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

Forum Sponsors

http://www.gardenia-gardens.com

www.fabbeautelondon.com

www.takeflightacademy.co.uk

Advertise here

The East Dulwich Forum
Would you recommend your builder, plumber, electrician or carpenter?
Goto Page: Previous1234567891011...LastNext
Current Page: 5 of 61
messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by exdulwicher February 09, 02:27PM

alice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are there not computer programs that can model the
> effects of different road closures?

Yes although it's quite complex to program it and then extrapolate. The challenge is that you don't move every single vehicle from Road A to to Road B. Some of that traffic will just disappear - the car journey done by bike, on foot or just not done at all.

You can see similar on the Hammersmith Bridge closure. Some of the traffic has been displaced elsewhere, some of it has simply stopped being car traffic (the bridge is still open to cyclists and pedestrians). So modelling it relies a bit on assumptions, data from previous similar schemes etc. Asking to see the actual modelling isn't necessarily helpful - there's a reason they employ statisticians, data analysts and computer programmers to do this work and then present a report of findings.

There's a decent basic summary of some of the methods, modelling, assumptions etc here: [en.m.wikipedia.org]

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Penguin68 February 09, 03:57PM

I have already said, somewhere above, but I will say it again - the ULEZ is about to impact Dulwich (inside the S Circular) - either this will have an impact on the 'healthiness' of the streets - in which case might it not be worthwhile actually measuring that impact - or it won't, in which case why is it being imposed on us?

The actual air quality in London has actually improved in the last few years anyway (despite more diesel vehicles) - whilst it isn't yet good, the trajectory (and this is before ULEZ implementation) is broadly positive [uk-air.defra.gov.uk].

And the regular breaching of air quality standards, whilst deplorable, should perhaps be understood in the context of standards being (quite properly) raised.

This action by the council is far more about their war being waged on the use and ownership of private vehicles - which they think is politically wrong - than it is about improving the air quality for anyone - as it clearly won't for all those living and walking in the areas which will have far more queuing and slow moving traffic imposed on them from just one leafy suburb than before.

Can I just say that there is nothing morally wrong with having a private vehicle - particularly in a hilly area with little effective public transport - just look at the threads about advice in getting anywhere once the few train lines or down. As TFL hits more financial troubles it will cut services to us in SE London further - and we can be clear that our council has neither the clout, nor the interest, to object. And the 'permits to move' around Dulwich, once a right to London Citizens, will not come free, or, over time, cheap.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by @Woodwarde February 09, 11:37PM

1. School Street design - new terminology not in the Southwark consultation documents.

[www.southwark.gov.uk]

The presentation on Saturday described the environment aimed for at Townley Road as a School Street - at least at the ED Grove/Townley access junction. This would be an enhancement for Alleyns but not yet for the State schools within the consultation area. I see from the link that there is a trial at Harris East Dulwich if anyone has knowledge of that?

The controls described at the meeting on Saturday for extended access restrictions for all vehicles (I am not clear if this excludes coaches as the information given by Southwark is non specific) at the EDG junction with Townley were also described as a School Street closure.

2. CPZ
The Consultation documents describe permitted access to the affected Areas A, B and C via camera control. However the A5 pamphlet (page 7) and the presentation on Saturday also advocates CPZ parking controls. Looking at the design for Area B, this seems an inevitable imposition, as the access controls operate only at the Townley Rd access point and anyone wanting free parking for Alleyns will now be encouraged to enter via Court Lane and work their way around to any space on Court lane, the D Roads, Woodwarde, Dovercourt or Beauval.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was february 09, 11:39pm by @Woodwarde.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Romnarz February 09, 11:50PM

Did the Dulwich Society ask itís 1000 plus members before responding ?

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by first mate February 10, 07:45AM

Romnarz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did the Dulwich Society ask itís 1000 plus
> members before responding ?

Someone else commented on this and suggested members were not consulted.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by katgod February 10, 09:10AM

Re street schools at Harris- totally different situation. Harris one affects about 10 houses on a quiet back street with a very obvious way round, numerous other options to avoid it. It is also in place approx 8.30-9.15 and 2.45 -3.45 ( thatís not exact, but itís clearly tied to school drop off times). Big metal barriers on wheels rolled out to block the road then moved back out of the way.
Why they canít wait til ULEZ in place??

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by rahrahrah February 10, 09:39AM

It's hard to argue against road closures around schools at opening / closing time imo. Can't really understand why this isn't standard practice tbh.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Abe_froeman February 10, 10:11AM

Yes we should close East Dulwich Grove and Lordship lane to traffic too during pick up and drop off for the Harris schools. Dulwich College is on the south circular so we should shut that down too.

Maybe we could just build a wall around southwark and make everyone with a car pay for it?

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Spartacus February 10, 10:40AM

Thanks Abe "Trump" Froeman,that will keep those pesky Mexican car drivers out of East Dulwich 🤔😂

Abe_froeman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes we should close East Dulwich Grove and
> Lordship lane to traffic too during pick up and
> drop off for the Harris schools. Dulwich College
> is on the south circular so we should shut that
> down too.
>
> Maybe we could just build a wall around southwark
> and make everyone with a car pay for it?

