Earl Aelfheah

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The roads aren't closed though, they are filtered. > Every street can be driven on and to. Residents > can also use their cars, get deliveries etc., it?s > just not possible to drive straight through from > one main road to the next. > > I'm sorry, this is the definition of a cul-de-sac > - often marked with 'No Through Road'. True - it's > not actually what we often refer to rudely as ' a > gated community' but it is the next best thing. > THE ROAD IS CLOSED TO THROUGH TRAFFIC (pardon for > shouting). A 'filter' suggests that you can pass > through, but although pedestrians and bikes I > suppose can - 4 wheeled vehicles can't. They are > not 'filtered' they are blocked. The road (as a > road, as opposed to a pavement or cycle track) is > closed. The road is not closed to cars though. There is a filter, which stops motor vehicles from using it as a cut through. Bikes and pedestrians can pass through (unlike a cul-de-sac), hence the fact it is referred to as 'filtered'. A road which has been closed (such as north side of Trafalgar Square, or many a town high street) does not allow cars access. If people insist Calton Avenue has been closed though, then they presumably would not be concerned if you couldn't access it at all, because... what's the difference? I suspect they would.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Agree with this and I used to walk down > > regularly. > > > > It was also a Schrodinger?s > traffic:Simultaneously > > awful requiring the road closure but has since > > entirely disappeared since the temporary > measures > > causing no traffic displacement apparently. > > Who specifically has said traffic has entirely > disappeared and there has been no displacement? No body. There are more straw men on this thread than a Worzel Gummage convention

Lots of people used to walk down Melbourne Grove to the station each day / evening (pre COVID... remember that!) and I?m sure some at least will remember how often it got blocked because (usually a Jewsons lorry or similar) would not be able to pass traffic trying to come the other way, or there would be someone blocking the junction with EDG / misjudging the turn. But it?s not worth debating. Some will swear blind that congestion didn?t exist pre- LTN, in the same way that they?ll claim the closure of the south circular would barely have been noticed 6 months ago.

Which measures?

@Rockets - what happened to the road on the north side of Trafalgar Square?

I?m not sure who would be heading north down LL to the goose green roundabout for herne hill?

It's a petty point perhaps, but with the claims that 'roads are being closed' and that 'people want to ban cars', being bandied about - it feels necessary to inject a little reality into the discourse. We have, I think, just 4 streets in ED which are still open to cars, but which can no longer be used as a short cut from one main road to another.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They are closed though. > > They have signs on them that say "Road Closed". > Suggest you drive along Grove Vale or Dulwich > Village and have a look. > > Before they were closed they had other signs > warning of the dates on which the closures would > take place. The north side of Trafalgar Square is an example of a road which was closed (some years ago now). Carlton avenue is not closed. You can drive your car down it if you don't believe me (assuming you have one).

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also you comment that it would be a ?disaster for > charter north? but it?s ok for a nursery to have > cars packed outside it, which it didn?t before the > closures? Well, it depends whether you think the nursery traffic is a result of Melbourne Grove no longer being used as a cut through between two main roads. I suspect we might disagree. I also wonder how many kids are walked to the nursery (forgive me i don't know which one you're referring to) along Melbourne Grove - I don't know. What I do know is that the north end of Melbourne Grove used to be regularly blocked. I also saw more than one road rage incident on that stretch because people couldn't pass. It also used to cause problems at the junction with EDG. There are many, many kids milling about on that stretch now that the school has opened. So yes, I do suspect there would be problems.

Rockets Wrote: ----------- > So then, by default, you must recognise that the > closure (do stop using filtered - it's not coffee > and it makes you look a bit blinkered!!) of the DV > junction is having a major effect on other roads > due to the closure of the A205? The roads aren't closed though, they are filtered. Every street can be driven on and to. Residents can also use their cars, get deliveries etc., it?s just not possible to drive straight through from one main road to the next. There is no journey which cannot be done by car as a result of the LTNs (although routes may be less direct), so in no sense are roads 'closed'. Some roads do get closed / pedestrianised - but that's not what we're talking about here. > I had lunch on Lordship Lane today and the traffic > northbound was queuing all the way back to Mr > Lui's from the Goose Green roundabout. So how what's the point you're making? This would be helped by diverting traffic down court Lane, through the village, down EDG to Lordship Lane and then the Goose Green roundabout? Because I think most people would probably just go straight down Lordship Lane.

