South Circular closed just after the Grove

[goldilocks]

Years ago you could drive straight through Dulwich park - so from the S Circular to Court Lane. Reopening the park to traffic would also ease the congestion and free up cars who can't use the South Circ today but no one is suggesting that because (rightly) having traffic going through the park sounds like a bad idea! However, I'm willing to bet that had the park only closed last year there would be people calling for that.

In terms of whether it is appropriate to point out what is the council's role though - there are a large number of people who look to blame cllrs for many things they're not responsible for, so its an understandable point however made. I'd also note that the local Conservative wannabe cllrs seem to think that they will improve the mail service, despite it being a privately run company and nothing to do with the council and therefore trying to make clear where council's mandates end appears reasonable. Unless Tristan Honeybee or whatever he's called is going to deliver the postal backlog on one of his long runs (which seemed to be his other main point re election) then it seems unlikely they'll have much effect on that either - and that's from people actively seeking election, so the fact the general public doesn't know what is and isn't within a council's remit is entirely plausible.

[heartblock]

Nigello

I have no personal issues with any of the Councillors on Southwark, I disagree with my local Councillor James, but like him as a person and admire his hard work and ethics, but I do feel that some of Leemings posts and declarations do not comply with the standards one expects from a representative politician and there does seems an awful lot of 'it's not my fault' going on with his Tweets. So please do not put words, thoughts and deeds onto me that are unrepresentative of my beliefs - this is known in the trade as gaslighting.

Goldilocks

The Southwark Post Office closed on a Labour Council's watch - at the time I was a Labour Party member and still intend to vote Labour nationally if they actually find a policy or two - so let's not congratulate the Labour run Council while saying others are not going to do anything - maybe?

[goldilocks]

Heartblock - doesn't really matter who was a Cllr when a privately run business decided to close down East Dulwich (not Southwark) sorting office citing efficiency concerns, but really with an eye to the value of the site for resale.

My point is that cllrs can't control this, its not in their remit. They can speak against it (and did), Helen Hayes has raised the issues too but it hasn't done anything. Now two dudes in the Village are going to fix it all, leave it with us... Basically my point is that who is able to actually influence specific things is badly understood, even included those running for office.

[heartblock]

Agreed - but Councillors who continually say 'it's not my fault', 'it's not my remit', 'nothing do do with me' - without coming up with some sort of temporary solution or thinking about solutions for the future are rather pointless in a position of power.

Townley and Melbourne could have been opened up temporarily to ease idling, polluting traffic - there could be a temporary opening policy for planned events. Let's face it - we usually have at least two to three days of a nice new waterfall or new river before Thames water actually does something - lots of warning to put plans in place.

Actually action can stop closures - maybe Leeming and a few others should have taken some direct action and occupied the Post Office, I didn't see very much actual action.

[march46]

Disagree with suddenly removing filters from streets which have been made safer - to suddenly have through traffic rushing down say Melbourne Grove, where the school kids are, would be dangerous.

[Artemis]

march46 Wrote:

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

> Disagree with suddenly removing filters from

> streets which have been made safer - to suddenly

> have through traffic rushing down say Melbourne

> Grove, where the school kids are, would be

> dangerous.

I don?t understand why it would be dangerous. Normal road rules would apply. No more dangerous than delays to emergency services and increased pollution locally because of traffic jams, I wouldn?t have thought?

[richard tudor]

The only thing that is dangerous is cars could lower the value of houses.

How did did children manage to survive before?

[exdulwicher]

I don?t understand why it would be dangerous. Normal road rules would apply. No more dangerous than delays to emergency services and increased pollution locally because of traffic jams, I wouldn?t have thought?

From a boring and practical point of view if I may...

The council would have to rescind the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order that currently covers the LTNs and the soon to be Permanent Traffic Regulation Orders that will cover them and are currently in the statutory notification stage. Remove all the planters. Cover all the signs and cameras, including the signs painted on the roads. Cope with the fact that some satnavs will update fairly quickly, others may still fail to recognise the re-opened roads. Cope with a lot of lost / confused motorists - they'll be the ones who normally drive right on by along the S. Circ without ever coming through Dulwich and therefore have no real idea of where they're going. Potentially re-phase some of the traffic lights. Inform everyone of the changes.

And then re-do all of that afterwards.

To be honest, this would be an issue whether the water main repairs were in Lewisham, Dulwich, Clapham Common or Wandsworth. It would jam up the whole S. Circ. regardless. There is no "extra capacity" or resilience anywhere in the network and that applies on roads, rail and air. One incident - burst water main, fallen tree, RTA, fire in a building on the roadside, roadworks - will jam stuff up all around no matter how many roads there are. They'll just all get jammed.

[richard tudor]

So what you are saying there never was a snow balls chance in hell of these traffic regulations every being cancelled no matter what the arguments they should be.

[Penguin68]

Actually, the process could be far more simple. Diversion signs where the road is blocked (or where it's convenient to do so and switching off the cameras pro-tem would allow traffic to be diverted - although if through areas with planters these would need to be moved out of the way. There is no need to change traffic orders etc. - a road blockage is normally allowed to trump these where necessary to allow free(er) flow of traffic, which would include emergency vehicles.

Any authority worth its salt would do this, even where the blocked road was not in its technical jurisdiction (as the South Circular isn't).

