eastdulwichhenry

Sure, it would be fantastic to do something about the traffic on EDG. It's always been bad, even before the LTN was introduced. Probably road charging is the way forward there, with exemptions for disabled badge holders... because it is a through route, and sometimes people have to use it, but the goal is to eliminate needless travel along that corridor. But reopening Melbourne Grove and Calton Avenue isn't the solution. That would simply mean the overall traffic reductions we've seen would be reversed. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I just hope that something is done about the > congested traffic on EDG, Croxted on school > mornings. Life in an LTN must be lovely, so I'm > happy for you...now might be a time to think about > others.

We can but hope! Interesting news that Westminster has gone Labour too. They have been traditionally one of the worst when it came to traffic reduction and cycle lane provision. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the result at least suggests that LTNs are not as > unpopular as a vocal minority would have us > believe. > The data is also clear - they?ve succeeded in > bringing traffic down and increasing active > travel. > My hope is that people can now concentrate on > making more improvements locally to transport > nadthe environment.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hopefully we can now have a proper, democratic > consultation on LTNs. > > I think the vote for Labour has not been one > generally in favour of LTNs but a response to > recent events on the national stage. Speaking personally it was the opposite. I voted for Labour because they're the party most likely to keep the LTNs, even though they're unimpressive on the national stage. And I'm not particularly surprised they kept quiet about it on their campaign, from a pragmatic point of view it's clearly a hot potato right now that might turn voters off, but hopefully over time the issue will recede into the background as people realise the LTNs are here to stay. Sometimes the right thing to do and the popular thing to do aren't aligned.

Some of them are describing it as a "shanty town"! 😎

CPR Dave Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > very little pollution and no road traffic accidents > whatsoever. Do you really imagine that children are immune from being injured by cars just because they're driving autonomously? Or that Melbourne Grove will be a safe and pleasant cycling route if it's full of traffic, merely because said traffic is computer-driven and electric? However fancy the technology becomes, our streets are still going to be narrow, congested and potentially dangerous, so the solution has to be to tackle it at source, by reducing private car use overall. Perhaps then we can start looking at even better ways to ferry people around in a sensible manner.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This bit of that order speaks volumes: > > Overall the response from the consultation > regarding the measures on > Melbourne Grove North, Derwent Grove, Elsie Road > and Tintagel Crescent > showed a preference for the measures to be > removed. However, the > measures were popular with those who were > residents of the filtered streets. > > I wonder how much pressure was exerted by those > same residents on the filtered streets to not move > forward with the revised measures? Is the > Melbourne Grove Resident's Association now > rivalling Southwark Cyclists for airtime and > influence with the council? I don't live in the Melbourne Grove area at all, but I do use it as a daily thoroughfare for walking and cycling so obviously I'm very glad that the strange decision to scrap the Melbourne Grove south closure has been reversed. So pinning the blame for this on NIMBYs in Melbourne Grove is wide of the mark. As for why certain objections were listened to and others were not, that should be very obvious. There is a London-wide policy of taking measures to reduce car usage, so objections to the LTN because it restricts people's ability to drive around are obviously not something that can be taken seriously given the council and the assembly's policy. The objections to reopening Melbourne Grove south, however, were taken seriously (much to my surprise, I have to say) because the council's original decision to reopen that road was based on objectives that aren't consistent with the overall goal.

Not sure if anyone else knows about this, but I've heard a rumour of an attempted mugging this evening on the small passageway between St Francis Rd and Abbotswood Rd, apparently an estate agent was cut with a knife and had to go to King's for treatment. Quite worrying if true...

Well I'd think the logic there is that if you close roads, traffic disappears. And if you then reopen them again, that same traffic will reappear. People who've moved to cycling/walking/bus will gradually start using their cars again if they find driving along Melbourne Grove easy again. The theory that building more roads increases traffic appears to be long-attested, and you only need to look at a city like Los Angeles, with its vast network of wide motorways, all choked with traffic, to see evidence of this. Presumably the opposite is true, that reducing the amount of road space reduces the amount of traffic overall. ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They worry that reopening Melbourne South would > dump more traffic on Esat Dulwich Grove? Why, > hasn't the council's own Department of Magic > trumpeted that the traffic has simply disappeared? > Ergo there should be nothing to 'dump' so why the > worry?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The latest data shows a further fall in traffic. > Across all count sites traffic has decreased by > 12% compared to before the scheme. > > Of course, it will make no difference to those > opposed, but encouraging for anyone interested in > the reality of what?s happening. Indeed. It's encouraging stuff, and fantastic that East Dulwich is finally becoming a place that's genuinely friendly to non-car-users.