Never say I am not willing to change my mind! :-)

Reopening Melbourne Grove to traffic cutting between Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove / Grove Vale would do little to help congestion imo. The road is narrow and the junctions quickly become a problem. The cars and vans unable to pass each other on the north section used to cause chaos. It would also be a disaster right outside Charter East Dulwich. Court Lane might relieve the main stretch of Lordship Lane, but would not relieve the southern section where most of the congestion occurs (from the library to the south circular), or the northern section of Dulwich Village (leading to junction with EDG). I hope they?ll be some proper analysis of it all and the council will make sensible changes where they?ll make a difference, but generally, it?s great having a few streets / routes where one can avoid traffic when walking / cycling locally. The reality of the main roads is that they?re always going to be busy, but hopefully less so once the ULEZ comes in. The idea that it?s ?unfair? if some streets are filtered and others aren?t doesn?t wash with me. The corollary of that argument is you either have no quiet routes at all, or you filter every street (which is plainly ridiculous)

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let's just close (some) roads. Things will > readjust. I drive once or twice a week. Once or > twice a year you get a perfect storm where due to > an accident, roadworks, whatever, there is grid > lock. I hate it, but then forget it. Theyv'e > closed roads, introduced one ways, traffic calmed, > congestion charged, ULEZed, parking zones etc etc > ever since I've lived in London. Things readjust. this ^

Sparrowhawk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Once again, it's hilariously obtuse to try, with a > straight face, to imply that Court Lane is a 'cut > through' or 'narrow residential street'. I've > lived in Dulwich since the 1970s and that road, > while residential, has always been a critical part > of the network for both local and through traffic. > It is wide, straight, perfectly capable of > carrying a sensible amount of traffic...but is > currently sitting almost empty. While other roads > sit in nose-to-tail traffic and pollution as a > result. Court Lane is probably the exception, granted. It's a relatively wide road (or at least one with less on street parking than others).

Great find.

Ah, yes, that makes sense. Thanks diable. What a thread!

I am not sure how much help unconscious bias training really makes. It's interesting and it may get people to reflect, but as it's looking at how things we are not conscious of may impact our actions and decisions, and about 90% or more of what we do if pretty automatic - it's probably of limited practical use when it comes to changing things. Much of the stuff that holds people back exists at a structural level imo - and that requires big change. Sometimes I think this stuff (diversity training), is displacement activity. It might be better if companies actually bit the bullet and just employed and promoted more BAME staff.

Anyone?

@Hearblock - yep, totally agree. It's been half measures too late, every time. The idea that it's about balancing public health with economic damage is clearly nonsense too- a totally false dichotomy. Test, trace and isolate is our only way out, but only after we have brought the rate of infection down from where it is now. Not a good situation right now.

Before a few streets in Ed were filtered to traffic, the closure of the South Circular in both directions, wouldn't have even been noticed. The roads moved freely and pollution barely existed. Yesterday's traffic was almost certainly down to lorries no longer being able to block EDG whilst trying unsuccessfully to turn into Melbourne Grove - that used to keep things moving.

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But those routes are only really for some, I > imagine far more people use lordship lane and east > dulwich grove than those 4 roads, bearing in mind > what?s on them respectively. So a minority > benefits and the majority suffers. rahrahrah > Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > 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). They're not only for some. Anyone can walk or cycle along those streets and they used by many people travelling to ED Charter, ED Station and many other destinations.

@Dulwichgirl82 If you agree with the principle of trying to create some routes which are quieter / safer - then the question is where do you put them? You can't realistically close main roads to traffic. I would love Lordship Lane to be pedestrianised, but seriously? What has been done instead, is that those 'cut throughs' - short cuts linking main streets (or ?distributor? roads where buses, lorries, non-local traffic should be), have had measures put in place to make it easier for them to be used by those on foot / bike. At the same time, it removes the rat running traffic from narrow residential streets. This seems like a reasonable target for such measures to me. I think James McAsh's post gives a good and balanced overview of the aims of the small number of filtered streets, as someone pointed out on another thread: https://www.jamesmcash.com/blog/faqs-on-goose-green-ltn-measures The alternative to doing this, is to allow every street to be dominated by cars and to effectively give up on trying to create quieter routes for walking / cycling all together. Yes, it also has the benefit of creating low traffic neighbourhoods for the people who actually reside on those streets. I get that those back streets often have wealthier residents on them (although not exclusively). Whilst people may not like the 'inequity' of some having more respite from traffic and pollution than others, the alternative (making sure every street is dominated by cars) is not really my idea of a good outcome. It's effectively levelling down. The answer has to be to find ways of reducing traffic on main roads, without filling up all roads with motor vehicles and reducing traffic overall (something else which filtered roads / LTNs will help with).

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