LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[slarti b]

I will respond to some of your points but then need to get on with work.

You make the mistake of thinking that the answer to all the traffic problems is more cycling. It is not. Look at the TfL annual reports and you can see the effect is marginal. The key to reducing car useage is better public transport.

And yes, if you make poorly thought through changes, closing roads to make some cycling easier without considering teh consequenses, you make congetsion, pollution and public transport worse. Go to EDG to DV and see.

You mention alamrist statistics about car ownership in the UK, as have cycling advocates such as RaRa and ExdDulwicher in teh past. As I have explained to them this is a misleading diversion. As I mentioned to you, car useage in London and Soutwark has decreased significantly over the last 20 years despite increases in population ad journeys. Look at the relevant figures in the annual reports, if you look thtough my previous posts you will find references to them.

in terms of working with residents, the phase 2 consultations were sparesely attended, there were about 200 repsonses, most of them on-line and the coucnil refuses to say where those repsondents came from. But they use this to justify the closre of DV junction.

The phase 3 consultations were stage managed and based on an enormous lie, that action was needed because traffic at the DV junction had increased by a massive 47% and that vehicle traffic along Calton had increased by even more. Neither of those were true.

The coucnillors consulted with groups supproting their plan but had little or no contatcs with, eg local RA's until the phase 3 "consultation" started. They are doing their best to misrepresent and ignore the biggest group reresenting local residents, OneDulwich. They work only with residents who support their own, blinkered views.

Now, please answer my questions:

- are Dulwich Village, Townley, Court Lane Calton "Rat runs"?

- If you close those roads, which roads do you think the displaced traffic should use instead

- Is it right to displace increase congestion and pollution and displace traffic onto the "main" roads which, in the case of Soutwark are oftern residential and shopping streets as well. Becuase that is the effect of these changes nd indeed the OHS scheme on which they were based.

I look forward to your reply

[Rockets]

KatyKoo - we agree on many things and I think we are all aligned on what the destination needs to be - just we differ massively on the way we get there. I don't think objectors are shouting louder and louder I think the objectors now significantly outnumber those in favour and it is the pro-closure lobby that is trying to convince people the closures are working.

Anyway, to address some of your points:

?Proper analysis weighting all transportation modes equally? Agree an equitable approach is needed. The Council recorded an increase in cycling during and since lockdown ? as has happened across London - as people avoid public transport. It is equitable to provide infrastructure for these road users too. As vulnerable road users particularly safety is key.

- No one doubts cycling has become more popular - bike sales went through the roof as people, who were being confined to their homes, looked for other ways of getting exercise. You could see lots of families cycling around the local parks. As many people returned to life outside of lockdown so you have seen fewer people cycling and more having to return to cars. It is indeed equitable to ensure roads are as safe for all road users but it is unequitable to close roads to one type of user at the preference of others. Cycling infrastructure has had a huge amount of investment and I talk as someone who used to cycle to Hammersmith for work. There are plenty of very safe routes all across London for cyclists that have not been provided at the expense of other road users.

?Anaylsis to drill down specifically exactly where these cars are going and what they?re doing?. The council have been monitoring traffic in Dulwich throughout the OHS consultation and previous consultations in the area over the years. What they have found is an increase up to 80% on some residential roads. Why do people choose cars over public transport? ? in current circumstances because they are understandably scared of catching covid on public transport. So emergency measures were brought in.

- Your comments are not correct. They have been monitoring the roads they wanted to close during the OHS consultations. That is a key point you are omitting. Once they closed the DV junction they put monitoring in on the roads they closed - nowhere else. Surely, if you wanted to provide transparent monitoring you would put it in the roads likely to have received the displacement? By their own admission the council has not had monitoring in the places it needed to be. Cllr McAsh is still trying to get monitoring in on the displacement roads in his ward.