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Serena2012 February 10, 11:07AM

There is a serious point here, which is that even though Southwark can argue that both Goose Green and Harris Primary schools have ďschool streetĒ closures on neighbouring streets aimed at dissuading drop offs by car, the reality is that both schools are located on roads that are likely to bear the brunt of these proposals. Whilst the concept is to be applauded, I have serious concerns that all the proposals do is to enhance air quality in Dulwich Village (which could potentially be beneficial to the Village schools, assuming the amount of idling traffic in their vicinity decreases), but could potentially worsen the air pollution around those schools on Grove Vale, Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove.

I would love to be proven wrong on this, but I feel that itís imperative that we as residents are given complete transparency as to the likely knock on impacts on neighbouring roads before any proposals are implemented, and that Southwark are required to take these into account and consider how best to mitigate these.


Abe_froeman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes we should close East Dulwich Grove and
> Lordship lane to traffic too during pick up and
> drop off for the Harris schools. Dulwich College
> is on the south circular so we should shut that
> down too.
>
> Maybe we could just build a wall around southwark
> and make everyone with a car pay for it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was february 10, 11:09am by Serena2012.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by slarti b February 10, 11:47AM

rahrahrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's hard to argue against road closures around schools at opening / closing time imo. Can't
> really understand why this isn't standard practice tbh.

Are you suggesting that, as part of this "standard practise", Dulwich Village, East Dulwich Grove, Red Post Hill and Lordship Lane should all be closed during school opneing and closing hours?

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by exdulwicher February 10, 12:03PM

Romnarz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did the Dulwich Society ask itís 1000 plus
> members before responding ?

[www.dulwichsociety.com]

What they sent out was an initial "we're supportive of making Dulwich a better place" response, but they're inviting comments on their website at the above link and also publicising three meetings.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Rockets February 10, 12:45PM

Goodness me...these plans are as bad as the Loughborough Junction debacle initiated by Lambeth - will these councils ever learn?

And for those of you unfamiliar with the Loughborough Junction mess read this (it will all be such a familiar process for those who watched the ED CPZ unfold): [www.standard.co.uk]

Let's be honest, the problems experienced by Dulwich Village have been caused, in large part, by the improvement works the council carried out which have made the area more congested, more polluted and more dangerous for all road users and pedestrians. It seems that they plan to cut the area off from car access to completely rectify the problem that was of their making.

As Lambeth learnt with Loughborough Junction - just shutting off one area to vehicular access does not solve the problem - it just moves it somewhere else and Lambeth had to relent and remove the measures - but only after significant political pressure put on them by their own party HQ.

The same will happen here - the impact to the wider area will be huge.

But as we know from all of our experiences with the CPZ the council will power through with this initiative regardless of what the local people actually say or want. They will take testimony from a few of the local residents around Eynella, who will no doubt think this is a fabulous idea, ignore the views of the masses and come to the conclusion that they know what is best for us.

They will suggest that due to traffic displacement the scheme must be extended to Melbourne Grove, Burbage and Turney and they will create a no traffic island that will mean anyone living or going about their business either side of it will be massively impacted. Lordship Lane and the surrounding roads will become even more congested and gridlocked.

The fact such a thing is even being presented shows just how out of touch Southwark is and the disdain with which they hold anyone living in the area.

When are the next local council elections......?

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by fbwick February 10, 01:10PM

Has the question been answered as to where parents who currently use Calton Avenue and Townley Road to drop off their kids will do so in the future? Iím very concerned that the roads behind Alleynís (Glengarry, Trossachs etc.) will become the default drop off zone. These roads are often dangerous in the mornings for pedestrians and cyclists and these proposals could make that worse.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Penguin68 February 10, 01:56PM

I am assuming that the few existing shops and restaurants in Dulwich will be able to continue to survive with only Dulwich resident custom, because the chance of visitors to Dulwich is being extinguished by these proposals.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Rockets February 10, 01:59PM

I like the way the council highlights Village Books at the epicentre of the new schematic - has anyone asked them for their opinion?!

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by rahrahrah February 10, 02:19PM

Penguin68 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am assuming that the few existing shops and
> restaurants in Dulwich will be able to continue to
> survive with only Dulwich resident custom, because
> the chance of visitors to Dulwich is being
> extinguished by these proposals.

I suspect they do pretty much do now. Who drives to the Village to eat? There's nowhere to park anyway.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by apbremer February 10, 02:20PM

The least we should have is a trial period, but I understand that our Lords and Masters will not countenance this, and insist that the bulldozers take over wholesale. Madness.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by rahrahrah February 10, 02:20PM

slarti b Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rahrahrah Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's hard to argue against road closures around
> schools at opening / closing time imo. Can't
> > really understand why this isn't standard
> practice tbh.
>
> Are you suggesting that, as part of this "standard
> practise", Dulwich Village, East Dulwich Grove,
> Red Post Hill and Lordship Lane should all be
> closed during school opneing and closing hours?

