slarti b

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have had NO problem getting hold of Toilet Rolls and Kitchen Towels. > ... > From Sainsbury's and the Co-op. You went to both shops, were you stocking up for any reason ?? ;-) btw I was in Sainsburys DKH around 3.30 and there was no toilet paper, pasta, tomatoes, cooking oil etc. Lots of people taking photos of empty shelves!!

I am pretty sure the P4 was re-routed following the Court Lane road humps and lengthy closure, in 1989\90. See https://www.londonbuses.co.uk/_routes/prefix/p4.html for confirmation. The intial road humps were more like tank traps ( bad design and purchase by council) and have subsequently been replaced by ones which are more bus friendly so, though uncomfortable, maybe not such a problem any more. However, under the Council's proposed plans the DV junction will be physically closed to all motor traffic so the P4 could not be diverted along Court Lane.

nivag Wrote: > It's a shame they won't allow bus only access and then the P4 can go back to its original route back > down Court Lane Not sure what you mean by "bus only access" but I think there are at least a couple of problems: 1) I believe P4 was diverted from Court Lane to DV becuase of the road humps which will not be removed. Happy to be corrected if this is not correct 2) More importantly, under Southwark's proposals Court Lane will be closed off at junction with Calton Avenue so the P4 would not be able to get through to DV. So the P4 would remain dependent on a more clogged up South Circular. And the 37, 185, 176, 40, 42 would also be adversely affected by traffic diverted along East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane. Southwark's scheme has not thought through teh implications for publice transport.

Kr988 I completely agree. Even by the council's own figures, after evaporation of 11% there will be over 6,000 vehicles a day diverted onto A roads. These will be Croxted Rd and Lordship Lane North\South and EDG and Dulwich Common East\West. From a personal viewpoint I have concerns about 37 to Brixton (bad enough without extra traffic!) and 185\176 along Lordship. Leaving aside any concerns about the details of the council's proposed scheme I also have a more philosophical concern about the concept of the diverting traffic from the Dulwich "cell" onto the surrounding roads. Isn't this relocating the problem rather than solving it? If I was a resident of Croxted Rd or one of the schools on those roads I would be concerned. @Geh Getting back form Brixton last night I caught a 3 to Herne Hill and walked 20 mins from there becuase the 37 was so long in coming. We desperately need better public transport connections in Dulwich. btw the 3 was a "Boris" bus, another example of Johnson's nostalgic but flawed vision let down by the details.

exdulwicher Wrote: >There's info on it in the appendices to the consultation here: [www.southwark.gov.uk] I could find nothing to support the 47% inbincrease claimed by Goldi. PLease let me know if I have missed something. > @Rockets was asking about cyclists using the DV junction. It's part of Quietway 7 (ignoring the current rebranding > exercise around Cycle Superhighways / Quietways) and as the name suggests it's supposed to direct > cyclists along quieter roads / back roads etc with lower traffic volumes to make it safer and more > appealing for cyclists. The route takes cyclists across DV from Turney Road, up Calton to the JAGS > junction, across to Greendale. Oh yes, another one of Boris Johnson's bucolic visions upset by reality! The fact that Calton was totally unsuitable for a QuietWay was pointed out repeatedly by local residents when the council was consulting on it and several alternatives were suggested. The council, of course, ignored the feedback.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > In terms of the 50% stat - its not clear whether it was on specific roads or on an area wide basis Goldi, Did the council explain where the figures came from and the dates the the counts were taken? If not there is a possibility they are being selective to support their case, eg using a base figure such as during roadworks, half half term or holidays to claim that traffic has increase. There are a couple of other examples in the current PPT pack which look questionable Sadly Southwark have done this in the past which undermines trust and, indeed, their own case. I agree with you that DV at term time, pareticulalry with the foundation schools, is overcrowded and needs looking at. However, this is the third major scheme in the last 6 years or so which the council promised would have major improvements to the overall traffic which has not happened. This scheme is being pushed through in a rush without the implications being thought through, eg increased rat running in Area B. Any changes will be affecting us local residents for the next 15-20 years and it is important that the council try to get it right. Part of "getting it right" is proper traffic modelling, which has not yet been carried out, and a trial of the proposed closures and restictions. The council seem to be trying to avoid this but thier reasons are not convincing.

mockingbird Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Deventer Crescent off Greendale. How will residents get in and out when Greendale becomes a > school street? Very good question. On the Southwark plans they do not appear at all! Greeen Dale is their only exit, will they be allowed out during School Street times? And during the extended restricted access hours the only wat they may be able to access Greendale is, maybe, from Townley Road. They do not appear to be part of area A or B even though they could be severly impacted. Have they been consulted on the proposed changes?