The council also found that there had been a 47% increase in traffic through the DV junction - which was exposed as a lie so you have to take any stat from the council with a huge pinch of salt. You also caveat that the council said SOME roads has experienced an 80% increase. This means they may have found one or two and I am sure you will agree there are many factors that could contribute to this including some roads have been impacted by navigation apps and also people's shopping habits changed a lot in recent years (and especially during Covid) and there are more and more people turning to home deliveries.

The council then needs to implement measures a) b) c) and d)? Agree, except that 'timed restrictions only' don?t address off peak traffic which is also high.

- Is there an issue with off-peak traffic? The problem is the council just don't know - they did not do any analysis during any of the OHS consultations that was designed to do anything other than give them a mandate to push ahead with the closures. They did the classic - here is our research to justify our objective.

?School bus services? the foundation buses for private schools already exists and public transport buses for state school pupils. TfL have offered free bus usage for schoolchildren as part of the Covid transport measures ? something I believe One Dulwich opposed?

- There are a lot of schools that are not foundation school across the area. The foundation school buses are travelling from across London. What we need are school buses for state schools too. I am shocked by the number of people I see dropping children by car at state school. Whilst we are at it we also need to work with schools to provide transportation for teachers as a lot of teachers drive to school.

?Councillors need to listen to everyone? I believe there were 6 public meetings for the OHS consultation, leafleting, street stalls and both online and hard copy feedback forms along with online commonplace feedback maps. What else do you think they could have done to engage with the community?

- I am not sure anyone other those who had the ear of the council would say that their consultations have been anything other than box-ticking exercises. They have been rigged, warped, manipulated and the majority view overlooked time and time again. Only those who have most to gain claim they haven't. We don't need to go over them again but look at the ED CPZ (68% against) consultation as a classic example. The manner in which the council has done these "consultations" or not as the case may be may ultimately be their downfall.

?You are no doubt one of the lucky ones benefitting from the closures?. Not in terms of exactly where I live. But I benefit in that there are some safe routes for walking and cycling now which there weren't before. And I support the measures because I believe the Council has to start somewhere.

- But you are. You live in Area B and will be benefitting from the Dulwich Village closure. Talk to any of those people posting on here who live on East Dulwich Grove, Lordship Lane or any one of the roads being impacted by these closures and ask them how things are for them since the closures went in place. And please do not make out that there weren't safe places to walk or cycle before the closures. Since joining the forum your posts have been trying to deposition One Dulwich and any of the others lobbying for more equitable measures.

LTNs are a start ? reduce traffic on residential roads, encourage local active travel as an alternative to car use, tackle main roads with TfL (who are responsible for public transport routes).

- So you admit that the strategic intent of the closures is to force the problem onto main roads and then let TFL deal with it?

I am afraid you have done nothing to convince me that closing roads is going to solve this problem. It won't. It is making things a lot worse and what will happen is that all the measures will come out and then no-one will ever be able to try to tackle the pollution problem again. The council's ham-fisted attempt to deal with the issues will not work and will set the pollution discussion back by years and the sooner the pro-closure lobby realises this the better as digging your heals in is not going to help right now.

[Siduhe]

undergran Wrote:

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

> Underhill Road is now effectively a ?main? road

> with much heavier traffic trying to avoid Lordship

> Lane so rejoining the south Circular at the south

> end to get to Forest Hill or Sydenham and using

> Melford Road to rejoin close to the Grove junction

> to Dulwich Common. Traffic monitoring on Lordship

> Lane is close to Court Lane so does not count this

> traffic.

Fully agree with this. We are Underhill/Melford which is now bumper to bumper at peak times (which it has never been before in the 15 years I've lived here) and has made my cycle home feel much less safe on what used to be a fairly quiet route - most of that traffic is trying to get onto the South Circular to turn right down towards Dulwich Village. I hope it will settle down but the knock on effects of the Court Lane closure are certainly extending as far up as here.

[Penguin68]

We are Underhill/Melford which is now bumper to bumper at peak times (which it has never been before in the 15 years I've lived here)

I can go back twice as far (32 years) and can confirm that traffic jams outside my house were not 'a thing' unless there were skip lorries delivering. Not certainly just through weight of traffic (and poorly road positioned buses).