Some of those schools (Harris Primary for example) already do. Not Lordship Lane, but the road on the other side is closed to traffic as part of the School Streets programme. I don't know about the others, but certainly they could.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by rahrahrah February 10, 02:24PM

Reading above, it sounds as thought Goose Green has school street closures also. As I say, it seems like a bit of a no-brainer to me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was february 10, 02:29pm by rahrahrah.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by rahrahrah February 10, 02:30PM

The reality of all of this, is that we give huge amounts of public space over to (often single occupancy) motor vehicles. It's totally disproportionate and needs rebalancing in favour of pedestrians and cyclists.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Rockets February 10, 03:02PM

Rahrahrah, is not the closing of the whole of one side of Dulwich Village to through traffic not ever-so slightly disproportionate...I know you are a big fan of cycling and walking everywhere but surely you must be able to realise that these proposals are nonsensical and will do nothing to solve the problem but make matters worse and create gridlock elsewhere? There is a reason why people use that intersection and it is not because they want to - it is because they have to.

Not every car journey is a pointless journey and many are by necessity because people cannot cycle or walk - unfortunately the cycle and pedestrian utopia many dream of will never exist because life has changed and people are living further and further away from the places that they work, educate and play in. By closing sections of a city to road users who happen to be in cars doesn't help the problem - it makes matters worse.

That traffic will go somewhere - it won't just magically disappear - nor will people stop using their cars on the basis of this - they will just find another route. That's what happened with Loughborough junction and it is what will happen here.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Abe_froeman February 10, 03:05PM

He does want a wall!

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by rahrahrah February 10, 03:12PM

Rockets Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > That traffic will go somewhere - it won't just
> magically disappear

I predict that quite a lot of it will disappear actually. That's certainly what's been found when other, similar schemes have been introduced. I am a car driver by the way, but recognise that the current situation is unsustainable and that we need change.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was february 10, 03:16pm by rahrahrah.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Abe_froeman February 10, 03:27PM

And with the vehicles, the sports clubs, shops and restaurants may well also disappear.

I suspect the schools may struggle too tbh. It will be hard to attract prospective parents from outside the area to send their children there when they have to travel by the public transport that is actually available to get to those streets

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by rahrahrah February 10, 03:29PM

We always hear these arguements whenever anyone suggests measures to tackle issues with motor traffic. Yet we have seen some massive successes in London. Around 70% of traffic going over Blackfriars bridge during rush hour is now people travelling on bikes, as a result of re-allocating a small amount of space for a segregated bike lane for example. It is equivalent to the number of people carried by 64 full double-decker buses. There isn't the capacity to shift this many people in single occupancy vehicles even if you wanted to. The point is that we have limited space and we give the vast majority (around 80%)of it over to a very inefficient and damaging (albeit occasionally necessary) form of transport. Every time we try to re-balance the use of this scarce resource, we're told that it'll lead to gridlock. But this is almost never the reality once these schemes are introduced. I think it's worth experimenting a little. Something has to change if we're going to tackle climate change, local air pollution and the scandal of thousands of road accidents every year in London. Most people in Southwark don't own a car and so might reasonably question why so much of the public realm is organised around a minority activity with such damaging impacts.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit was february 10, 03:41pm by rahrahrah.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Penguin68 February 10, 03:31PM

Sorry all, I'm being lazy, but have the costs of what is being proposed (actual cost to the council of the building works, I'm sure there is no attempt to cost the economic impact on the community of extended journey times and wear and tear on the roads carrying the diverted traffic, nor medical costs to those now to be breathing in more stationary traffic fumes in LL etc.) been included in this proposal - or indeed what the opportunity costs are - i.e. what other schemes now won't be funded to pay for this?

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Rockets February 10, 03:45PM

Rahrahrah - I am not sure you can possibly equate people cycling over Blackfriars bridge to be the likely outcome in Dulwich Village. We have all seen the flocks of cyclists - many of them MAMIL's - bombing in and out of London during the rush hour and this is to be commended and welcomed but I would ask how many of those were driving that route previously or whether, as more likely, they were train and tube commuters who decided to get a bit of exercise to and from work?

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by Abe_froeman February 10, 03:48PM

The Blackfriars Bridge example also ignores the empty cycle lanes and long queues of lorries on Southwark Bridge.

messageRe: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3
Posted by rahrahrah February 10, 04:00PM

Rockets Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rahrahrah - I am not sure you can possibly equate
> people cycling over Blackfriars bridge to be the
> likely outcome in Dulwich Village. We have all
> seen the flocks of cyclists - many of them MAMIL's
> - bombing in and out of London during the rush
> hour and this is to be commended and welcomed but
> I would ask how many of those were driving that
> route previously or whether, as more likely, they
> were train and tube commuters who decided to get a
> bit of exercise to and from work?

Iím equating the reaction to numerous proposals to rebalance the use of public space with the one here. The fact that any scheme aimed at a more proportionate allocation of space away from motor vehicles is preceded by dire predications which are rarely born out in reality

Goto Page: Previous1234567891011...LastNext
Current Page: 5 of 61

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