slarti b

Naiada, I had a look at the signs at the DV roudnabout a couple of weeks ago. They are pretty clear during daylight but I am not sure how visible they would be at night and\or in poor weather. Certainly in December lots of people were ignoring or missing the signs. If, for example you are coming NOrth up Gallery Road and turning left into Burbage you are probably paying attention to the roundabout and may miss the signs that are quite high. Are there any signs on Gallery Road warning of left turn restrictions? Alos, you may want to check whether thes signs are as originally planned by the council, ceratinly at Townley that is not the case You may want to look at the Government traffic signs manual eg, recommended height section 5.4 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/771873/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-1.pdf Edited to add: Had a look this afternon. Coming North up Gallery road there is a pretty clear timed no left turn sign in red circle, though it is last in a row of 3 signs so may be obscured. In poor visibility I think it would be easy to see that and end up going straight ahead without seeing the blue signs for DV which are quite high up. Coming North up College Road there is no red warning sign (at least between picture Gallery and roundabout) so if turning into Burbage road there is very little time to see the blue, high placed signs and react. Especially as drivers are probably looking right at that stage to get on to roundabout. In 10 mins this afternoon (around 3.15 so still light) I saw 19 cars and vans go through the signs.

My understanding is that the council were going to issue warning letters to begin with, did you receive one?

legalalien Wrote: TfL publish all their resolved requests on their own webpage ...They?ve adopted a strategy of publishing lots online to reduce the number of requests. This is surely the best approach, firstly in terms of openness and transparency and secondly in terms of reducing the number of FoI requests. Unfortunately, from my experience of trying to get hold of traffic data, Southwark seem to make it as difficult as possible. I guess they don't like providing data that might highlight errors or misinformation in their presentations and "evidence"packs.

legalalien Wrote: >Interestingly someone?s managed to get the minutes of the council?s meeting with the emergency services in mid July, https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/704145/response/1687329/attach/html/3/Emergency%20Services%20feedback%2016072020.pdf.html Interesting stuff in those minutes confirming that these road closures are causing delays. London Ambulance Service: "The measures are creating delays responding to calls. Not against principles of scheme just conscious of how it may cause slower response times. ANPR cameras are the best measures and these work for us.... We advocate the use of ANPR cameras. Demountable bollards do not work and keys are not universal across boroughs." London Fire Brigade (Old Kent Road): "Agree, we need to move towards ANPR cameras"

exdulwicher Wrote: >They were different schemes - the originally proposed OHS was put on hold and a similar set of options (although not an identical scheme) was put in place through the emergency funding granted by Government. Seems like the council wants it both ways. On the one hand they say the temporary Covid schemes are separate from OHS; on the other hand they use the highly flawed OHS phase 3 consultation to justify support for the Covid measures. On the cameras, whether you like them or not, the point is that in the OHS scheme, the council included ANPR cameras with permit based passes for residents. The council now say they will not provide permit based access because it contravenes the council's policy on discouraging short journeys. Have they changed their policy in the last year? It certainly means that people who supported the OHS scheme in the consultation may have done so so under false pretences and the (unpublished) result should not be used as justification to support a differrent scheme. On the distinction between OHS and Covid measures the council is on dodgy ground. There are a lot of similarities, timed camera access at Burbage, Dulwich Village, Turney and Townley, closure of Calton Ave and COurt Lane. Indeed local Labor MP Helen Hayes stated that "The intervention at Calton Avenue, Court Lane and Dulwich Village is also included within the proposals that Southwark Council has been consulting on under the banner ?Our Healthy Streets Dulwich'" I think there is a strong case that the council used the Covid emergency to get the majority of the controversial OHS measures through without consultation and using Government funding. Following the recent court case this could well be challenged.

singalto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If the Townley road timed restrictions are to do with school coaches, why are they in force when > the schools are closed? I think the Towley Road timed closure is linked to the similar closures on Dulwich Village. Without it even more traffic would go down Townley. AS it is I suspect the displaced traffic will just make Lordship Lane, Croxted Road and the other DV bypass roads worse.

