Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ah the retort to One Dulwich from the pro-closure lobby groups - it was inevitable. One wonders if the council has provided funding for this either directly or indirectly......;-) sorry couldn't resist....


Which reminded me to check how the e-petition in support of the closures is going......it's closed now but it has managed 9 more signatures since last month bringing the total to 60..........

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.

rockets - no, it's not obvious which streets to close, we're firmly in the realms of rocket science here


east dulwich grove has 4 schools and a health centre - close that?


dulwich village/gallery road have 3 schools - close that?


then you immediately turn it around in the thread on asking someone else what they would do:


"Out of interest, what do you think should be done to resolve the issues these closures have created?"


I applaud you for engaging unlike many here, but as I said, you offer no viable alternative to reduce traffic apart from general hand waving




Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Redpost - pretty obvious where school streets

> could be implemented quickly and efficiently and

> would be a lot less disruptive than closing 2 of 4

> East/West routes across Dulwich as we have now.

>

> My posts are laced with council criticism because

> I feel the council are laying themselves open to

> criticism with the way they have been handling the

> LTNs. I am not alone in that and the council need

> to be criticised by their constituents if the

> constituents don't like what they are doing. I

> know that doesn't make life easy for the council

> or the pro-closure lobbyists but in a democracy

> that's what constituents are supposed to, and

> entitled to, do. I am not critical of Southwark

> Cyclists per se, I am sure they are a lovely bunch

> of people, remember I am a cyclist myself, but the

> relationship between the council and Soutwark

> Cyclists clearly steps over a line in terms of

> balance and impartiality. There is no way

> Southwark Cyclists should be given more weighting

> and priority in consultations than those people

> who live in the area affected by the measures

> (which has happened repeatedly).

>

> JohnL - more than happy to have a consultation on

> any ideas - that's all many of us want - dialogue

> with the broader community not just a small

> minority. If there had been a proper consultation

> over the LTN closures I can guarantee we would not

> be in the mess we are now and the council would

> not be under so much scrutiny from many in the

> community.

>

> More generally, what is the leaflet from the

> Coalition4Dulwich? I have the FOMO too!!!! ;-) Are

> they for or against the closures?

So is the thread now a competition for who has THE solution, or is it about recognising the codswallop closures and issues they?re causing ?

If EDF posters were the source of best solutions for traffic issues the council could have skipped their own thinking / planning and come straight to us !

Kid - perhaps they should - there have been better ideas put forward here than the plans the council decided to implement on their own!!! ;-)


Redpost - of course there are some schools that cannot have a school street but at least if you close the ones that can during school drop-off and pick-up times you encourage modal shift. Remember the council's current plan (per Cllr Smith) is to divert traffic from residential roads onto main roads via the closures so those schools you mentioned (bar the ones in Dulwich Village) are currently the biggest losers from this.


The reason I ask what some of the pro-closure would do to resolve the issues caused by the closures is that there seems to be a general reluctance by many pro-lobbyists to even entertain an alternative - they have become very entrenched. Many of us on the anti-closure side are saying that we acknowledge the need for change and happy to meet people in the middle and implement plans that are fair to everyone.

Redpost - hardly a nebulous answer - well no more nebulous than your retort that school streets don't work - and your response amplifies my point that many of the pro-closure lobby do not want to entertain any of the middle-ground alternatives ;-)


What the pro-lobby don't realise is that their entrenchment actually creates more problems and it creates resentment and people move from a pragmatic "let's try and work on finding a middle ground" to a "rip them all out" stance and that does nobody any good. This is being demonstrated very aptly by what is going on in west London right now in Kensington and Chelsea. A perfectly sensible, and much needed, protected cycle lane had been put in running from Kensington out to Chiswick - it's now being pulled out such is the local acrimony towards them. A pragmatic approach from both sides will result in positive outcomes for everyone, otherwise we run the risk of going back to how things were and that benefits no-one.

