Metallic

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are so many mind readers on this thread! You > are telling me what the design is of my question, > ah this has to be an example of mansplaining. > > I am neither for nor against the road closures, I > can see there are both pros and cons. I ask for > some factual back up for one of the arguments that > the anti camp keep coming up with. But it seems > the argument is not backed up by any factual > meaningful data. Don't you understand? THERE IS NO DATA.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Closures during peak times, presumably, rather > than the other way around ( so that the roads > could act as a relief route during peak hours)? > Closures during peak times doesn't seem to address > the displacement traffic unless a large proportion > of the displaced traffic is local residents > driving the long way around? Or is the intent to > facilitate walking /cycling to school during key > windows, I wonder. Everyone is hoping the closures will be decreased to an hour morning and an hour in the afternoon. I think so anyway.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It doesn't actually say residents permits though > - > > does anyone know if this is what is meant? > Could > > be permits for say disabled people, emergency > > vehicles, people who work in the area, delivery > > drivers - all of which would take traffic off > the > > roads that currently take the displaced traffic? > I > > thought One Dulwich were asking for timed > > closures? > > They are asking for 'Timed closures to through > traffic' which means access for all residents to > continue making short car journeys. > > Seeing as wealth and 'selfishness' gets mentioned > a lot here - it's worth noting that some of the > wealthiest streets in Dulwich support the One > Dulwich idea - to carry on driving around at their > convenience while proposing that all through > traffic gets pushed onto boundary roads. Lots of > these residents own more than one car. Know what? Everyone is concerned about the boundary roads as you call them. But all these schemes push traffic somewhere and think for a moment when you next need a carpenter, painter, doctor, post delivery, whatever. They all have to make longer journeys on "boundary roads"

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They should have made Calton one way towards > dulwich village and court lane one way towards > lordship lane and then put a wide two way cycle in > the spare lane on each road. Exactly what quite a few said!!

Council hiding behind Covid. No public meetings or door knocks, only chance encounters, leaving their dirty work up to trolls on twitter, some with countless twitter accounts, and a group of people on here who would have you believe black is white.

singalto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why are the restrictions on Townley in operation > during the school holidays? Or anywhere else for that matter!

Someone has vandalised the planters in Dulwich Village. No doubt anyone who has ever disapproved of the junction closure will now be under suspicion by the Friends of Dulwich Square.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi first mate, > I have supported CPZ around East dulwich station > for 1 hour per day Mon-Fri 11-noon. > I was the chair of Southwark Cyclists 20 yers ago > and still cycle. I still have a driving licence as > well. > > Some historic local full road closures have made a > material positive difference - Thorncombe Road, > Gilkes Crescent, Friearn Road > Or partial e.g. Oxonian/Zenoria. > > New style of this LTN appear to be seeing dramatic > increase in people and walking. Causing immense > frustration for those that wish to keep driving or > neighbouring A and B roads in the area. > Is this balance right? Can I butt in and say that isn't completely right? All the pro-LTN people don't think of the thousands who work in small businesses, or services, and now have massive journeys to make. My road may be quiet but the displaced traffic from a closed junction has repercussions everywhere. WE LIVE IN A CITY not some idyllic little Sussex village. It drives me mad that no one in the council or the pro lobby can think of others at all. Or care about them. Lordship Lane is now a polluted traffic jam and the businesses are suffering. No doubt the Dulwich Village shops will tell you the same as they are locked away from passing trade for five hours a day. I wish the Council and pro people would GET REAL. Spare a thought for one man businesses and what they face. Southwark Council just makes me so annoyed.

enpointe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > roywj Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Surprising how many drivers are still going > > through the Village and Townley road during the > > closure times. I wonder how much each fine > costs > > and how many have been fined already. > > > I?m not sure there are any cameras despite signs > that there are - I haven?t seen any when I?ve > walked through the village near the top of Gallery > Road. A friend drove through a couple of weeks > during the restricted times and hasn?t received a > fine. They are up the streetlamp pole by the entrance to the Chapel gardens, one facing Burbage Road and the other north up Dulwich Village.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree with you Nigello. The big risk of walking > locally is not so much a traffic risk as a mugging > risk, for younger secondary age children in > particular and during the winter months with dark > evenings - I know this puts a lot of parents off > allowing their children to walk to school. Not > exactly sure of the solution - walking bus, > monitored safe points, better CCTV, but would be > very interested in getting behind some of these > things. With quieter areas in the closed off areas > I think looking at these things is important... Those closed streets are quite spooky in the dark.

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually what I would say is looking at the videos > traffic around GG is fairly heavy on those videos, > the area I have been most concerned about. I would > also add the the afternoons seem much worse3 -6.30 > are horribly busy. I guess at 9 am the school > Run is done whereas in the afternoon there will be > cross over of both. > However I think an independent source would be > more believable, neither pro or against the > closures. > Ironically traffic was fairly bad at 2.30 today > around gg/edg whcih you would imagine to be a > quieter time! > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Thought this was interesting and pretty > reflective > > of my direct experience of the reality on > Lordship > > Lane (I?m sure plenty will dispute it is real): > > > https://twitter.com/cleanairdulwich/status/1336318 > > > 085985267714?s=21 Exactly. All these Pro people choose their time to illustrate their view. Sadly if you live on one of the main roads the traffic is heavier than it was, and although it may be patchy, it still is appalling and never used to be for some of those residents. Melbourne Grove and Court Lane, Calton Avenue and Woodwarde well, they may be quiet, even silent, but everywhere else is carrying our/their load

Short journeys of course should be encouraged to be walking or cycling instead of a car, but there are literally hundreds of people going through our area every day, I include Lordship Lane to Croxted and East Dulwich Grove, who are also making longer journeys - business people, tradespeople, delivery people, you name it. You can't deliver 80 parcels on a bike and PLEASE do not say use a cargo bike delivery as they are often the most irritating deliveries, never knowing when they are coming.