Bicknell Wrote: > Campaign update from One Dulwich just out... Southwark says - ?allowing local residents permits to access camera-controlled traffic restrictions would not support our commitment to reducing shorter car journeys.? The scheme proposed by the council in Feb last year for the OHS Phase 3 consultation included permit access for local residents. Has the council policy changed since last year? Alternatively were they just misleading people during teh consultation? The Phase 3 consultation is still used by the council to justify support for the closure of the DV junction, even though they have not formally published the results. As well as the incorrect and misleading data used during the consultation process it seems we now have to add deceit on the permit scheme.

mockingbird Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > hoorah. I am amazed and encouraged to see that local groups are talking to each other. And that > there is a common voice to address these LTNs. well done. Signed Thanks. We have been trying for almost a year now to engage with our councillors. Up to now they have only wanted to engage with those who support their own, most extreme, agenda, rather than listening to their own constituents. There are many local groups who have been excluded who are now coalescing under the Dulwich Alliance umbrella to try and reach a pragmatic, reasonable compromise. Please spread the word.

heartblock Wrote: > Cyclists currently use the pavement as well as the middle of the rd when the traffic is at a standstill on EDG during >school rush (non lockdown) so it?s needed. OK. Would you see this as being between Lordship Lane and Townley Road where it would link up with Quietway 7 (or whatever it is called now) Edited to add: On a practical point, EDG is a TFL road (rather than Southwark) and I would expect them to be rather more stringent with their evaulation criteria and implementation. In particular, they are concerned about the effect of changes on bus times. I think the section between Townley and Lordhip Lane could be difficult to implement a dedicated bike lane; there is a lot of on-street parking from the Dutch Estate and houses on EDG. I think the pavements are also quite busy at certain times because of the new CHarter School which limits options such as reducing footway width. Challenging.

heartblock Wrote: > Would love a cycle lane on EDG Is that because of all the traffic that has been diverted onto EDG following the DV junction closure ? ;-)

The ePetition to Southwark to replace the 24\7 closures in Dulwich Village and Melbourne Grove with timed closures can be found on the link here. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=500000057&RPID=774300421&HPID=774300421&$LO$=1 Many people in Dulwich support action to make cycling and walking easier but feel that the current permanent closures displace traffic and cause congestion on roads surrounding Dulwich Village, are unfair for older and less mobile residents and adversely affect local busineses. Although it has been running for only a couple of weeks over the Christmas period it is already very close to the 500 supporters needed for it to be considered at the next Council Cabinet meeting. If you support this view sign the petition now!!

This does not imply payment for the permits wich could be granted to local residennts free of charge. For example Hammersmith & Fulham have a scheme which allows residents free access to LTNs without payment.

rollflick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The area around East Dulwich has had one of the biggest increases in walking and cycling casualties Edited to add, ok i see it now. A bit difficult to decipher tge map !

exDulwicher "[the traffic is] dreadful everywhere. Pull up a Google Maps of London with the traffic layer enabled, everything is red. Not quite sure why yet..." Most central and London Boroughs have used Covid funding to introduce LTN's and road closures with minimal, if any consultation or consideration of the effects. . Maybe that is the reason for the increased congestion ?

"this council administration actually used free Quietway funding to create a dysfunctional junction that was so bad that they have now used free Covid funding to circumvent the poor design that they created." Robin, excellent summary. ALso interesting to note that, during that Quietway consultation, a group of local residents ( now the core of One Dulwich) came up with the idea of an LTN to cover school periods. It was similar to the Council's OHS proposal for area B but was strictly time limited to minimise displacement and involved no road closures. The council refused to consider it. Oh well.

