Urgent: Help Reopen Closed Melbourne Grove and adjacent roads

[KidKruger]

Won?t someone think of the people now with nice quiet private streets.

[Rockets]

As Julie demonstrated as part of her council-sponsored/encouraged deputation the goal appears to be to turn Dulwich Village into some sort of inner city rural idyll for the benefit of a few of Southwark's wealthiest residents but at the expense of everyone else. How dare we stand in the way of this noble quest!!!!

[Metallic]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> As Julie demonstrated as part of her

> council-sponsored/encouraged deputation the goal

> appears to be to turn Dulwich Village into some

> sort of inner city rural idyll for the benefit of

> a few of Southwark's wealthiest residents but at

> the expense of everyone else. How dare we stand in

> the way of this noble quest!!!!

Poetry readings in "Dulwich Square": There was a young woman named Greer, who wanted life for cyclists to be freer.............

But getting back to reality, our area is all joined together and what hits Dulwich Village hits all of East Dulwich and Croxted Road, so the answer is to make sure these closures of any type or timing, are not made permanent. It may be the elections next year will be the only chance, but in the meantime sign your objections to the East Dulwich road closures and think about your children walking down those polluted streets full of traffic whilst one or two skip and scoot with their Instagram mummies down quiet unpolluted streets.

[tigerranks]

The closing date for this closes in march 15

Link below

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=500000057&RPID=774846697&HPID=774846697

[Earl Aelfheah]

Metallic Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > As Julie demonstrated as part of her

> > council-sponsored/encouraged deputation the

> goal

> > appears to be to turn Dulwich Village into some

> > sort of inner city rural idyll for the benefit

> of

> > a few of Southwark's wealthiest residents but

> at

> > the expense of everyone else. How dare we stand

> in

> > the way of this noble quest!!!!

>

> Poetry readings in "Dulwich Square": There was a

> young woman named Greer, who wanted life for

> cyclists to be freer.............

>

> But getting back to reality, our area is all

> joined together and what hits Dulwich Village hits

> all of East Dulwich and Croxted Road, so the

> answer is to make sure these closures of any type

> or timing, are not made permanent. It may be the

> elections next year will be the only chance, but

> in the meantime sign your objections to the East

> Dulwich road closures and think about your

> children walking down those polluted streets full

> of traffic whilst one or two skip and scoot with

> their Instagram mummies down quiet unpolluted

> streets.

What are you proposing in their place?

[ab29]

I propose to close Lordship Lane - because I live on this road and because I DON'T CARE about anyone else.

Is this not the pro - closure people motto? ME ME ME and nothing else matters?

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Metallic Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Rockets Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > As Julie demonstrated as part of her

> > > council-sponsored/encouraged deputation the

> > goal

> > > appears to be to turn Dulwich Village into

> some

> > > sort of inner city rural idyll for the

> benefit

> > of

> > > a few of Southwark's wealthiest residents but

> > at

> > > the expense of everyone else. How dare we

> stand

> > in

> > > the way of this noble quest!!!!

> >

> > Poetry readings in "Dulwich Square": There was

> a

> > young woman named Greer, who wanted life for

> > cyclists to be freer.............

> >

> > But getting back to reality, our area is all

> > joined together and what hits Dulwich Village

> hits

> > all of East Dulwich and Croxted Road, so the

> > answer is to make sure these closures of any

> type

> > or timing, are not made permanent. It may be

> the

> > elections next year will be the only chance,

> but

> > in the meantime sign your objections to the

> East

> > Dulwich road closures and think about your

> > children walking down those polluted streets

> full

> > of traffic whilst one or two skip and scoot

> with

> > their Instagram mummies down quiet unpolluted

> > streets.

>

> What are you proposing in their place?

[Rockets]

Rahrahrah - we have made our points on many, many occasions on some far more equitable and measured actions that would help tackle the climate crisis but not cause the havoc the LTNs have brough to the majority of residents in Dulwich.

So please, stop playing your usual weak diversionary tactics and trying to imply that people are not suggesting any alternatives - you know that isn't true and you only have to look back at the last time someone asked for the other proposals to find them a plenty and in great detail.