So we are all hearing today by email that the eventbrite thing for Dulwich has been cancelled. As they say in Dad's Army, they don't like it up 'em. And up 'em it would have been. So just shut the door on that as obviously the East Dulwich one was too difficult for them and they know more would have come their way with this event.

I may be grinchy but as far as I can see this is the equivalent of creeping suburbia. Once there, these things will never go, and I am a supporter - obviously, of the groups who would like the junction open again with a camera to control rush hour traffic.

Like the ridiculous events held in the summer on the road space at the base of Calton Avenue, which were stopped because council needed to permit this, we now have a large Christmas tree in the carriageway surrounded by official barriers, so does that mean that side of the carriageway is not a road (tell the cyclists and kids on scooters) and if it isn't, where are the permissions posted please? It is probably a Southwark Council tree or up with their blessing, what does everyone think? Of course rumour has spread that benches and a bike rack of some kind are going to also appear in this space.

I haven't met one resident yet from what I would term the closed or bus gated roads, that ever said they wanted what they have been given. I have been living in this area for decades, I do know quite a few people, and so I'm just wondering how this is all going to end?

Did we all get that inaccurate leaflet from Coalition4Dulwich? What did you all think?

rahrahrah Actually walking along Court Lane or Woodwarde > Road in the dark is not very pleasant when there > is no passing traffic. Too quiet and just the > kind of place for a person to hang about and see > what they can steal off a passer by. Hardly > Beirut but that is not what Abe meant." You quoted me. I am nowhere near alone in feeling it is more threatening for older people to walk on closed roads.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A nice video of people walking and cycling in > Dulwich. I'm sure others can post images of > congestion but I prefer this one. > https://twitter.com/CleanAirDulwich/status/1331299 > 959975632896 We all prefer that one but that isn't reality on roads with the displaced traffic allowing this idyll. My road is deserted, Lordship Lane is packed. Which, incidentally is the road I have to sit on for ages if I need to drive anywhere, as it has so much displaced traffic.

A green bus. A great idea Robin. However, as we all know, any ideas that could meet objections and diffuse the hate stuff, would be laughed off twitter. I'm more than disgusted by the virtue signalling and point scoring and I don't think there will be any compromise. Whilst the London Cycling Campaign holds such sway with our councillors, Cabinet and Council, there will not be a change. So we have to wait until May 2022.

This is so ridiculous. My post disappeared by the way saying it would be perfect for yummy mummies and their buggies, to sit outside. However, when some on other social media are saying locals should support local businesses, how on earth can seven places selling coffee survive? This morning I counted 27 people in the queue for Gail's and two in Romeo Jones. Do the math.

malumbu - where have I said: "Metallic, your post is precious and I'm afraid I have to break my vow of silence with regards to debating this issue. All a bit throwing insults in the play ground - my dad is bigger than yours and cyclists don't pay road tax and aren't insured (we've been there before so please don't debate). For the first time I mouthed the words Nimby Yes Nimby. For the hard of hearing Nimby." I live on a closed road (virtually), that I never asked for. I have said enough times on here that I am concerned for all the people living a life of hell because Southwark Council decided to do these road schemes. Living on a road full of displaced traffic, especially when kids are walking to one of the many schools, is not my idea at all for a great outcome for anyone. The point I did make is that where I live has probably been "improved" for a load of people who don't live here. Generalisation. I repeat, generalisation.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You can add Rosendale to your list given the post- > phase- 2 knock on effects on Croxted Road... True, Rosendale has the two schools beside each other.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please be aware Southwark Cyclists are getting > members to support measures, they have templates > and are asking their supporters to email > councillors to indicate support > https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/streets-for-dista > ncing-2/ > > While they have every right to this it is hoped > that the overwhelming number of voices against are > also going into councillor inboxes. My point being > that SC, like other favoured lobby groups, > probably know the best way to be heard and that > meets with Council process. I bet many of these cyclists do not live in the Ward - or even in Southwark!

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FairTgirl Wrote: > > > > The reason no one is clamouring to have them > > removed is because they are not really LTNs, > they > > are designed social housing estates that sit > away > > from main roads, they have much fewer cars than > > residential side roads (see how few cars can be > > seen per flat) don't add to traffic, cause > > displacement.... etc etc > > > > I wonder if this is an attmept to say LTNs > don't > > just help the well off of Court Lane... but the > > difference couldn't be more stark... > > It's funny I didn't read it like that at all. To > me its just an observation that the planning / > design / architecture of the estates is a good > example of housing for communities - quiet roads, > playgrounds etc. > > I've seen brand new affordable housing built in a > similar way - cul-de-sacs, pedestrian areas, > playgrounds, and away from main roads. Its really > good this type of housing is protected by there > being no through-roads. Rat-runs are designed out > right from the beginning. > > I don't think it's saying the closure of Court > Lane helps these estates. Its saying these estates > are protected already because of the way they're > designed. As for the residents of Court Lane.. > well that's another matter. FairTgirl is correct.