There doesn't seem much prospect of the poor situation at DMC improving. The CQC did an inspection a couple of months ago and deemed the practice inadequate, but they're just carrying on as before, with no guaranteed way to get to a GP.

I received an update on plans from the council today, and I opened it with some trepidation, thinking they might decide to just scrap the whole LTN based on the noisy objections like those we see here, reversing the gains we've made in ease of walking and cycling on Melbourne Grove/Calton Avenue, but apparently it's even better news than that, they've decided not to proceed with the Melbourne Grove south reopening. If I understood correctly, that's great news. Reopening that route as a LL to EDG rat-run would have reversed some of the fantastic gains that we've made due to the LTN - in particular the ability to go from ED station to the library along a largely traffic-free route.

I know many here don't agree with LTNs at all and I'll probably get flamed for this, but personally I am concerned about the reopening of Melbourne Grove south to all traffic outside of core hours, in the new Southwark proposals. It seems like this will turn this residential road back into a rat run between LL and EDG, except during the narrow window of time when the bus gate will be in operation. I don't live on Melbourne Grove or any road around it myself, but I walk up and down it frequently from the railway station to Lordship Lane south. The council's own memo says "In July local councils were given new government guidance not to remove schemes unless they are demonstrably not meeting their objectives to support active travel", yet here they are removing a part of the scheme that has actively helped many of us in moving from car use to walking, by removing the clear route along the whole of Melbourne Grove. Is anyone objecting to the reopening of Melbourne Grove, or is it a fait accompli?

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Final comment - a consultation is not a > referendum (can you imagine a referendum say on > bringing back hanging, or leaving the EU - surely > not). It is a measure of the more extreme views, > pro and anti." > > I saw that on Twitter, attributed to > Cllr.Leeming. > > I must say the two councillors for the ward have > not shown themselves in the best light to their > WHOLE electorate. Only to the FEW people we all > know from Calton Ave, Court Lane and Gilkes > Crescent. The job of an elected official is to cater to the needs of ALL their citizens, and I don't mean those who live in leafy mansions on Calton Avenue, I refer to those who are disadvantaged, disabled, young etc. Governance is not a question of who shouts the loudest on an internet forum or go marching around the streets on a Saturday. That means that sometimes they have to go against what is "democratic", to do what is *right*. In the case of creating safer streets for local children and poorer residents without cars, to walk and cycle on, is clearly the right thing to do. And before you lecture me about the supposed increase in traffic on LL or EDG, remember that there is little evidence for that. Those streets have always been busy and they still are, surprise surprise - although of course measures to reduce that traffic would be even better, perhaps through congestion charging. Meanwhile, however, there is ample evidence that overall car use in the area has decreased substantially. With the exception of the dubious decision to reopen Melbourne Grove south, I thank Southwark council for staying true to the course and helping to do something about the climate and pollution emergency in London.

Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you know what would be great @dulwichcentral Maybe > Southwark could publish its data for all to see. > then anyone could analyze it. eg. how many emails > objecting to the Duwlich road closures have they > recieved? it would be good to know. Who cares how many emails they've received? Decisions are not made based on the number of angry people that write in. There's going to be a proper study done towards the end of the year, and we'll see what happens then. My sense is that more people are in favour of the LTN than against it, particularly now that the early teething problems have largely gone away, but who knows.

Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > eastdulwichhenry Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > I have a fear that the pro-car lobby are going > to > > win out when the trial comes to an end, as they > > did in Camberwell Grove, but let's wait and > see. > > I'm enjoying it while it lasts. > > Really sad that people still frame the argument > like this. Pro-car? Anti-cyclist? No - just want a > solution taht's fair to all. From what I can gather on this thread, most of the people complaining aren't willing to explore any solutions whatsoever, they just want to reopen all the closed roads and go back to how it was last year. And this despite the proven levels of pollution across the area, and the obvious lack of sensible and safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists to travel between the Dog Kennel Hill area and the southern end of Lordship Lane. To be honest, I can see how the present arrangements may cause problems for disabled residents who have to use cars, as well as tradespeople and emergency services. So yes, finding some way to allow those people to use the routes while keeping others off would be a sensible compromise. So you can tell yourself you're not "pro-car" all you like, but unless you can come up with alternatives which actually address the above issues, then I'm we'll have to agree to disagree.