It is inevitable when you close local roads to through traffic (much of which is actually itself local) that this will displace to other local roads. There is a myth promulgated by e.g. Southwark that all traffic problems are caused by filthy foreigners trespassing into our hallowed halls - actually the majority of traffic in my experience in local roads is local traffic (or people in adjacent wards and districts) moving around what they see as 'their' patch. I live in ED, but see Herne Hill, Forest Hill, Honor Oak, Brockley, Ladywell, Lewisham, Catford, West Dulwich, Camberwell etc. as 'my' area.

[Dulwichgirl82]

Katykoo.. question for you. You mention making school streets safer. However East Dulwich grove has by far the most schools and a nursery compared with these closed roads. As the road that has taken most of the displaced traffic how is that good? This has made more children?s route to school more congested.

[KatyKoo]

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> Katykoo.. question for you. You mention making

> school streets safer. However East Dulwich grove

> has by far the most schools and a nursery compared

> with these closed roads. As the road that has

> taken most of the displaced traffic how is that

> good? This has made more children?s route to

> school more congested.

The council have counted traffic on East Dulwich Grove in September and I think they're monitoring again in December. Same with Lordship Lane & Dulwich Village.

I did see an increase in traffic on Dulwich Village, EDG and Lordship Lane initially when the junction filters first went in - but it seems to have settled now and is not that much worse than usual. That's what I see - but the traffic counts will tell.

Of course data can be interpreted to suit beliefs i.e. One Dulwich push the council for more data all the time, but then refuse to accept the data that traffic is high outside peak hours.

[Dulwichgirl82]

Well I?m glad we can agree that the traffic is worse on these roads (I would argue significantly more than ?not that much worse? but as you say the counts will hopefully say and either way we agree it is worse). But my question wasn?t about that it was how is it ok to increase traffic on a road with so many schools and community assets used by children and vulnerable people (taking the hospital and health centre into account) In favour of roads that have very few or none of these?

KatyKoo Wrote:

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

> Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Katykoo.. question for you. You mention making

> > school streets safer. However East Dulwich

> grove

> > has by far the most schools and a nursery

> compared

> > with these closed roads. As the road that has

> > taken most of the displaced traffic how is that

> > good? This has made more children?s route to

> > school more congested.

>

> The council have counted traffic on East Dulwich

> Grove in September and I think they're monitoring

> again in December. Same with Lordship Lane &

> Dulwich Village.

>

> I did see an increase in traffic on Dulwich

> Village, EDG and Lordship Lane initially when the

> junction filters first went in - but it seems to

> have settled now and is not that much worse than

> usual. That's what I see - but the traffic counts

> will tell.

>

> Of course data can be interpreted to suit beliefs

> i.e. One Dulwich push the council for more data

> all the time, but then refuse to accept the data

> that traffic is high outside peak hours.

[KatyKoo]

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> Well I?m glad we can agree that the traffic is

> worse on these roads (I would argue significantly

> more than ?not that much worse? but as you say the

> counts will hopefully say and either way we agree

> it is worse). But my question wasn?t about that

> it was how is it ok to increase traffic on a road

> with so many schools and community assets used by

> children and vulnerable people (taking the

> hospital and health centre into account) In favour

> of roads that have very few or none of these?

>

>

> KatyKoo Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Katykoo.. question for you. You mention

> making

> > > school streets safer. However East Dulwich

> > grove

> > > has by far the most schools and a nursery

> > compared

> > > with these closed roads. As the road that has

> > > taken most of the displaced traffic how is

> that

> > > good? This has made more children?s route to

> > > school more congested.

> >

> > The council have counted traffic on East

> Dulwich

> > Grove in September and I think they're

> monitoring

> > again in December. Same with Lordship Lane &

> > Dulwich Village.

> >

> > I did see an increase in traffic on Dulwich

> > Village, EDG and Lordship Lane initially when

> the

> > junction filters first went in - but it seems

> to

> > have settled now and is not that much worse

> than

> > usual. That's what I see - but the traffic

> counts

> > will tell.

