We are trialing a dedicated East Dulwich COVID-19 Area on the forum here - please keep it useful.

Forum Sponsors

Glazer Delmar

www.fabbeautelondon.com

https://www.gokayfitness.com/3-months-body-transformation

Advertise here

The East Dulwich Forum
Coffee tastes best at... Blue Mountain? Caffe Nero? The East Dulwich Cafe?
Goto Page: PreviousFirst...5253545556575859606162...LastNext
Current Page: 57 of 63
messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Dogkennelhillbilly September 15, 12:05PM

"Unfortunately, Southwark Council seems intent on listening to lobbyists from outside the area, and a vocal minority who personally benefit from road closures, rather than the majority who live and work in and around Dulwich."

This is completely made up xenophobic rubbish - that shadowy OUTSIDERS are imposing things on the right-thinking stout yeoman residents of Dulwich. It's an assertion without any evidence, and about as reliable as the suggestion that "thousands" of people were demonstrating against LTNs. There are reasonable people who have reasonable objections to the traffic changes - but there's an increasingly unhinged conspiracy theorist wing that's progressively losing the plot.

"cabby just told me that the reason the side roads are being blocked is because Sadiq is extending the Ultra-Low Emission Zone up to the North and South Circular boundary "

Cabby talking conspiracy theory bollocks shocker. There's no point in closing roads well inside the South Circular in order to save money on cameras along the South Circular - for obvious reasons.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by rahrahrah September 15, 01:17PM

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But I think what you are wanting to offset is
> other peopleís homes and lives. Itís a nursery
> which has increased levels of pollution, a
> playground and park.
>
> Also I think for me the ultimate issue is that
> this doesnít feel like a low traffic neighbourhood
> itís a few low traffic streets, with busy roads at
> either end of them. if something would genuinely
> reduce the overall car use of be thrilled.

I think this is where we disagree though. A nursery on a busy main road is likely to suffer from pollution. I'm not saying that's a good idea of course, but it's a separate issue. I don't believe that removing the planters will improve the situation on those main roads, certinaly not for more than a few weeks. What it will do, is expose people (including nursery aged children) living on residential side roads to higher and higher levels of pollution over time as well. And it's not just about pollution, it's also the experience of growing up on a street with speeding cars, excessive noise of motorbikes, the disinsentive to walk and cycle, the loss of community that comes from a road dominated by traffic etc. etc. Again, the arguement in favour of high traffic neighbourhoods is one for levelling down.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit was september 15, 01:18pm by rahrahrah.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Dulwichgirl82 September 15, 01:49PM

But thereís the fundamental difference i donít feel it is a separate issue. I think that the pollution has worsened near the nursery(As one example but a particularly heartbreaking one to me) , and would improve if the planters were removed(and the comments on the street space from parents seem to agree) . If we are to do something to improve this it should be for everyone rather than just those living on a few roads. I think all children(And people) should have the benefit and experience you describe as much as possible. The worsened health outcomes associated with lower socioeconomic status (and the reciprocal) are well documented and this is a good example of that being exacerbated

Similar for the park and lordship lane. And Oxonian and Matham as an aside.



rahrahrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > But I think what you are wanting to offset is
> > other peopleís homes and lives. Itís a nursery
> > which has increased levels of pollution, a
> > playground and park.
> >
> > Also I think for me the ultimate issue is that
> > this doesnít feel like a low traffic
> neighbourhood
> > itís a few low traffic streets, with busy roads
> at
> > either end of them. if something would
> genuinely
> > reduce the overall car use of be thrilled.
>
> I think this is where we disagree though. A
> nursery on a busy main road is likely to suffer
> from pollution. I'm not saying that's a good idea
> of course, but it's a separate issue. I don't
> believe that removing the planters will improve
> the situation on those main roads, certinaly not
> for more than a few weeks. What it will do, is
> expose people (including nursery aged children)
> living on residential side roads to higher and
> higher levels of pollution over time as well. And
> it's not just about pollution, it's also the
> experience of growing up on a street with speeding
> cars, excessive noise of motorbikes, the
> disinsentive to walk and cycle, the loss of
> community that comes from a road dominated by
> traffic etc. etc. Again, the arguement in favour
> of high traffic neighbourhoods is one for
> levelling down.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by rahrahrah September 15, 01:57PM