So assuming 'one dulwich' get their way, and we allow people to cut down side streets again in order to save a little time - can someone explain how this will discourage short car journeys and encourage walking and cycling please?

Yes, we can all see how K&C always have the best interests of their poorer and more vulnerable residents at heart.



Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Redpost - hardly a nebulous answer - well no more

> nebulous than your retort that school streets

> don't work - and your response amplifies my point

> that many of the pro-closure lobby do not want to

> entertain any of the middle-ground alternatives

> ;-)

>

> What the pro-lobby don't realise is that their

> entrenchment actually creates more problems and it

> creates resentment and people move from a

> pragmatic "let's try and work on finding a middle

> ground" to a "rip them all out" stance and that

> does nobody any good. This is being demonstrated

> very aptly by what is going on in west London

> right now in Kensington and Chelsea. A perfectly

> sensible, and much needed, protected cycle lane

> had been put in running from Kensington out to

> Chiswick - it's now being pulled out such is the

> local acrimony towards them. A pragmatic approach

> from both sides will result in positive outcomes

> for everyone, otherwise we run the risk of going

> back to how things were and that benefits no-one.

Forcing all traffic onto the bus routes is going back to the days before bus lanes were introduced, when buses were so delayed by all the other traffic, that no-one could rely on them e.g.to get to work on time. The buses have been ignored by the council in their LTNs, but they are essential in encouraging people to abandon their cars and use public transport.

kiera Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Forcing all traffic onto the bus routes is going

> back to the days before bus lanes were introduced,

> when buses were so delayed by all the other

> traffic, that no-one could rely on them e.g.to get

> to work on time. The buses have been ignored by

> the council in their LTNs, but they are essential

> in encouraging people to abandon their cars and

> use public transport.


Bus gates?

redpost Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes, we can all see how K&C always have the best

> interests of their poorer and more vulnerable

> residents at heart.

>

>

> Rockets Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Redpost - hardly a nebulous answer - well no

> more

> > nebulous than your retort that school streets

> > don't work - and your response amplifies my

> point

> > that many of the pro-closure lobby do not want

> to

> > entertain any of the middle-ground alternatives

> > ;-)

> >

> > What the pro-lobby don't realise is that their

> > entrenchment actually creates more problems and

> it

> > creates resentment and people move from a

> > pragmatic "let's try and work on finding a

> middle

> > ground" to a "rip them all out" stance and that

> > does nobody any good. This is being

> demonstrated

> > very aptly by what is going on in west London

> > right now in Kensington and Chelsea. A

> perfectly

> > sensible, and much needed, protected cycle lane

> > had been put in running from Kensington out to

> > Chiswick - it's now being pulled out such is

> the

> > local acrimony towards them. A pragmatic

> approach

> > from both sides will result in positive

> outcomes

> > for everyone, otherwise we run the risk of

> going

> > back to how things were and that benefits

> no-one.


Given the closures in Dulwich Village can we assert that Southwark still have the interests of their poorer and more vulnerable residents at heart as they are the ones dealing with displacement tsunami from these closures?


P.S. Redpost you should have seen that one coming....;-)

I haven't met one resident yet from what I would term the closed or bus gated roads, that ever said they wanted what they have been given. I have been living in this area for decades, I do know quite a few people, and so I'm just wondering how this is all going to end?
Ambulance teams complaining that Carlton Avenue (amongst others) closure delayed 999 response....https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/paramedics-say-low-traffic-roadblocks-delayed-response-to-at-least-two-life-threatening-emergencies-because-satnavs-didnt-recognise-them/?cmpredirect

Bessemer Grange School Streets thing is a waste of time.


Lots of parents parking up in nearby streets for drop off and pick up.


All probably living nearby in the surrounding areas and beyond!


Most of them could have dropped off/picked up their children within walking distance but choose to park up nearby.