> >

> > Of course data can be interpreted to suit

> beliefs

> > i.e. One Dulwich push the council for more data

> > all the time, but then refuse to accept the

> data

> > that traffic is high outside peak hours.

I think you have misread my comment - I said I saw traffic was worse *initially* - but now it seems to have settled back to how it was before the filters went in. The data will tell.

As far as traffic reduction in general on East Dulwich Grove - yes I've always supported that too! :)

[Dulwichgirl82]

I actually don?t think I did but for the sake of argument let?s say this: If the data does support that traffic has increased on EDG (another question-where has it all gone, surely you don?t believe that all those cars just stopped making journeys?)do you think it is acceptable to sacrifice that road, school, nursery and health centres air quality to help these residential roads. Will you therefore support the removal of these planters?

KatyKoo Wrote:

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

> Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Well I?m glad we can agree that the traffic is

> > worse on these roads (I would argue

> significantly

> > more than ?not that much worse? but as you say

> the

> > counts will hopefully say and either way we

> agree

> > it is worse). But my question wasn?t about

> that

> > it was how is it ok to increase traffic on a

> road

> > with so many schools and community assets used

> by

> > children and vulnerable people (taking the

> > hospital and health centre into account) In

> favour

> > of roads that have very few or none of these?

> >

> >

> > KatyKoo Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > Katykoo.. question for you. You mention

> > making

> > > > school streets safer. However East Dulwich

> > > grove

> > > > has by far the most schools and a nursery

> > > compared

> > > > with these closed roads. As the road that

> has

> > > > taken most of the displaced traffic how is

> > that

> > > > good? This has made more children?s route

> to

> > > > school more congested.

> > >

> > > The council have counted traffic on East

> > Dulwich

> > > Grove in September and I think they're

> > monitoring

> > > again in December. Same with Lordship Lane &

> > > Dulwich Village.

> > >

> > > I did see an increase in traffic on Dulwich

> > > Village, EDG and Lordship Lane initially when

> > the

> > > junction filters first went in - but it seems

> > to

> > > have settled now and is not that much worse

> > than

> > > usual. That's what I see - but the traffic

> > counts

> > > will tell.

> > >

> > > Of course data can be interpreted to suit

> > beliefs

> > > i.e. One Dulwich push the council for more

> data

> > > all the time, but then refuse to accept the

> > data

> > > that traffic is high outside peak hours.

>

>

> I think you have misread my comment - I said I saw

> traffic was worse *initially* - but now it seems

> to have settled back to how it was before the

> filters went in. The data will tell.

>

> As far as traffic reduction in general on East

> Dulwich Grove - yes I've always supported that

> too! :)

[dougiefreeman]

Don't think you're going to get an answer Dulwichgirl82...

[Rockets]

KatyKoo Wrote:

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

> Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Katykoo.. question for you. You mention making

> > school streets safer. However East Dulwich

> grove

> > has by far the most schools and a nursery

> compared

> > with these closed roads. As the road that has

> > taken most of the displaced traffic how is that

> > good? This has made more children?s route to

> > school more congested.

>

> The council have counted traffic on East Dulwich

> Grove in September and I think they're monitoring

> again in December. Same with Lordship Lane &

> Dulwich Village.

>

> I did see an increase in traffic on Dulwich

> Village, EDG and Lordship Lane initially when the

> junction filters first went in - but it seems to

> have settled now and is not that much worse than

> usual. That's what I see - but the traffic counts

> will tell.

>

> Of course data can be interpreted to suit beliefs

> i.e. One Dulwich push the council for more data

> all the time, but then refuse to accept the data

> that traffic is high outside peak hours.

September...remind me again when the DV closures went in.....;-)

So what you're saying is their data is going to be based on one set of monitoring from September (after the schools had gone back) and one set from December. Interesting. I think I can see how they plan to manipulate the figures this time round. The DV northbound closure which will happen before December will lead to a reduction in traffic on East Dulwich Grove -it will of course go elsewhere. Do you see why we are concerned why they were not monitoring BEFORE the closures went in and they are trying to fudge the figures again?