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >given the huge the huge increases in traffic flowing through Dulwich > Village in the last 5 years Can you provide a source for that please? 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 because they changed the reporting basis 2019 not yet published Overall it shows a slight decrease. Are they wrong?

Bels123, Just because TFL are funding it doesn't mean they are working closely ( yet?). Do you know otherwise? Also, do you know if there a specific objective for the funding from TFL for this initiative? rahrahrah Following up on the public transport issue I have been looking at the TFL web site. They use a measure called Public Transport Access Level or PTAL,to assess areas access to public transport rating them on a scale of 1(worst) to 6(best). Most of the streets in central Dulwich, the areas affected by this proposal, are rated 2, which confirms my view about the poor access to public transport.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The bottom line is that we have to start providing people with better alternatives to the car.... We need to > encourage more walking, cycling and invest in public transport (I do worry that this last bit is > not getting enough attention). Rrr Overall I agree with you but I think far too much attention is given to the "walking and cycling" agenda rather than improving public transport. In reality many people will not cycle and older people will or cannot walk longer distances. What is a brisk 10 minute walk for a healthy 30\40\50 year old can be a real struggle for someone older or with mobility problems. The current "Healthy Streets" plan contains very little information about improving public transport; indeed it ignores the possible effect on buses of traffic diverted down Lordship Lane and EDG. The slides are very misleading, I assuem deliberatley so, mentioning only the P4, what about the 37, 185, 176, 40, 42?? And please dont reply that buses are a matter for TFL, if the the plan is to take a holistic view of teh issue, public transport must be included and SOuthwark must work wit TFL to deliver this.

Just heard that Dulwich Prep London has closed temporarily. A couple of pupils returned from North Italy holiday and have since fallen ill. School closed as a precaution till they get test results. Hope they and their families are OK and a reminder to restof us to follow Govt guidelines on hygiene !!

Rockets Wrote: > BTW does anyone know what work is being done at > the DV/Court Lane junction at the moment that is > causing the big tailbacks into and out of the > village? I had a look last night. It is SGN, ie gas network people. They had bore some large holes ( 50 cm daimter?) in teh road. Looking for leaks perhaps?

EDBoy Wrote: > Slarti, you definitely seem to have a bee in your bonnet about the private schools around here. I don't > think the foundation schools are lecturing anyone. EDBoy, If you lived in the Northern part of Area B, Townley, Beauval, Calton, Dovercourt or, like me, cycled through Dulwich Village most mornings, you would fully understand the impact of the local private schools. Last week, half term, was a welcome respite. It is not a " bee in the bonnet". And if you dispute the effect of the private vs state schools, you need to experience the first week of autumn half term when state schools are still working; the reduction in traffic is significant. Represntatives of the local private schools are very active in lecturing the local community in the changes they need to make without, it seems, accepting responsibility for the extra traffic and disruption they cause. Indeed, when the EDG\Townley junction was remodelled 4\5 years ago JAGS and Alleyns supported a scheme that would cause significant disruption to the lcoal community while refusing to engage with or discuss it with them. At the same time they have massively expanded, and continue to expand, their operations. They are not the whole problem but are a significant part of it and should act accordingly.

wulfhound Wrote: > It's rather a long way on foot for kids who already have a very early start... > It might make more sense for coaches to drop off on Gallery Road near the roundabout, turn around > and go back to the South Circular via College Road. Fair point about distance from Hunt's slip Road, somewhere near centre of DV would be walkable from most foundatiuon schools. But not sure how practical your suggestion would be, there would be a lot of coaches clogging up College and Gallery Roads especially at pick up time, Gallery in particular is narrow at roundabout. Also, would Coaches be able to do 300 degree turn on roundabout? In the Alleyns planning application was was there a suggestion of using the Dog Kennel Hill Sainburys as a coach drop off\pickup spot? That woudl certainly be more convenient for Alleyns and Jags

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I just wish all coaches offloaded at Dulwich College and then use Hunts Slip Road for a coach park... An interesting idea which would considerably ease poolution and congestion through Dulwich Village. The other foundation schools could organise walking groups from there to Alleyns and JAGS.

@Goldilocks >I wanted to pick up on the quote below too as its an oft quoted point in the 'my driving is ok, its other driving that >needs to stop' in that people feel that a switch to EV is the only change that is needed. >This was all covered by the excellent talk at JAGS by Ian Mudway in terms of the effect of air pollution on children's >health (though the talk was not limited to children) What proportion of staff and pupils at JAGS walk or cycle to school and how many come by car, taxi, car share, bus coach etc. All of which come under the category of "driving"?