If I remember correctly, the last time you (or one of your pro-closure lobbyist friends) asked and we delivered some thoughts you had nothing to say about them - which is a debating habit you all seem to share in common!

[FairTgirl]

If you have an objection to the closures, please read the first post in this thread and email all your local and national representatives. A review process is underway and all objections legally need to be taken into account.

It is worth noting that no elderly or disability groups were consulted in any of these schemes, and none sit on Southwark Council Walking or Cycling Steering Groups, who have both been instrumental in steering the path to LTNs.

A borough wide exceptionally basic and insufficient EqIA was used, which has already come under heavy critisim from the High Court.

Nothing was looked at on a scheme by scheme basis.

The only consultees other than Emergency Services (who were roundly ignored as you may have already read from the minutes of meeting between Southwark and Emergency Services and repeated emails to Southwark), were Southwark Cyclists.

One of the impacts of this scheme has been an increase in traffic on Underhill Road, where RNIB Bradbury Oak House is located.

One of the staff spoke in the Dulwich Hill Zoom meeting on Low Traffic Southwark on Tuesday, outlining how the increased traffic on their road is causing problems for their group as the roads are now far more dangerous for themselves and their guide dogs to cross.

This is why proper EqIA and inclusivity and diversity in steering groups on really impactful infrastructure changes are vital, 'experimental' or not.

[Siduhe]

FairTGirl - as I posted on the other thread, we've been told that Underhill/Melford/Wood Vale/Lordship Lane Estate will not form part of the reviewed area for the College Road LTN. I appreciate you're making a slightly different point regarding those people who are most affected but I'd be surprised if the outcome in terms of including the views of Bradbury Oak House was any different.

[FairTgirl]

Wasn't there also a discussion during the meeting of widening the review area to include Dulwich Hill? Perhas it will in relation to the ED LTN.

Cllr Rose seemed to be in agreement with Cllr Hartley and Cllr Browning around this. Given they seem to have felt alot of displacement in their ward it should. But whether it does is another matter of course....

[Bicknell]

sorry late to all this, whats the final date for objections to ED measures?

[FairTgirl]

Hi there - it is 19 Feb - this Friday

"Low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) are being introduced in wealthier streets at the expense of poorer neighbouring roads".

[www.thetimes.co.uk]

[FairTgirl]

For anyone interested, a piece in Telegraph about a dossier of emails sent to Southwark Council from London Ambulance Service outlining delays to reach critically ill and patients in life-threatening sitautions caused by the East Dulwich and Dulwich Village hard barriers and LAS continued appeals to remove or change barriers for alternatives.

https://twitter.com/GroveReopen/status/1358358160734576642/photo/1

[Raeburn]

FairTgirl, this is the same stuff Rockets was linking to - ambulance navigation systems not updated to include adjusted road layouts. Good news is the nav systems have now been updated.

A better reference might be here - highlights faster response times in some cases;

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/13/covid-bike-and-walking-schemes-do-not-delay-ambulances-trusts-say

Hopefully puts your concerns at ease.

[alice]

Melbourne grove was an alternative to lordship lane for ambulances to kings. That is now blocked. And traffic on lordship worse.

[Rockets]

That Guardian article is fundamentally flawed in a couple of aspects and, when you scratch beneath the surface, reads like more of their pro-LTN propaganda via an article that is, dare we say it, wilfully misleading.

Let's look at the article. Firstly the quote from Cycling UK, who submitted the FOI is massively revealing:

Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at Cycling UK, told the Guardian: ?What those freedom of information requests have revealed is that there is no evidence to support the argument that cycle lanes delay ambulances."

He then adds at the end of the article:

?The claim that cycle lanes were causing mayhem and disaster for ambulances was manifestly untrue.?

As I mentioned at the time the headline of the article refers to LTNs but Cycling UK is referring to an FOI in relation to cycle lanes - two very, very different things. I can't imagine that cycle lanes delay response times - LTNs on the other hand......

It looks like the journalist is confusing (perhaps deliberately) cycle lanes and LTNs - they are two very different things

That's why, and it pains me to say it - that the Torygraph article is probably more accurate than the Guardian one in that the FOI they refer to is specific to LTNs and it confirms that there have been delays caused by LTNs (especially in the Dulwich area) with specific examples.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/06/road-closures-see-paramedics-struggling-reach-injured-cyclists/

[Raeburn]

Exactly. The Telegraph article acknowledges the problems were immediately after the implementation - 'newly closed streets' - when the older ambulance navigation systems didn't have the amended road layout. The systems have been updated, and isn't an issue any more. Reassuring to know.