Your comment about the traffic "settling back to how it was before the filters went in" is as ludicrous as it is misguided. Cllr McAsh even admitted this week that he was concerned by the traffic increases on East Dulwich Grove.

[KatyKoo]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> Now, please answer my questions:

> - are Dulwich Village, Townley, Court Lane Calton

> "Rat runs"?

> - If you close those roads, which roads do you

> think the displaced traffic should use instead

> - Is it right to displace increase congestion and

> pollution and displace traffic onto the "main"

> roads which, in the case of Soutwark are oftern

> residential and shopping streets as well.

> Becuase that is the effect of these changes nd

> indeed the OHS scheme on which they were based.

>

> I look forward to your reply

Clearly we will have to agree to disagree.

But in answer to your questions those roads have had severe congestion on them for years, closing the junction will cause some displacement initially - nobody disputes that. From what I see daily the congestion on DV, EDG and LLane is levelling off to more or less what it was before the junction closure. The data will tell.

I would like to see traffic reduced on those roads too even if it does settle to the same levels as before the closures.

Townley road is at times worse - but more restrictions coming soon to sort that out.

If you believe in data and evidence - we'll just have to wait and see what the traffic counts say.

[Rockets]

dougiefreeman Wrote:

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

> Don't think you're going to get an answer

> Dulwichgirl82...

It's very much a growing trend amongst the pro-closure lobby - they come on, throw a load of questions at those who are requesting a more balanced debate, the answers are provided and then they go quiet or try to change the subject. I did notice that KatyKoo did not have any responses to my responses to her questions/points.

Increasingly I believe (just like their friends in the council) that they don't want to engage in any debate - they just want to have things all their own way.

[Dulwichgirl82]

?But in answer to your question?

That didn?t answer my question..

KatyKoo Wrote:

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

> slarti b Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > Now, please answer my questions:

> > - are Dulwich Village, Townley, Court Lane

> Calton

> > "Rat runs"?

> > - If you close those roads, which roads do you

> > think the displaced traffic should use instead

> > - Is it right to displace increase congestion

> and

> > pollution and displace traffic onto the "main"

> > roads which, in the case of Soutwark are oftern

> > residential and shopping streets as well.

> > Becuase that is the effect of these changes nd

> > indeed the OHS scheme on which they were based.

> >

> > I look forward to your reply

>

> Clearly we will have to agree to disagree.

> But in answer to your questions those roads have

> had severe congestion on them for years, closing

> the junction will cause some displacement

> initially - nobody disputes that. From what I see

> daily the congestion on DV, EDG and LLane is

> levelling off to more or less what it was before

> the junction closure. The data will tell.

> I would like to see traffic reduced on those roads

> too even if it does settle to the same levels as

> before the closures.

> Townley road is at times worse - but more

> restrictions coming soon to sort that out.

>

> If you believe in data and evidence - we'll just

> have to wait and see what the traffic counts say.

[KatyKoo]

dougiefreeman Wrote:

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

> Don't think you're going to get an answer

> Dulwichgirl82...

Well I could say they're doing similar in Lambeth, Peckham, Hackney etc etc

But I came on to ask what solutions people might have other than what the council are doing.

But can't see any real alternatives to reduce traffic - just a lot of criticism.

Thanks guys. Have a nice day :)

[Siduhe]

KatyKoo Wrote:

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

> Clearly we will have to agree to disagree.

> But in answer to your questions those roads have

> had severe congestion on them for years, closing

> the junction will cause some displacement

> initially - nobody disputes that. From what I see

> daily the congestion on DV, EDG and LLane is

> levelling off to more or less what it was before

> the junction closure. The data will tell.

> I would like to see traffic reduced on those roads

> too even if it does settle to the same levels as

> before the closures.