@Rockets "the pro-closure lobby have an excuse for everything, but what they cannot escape is the fact that traffic has been displaced onto other roads and is causing big issues for the roads." I do not see why they keep denying it, displacement of traffic onto other roads was a cleary stated, explicit objective of the OHS scheme as you can see from their phase 3 consulatation document; Guiding Principle No 2 "Encourage through traffic to use main roads" But at the meetings I went to, any questions about displacement were dismissed with comments that traffic evaporation would take care of that and proper traffic modelling would only take place after the consultation. This was deliberately misleading and, of course, wrong.

@Rockets you commented I noticed Cllr Burgess said on the ED LTN meeting that they would be using Waze data for their modelling (in lieu of raw data) The Waze data I have seen so far has been published by TfL and relates to congestion, ie delays to journeys NOT traffic volumes. This needs to be used very carefully, eg Waze reported very high congestion (130% ?) in early September when schools returned. This figure was used by pro-closure supporters to claim that traffic volumes had increased by 130% so more closures were needed. This was of course rubbish; what it actually showed was that, despite trafic volumes being lower than pre-Covid, the road closures had increased congestion and journey time.

@exD You commented about the One Ealing analysis "Sorry but it's almost meaningless. It starts off with a wrong figure which in itself is of questionable origin, extrapolates again and again with no regard for journey type, modal shift (ie more walking and cycling, less driving due to the LTN) and then bases it on so many assumptions that it's near meaningless...It does look nice though, it looks like lots of figures and you can always bamboozle with lots of figures" Much of your criticism should be more correctly aimed at the Sustrans report, presumably paid for by the council, to justify their LTN. Lets look at the biggest bamboozling figure, very prominent in the Sustrans Report "Nearly 60% of residents think there are too many cars travelling through the area" . This is of course utter rubbish. It seems that at most 75(seventy five) people agreed with that statement, not all of of whom lived in the consultation area. There were 2,500 households in the consultation area and at least 1,300 in the area covered by the map. That suggests there is only 1 resident every 17 houses (based on map); a strange, vacant area of London? The Sustrans report purports to be a report of "engagement and codesign activities with the local community". If they engaged with 60 people and received feedback from 100 local residents in an area with 2,500 households they have clearly failed in their objective but nowhere is this stated. "starts with...figure of dubious origin" etc ? Well that figure is what the Sustrans report is using. If Sustrans provided more information about the data, split in the way you suggest that would be great. Indeed, if they provided the raw data the analysis might be better. But Sustrans have not, so OneEaling have had to work with what the council saw fit to publish. "based on so many assumptions" Yes, and they state their assumptions (including modal shift figures provided by Council) . If these are wrong then provide better ones. But it is a lot better than just ignoring the impact of the proposed changes. And this leads us on to the biggest, the huge Elephant in the room. Despite your snide dismissal of their analysis (not "analysis") One Ealing have actually carried out an analysis!! They have looked at the the proposed LTN and said these are the implications in terms of increased miles travelled and CO2 emissions. Has the council or Sustrans done this? if not why not. I, and others, have previously asked you which are the main roads the council wish to divert traffic onto as part of the OHS scheme, now implemented under the cover of Covid. Has the council carried out any modelling or analysis of this? Your response seems to have been, well it doesn't matter it will sort itself out. It does matter and it won't sort itself out. I must also take issue with your patronising comment It's why raw data is rarely given out because frankly it just confuses most people or it gets used to hide things The second part of your statement contradicts the first. From my experience with Southwark, refusing to provide raw data is used to hide errors from and promote misleading information to the local community. Without chasing down the underlying data we would not have been able to expose the misleading claims of a 47% increase in traffic through the DV junction. Without access to the raw traffic counts we would not have shown that Southwark's claimed increase in traffic on Calton Ave was based on an error which had been flagged in the raw data but ignored by the council officers. In fact in both these cases Southwark's traffic engineer defended the incorrect and misleading claims. If we cannot rely on council officers the public needs to see that raw data so they can find out the truth.

