Raeburn

But they are both A-roads - A2216 and A2214? I'm just highlighting the difference between the way these routes are treated by the council, discussed, and why comparison between an A-road and a residential street aren't equal. I didn't make up this designation, and I'm not campaigning for traffic on either btw - I want less traffic everywhere, and do everything I can to avoid contributing to it. .....I'm also not going to get into an argument about tarmac.......

But Rockets, you haven't been clear about what you're actually asking - I haven't been avoiding it, just didn't understand what you wanted. ATM, honestly, I have no idea - I occasionally used those routes over the years, but would actively avoid EDG if I could due to the fast and unpleasant traffic. I've not been down them over the last year at rush hours, so honestly can't say? Same goes for LL - no idea. It's always seemed jammed/congested - or traffic speeding when it is clear at night - so has been unattractive for years. would prefer to take the residential streets and avoid where I could between Goose Green and Forest Hill. No idea if this is up/down/same, honest answer. I can say for a fact that traffic and pollution has been bad for years, and that average vehicle size is notably bigger. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But you do realise, don?t you, that the traffic on > these roads has increased massively since the > closures went in as a direct consequence of them? > Simple question??do you think that is acceptable > as part of the bigger goal? From your refusal to > answer the question I may suspect the answer is > yes?;-)

I still don't understand your question here Rockets. I pointed out that all the roads that were mentioned in the videos, and are being highlighted, are A-roads - Croxted, EDG, Norwood, LL - primary through routes designed to move traffic from one point to another vs surrounding residential roads. No amount of discussion will change the status of these routes I'm afraid, and as such, it'd be futile to have an opinion (either way). But I am in agreement; the pollution is totally unacceptable, and I'm completely sympathetic to Heartblock. Why not focus on the reducing the drivers/milage thats causing the most pollution outside front doors, and allow roadspace to essential road users, instead of enabling more driving and pollution? I empathise that some drivers are inconvenienced, but this is only because they have have been driving (polluting!) unchallenged for so long.

With this hypothetical situation (and Rocket's earlier q around the same theme) - you are asking if I think an A-road should be re-designated a residential road, and a residential road, into an A-road? I have no idea, I'm not in town planning, but I guess it would be quite a hugely laborious process to re-route all the subterranean utilities along the new primary route. Besides, it doesn't really matter because cars are the problem. We need less cars. Not the current level we have, and certainly not more. I would target the unnecessary vehicle users (and direct cause of the pollution), rather than create a new A-road. All this energy need to be directed toward reducing car dependancy, and support those who are actively reducing vehicle use, to the benefit of everyone. dulwichfolk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the point is how would anyone feel if one > day someone/council decided to funnel all the > traffic down your road and everyone was telling > you it?s for the environment so keep quiet and > back the system as in the end ?we hope? it will > get better for all.

I'm not sure what your question is asking Rockets. Any pollution is unfair, especially if it's affecting non-contributers. My point was that the entire city is polluted by activities undertaken by a few which affect everyone - we need to reduce reliance on motor vehicles, specifically ICE vehicles, wood-burning stoves, air travel etc etc etc. Car ownership, I agree, it's extremely unfair, polluting at the expense of others. Most vehicles don't even fit on the driveways or in the garages that once took them off the streets, further clogging up valuable roadspace. ....hence all these initiatives to reduce reliance on vehicles, specifically short-hop journeys. The introduction of bike hangers, the extension of the ULEZ, free novice rides and training, all positive programs to reduce traffic and pollution. High car ownership = even more reason to establish healthier alternatives, more opportunity for positive change surely?

Heartblock, I completely agree with you, and sorry to hear of your situation. We have somehow normalised(!) illegal levels of air pollution for a decade, and accepted excessive motor vehicle use as standard. On some days you can look out from Dawsons Hill and see a yellow-brown fug trapped over London. It's absolutely not fair that a relatively small minority are entitled to damage the wider populations health, often most detrimentally to those who can afford it least. This needs to be reversed, along with a net reduction in all road traffic - and make way for people/businesses/services who absolutely need access to motorised transport (the cleaner, the better!), along with public transport and active travel.

Well, off the top of my head, The ULEZ extension in October. Although not perfect (electric vehicles still contribute heavy particulates through tyre/brake wear, and kickup these particles) it's a step to reducing pollution, and the number of vehicles on the roads Selecting non-vehicular traffic deliveries is great - Southwark were doing this through the food drops with PedalMe - but great to see more policy change to incentivise this. PedalMe were offering free trips for people going to get vaccinated too. There's free cycle-proficiency training and other initiatives in Southwark, plus a round of grants for e-pedal powered vehicles for businesses ....Fuel duty has been frozen for over ten years. Perhaps this should be boosted to make driving ICE vehicles and contributing to the pollution less appealing ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Since the air quality should be made better for > everyone, I want to know how is the council > planning to improve it on the roads such as LL, > Croxted Rd, EDG? Some of these roads are A roads > which doesn't change the fact they are also very > densely populated residential roads. > > So while we wait for people to stop using their > cars, which might never happen, the council is > happy to let the buggers living on these roads to > choke on the extra fumes and die of lung cancer 10 > years earlier - because who cares? Certainly not > the Labour councillors and by the look of things, > many on this forum agree with it.