> Townley road is at times worse - but more

> restrictions coming soon to sort that out.

>

> If you believe in data and evidence - we'll just

> have to wait and see what the traffic counts say.

The traffic counts will only tell you about the places that are being monitored, not the roads like Underhill and Melford which historically have been quiet and safe cycle routes and are now heavily backed up with traffic avoiding the Court Lane/DV closure - and which aren't even being looked at by Southwark Council. I'm hoping, like you, this will calm down over time but on the evidence of the last two weeks it's been getting worse not better and it's making walking and cycling much harder, not easier.

As those are both bus routes they can't be closed off or turned into Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, so the overall effect (at least so far) has been to make the lives of those on Court Lane much better at the expense of other, nearby, generally less affluent Southwark residents. I'd love to hear any solutions that pro-closure groups have for residents like us.

[dougiefreeman]

KatyKoo Wrote:

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

> From what I see

> daily the congestion on DV, EDG and LLane is

> levelling off to more or less what it was before

> the junction closure. The data will tell.

How on earth can you state this when there is no data from before?

As there will be no useable data to determine whether it's worse now or not I feel we should listen to the residents who live on EDG and the surrounding streets all of which are shouting from the rooftops that it is CONSIDERABLY worse than it was before and has not improved in the 'settling' time since.

Given that they live there (and you, by your own admission, do not) - do you not feel you should perhaps listen to them?

> If you believe in data and evidence - we'll just

> have to wait and see what the traffic counts say.

Of course I believe in data and evidence - that is properly, fairly and impartially obtained and not manipulated / fudged / plucked from thin air or with input from biased lobbyists.

[slarti b]

KatyKoo Wrote:

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

"Clearly we will have to agree to disagree. But in answer to your questions those roads have had severe congestion on them for years, closing the junction will cause some displacement initially - nobody disputes that. From what I see daily the congestion on DV, EDG and LLane is levelling off to more or less what it was before the junction closure. The data will tell. I would like to see traffic reduced on those roads too even if it does settle to the same levels as before the closures. Townley road is at times worse - but more restrictions coming soon to sort that out. If you believe in data and evidence - we'll just have to wait and see what the traffic counts say."

So you haven't answered my quesions have you, as brief reminder,

1) Are, DV, Calton, Court Lane Townly Rat runs, yes\no

2) which roads do you think the displaced traffic should use, please name them

3) Is it right to displace increase congestion and pollution and displace traffic onto the "main" roads - yes\no

Question 2 is particularly important and supporters of these schemes, the councillors, posters on here like RaRa and ExDulwicher refuse to answer it. So come on, lets hear which roads should suffer increased congestion so we can have weekend concerts in Margy Plaza :-)

In terms of data, you still haven't answered my earlier questions as to whether Southwark carried out traffic counts on Lordship Lane and EDG before they closed the DV junction. If they didn't, any comparison will be flawed. Additionally, as pointed out, any figures produced by the council will need to be fully scrutinised; the Councillors and Council officers lied about the alleged 47% increase in traffic during the OHS consultation and other figures they have published are wildly inaccurate.

[Metallic]

We all know the various campaigns - Southwark Cyclists, Living Streets, Safe Routes to School, Clean Air for Dulwich, Mums for Lungs, all are also local cycling people and we know they have pushed and pushed for solutions that impact on them positively, and everyone else negatively. They are not willing to reach a compromise, and never were.

I'm a member of the Dulwich Society and am fast losing patience with a group that sub text their name with:

"The Society?s aims and objectives are to foster and safeguard the amenities of Dulwich, both in the interests of its residents and the wider local community of which it is a part, and to increase awareness of the varied character that makes the area so special."

Clearly they are not as they supported the closure of the Calton Avenue junction immediately ruining the lives of hundreds who now have to sit in traffic jams in Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove, the A205 and Croxted Road, thanks to the junction and free passage being shut off.