Traffic has gone up all over London following the pandemic. Let's see what happens in Tooting where they have removed the planters. So far, it doesn't appear to have done anything to reduce congestion on the main roads, but perhaps it will change in time.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Dulwichgirl82 September 15, 02:01PM

But there was a noticeable difference the day the plantars went in. A stepwise increase which has been noted by the residents on east dulwich grove who have written on here and the street space.
I also donít think the tooting example is all that relevant. Whether it goes up or down it a a different area and from what Iíve read with other factors in play. I think this is a case by case basis as each area has different traffic. Flows and closures. What we really need it an expert ( of which Iím not) to do something to genuinely reduce our local traffic! Hopefully the ulez may help somewhat 🤞🏼

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by rahrahrah September 15, 02:01PM

The ULEZ next year, should also help air pollution generally, and may even reduce the amount of traffic on main roads.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by exdulwicher September 15, 02:16PM

There is ONE thing that reduces pollution.

Fewer cars (or fewer journeys, depending on how you phrase it).

LTNs help with that by deterring (some) car use. It takes time to bed in, it sometimes requires additional interventions like setting up bike or scooter hire schemes or better parking for them, Walking Buses for kids to get to school, pop-up cycle lanes, 20mph zones and so on, sometimes it'll largely achieve the desired effect on its own.

The roads aren't closed - residents, emergency services, deliveries etc can all reach all houses and businesses so it's an important phrasing distinction between "closed road" and "filtered road" (where through traffic is prohibited).

We're in a situation which was going to arise sooner or later, Covid or not. There's a climate emergency, there's a global pandemic, there's an obesity and diabetes crisis especially amongst children and it's got to the point where we could have made minor changes over the last 20 years, drip fed into the system but we haven't. It's now at the point where it needs dramatic intervention NOW because, if we don't do it, it'll need even further dramatic intervention next year (like the Athens case mentioned above where odd and even-numbered cars were banned from the streets on alternate days - happened in Paris as well: [www.theguardian.com] )

The choice now is you can be sort of nudged into making fewer journeys because it's mildly inconvenient to drive or you can wait a year or so and be banned from driving on alternate days altogether.

If you're angry about pollution, look to the people driving short journeys, not the LTNs.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Penguin68 September 15, 02:18PM

I would love to know what are the success (and perhaps more importantly the failure) criteria for this traffic experiment. Of course, we never will know, and indeed I'd be prepared to bet that none have yet (perhaps will ever) be set.

There will be no way, for instance, based on the timing, to differentiate reduction in pollution because of the Ulez, and because of this - each will no doubt claim 100% of any success in that area. But I doubt whether a figure has even been set for a forecast outcome. Probably of either.

And indeed - what base-lines will be being used?

And, based on Southwark's very fast and loose attitude to statistics and measurement - why would we ever believe a word they said?

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by rahrahrah September 15, 02:25PM

Penguin68 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would love to know what are the success (and
> perhaps more importantly the failure) criteria for
> this traffic experiment. Of course, we never will
> know, and indeed I'd be prepared to bet that none
> have yet (perhaps will ever) be set.
>
> There will be no way, for instance, based on the
> timing, to differentiate reduction in pollution
> because of the Ulez, and because of this - each
> will no doubt claim 100% of any success in that
> area. But I doubt whether a figure has even been
> set for a forecast outcome. Probably of either.
>
> And indeed - what base-lines will be being used?
>
> And, based on Southwark's very fast and loose
> attitude to statistics and measurement - why would
> we ever believe a word they said?

This is a big problem.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Penguin68 September 15, 02:25PM

There is ONE thing that reduces pollution.

Fewer cars (or fewer journeys, depending on how you phrase it).


That is simplistic rubbish. The ULEZ assumes that fewer polluting vehicles (those with high emissions) will reduce pollution - if it didn't that would be a con. Which is not the same as fewer vehicles (or trips)

Journeys using electric and hydrogen vehicles (and the same number as before) would very significantly reduce local street pollution.