It's not a plan, it's always been the case - it's just that sat-nav systems (like Waze) route traffic along residential streets to save the driver 60 secs, instead of using the roads which have been designated to move traffic around London. - here's a TFL map showing the network, which also includes LL. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-base-map-master.pdf This increase in traffic on residential roads has been increasing since the introduction of sat-nav technology around 2009. Alas, I'm not sure the tech giants are keen to address this - perhaps functions like asking if the journey is necessary, offering alternative/cheaper modes, or suggesting better times to travel, are around the corner? - not sure I mentioned 'major A-roads', sounds like I'm talking about dual carriageway!

....Which show how pleasant streets can be if we reduce reliance on large vehicles making unnecessary trips on residential roads, and further jamming them up with parking. Unfortunately, all the roads in the videos - Croxted, E Dulwich Grove, Norwood Rd - are all A-road designated, which means major through routes ie. assigned to move vehicles across key points. I think this is often overlooked when two roads are compared. The most effective method of reducing traffic and pollution on these A-roads is simple; stop using single-occupancy cars for unnecessary journeys at the busiest times of the day. dulwichfolk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I always ask the same question about the photos > and videos of people sitting in the road/parklet > having a drink at the square of shame unless it is > to wind up the displacement areas more then they > already are. >

Not sure what the point of these videos are - they show precisely how much traffic/pollution is caused by privately owned cars with single/low occupancy? How large/over-powered, and inefficient most of them are for the job? How end-to-end on-street parking add further to the congestion? That many of these queuing vehicles and biggest polluters will be dropped by October with the ULEZ extension comes in? That the school run is one of the biggest causes of congestion at this time of day?... etc etc etc. I'd say it's an advert to ask people IF they absolutely need to drive, and if so, is this the best time TO do it? slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Good video here showing how nice it is in the > morning in Dulwich Village when all the traffic > has ben diverted onto Croxted Rd, EDG, Lordship > Lane etc. Really nice that the residents of > Calton can enjopy their morning cappuccino in > peace now. > > > nnel=OnionBike > > An earlier video shows how awful it is on Croxted > road now... > > nnel=OnionBike

Alice, why do you call the Joyride initiative ?pathetic?? Genuinely would like to hear your perspective.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pathetic- a cycle ride for women. What do you mean by this Alice? Genuinely interested to understand your perspective.

Forget who was asking about more secure bike storage, but Southwark are inviting input into the process; https://cyclehangarsinsouthwark.commonplace.is/

@Rockets take them to a skate park (Belair, The Grove, Peckham Rye) or see if Dulwich Park can get one put in?

@Rupert, I?ve not referred to a younger generation? I?ve been mindful not to, because of the potential of many new personal transport options emerging over the last 5-10 years. There?s so many accessible modes for e-assist or battery-powered alternatives which open up more convenient ways of moving. E-bike, e-trike, mobility scooters, e-scooters, power-assist hand-cycles, cargo-bikes, family-carry bikes etc. All enable more people more freedom and better health. Loads of places you can book a test ride and see if it works for your lifestyle and movements. Great to see so many people of all age and ability using battery-assist transport this morning. - apologies if this wasn?t directed at me, but I can?t work out what else it was replying to

That?s exactly the right reason - to provide better infrastructure and enable people to walk, ride, scoot, skate. End the false construct that driving is the answer, and reduce reliance on vehicles for short-hop journeys?

Totally agree Nigello. I stood and watched the LL traffic for a few minutes this morning. Predominantly school run, or single-occupancy private vehicles ...all massively oversized/powered for what was needed. Saw a huge Mercedes SUV with one person, unable to get around a bus at a stop, because it (& opposing traffic) took up so much space, clogging up the lane. - comment on closing a street once-a-week was sort of in jest, but if it meant people would explore alternatives for ?nipping to the shops? or dropping the kids to violin lessons, it might prompt a change bigger than one-day a week.

Exactly - it showed how nice those areas can be, for people from all walks of life, without being burdened with traffic. Maybe they should make it regular, shut the street one day a week, let people enjoy it without the fumes.

I can never understand how they make their point ....by closing off the road, and showing how nice it is for everyone to enjoy the road, without traffic, noise and pollution. Seems like a great demonstration for less vehicle dependency?

@Jakaido perhaps the free cycle training from Southwark could be of use? https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/active-travel/training/cycle-with-confidence They have many different levels of training, but I understand they can review a daily route, suggest alternatives if suitable, and then ride with the trainee(s) to take them through routes/light changes at junctions. It could be worth checking if there?s more friends/students needing to cross LL and book a school group on? If you do look into this, be great to know how it goes.

@Siduhue you mentioned request for more cycle-storage/hangers on streets where homes might not have space for secure cycle storage. There's a big program to put these in soon, possibly covered in this thread, for exactly the reasons you highlight; https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-cyclists-to-get-160-new-hangars/ Good news for all.

tedfudge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Motorists do pay to use the roads more than anyone else It's the complete opposite Ted. People who use the roads the least, subsidise motorists to utilise them. As a simple example, who paid for the LL/Goose Green roundabout rebuild last month?

Completely. I?m not the one complaining about what an imaginary tax entitles you to.

Everyone who pays taxes (Council, Income) pays for the roads. It?s just that privately-owned vehicles are the least efficient, use of this money. Wish I had 10m2 storage outside my house for free!

Rockets, good news, the consultation does include Underhill - you can check online in the dropdown list of roads.