And from the latest Magazine:

"Travel and Environment Chair retires

Alastair Hanton has stood down as chair of the Society's Travel and Environment Group after 30 years. He has been a very active member since the late 1960s, working on its early campaign over the introduction of the Scheme of Management, and was at different times, both treasurer and secretary, but he is best known as a tireless campaigner for the improvement of pedestrian facilities and cycling infrastructure in the local area."....."In the wider context he was a trustee for the London Cycling Campaign for many years and in 2004 he founded Southwark Living Streets. This led to him being heavily involved in the initial attempts to create a pan-London umbrella group which culminated in London Living Streets being established in 2016.

Perhaps his main achievement, though, has been his success in encouraging local children to walk and cycle to school. He was active in the Safe Routes to School group and was instrumental in the provision of additional pedestrian crossings in Dulwich Village, Half Moon Lane and Burbage Road, and the installation of designated cycle lanes. To many younger environmental campaigners, he has been a much-appreciated mentor - he has shared ideas and showed by example what could be done. We wish him well in his "retirement"."

Unfortunately his influence carries part of the blame for the situation we all now find ourselves. Either like me, cut off if I need to get out and having to sit in traffic jams or re-arrange appointments in the future to fit with the camera times, or like people in Burbage, the Village and Turney Road who are going to face a lock in, or lock out for five hours a day.

Pity the businesses, pity the housebound ill waiting for their carers, pity the disabled who will take far longer now to get anywhere, I could go on.

Travel and Environment Subcommittee changes:

"Following Alastair Hanton's retirement, Pamela Monblat the secretary has also stepped down after 15 years' service. She has made a major contribution to the efficient running of the subcommittee and we are very grateful to her. Three other long-standing members have also retired, Isaac Marks, Jeremy Nicholson and Rosemary Dawson and we are also very appreciative of their contributions."

Yes, a clean out of the old guard.

"Three new members have joined the committee including a new secretary, Katy Savage. The new subcommittee chair, who will be put forward at the next AGM, is Harry Winter. Harry is a tax barrister and has lived in Dulwich for 25 years going to school locally. He is currently vice chair of the Herne Hill Forum and is a keen proponent of air quality, safe and healthy travel, and environmental issues generally."

So this committee has been taken over by cyclists.

Time the Dulwich Society started counting its members to check they are not dropping away.........

[slarti b]

May be interesting to ask how long the new chairman and other members have belonged to the Dulwich Society.

[Metallic]

KatyKoo Wrote:

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

> slarti b Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > Now, please answer my questions:

> > - are Dulwich Village, Townley, Court Lane

> Calton

> > "Rat runs"?

> > - If you close those roads, which roads do you

> > think the displaced traffic should use instead

> > - Is it right to displace increase congestion

> and

> > pollution and displace traffic onto the "main"

> > roads which, in the case of Soutwark are oftern

> > residential and shopping streets as well.

> > Becuase that is the effect of these changes nd

> > indeed the OHS scheme on which they were based.

> >

> > I look forward to your reply

>

> Clearly we will have to agree to disagree.

> But in answer to your questions those roads have

> had severe congestion on them for years, closing

> the junction will cause some displacement

> initially - nobody disputes that. From what I see

> daily the congestion on DV, EDG and LLane is

> levelling off to more or less what it was before

> the junction closure. The data will tell.

> I would like to see traffic reduced on those roads

> too even if it does settle to the same levels as

> before the closures.

> Townley road is at times worse - but more

> restrictions coming soon to sort that out.

>

> If you believe in data and evidence - we'll just

> have to wait and see what the traffic counts say.

If the traffic isn't moving because it is jammed, then how will those results prove the traffic is worse? Oh, hold on.................

[Metallic]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> May be interesting to ask how long the new

> chairman and other members have belonged to the

> Dulwich Society.

You would never get that info revealed. (I don't blame them for that by the way, but I reckon the membership is peripheral to the needs of a few local "leaders")

[Rockets]

Metallic Wrote:

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

> We all know the various campaigns - Southwark

> Cyclists, Living Streets, Safe Routes to School,

> Clean Air for Dulwich, Mums for Lungs, all are

> also local cycling people and we know they have

> pushed and pushed for solutions that impact on

> them positively, and everyone else negatively.