Why not head for the Attenborough 'what we need is far fewer people overall' remedy - where cousin Covid-19 might have helped, had not those pesky doctors and scientists got in its way.

Fewer car journeys may be one way of reducing pollution, but it is only one out of many, it is not THE one and indeed by thinking that you avoid considering alternatives and indeed things that might work with that remedy, to increase its effectiveness.

You might as well say that staying on your own, together with the rest of the population on their own, in locked rooms, indefinitely, is THE ONE way of beating Covid. It's a way, of course, but are you signing up for it?

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Dogkennelhillbilly September 15, 02:42PM

"Why not head for the Attenborough 'what we need is far fewer people overall' remedy"

TBF with 64,000 deaths a year due to toxic air in the UK, what you're describing is the status quo.
[www.theguardian.com]
[www.independent.co.uk]

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Penguin68 September 15, 03:05PM

Attenborough wants the world's population reduced by at least a third. The UKs contribution would need to be 20 million. Not even close.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was september 15, 03:08pm by Penguin68.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Rockets September 15, 05:35PM

rahrahrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are some links to studies on the effects of
> LTNs here:
> [londonlivingstreets.com]
> ting-traffic-impact-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-
> on-main-roads/
>
> I do accept the LTNs are not a panacea - there
> will be some issues and some displacement
> (particularly in the immediate term). But this has
> to be offset against the improvements to
> residential / side streets, the increase in
> walking and associated health impacts and the
> alternative of doing nothing / allowing traffic to
> slowly take over every street.

It's that same report that says half the case studies led to a 11% decrease (which leads you to suspect the other half didn't get close to 11%).

Is 11% considered success if congestion increases on other roads as a result?

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by rahrahrah September 16, 06:17AM

Remember what it was like before: [threadreaderapp.com]

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by northernmonkey September 16, 08:59AM

You're absolutely right - there was a huge noticeable difference the day the planters went in - for a couple of days the gridlock on East Dulwich grove was horrific - it was right up past the hospital all the way up to Lordship lane. This was well beyond the normal realms of congestion. Pre lockdown the furthest queues generally went up to maybe Melbourne grove. Had this continued i'd agree that it was unsupportable.

However, after about 2 days that congestion fell away dramatically - if anything ED grove is quieter now than it ever was on the stretch between the hospital and Lordship lane - i expect that some of this is due to cars who would cut through the streets that are now closed, onto ED grove and down Matham to turn right onto the Lane. There are still the occasional snarl ups - this morning there was a random queue (probably someone unloading closer to the junction or delivering), but 5 mins later it was totally gone again.




Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But there was a noticeable difference the day the
> plantars went in. A stepwise increase which has
> been noted by the residents on east dulwich grove
> who have written on here and the street space.
> I also donít think the tooting example is all that
> relevant. Whether it goes up or down it a a
> different area and from what Iíve read with other
> factors in play. I think this is a case by case
> basis as each area has different traffic. Flows
> and closures. What we really need it an expert (
> of which Iím not) to do something to genuinely
> reduce our local traffic! Hopefully the ulez may
> help somewhat 🤞🏼

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by AlexandHelenC September 16, 09:04AM

Exactly! From the day that this scheme was imposed the traffic along the displaced routes has dramatically increased and shown no signs of abating.

Funnelling polluting traffic to pass by a nursery and along high footfall areas like Lordship Lane is a terrible thing to do, especially with no prior consultation.

Businesses in areas that have had LTNs in place for longer periods have suffered, compounding the impact of Covid (and in our area, the additional impact of the CPZ).

Surely the extension of the ULEZ area, along with some incentives for switching to lower emission vehicles over time would be a more progressive way of addressing the pollution problem and wouldnít hammer some unfortunate residents and businesses overnight with poorly thought through ďblunt instrumentĒ measures.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Dulwichgirl82 September 16, 09:20AM

And this is where we disagree, even yesterday at 11.37 (I took a photo and just checked the time hence the rather exact number) it was backEd up along lordship lane and ed grove. As Iíve said Iím not bothered re car journey time from a. Personal perspective but the knock on effects at what concern me. I think the people best placed to comment on this are those living on Ed grove(and probably matham/Oxonian) as they will see it. While those on the closed roads are best placed to comment on how quiet their roads are.