I have a friend just off Rye Lane in Peckham (SE15 3SL) who is on O2 and has appalling\no reception. I am on Vodafone and have the same issue when visiting him, indeed I was stuggling to pay for my parking ticket; couldn't get any data and even the phone number wouldn't work!

A friend sent me a copy of the Alliance leaflet and I had a quick google of the "Better Streets For Southwark". Seems to be a very recent group made up of the normal very vocal but minority pressure groups, with a big influence from "Safe Routes to Private Schools". They have a Twitter feed showing a very prominent "Road Closed" sign at the DV junction. This rather contradicts their first FAQ "The term Road Closures is innacurate" They then go on to suggest that the recent massive congestion on the DV bypass roads (EDG, LL etc) is nothing to do with the council's changes but are caused by increased traffic in the last 10 years. Leaving aside the faulty logic we know from the councils own traffic figures that is not the case for Dulwich Village.

edit to remove duplicate post, sorry

@legalalien "I had a quick look at one of his tweets claiming the Daily Mail was reporting last night a 34% increase in cars across London for last night versus the same night last year. It was actually reporting a 34% rise in congestion - not the same thing." Haven't had a chance to check this recent post but we had similar claims when schools went back. There was a big spike in congestion of 130% reported on, I think 6 Sep. This was used by pro-closure advocates ot suggest that traffic volumes had increased post Covid and more closures were needed. In fact, Govt figures show traffic has decreased; the congestion figure, from Waze, relates to length of journey. Congestion has increased because road closures have reduced road capacity.

They have been working on them on and off for over a week. Putting in the right filter. Wonder when they will be finished

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I turned right into Townley Road from East Dulwich Grove today. Have I missed something here? Southwark has not implemented the phase 2(?) measures yet and, even when they do you will still be able to turn right from EDG into Townley. If they are consistent and keep north and south bound symmetrical this means they will probably introduce a phase 3 to divert traffic along EDG and LL by closing off that right turn (as per the OHS proposals) but this has not happened yet. I guess the residents and business's on EDG and LL will be keeping their fingers crossed this will be delayed as long as possible.

northernmonkey Wrote: >some people give focus to community roles and i'd imagine statistically they're more likely to participate in a number of things throughout the community. Its not a massive conspiracy! Maybe not an active conspiracy but what I see is a small number of local(?) activists create overlapping groups, Clean Air Dulwich, Southwark Cyclists, Mums for Lungs, Safe Routes to Schools. Dul Soc Traffic & Environment C'ttee etc. These activists claim to represent "local community" and are engaged by local councillors and treated as key stakeholders by the council who are happy to accept these groups at face value and dismiss or ignore the concerns of their own constituents and Resident's Associations without questioning whose these activists represent. At the meeting Katy Savage of Clean air for Dulwich (Facebook group liked by 79 people, no info where they are from) was happy to condescendingly dismiss the 2,700 person petition to reverse closures without mentioning that the petition to keep the closures had received a massive... 51 supporters. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionListDisplay.aspx?bcr=1 . The narrative she is trying to put over is that objectors to these road closures, which are causing such disruption and pollution to roads such as Lordship Lane and EDG, are a vocal minority; in reality it is the supporter and proponents of these these poorly thought through schemes that are the minority. One of Ms Savage's arguments was that there was no verification where the respondents on the petition lived - if true, that is clearly a failure by Southwark council. However, the DV junction closure has always been justified by the councillors as the outcome of the OHS phase 2 consultation. That exercise had about 200 respondents, mainly on line, and the council has refused to say where they lived. According to her views that consultation was therefore meaningless. Note that OneDulwich who , with over 1,700 supporters is very open about where those supporters live see https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters. It is unfortunate that the local councillors are doing all they can to misrepresent the views and proposals of those groups who represent a significant number of local residents and have put in huge amounts of effort to analyse the situation and suggest reasonable compromises. edited to make clear that the OneDulwich web site shows supporters by postcode district rather than actual address.