Earl Aelfheah

It a question of whether we allow cars to dominate every single street, or we try to create some routes which are a bit quieter / safer (only four streets in ED I think (?) where cars can still drive, but not used to cut through between main roads).

It?s a good, balanced post from James

Except I haven?t said that have I Rockets? I?ve suggested that it?s not a great argument against the small number of filters to say ?we should remove them so that when the south circular is shut, we can reroute traffic down side roads?. No one has suggested that all cars should be kept to A roads. Also, because Rockets loves a strawman: No one is calling for a ban on cars No roads have been closed to cars - people can still drive down every road and can still access every destination by car (they just have to, in some cases, take a more circuitous route) There are only a handful of filtered roads, mainly along school routes No one is saying that all journeys can be made on foot or by bike

Because that is what is meant by ?there are fewer roads for people to find their way around the closure?. I for one am glad that the LTNs are in place to stop this from happening.

So we need to be able to push diverted traffic from the south circular on to side streets?

There is a hole is the south circular and peoples solution is to divert all the displaced traffic down side streets? I thought you were terribly worried about traffic from side streets being displaced on to main roads? I would ah e thought that this is exactly the time for ensuring people have safe alternatives to the car!

The south circular was completely closed in both directions due to a burst water main. Nothing to do with LTNs. Confirmation bias much?

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can any of the pro closure people, > Rahrah,Northern, CJR Lauranc, tell me which roads > in the local area you believe cars and other motor > vehciles should be allowed to use, and any > conditions on that use, eg delivery or access > only, not during school hours etc? There are currently no roads that motor vehicles can't use. There are a small number of streets which are filtered - you can still drive a car down them, just not cut through.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The slight irony is that very large delivery > vehicle may well be for the Charter School build. Or simply cutting through from the Jewsons next to ED station.

@dulwichgirl82 - you may be right about the middle ground. I do hope that there will be some analysis / reflection by the council and schemes tweaked as appropriate. I would really regret it if they just crumble to pressure from the motoring lobby and remove all the filters. It would be a terrible shame if we just revert to the status quo and give up trying to tackle the domination over every inch of the public realm by motor vehicles.

A reminder:

@serena2012 a fair enough, I do think there are legitimate criticisms of the way the council has gone about this and the way that they are measuring the impacts. I don?t doubt that there are many with genuine concerns. But there are at least as many who are simply annoyed that it?s harder for them to drive short journey and use side streets as cut throughs. The Village changes are challenging, because it is such an affluent area - it?s east for people to cry foul. Rye Lane less so though. And across London, we are now seeing car journeys increase to above those of pre lockdown levels, due to people wishing to avoid public transport. This makes it more urgent to create some spaces which are ?relatively? congestion free, so that there are alternative routes for those wishing to walk and cycle. I?m confident that the local LTNs have led to fewer car journeys. I know I can?t prove it (this is where the council should be doing a better job collecting the data) but I see the number of kids walking down Melbourne Gtive and Carlton Avenue to school. I see it and my own experience is that I?m using the car less too. Those campaigning to ?get rid? of LTNs aren?t offering much by way of realistic alternatives and I don?t consider ?spreading the pain so that all areas are congested? to be an alternative. Apologies for typos- typing on the go

?It?s the liberal elite? and people ?without compassion? now, who support LTNs 🥴. Where as those who believe every street should be available for (a minority of) car owners to cut through, are fighting variously for: The BAME community The poorest in society (even though they?re less likely to drive themselves of course, but you know we?ll spread our pollution so...considerate The children (will no one think of the children?) The elderly and sick (better crammed on to narrow pavements for their own safety) The emergency services (LTNs are literally killing people!!!) Anti pollution (I do drive an SUV, but if you let me drive it faster and where ever / whenever I want it?ll help honest) Sharing space with everyone (not in a balanced or proportionate way though, some are more equal than others) What the anti ?space to play, walk and cycle? peeps definitely aren?t upset about, is any personal inconvenience. No, no, this is about a deep concern for others. Definitely. What is absolutely clear, is that the only answer to traffic and pollution is to do nothing. And certainly not to do anything to make it less convenient to drive. On this, we must all surely agree.

I don?t live in one of the filtered roads. I live just off Lordship Lane (apparently one of the negatively impacted streets, although it doesn?t seem much different to before the lockdown to me... I know, I know, others will swear it?s completely changed). The roads which have seen significant increases in traffic over the last few years are back streets NOT main roads. This is the result of apps and sat navs. There is research by tfl showing this. I am in favour of the LTNs because I have seen more people walking and cycling and I think that?s positive. I myself am walking more and I think this has to be a good thing. I don?t buy it that if you remove the filters it will improve the main roads. I just think it will be surrendering to the idea that cars have a natural ?right? to dominate almost every public space, and it can?t be challenged.

