Earl Aelfheah

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?

The system with the pool is really good. They've done an excellent job imo.

The two views seem to be: 1. Those who really want to be able to drive without hindrance 2. Those who want to make it easier to walk and cycle and more difficult to use ones car. The main disagreement is whether attempts to achieve this with filtering traffic on certain roads, leads to better or worse outcomes in general, when it comes to health, the environment, quality of life etc. Reasonable people may take different views on this, as clearly there are knock on impacts. But if you agree with aim 2. , but not the approach to trying to attain it, then it would be interesting to hear alternatives suggestions. I haven't really heard however, anyone explaining how the first approach (sticking with the status quo) can possibly make anything better.

mikeb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've only dipped into this every so often because > the thread goes round in circles. > > It seems to be polarised between two groups who > just aren't going to agree. > 1. those who want a return to pre-closure state, > who can't see anything wrong with the traffic as > it was before, including when it involves passing > and queueing at many many primary and secondary > schools > 2. those for whom the current changes are only the > start of a new paradigm whereby pretty much no-one > ever drives > > Does anyone have any real ideas how to reconcile > these two groups, both of which seem to me to be > unrealistic? I don't recognise the second group you describe, except in the caricatures of those against LTNs. No one is arguing that no one should ever drive. They are suggesting that we need to reduce the number of car journeys and make it safer and easier for people to also use other modes of transport when they can.

Same here Sanda. And we take the kids to clubs at Dulwich Sport's Centre at weekends and now cycle, as do many others. There are definitely signs that the LTNs are encouraging some (who can) to ditch the car for certain journeys.

Not another thread please.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If they can and really want to they will. At the > moment there are other things to consider. There > has to be balance. You think the roads aren?t currently balanced towards driving? Really

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thing is, if you could get enough people together > you could just go and get a load of Lime or Jump > bikes from Central London and distribute around ED > and Peckham. They're dockless after all. You get fined if you park them outside the zone

Sorry, I meant Lime / Boris similar (I.e. some type of hire bike scheme). sE London is notably underserved compared to the rest of the Capital, as it is with most other forms of public transport

Any chance of locking it down to just one thread in the changes to roads (Permeable filters) in and around Dulwich? The discussion of this topic, interesting as it is, is now taking place over several.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Great. People who are able may well continue and > more who are genuinely able to cycle everywhere > may well start, however, for now, I am in favour > of overturning street closures. You don?t want to encourage those who are able to cycle to do so?

Ginster Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ambulance again. Must have taken ages to get thro This shows three vehicles waiting at a red light/ pedestrian crossing

A lot more people cycling their kids to gymnastics in the Village. I?ve heard several comments along the lines of ?decided to cycle as it?s so much easier now?. I know it?s only anecdote and many will swear it?s made up, but it is what I?ve heard (including from one of the helpers there who also commented on how many more people cycling). Anyway, these are the types of changes in behaviour that take a little time but start feeding through.

Another thread? Really?

e-bikes like Lime are particularly good, because they can be used regardless of fitness level. A segregated bike lane and local e-bike hire scheme would create a lot more opportunity for people to connect to trains and tubes easily, cheaply and quickly.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > would also make it super easy to get to Herne > Hill > > for Thameslink services. > > > > If people could hop on a hire bike and leave it > at > > the station, it may also have a positive impact > on > > car congestion along EDG > > Sadly, seems bike theft is on the rise and making > all day parking at station secure enough possibly > not realistic, also only limited space outside. > People can use folders though and take them into > work. this is why a hire bike scheme like Lime or Santander would be great (you don't have to worry about your bike being nicked). They have them in nearly every other part of the Capital, except Southwark, where they only operate in the north of the borough.

would also make it super easy to get to Herne Hill for Thameslink services. If people could hop on a hire bike and leave it at the station, it may also have a positive impact on car congestion along EDG

eastdulwichhenry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dulwichfolk Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Sounds a great idea. > > > > But EDG is very narrow even more so than most > of > > the roads closed so where exactly would there > be > > space for the cycle lane? > > True, perhaps it's not as easy as I thought. The > first part of the route can travel down the backs > of the houses on Deventer Crescent, but the > section past the health centre and is indeed > narrow. It does seem like a through route could be > provided inside the Charter School and Tessa > Jowell health centre grounds, but I suppose the > plans for the development of those sites are too > far advanced to modify for public cycle lanes! There is room West of the Townley Road Junction. This would create a link with the Railton Road LTN and the tube at Brixton. Would make a massive difference to (especially if Southwark could work with hire bike companies such as Lime to bring them to ED).

Remember what it was like before: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1305975194440413184.html