As an aside I used to cross Ed grove twice a day roughly around Elsie road at rush hour to drop/get my children from the nursery (they no longer go there) and I never had to go between standstill traffic in roughly 20 months of doing so. No there seems to be frequently long queues way back down. This is only anecdotal as is everything said on here but it does seem worse.

northernmonkey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're absolutely right - there was a huge
> noticeable difference the day the planters went in
> - for a couple of days the gridlock on East
> Dulwich grove was horrific - it was right up past
> the hospital all the way up to Lordship lane.
> This was well beyond the normal realms of
> congestion. Pre lockdown the furthest queues
> generally went up to maybe Melbourne grove. Had
> this continued i'd agree that it was
> unsupportable.
>
> However, after about 2 days that congestion fell
> away dramatically - if anything ED grove is
> quieter now than it ever was on the stretch
> between the hospital and Lordship lane - i expect
> that some of this is due to cars who would cut
> through the streets that are now closed, onto ED
> grove and down Matham to turn right onto the Lane.
> There are still the occasional snarl ups - this
> morning there was a random queue (probably someone
> unloading closer to the junction or delivering),
> but 5 mins later it was totally gone again.
>
>
>
>
> Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > But there was a noticeable difference the day
> the
> > plantars went in. A stepwise increase which has
> > been noted by the residents on east dulwich
> grove
> > who have written on here and the street space.
> > I also donít think the tooting example is all
> that
> > relevant. Whether it goes up or down it a a
> > different area and from what Iíve read with
> other
> > factors in play. I think this is a case by case
> > basis as each area has different traffic. Flows
> > and closures. What we really need it an expert
> (
> > of which Iím not) to do something to genuinely
> > reduce our local traffic! Hopefully the ulez
> may
> > help somewhat 🤞🏼

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by northernmonkey September 16, 09:25AM

And again - it does back up sporadically throughout the day - at weird times too - like 11:37 should not be a peak time, so its generally that a taxi or delivery van has stopped on the single yelows near the junction and that this unloading is causing a weird peak - generally 5 mins later its gone.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Dulwichgirl82 September 16, 09:35AM

But not on this occasion as I walked down there. Or on friday lunchtime when traffic was queueing back to the hospital (I walked all the way to lordship lane and it was just traffic. This isnít me looking for it, itís when I happen to walk down there.
Genuine question, if you are saying it isnít worse do you believe that the traffic that used to use the closed roads has a) evaporated or b) wasnít there in the first place as it must have gone somewhere? I donít understand the claims that traffic on the alternate routes arenít worse as surely that traffic didnít cease to excist and Iím not convinced the the addition of a few hundred yards and a 5-10 minute increase would discourage all those users.

northernmonkey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And again - it does back up sporadically
> throughout the day - at weird times too - like
> 11:37 should not be a peak time, so its generally
> that a taxi or delivery van has stopped on the
> single yelows near the junction and that this
> unloading is causing a weird peak - generally 5
> mins later its gone.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by northernmonkey September 16, 09:47AM

I think that a lot of it used to come down Melbourne grove (ie along the south bit as a cut through) and then cut through Melbourne or Derwent if Melbourne looked busy - or be rushing up the streets to get to Matham - so that has been re routed. I also think that there is a hell of a lot of traffic from people driving to schools where they really don't need to so some of that will have evaporated.

There is also the point that lots of entrances onto a road causes greater congestion with more stop start of cars which is obviously worse for pollution (and wouldn't help with electric cars either as it is the breaking that produces more pm2.5). Maybe by not having traffic trying to constantly get out from these roads then the flow is smoother too - especially true of the section at the end of melbourne grove where the crossroads was just chaos.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Dulwichgirl82 September 16, 09:55AM

Iím not entirely sure if you are agreeing traffic has got worse or not there?
The one thing I would agree is that the Melbourne grove junction was a mess, possibly a one way system would help there to prevent that.
Anyway what I would say is maybe look at the street space page. Thereís a hell of a lot of people who feel traffic has got worse, many of whom live on the roads effected.