The poorest households in London are generally less likely to own and drive a car. So I don?t buy the idea that allowing the people of Dulwich to cut through side roads in their SUVs is some sort of equality issue. I think a lot of the noise is people concerned about personal inconvenience and not a grand concern for the greater good, for BAME communities, or the poorest in society as often claimed. I think those living on main roads are exposed to more pollution, yes. The problem is too many cars. If you make it easier to drive and less pleasant / safe to use alternatives, you?ll increase the number of car journeys. As I said above, I don?t believe that opening every street to cars in an attempt to be ?fairer? (I.e. ensuring everyone has increased exposure to pollution), will make very much difference to main roads for more than a few weeks. You increase capacity, it fills up. We know this. But even if you?re right to some extent, I don?t support a levelling down agenda. Let?s try to improve main roads rather than creating problems everywhere

This isn?t true. The truth is that if you make it easier for people to drive, the net effect is more suffering. The idea that it?s only fair to allow every road to be dominated by traffic doesn?t make sense. Neither am I convinced that main roads are significantly more congested as a result of efforts to create some space, some where for people to walk and cycle. Most people don?t have access to a car.

How about showing the evidence that allowing cars to use any street they wish as a cut through won?t negatively impact the lives of those living on those streets, or the people wishing to travel along them by foot or by bike?

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think 11% would be great if it was simpley that > traffic was lost and no harm came to anyone else.. > > But if we take the 11% figure does that not mean > the other roads now have to accept 89% of diverted traffic It?s not an 89% increase to traffic on main roads because they are filtering smaller streets and there are only a handful of them, mostly in different places. Also, the congestion that is caused at junctions are reduced, significantly improving ?flow? (a good example is where EDG meets Melbourne Grove - previously a nightmare where cars and vans used to get blocked as create tailbacks).

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rahrah > > I?ve a question to ask the pro closure lobby and > you seem > To be a strong advocate of this. > If you believe: > 1. Traffic on these side roads was terrible > before, with high volumes etc > And > 2. There is no increase in traffic on the > displacement roads since they were closed. > > There seems to be a paradox, unless you are saying > that all those cars previously using the side > roads have disappeared they must have gone > somewhere. > > Do you think that the closures are enough that all > those people have chosen to walk/cycle or not make > the journey? > It just doesn?t make sense from a logical point of > view. > > And no I don?t think all roads should have high > traffic in the spirit of fairness, I just done > think the affluent should get to send their > traffic to the poorer roads to protect themselves. > > > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > What do people think will actually be achieved > by > > allowing cars to fill up side roads as well as > > main ones? Do they honestly believe that the > > traffic on main roads won?t just increase to > > previous levels again within weeks? Is it just > a > > the case that they want every road is dominated > > with traffic in some strange idea of > ?fairness?? > > How will this help anything? I think that there is some displacement yes. I think there is also modal shift, with people switching for some journeys because of the increased inconvenience of driving and improved environment for cycling / waking scooting whatever. If you create a little more capacity, it quickly fills and you?re back where you started. There is lots of evidence for this. As stated, if you remove the filters and allow cars to use side streets as cut throughs, it may create some temporary relief to main arteries, but it won?t last more than a few weeks and you?ll end up with both congestion on the main roads and traffic on back streets.

What do people think will actually be achieved by allowing cars to fill up side roads as well as main ones? Do they honestly believe that the traffic on main roads won?t just increase to previous levels again within weeks? Is it just a the case that they want every road is dominated with traffic in some strange idea of ?fairness?? How will this help anything?

Apologies for the basic questions, but I really am not clear on how the system of admissions works. Does anyone know what difference the order of preference makes? Should you put your preferred option first even if it's uncertain you'll get in (due to catchment), or should you put the school that you think you're more likely to be accepted at, even if it's not your favoured option? It all feels very opaque and I've been surprised at the lack of info on the Council website and the total silence from our child's primary school (who I thought might guide parents through the process a little). Thanks

I used to cycle through Burgess at night. Got a bright front light and it was OK. That said, it's OK, until it isn't I guess and something happens. If you're unsure, you can cycle alongside / around it.

Demand is high, but places often become free as sessions get nearer, so if you keep your eye on the app it is possible to get a slot. Personally, I think they've done a great job of reopening the pool and putting a robust system in place.

mikeb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @ RahRahRah - I clicked at random on a couple of > the pages in this thread. It's not hard to find > propositions such as (paraphrasing to avoid this > being a personal attack): "if we don't do > something now then the next step will be a total > ban in the future" > > I rarely drive but seeing people propose "this > road isn't closed, it's just filtered and open to > cycles etc" is provocative sophistry: these roads > are closed; yes the footpaths remain open and > bikes can get through, but that's entirely > unremarkable. Fair enough, I haven't seen people calling for a total ban of motor vehicles, but I haven't been reading the whole thread. Clearly, that's a ridiculous proposition. The roads are filtered, not closed. They can be used by cars, vans etc. for access. Bikes, scooters, pedestrians etc can pass through, large vehicles cannot.

But if commuting into town / traffic is much reduced as a result of changes in working patterns, then these changes make even more sense don't they?