I linked to another article which had a broad coverage of the topic, and associated considerations like health. I haven't mentioned cycle-lanes, and perhaps the journalist is confusing LTN's and bike lanes. However, if this discussion is around emergency access, bike (and bus) lanes are largely good for enabling this type of access in congested areas - another positive?

[FairTgirl]

Is 2 months after the closures went in, still immediately after? Some of the incidents LAS list relating to Dulwich Village were in September, the closures were 30 June.

In a youtube Zoom with Southwark Env Scrutiny Committee on Nov 4 Southwark Fire Service say they were still 'trying to report' to an SC lead around problems. They were not sure if they had been on site at all road closures to advise on problems as SC were introducing them before telling LFB about them.

LFB made it clear they had had minimal interaction with SC and LTNs and their usual process of being told about plans before hand so they could visit and identify problems before they arose was not happening. LFB says Nov 4 'depending on what the restrictions are, if it is static, a flower pot, or raised planter we *would* have issues getting through those'.

This is after stating quite clearly to SC they did not support hard closures in a meeting 16 July 2020. So nothing had really changed between July 2020 and Nov 2020, some 4 months later.

[Raeburn]

Yes, thats right - the softwear sometimes takes months to get new road layouts, unlike a commercial satnav or phone. Upon reaching a change, the time it takes to recalculate a route can be many minutes, with crew even having to reboot the system for it to find a route (or use their phones).

Rockets linked to this a while back, which has more details - and an unfortunate event in Feb 2020 due to this problem;

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/

My estimation, but I presume this is the same FOI the Telegraph article is based on.

I pointed out a few weeks back it was a shame those additional blocks had to go in at Dulwich Square to prevent motorists mounting the pavement. There was plenty of room for an emergency vehicle if it was a real emergency.

Navigation systems are now updated, for everyone's peace of mind.

[Rockets]

Raeburn - sat nav systems may be updated but the emergency services still say today, and continue to lobby Southwark, that they do not support the physical blocking of any road.

It was referred to in the council's LTN Phase 4 Peckham Rye consultation document - quite clearly stating that neither the fire service nor LAS supported physical, immovable barriers. Yet still, the Court Lane, Calton junction with DV has physical, immovable barriers blocking the road - why? Surely the council is putting lives at risk/extending response times as a result? Removable barriers are in place on Melbourne Grove so why not the DV junction?

In fact the Southwark news article you linked to says:

Internally the ambulance service says it has seen ?multiple no/low harm incidents reported and an increase to on scene to hospital times,? as a side-effect of traffic calming measures across the capital.

The service?s chief operating officer Khadir Meer wrote to local authorities earlier this year to express his concern, and the ambulance service is consistently opposing physical barriers like planters on the grounds they could delay ambulances.

Pretty compelling don't you think?

P.S. mounting the pavement is not recommended for emergency vehicles (or their occupants) so that is not a rational argument ;-) And I will ignore your comments that bike lanes are a good option for emergency vehicles - as a regular cyclist I don't fancy taking my chances with police cars, fire engines or ambulances hurtling at speed to respond to an emergency - bike lanes need to be for bikes.

[Raeburn]

Sure, not recommended, but would have been a suitable solution in the short-term, before the systems updated - right? It's very possible that emergency vehicles were doing this, and it was the additional barriers that then caused the delays to Court Lane in the article.

And totally agree, I'd love a simple, cheap solution to keep roads clear for essential users - the problem is some motorists are spoiling it for everyone else.

Looking into this, here's a more recent statement from Khadir Meer in September 2020;

?We are working incredibly collegiately with local government partners across London and with GLA partners. We are not aware of any LTNs that have led to any patient safety concerns or any significant delays. We are monitoring it closely but we are also keeping working very closely, collegiately and collaboratively with both our emergency services but also our health and care partners across London. [so as Heather said] we prioritise patient safety and we prioritise our response times above anything and everything else, we?re not aware of any significant issues at the moment and we are keen to continue to work collaboratively to work through any implications of any LTNs.?