> They are not willing to reach a compromise, and

> never were.

>

> I'm a member of the Dulwich Society and am fast

> losing patience with a group that sub text their

> name with:

> "The Society?s aims and objectives are to foster

> and safeguard the amenities of Dulwich, both in

> the interests of its residents and the wider local

> community of which it is a part, and to increase

> awareness of the varied character that makes the

> area so special."

>

> Clearly they are not as they supported the closure

> of the Calton Avenue junction immediately ruining

> the lives of hundreds who now have to sit in

> traffic jams in Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove,

> the A205 and Croxted Road, thanks to the junction

> and free passage being shut off.

>

> And from the latest Magazine:

> "Travel and Environment Chair retires

>

> Alastair Hanton has stood down as chair of the

> Society's Travel and Environment Group after 30

> years. He has been a very active member since the

> late 1960s, working on its early campaign over the

> introduction of the Scheme of Management, and was

> at different times, both treasurer and secretary,

> but he is best known as a tireless campaigner for

> the improvement of pedestrian facilities and

> cycling infrastructure in the local area."....."In

> the wider context he was a trustee for the London

> Cycling Campaign for many years and in 2004 he

> founded Southwark Living Streets. This led to him

> being heavily involved in the initial attempts to

> create a pan-London umbrella group which

> culminated in London Living Streets being

> established in 2016.

>

> Perhaps his main achievement, though, has been his

> success in encouraging local children to walk and

> cycle to school. He was active in the Safe Routes

> to School group and was instrumental in the

> provision of additional pedestrian crossings in

> Dulwich Village, Half Moon Lane and Burbage Road,

> and the installation of designated cycle lanes. To

> many younger environmental campaigners, he has

> been a much-appreciated mentor - he has shared

> ideas and showed by example what could be done. We

> wish him well in his "retirement"."

>

> Unfortunately his influence carries part of the

> blame for the situation we all now find ourselves.

> Either like me, cut off if I need to get out and

> having to sit in traffic jams or re-arrange

> appointments in the future to fit with the camera

> times, or like people in Burbage, the Village and

> Turney Road who are going to face a lock in, or

> lock out for five hours a day.

>

> Pity the businesses, pity the housebound ill

> waiting for their carers, pity the disabled who

> will take far longer now to get anywhere, I could

> go on.

>

> Travel and Environment Subcommittee changes:

>

> "Following Alastair Hanton's retirement, Pamela

> Monblat the secretary has also stepped down after

> 15 years' service. She has made a major

> contribution to the efficient running of the

> subcommittee and we are very grateful to her.

> Three other long-standing members have also

> retired, Isaac Marks, Jeremy Nicholson and

> Rosemary Dawson and we are also very appreciative

> of their contributions."

>

> Yes, a clean out of the old guard.

>

> "Three new members have joined the committee

> including a new secretary, Katy Savage. The new

> subcommittee chair, who will be put forward at the

> next AGM, is Harry Winter. Harry is a tax

> barrister and has lived in Dulwich for 25 years

> going to school locally. He is currently vice

> chair of the Herne Hill Forum and is a keen

> proponent of air quality, safe and healthy travel,

> and environmental issues generally."

>

> So this committee has been taken over by

> cyclists.

>

> Time the Dulwich Society started counting its

> members to check they are not dropping

> away.........

It is so unbelievably incestuous and I am sure there are plenty of conflicts of interest given links to the council and councillors.

[Nigello]

Ruined lives? Such hyperbole serves nobody well.

[legalalien]

The minutes about the reconstitution of the subcommittee are online

https://dulwichsociety.com/pdf/executive-committee-minutes-20200511.pdf.

Interestingly looks like they are keen to involve some East Dulwich reps, in case anyone is keen (also interesting re the decision not to sign the petition in favour of closing Melbourne Grove as some on the committee thought there had been a lack of consultation... )