. I completely agree and think it is outrageous but sadly pretty much par for the course for the council and, especially the DV Ward councillors. They seem very happy to publish highly misleading statistics in support of their aims and to put the interests of external pressure groups above those of their constituents. When you look at the documents for the "temporary" COVID closures you can see they are supporting, not just the closure of the DV junction, but also the closure of Eynella and the Townley\EDG junctions. Effectively just trying to get the OHS proposals through without scrutiny or agreeement from local residents. The councillors are of course supported by pressure groups like Safe Routes to School who largely act on behalf of the local Independent schools. Ironically, these create much of the local traffic pressures that cause so many problems for residents who actually live in the area. It makes you wonder who the councillors are actually representing, their constituents or pressure groups such as SRS and Southwark Cyclists?

jamesmcash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi all > > Regarding the DV figures - as I have said already, my understanding is that the figures are not from > a period when there were road works. If you think that that is untrue then I suggest you lodge a > complaint with the council. I'd be happy to support anyone with this - just drop me an email. > James, The council has now admitted the figure for the 47% traffic increase used a base when there WERE road works. They also claim this had no affect on the traffic, even though it resulted in a 33% decrease on the previous year. I am glad to hear you will support us in making a complaint but how do we lodge a complaint against the council and on what grounds? That the Council officers misled the councillors or that the Dulwich Village Ward Councillors misled their constituents?

Mine's been down since this morning. Origianally was showing expected fix at 16:00, now showing 10.05 tomorow morning. Went into office to work :-( After the prblems following my "upgrade" to the Hub 3 I think it is time to change to a provide that may have lower advertised speeds but is more reliable and whose wifi router has a range of more than 3 meters!

James, The source of the 47% increase claimed during the consultation and shown in related documents now seems clear. It compares Oct 2018 (14,745) with Sep\Oct 2017 (10,290) when the traffic was low because of remodelling work on the DV junction. For comparison, in Sep 2015\Oct 2015 the equivalent figure was 15,055. I suggest you check again. To be frank, this doesn't mean the traffic in 2018 is acceptable. However, it undermines confidence in the consultation process, and our local councillors, if they continue pushing misleading staistics. I have had enough of Trumpian fake news tactics.

My memory is that we were told Southwalk would need to consult on this again before anything was done.

James, Thanks for the reply. As you say, most of the project is in DV ward but, as we have seen with other traffic schemes, changes at a junction can have significant effects elsewhere. In this case, based on Southwarks own figures, over 6,000 traffic movements a day are likely be diverted from Dulwich Village onto surrounding roads. This is likely to include streets in your ward ( as well as Croxted Road but that is Lambeth's problem!) I can see a lot of good points in the objectives of the scheme but it does seem to be being rushed through without enough thought on the impact of residents in area's A, B & C, as well as surrounding streets. btw, have you checked to see if Dutch Estate West was consulted? Southwark's maps don't show them as part of either A or B.

jamesmcash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >. As you know, the Health Streets project is centred in Dulwich Village ward, and led by those > councillors. ... James, I think Goose Green ward contains Area A of the consultation, ie bounded by Townley Rd, Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove. The Dutch Estate is, I think also part of Goose Green Ward but isn't shown as part of Area A. If so, I am surprised you are not familiar with the details of the OHS consultation since it could potentially have a significant effect on roads in that area, diverting traffic which can no longer go through Dulwich Village along EDG, Melbourne Grove, Matham Grove and Lordship Lane. Are your constituents aware of what is being propoased and have they been consulted? In particular those living on the West half of the Dutch Estate whose only exit and entrance, Greendale, will become a school street. Also they will not be able to exit onto Townley Road during the restricted hours.

During the consultation period our Councillors claimed that the traffic "through the junction", had increased by 47% in recent years. This claim featured very prominently in the 2 public meetings I attended and was used as a justification for the urgent need to support the Councils' proposals. I have been doing some research this weekend and learned from one of the Southwark traffic engineeers that the 47% increase came from Southwark's "Annual Report on delivery of the Transport Plan 2017\18" (page 12, Fig 6) The data is from Southwark's annual traffic surveys, ie the number I quoted in my original post. So, the 47% increase "through the junction" is acually comparing traffic going North\South on Dulwich Village, not "through the junction" . And, most importantly, the base period is Sep 2017. when the council was carrying out the reconfiguration works to the DV junction. Can you remember the huge queues and disruption caused by the building works and the 4 way traffic lights. no wonder traffic volumes were lower in that period. This is therefore a totally false comparison; if you compare 2018 with 2016, 2015 or 2014 you can see that the traffic has actually decreased and is part of a continuing downwards decrease. This is quite frankly outrageous. Councillors have quoted highly misleading statistics to justify a scheme that will have a massive impact on residents in Dulwich. It is possible, though unlikely, that this was a genuine mistake but even so, it totally undermines the credibility of the phase 3 consultation process. If our councillors or their supporters (Exdulwicher, TownleyGreen?) can explain the 47% increase as other than a temporary blip caused by massive disruption in the base period I would be interested to hear their reasons.

> > Soutwark Council's own traffic surveys do not support that. > > Their figures for DV over the last few years show: > > 2014 = 15,414 movements > > 2015 = 15,055 > > 2016 = 14,822 > > 2017 = 10,007 low because of works to DV > > 2018 = 14,375 estimate > > 2019 not yet published > > > > Overall it shows a slight decrease. Are they wrong? > > > Slarti b - where did you get this traffic data? > Thanks! Elsa, sorry for the delayed response. tbh I have been very tied up with Coronairus issues and local issues have taken a back seat. The figures came from Soutwark Councils annual traffic count surveys published in their annual reports. See https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/transport-policy Southwark say the base data is available on their web site but the web page is no longer accessible and they have not replied to my requests for the latest info. I suspect they are being selective and\or misleading in the figures they quoted at the public meetings, specicfically the 47% increase in traffic through the junction. Given the emphasis thery gave to that figure they need to explain where it came from and whether it reflects a true increase in traffic or diferences between the dates they compared (eg comparing term time with holidays)

Treehugger, I understand your concern about nesting birds and teh timing but pollarding itself is very standard tree management technique, not brutal.

I went to the Sainsbury local by the Plough on Saturday. Staff doing a good job managing queue and one-in one-out thouhg, given the narrow aisles had to be careful inside. Most people fine with distancing but a couple of idiots, guys in their twenties, didn't seem to care. Selection reasonable given it is a "Local" but they have stopped selling flour. Does anyone know what the Lordship Lane M&S and CoOp are like?

Mons cheese shop are setting up a home delivery service. Expected by 5 April? Keep an eye on their web site http://www.mons-cheese.co.uk/