northernmonkey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think that a lot of it used to come down
> Melbourne grove (ie along the south bit as a cut
> through) and then cut through Melbourne or Derwent
> if Melbourne looked busy - or be rushing up the
> streets to get to Matham - so that has been re
> routed. I also think that there is a hell of a
> lot of traffic from people driving to schools
> where they really don't need to so some of that
> will have evaporated.
>
> There is also the point that lots of entrances
> onto a road causes greater congestion with more
> stop start of cars which is obviously worse for
> pollution (and wouldn't help with electric cars
> either as it is the breaking that produces more
> pm2.5). Maybe by not having traffic trying to
> constantly get out from these roads then the flow
> is smoother too - especially true of the section
> at the end of melbourne grove where the crossroads
> was just chaos.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Abe_froeman September 16, 10:09AM

rahrah all your twitter link shows is that the flower beds have had no impact at all apart from for the people of "Dulwich Square" . "Clean Air for Dulwich " are saying there that the best case scenario is that congestion is exactly the same as it was before. what a joke

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Metallic September 16, 12:42PM

East Dulwich Grove has Charter, Village, Jags, Alleyn's and the other Charter kids, all walking through the fug.

You can't close every road but it is hell for walkers and residents between Village Way and Townley. Same for the schools and nursery affected by displaced traffic in Croxted and Rosendale.

All those planters in Court Lane and Calton Avenue contain dry earth and dying plants. It is pathetic that people who love "Dulwich Square" or whatever the name is today, can't even make the vile planters look alive.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by exdulwicher September 16, 01:04PM

Quote:
All those planters in Court Lane and Calton Avenue contain dry earth and dying plants. It is pathetic that people who love "Dulwich Square" or whatever the name is today, can't even make the vile planters look alive.

Partly, it's the responsibility of the council although using it as a community benefit is certainly an option.

There was talk somewhere (might have been Oval LTN but I can't find it now) reporting that vandals had poisoned the plants by pouring oil into them. I mean there's being against the closures but poisoning soil and plants is despicable.

Manchester put a load of much more heavy duty ones in on Deansgate, a road which has long been a pain for footballers revving fast cars up and down it and restaurants / cafes campaigning for street closure to allow them to spread out into the street. The council put in massive cast iron ones with proper trees:

https://i2-prod.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/incoming/article18263776.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_ABM_8813.jpg

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by first mate September 16, 01:25PM

ďThere was talk somewhere (might have been Oval LTN but I can't find it now) reporting that vandals had poisoned the plants by pouring oil into them. I mean there's being against the closures but poisoning soil and plants is despicable.Ē

Come on exdulwicher, conflating the two is a bit much to make a point. Do you have hard evidence this was the work of anti- road closure protesters?

I could say, Iíve heard of a few cars being keyed locally, itís all very well being anti car but keying them is despicable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was september 16, 01:27pm by first mate.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by exdulwicher September 16, 01:29PM

Quote:
Come on exdulwicher, conflating the two is a bit much to make a point. Do you have hard evidence this was the work of anti- road closure protesters?

[road.cc]

My mistake, it was oil spread on the ROADS, not actually IN the planters. They were just overturned....
[www.ealingtoday.co.uk]

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by first mate September 16, 01:50PM

Agree, poor behaviour but one would think oil on the roads might also discourage cars..odd thing to do.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by sally buying September 16, 02:00PM

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was september 16, 03:59pm by sally buying.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3attachment
Posted by Spartacus September 16, 09:51PM

Wandsworth have sent out the attached letter

Can't wait to see how Southwark word theirs 🤔

Attachments: IMG-20200916-WA0005.jpg (52.7KB)  
messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by heartblock September 17, 06:05AM

I passed the planters in ĎDulwich Squareí on my walk from a very busy EDG to the park. They were as dry as a bone and most of the plants were dead or dying. If EDG is made into a lovely traffic free road, I will be happy to water our planters.

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...5253545556575859606162...LastNext
Current Page: 57 of 63

Back to top of page
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Donate                   Terms of use                  Help & FAQs                   Advertise               RSS rss feed               Copyright 2006 - 2018 East Dulwich Forum