Southwark once again shows that it despises its electorate (and its tax payers). And Dulwich local councillors show that they share the Council's views wholeheartedly. They do not represent us - they represent the apparat to us. They are not our local councillors, they are Tooley Street's. We don't have councillors.

Amended to add - What happens to ULEZ where innocent drivers are forced into the ULEZ zone because the boundary road is closed? Is this another nice little earner for City Hall?

[exdulwicher]

So what you are saying there never was a snow balls chance in hell of these traffic regulations every being cancelled no matter what the arguments they should be.

No, I didn't say that at all. But doing it for a couple of days is a non-starter - especially when combined with all the other stuff you'd have to do and then un-do.

[tiddles]

The south circular was closed both ways from harvester to Dulwich college. The signs directing traffic were pushing them thru the village (this was at 3.03) which means all those cars will get fined. Wonderful joined up thinking. Cannot wait for may

[ed26]

It doesn't need much effort at all. I don't think that anyone is saying that a few changes could completely relieve the effects of a major leak or other blockage of the South Circular. There's no need to update sat navs. No need to divert main road traffic through Dulwich Village or Court Road. Just turn off the cameras and move the planters for a few days and post this info on Southwark's website and social media. It would make a lot of local people's lives easier for the few days, and take a little bit of pressure off the South Circular.

But the issue isn't whether stuff can/can't be done, it's the Council (or maybe just a rogue Councillor) stating that it isn't the Council's responsibility, which leaves me wondering if they have any contingency plans if the South Circular was closed for a longer period of time, or if a more significant blockage occurred.

[exdulwicher]

Just turn off the cameras and move the planters for a few days and post this info on Southwark's website and social media.

There is currently a Traffic Regulation Order on it specifically preventing it. You can't just go "oh that doesn't apply for a few days", there is a legally binding process to go through.

[richard tudor]

Its in the rule book, we cannot apply common sense.

[ed26]

> There is currently a Traffic Regulation Order on

> it specifically preventing it. You can't just go

> "oh that doesn't apply for a few days", there is a

> legally binding process to go through.

If that is the case then the contingency planning should have highlighted this as a risk and given the Council the power to suspend the cameras as required. It just highlights the fact that the various road closures and bus gates have not been thought through properly.

[goldilocks]

Thats a really good point March46 - there is an expectation that this road is safe by the children using it - having it suddenly full of speeding cars would be a disaster.

[goldilocks]

Or alternatively fines won't apply to those following the signed diversion? The diversion route is up through the village or EDG - NOT Townley though.

tiddles Wrote:

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

> The south circular was closed both ways from

> harvester to Dulwich college. The signs directing

> traffic were pushing them thru the village (this

> was at 3.03) which means all those cars will get

> fined. Wonderful joined up thinking. Cannot wait

> for may

[sally buying]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> Thats a really good point March46 - there is an

> expectation that this road is safe by the children

> using it - having it suddenly full of speeding

> cars would be a disaster.

Why would the road be full of speeding cars. The road was always too narrow for cars to do anything but crawl.

The speeding cars situation was one invented by residents to get the road closed as a thread on this forum many years ago.

I believe an ex cllr campaigned to keep the road free and open during those times.

[Artemis]

ed26 Wrote:

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

> > There is currently a Traffic Regulation Order

> on

> > it specifically preventing it. You can't just

> go

> > "oh that doesn't apply for a few days", there is

> a

> > legally binding process to go through.

>

> If that is the case then the contingency planning

> should have highlighted this as a risk and given

> the Council the power to suspend the cameras as

> required. It just highlights the fact that the

> various road closures and bus gates have not been

> thought through properly.

Exactly this.

[Bic Basher]

Two Dulwich Village Cllrs along with other Labour Cllrs in other Dulwich wards supported pushing through a LTN scheme that wasn't supported by the vast majority of residents, yet the attitude of one particular Village Ward Cllr has stunk since the start and now to pass the buck is a typical politicians response when they're in power.

[johnhinton]

I'll vote nationally for Labour, especially because I think Helen Hayes is doing her best for us and the principles on which the Labour Party was founded. However, I will not vote in support of Southwark Council or the local councillors in May, nor will I vote for any Tories, ever.

So where can I turn? More cycling is not going to work for my situation, more pollution for other roads is also a non-starter, but the pre-LTN option is not a solution either.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

ed26 Wrote:

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

> I'm not

> saying that Court Road or Dulwich Village should

> be the signposted diversion, but a soft reopening

> so that locals can go about their business would

> be an easy option.

Ahahhhahahaaahahahah! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 "oh, gosh, Sebastian, we must reopen the roads because it's an emergency, but only for the right kind of people! Just local Dulwich people making local Dulwich journeys!"

[Bic Basher]

I refused to vote for Labour in 2019 because of Corbyn although Helen Hayes is on the whole a reasonable person that I've dealt with in person over years. (She was my local Cllr before becoming an MP), but the way Labour have railroaded over residents and local business owners over these schemes that benefit the few over the many.

Luckily I'm not represented by Leeming, but I hope Labour will finally listen after May's election.

[jazzer]

Perhaps bring this back to the topic, rather than go of at various unconnected tangent's.

If you want to talk about cllrs/MP, how about starting a separate thread.