Will Norman, the bloke for cycling etc. is the person to bring into the equation for a lot of what is going on not just for Southwark but all across London! He proudly stood for photos in front of Bessemer Grange Primary School but is now nowhere to be seen for questions about the consequences!

hammerman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bessemer Grange School Streets thing is a waste of

> time.

>

> Lots of parents parking up in nearby streets for

> drop off and pick up.

>

> All probably living nearby in the surrounding

> areas and beyond!

>

> Most of them could have dropped off/picked up

> their children within walking distance but choose

> to park up nearby.


Yes, I agree it is a waste of time, but your reasons are misleading.


I walk through there a few times a week, including at the start or end of the school day - the latter being more easy to judge - and have done before and after the timed closures. Yes, a few people are sitting in cars, but there's no way you or I know they aren't from further away or have other tasks they need to do. Many, many more people are standing and waiting, and walk away afterwards.


So why is it a waste of time? Because that road is never busy anyway!

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ambulance teams complaining that Carlton Avenue

> (amongst others) closure delayed 999

> response....https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/p

> aramedics-say-low-traffic-roadblocks-delayed-respo

> nse-to-at-least-two-life-threatening-emergencies-b

> ecause-satnavs-didnt-recognise-them/?cmpredirect


The article is about sat navs not recognising changes to road layouts and not having updates to their maps yet? This is a recognised problem with older equipment fitted to these vehicles, and has widely been reported. Describes an incident in Feb, before implementation of LTNs, so the LTN?s have only served to highlight the issue more clearly. Interesting read, lots of useful perspective.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I think it's connected with the totem pole renovation celebrations They have passed now, but the notice has been there since then (at least that's when I first saw it - I passed it on the 484 and also took a photo!)
    • Labour was damned, no matter what it did, when it came to the budget. It loves go on about the black hole, but if Labour had had its way, we'd have been in lockdown for longer and the black hole would be even bigger.  Am I only the one who thinks it's time the NHS became revenue-generating? Not private, but charging small fees for GP appts, x-rays etc? People who don't turn up for GP and out-patient appointments should definitely be charged a cancellation fee. When I lived in Norway I got incredible medical treatment, including follow up appointments, drugs, x-rays, all for £200. I was more than happy to pay it and could afford to. For fairness, make it somehow means-tested.  I am sure there's a model in there somewhere that would be fair to everyone. It's time we stopped fetishising something that no longer works for patient or doctor.  As for major growth, it's a thing of the past, no matter where in the world you live, unless it's China. Or unless you want a Truss-style, totally de-regulated economy and love capitalism with a large C. 
    • If you read my post I expect a compromise with the raising of the cap on agricultural property so that far less 'ordinary' farmers do not get caught  Clarkson is simply a high profile land owner who is not in the business as a conventional farmer.  Here's a nice article that seems to explain things well  https://www.sustainweb.org/blogs/nov24-farming-budget-inheritance-tax-apr/ It's too early to speculate on 2029.  I expect that most of us who were pleased that Labour got in were not expecting anything radical. Whilst floating the idea of hitting those looking to minimise inheritance tax, including gifting, like fuel duty they also chickened put. I'm surprised that anyone could start touting for the Tories after 14 years of financial mismanagement and general incompetence. Surly not.  A very low bar for Labour but they must be well aware that there doesn't need to be much of a swing form Reform to overturn Labour's artificially large majority.  But even with a generally rabid right wing press, now was the opportunity to be much braver.
    • And I worry this Labour government with all of it's own goals and the tax increases is playing into Farage's hands. With Trump winning in the US, his BFF Farage is likely to benefit from strained relations between the US administration and the UK one. As Alastair Campbell said on a recent episode of The Rest is Politics who would not have wanted to be a fly on the wall of the first call between Angela Rayner and JD Vance....those two really are oil and water. Scary, scary times right now and there seems to be a lack of leadership and political nous within the government at a time when we really need it - there aren't many in the cabinet who you think will play well on the global stage.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...