------

If there's genuine concern on response times, I've tried to help with the explanation (in the article you originally posted, not me) for readers to know about. There's reassurance that the issue has been worked on, and has been resolved. Good news for everyone?

...but it seem this is about stoking opposition to Healthy Street initiatives.

[march46]

Rockets there is no confusion between cycling lanes and LTNs in the ambulance service's responses despite you suggesting an attempt to mislead in the article.

Further details below.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/document/2021/02/2101_ambulance-trusts-summary_of_responses_to_cycling_uks_fois.pdf

[Rockets]

March46 - thanks for sending that. I do like it when people send me things to back up their argument as it forces me to do a bit more scratching beneath the surface (I just can't help myself) and 9 times out of 10 it helps further validate my point. This one is a classic example of that.

So, here goes on this one (and I do hope you take the time to reply):

1) I am not sure the questions Cycling UK asked warranted an FOI as they are the type of questions you could ask any press officer and get the same response. Dressing it up as an FOI helps only to sell it as a "story".

I was drawn to why the questions are at pushed to the bottom of the page and after doing some reading it became clear. LAS has been one of the most vocal opponents to LTNs (albeit privately to the councils) and I wanted to drill down on the responses of LAS as this is our local ambulance service.

So....Cycling UK asked all the trusts this question:

For the period from March to November 2020, for the following active travel schemes, can you name and identify any which have been implemented within the Trust's area without any CONSULTATION with the Trust.

I have highlighted consultation very deliberately. Why? Well look at London's response:

London said: "We are not aware of any active travel scheme that has been implemented without any consultation or NOTIFICATION to the Trust"

So, does that mean they were both consulted and notified or just notified? I am sure you will agree there is a big difference and you need to ground that on noise that LAS were upset as they were notified of the changes and not consulted.

And then you look at another LAS response:

"LAS staff work closely with the boroughs' and TFLs traffic officers to ensure the design of proposed schemes BETTER REFLECT our operational needs, and also works with them to monitor, discuss and adapt schemes after implementation to improve traffic flow and emergency service access."

Not sure about you but that better reflect part suggests to me that some schemes have been designed that don't reflect their operational needs.

And again in another response:

"No, the Trust does not support withdrawing funding for active travel measures. However, the Trust recognises that changes to road layouts, traffic management schemes and road closures all have the potential to impede our response to the most critically ill patients and could delay life-saving treatments or their conveyance to the nearest emergency department. For this reason, the Trust carries this risk on its Risk Register. The Trust also engages extensively with the boroughs and TFL to ensure changes and traffic schemes (to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality and road safety, and promote active travel) reflect our operational needs as an emergency service."

So whilst both Cycling UK spin and the Guardian article tries to convince everyone that the Trusts are happy with the measures one Trust is so happy they put it on their Risk Register....hmmmmmm...

And finally Cycling UK redacted one response from LAS and flagged it as "an extract from a longer answer" - one wonders what was included in the longer answer.

So, can you see how both the info from Cycling UK and the Guardian story is massively spinning the result of the FOI one way - to their pro-closure agenda?

You could easily take that info and write a story that says: "LAS flags active travel measures as potential risk to patients".

And those LAS responses scream that and yet the journalist didn't even touch on that so it makes you wonder whether they actually read the responses or ignored the real story? I am also surprised Cycling UK didn't redact the answers more but they probably knew they were only going to be able to sell it in to the Guardian and that they were safe from further scrutiny.

[FairTgirl]

https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/dulwich-residents-are-furious-after-council-experiments-with-road-closures/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=dulwich-residents-are-furious-after-council-experiments-with-road-closures

[legalalien]

Interesting that Cllr Rose concludes that because many of the addresses of those ticketed are outside Dulwich, it?s being used as a commuter through route. Surely some of these will be eg tradespeople working in Dulwich, delivery drivers, people working locally but living out of area (eg teachers at local schools), people working at local shops, people going to medical appointments - all kinds of things without being ?through? commuters? I hope we?re not going back to the narrative that all the traffic locally is traffic that shouldn?t / has no need to be there.