EDBoy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No Slarti, I am not suggesting that JAGS & Alleyns annex Townley Road. But, you could kill two birds > with one stone and reduce the rush hour through traffic that uses this road as a short cut, whilst > making sure that all the coaches in one place. So yes, you are suggesting that Jags and Alleyn annex Townley Road as a parking and disembarkation area. > I thought the idea of Healthy Streets was to reduce traffic that uses Dulwich as a short cut? That ignores all the traffic that is brought to the area by parents dropping their kids off at school > their engines would be turned-off and timed closures supervised by the school. Hasn't happened so far has it? And you are reinforcing your proposal about the schools annexing and supervising Townley Road. > area safe for school children to walk. More like making it easier for parents to drop their kids off at school by car > I still don't understand the antipathy towards the God's Gift schools. ...If you moved into this area, you did so > knowing there is a high density of public and private schools. I moved in 30 years ago, partly for the local schools which, at that time, were smaller and had many local pupils. Since then they have have expanded massively and, in the case of the foundation schools vastly increased their catchment areas and the proportion of parents driving their kids to school. Even now Alleyns want to expand their lower school further. At the same time as increasing pollution,congestion and stress on local streets, the foundation schools presume to lecture us on measures we locals residents should take. Total hypocrisy.

EDBoy Wrote: > By having a school term, morning/evening timed closure of Townley Road, it would allow the > coaches for both JAGS & Alleyns to park on that road, keeping EDG clear and allowing the pupils to > disembark safely. So you are effectively suggesting that JAGS and Alleyns annex Townley Road and use it as their private coach parking area? Perhaps they should have thought of the consequences before building on their own parking areas as part of their huge expansion over the last couple of decades. And remember that Alleyns are trying to expand even further, bringing in yet more pupils from all over London.

exdulwicher Wrote: > You don't need to ask people. It's a mix of ANPR/ CCTV data and modelling. Can you tell me where the council statistics come from? As far as I can seem they don't give their source. Neither do they give their source for teh claims that traffic at teh DV junction has "doubled" or even significantly increased in the last couple of years.

exdulwicher Wrote: > You don't need to ask people. It's a mix of ANPR/ CCTV data and modelling. Can you tell me where the council statistics come from them? As far as I can seem they don't give their source. Neither do they give their source for teh claims that traffic at teh DV junction has "doubled" or even significantly increased in the last couple of years.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's hard to argue against road closures around schools at opening / closing time imo. Can't > really understand why this isn't standard practice tbh. Are you suggesting that, as part of this "standard practise", Dulwich Village, East Dulwich Grove, Red Post Hill and Lordship Lane should all be closed during school opneing and closing hours?

AlleynView Wrote: >It is disappointing to see Alleyn's being singled out as the source of air pollution problems in Dulwich... > in other ways. It?s a much larger issue than a few extra kids at one local school. I agree that the problem is wider than just Alleyns however they are part of the problem and are making it worse. This proposal is the latest in a long series of expansions and developments by the foundation schools. These result in considerable disruption and inconvenience for local residents to which the schools seem oblivious. Given the wider catchment area of the foundation schools and the higher proportion of their pupils coming to school by car this also affects air quality and traffic.

exdulwicher Wrote: > Public transport runs as normal. P4 still goes through the village; 37 can still get from Goose > Green up ED Grove and past ND station; the 176 185 etc are unaffected on LL and the 12 can still > wind its tortuous way through the back streets of Peckham to the library. > ... > Also if there's less traffic overall, bus times become much more reliable. I dont think you have considered the knock on effects of the proposals. EDG and, especially, LL will end up with far more traffic. This will delay the 185\176\42, all highly important North South bus routes,along LL. More traffic on EDG will make the already erratic 37 even less reliable. The P4 is the only route likely to benefit. A scheme that displaces traffic and worsens public transport will not benefit wide public health.

I can't speak for DC, but from my observations Alleyns and Jags certainly attract high volumes of car traffic, as confirmed by their school travel plans. The issue with these schools is they have a very wide catchment area, much wider than the state schools, and I suspect many parents are the type who prefer to ferry their kids to school in chelsea tractors rather than by bus. However, I do agree with your comment about the time bands.

Think also of the poor cyclists (I go up it most days) who have impatient motorists following them up the hill itching to get past but restricted by the trafic island\parking chicanes. Most cars are fine but a few end up either cutting cyclists up or overtaking traffic islands on the wrong side. Dangerous and poorly designed.