Dulwichgirl82

There is a team taking feedback in Dulwich village today on the new proposals, from my brief foray it was no going well for them. A lot of angry people!

2 babies at kings, first difficult and they undoubtably saved both our lives. All interventions were needed and appropriate and frankly without them we would have had a much worse outcome.

You make a very good point, unfortunately the current measures don?t seem to stop many driving, they just drive further. However the roads which they now drive on don?t have clean air and those roads have schools, nurseries, shops parks etc. So worsening the situation on those roads and the many people that use them. Only the closed roads have the quiet clean air you describe. Sally Eva Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The point I don't understand is why people who are > unable to walk or cycle but can drive are somehow > stopped by the distance they have to drive > increasing. > > If I am walking or cycling and suddenly I have to > walk or cycle twice as far, I can see that this > might be too much for me (or another person). > > If I can drive (and own a car) the doubling of the > distance (from one mile to two for instance) is > not a great burden. I can still get to my > favourite shops -- it takes me longer but I am > inside a nice warm car, with a comfy seat, and the > only physical problem is to move my hands and feet > quite short distances. > > Which, with all due respect, is not a big ask. In > return, the disabled car driver gets clean air, > people walking and cycling to watch through the > window and peace and quiet.

But I think this is one of the underlying problems with the whole project, lack of meaningful data. If there is no data on how many feasibly can?t use active travel (whether due to needing to travel further, needing equipment too heavy, having medical reasons they can?t etc ) there really should be, as this should have been taken into account when considering the impact of these changes. Particularly the elderly and those with medical need should be high up those consulted on changes such as these. 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.

I actually still don?t think you have answered though you obviously think you have-! You have listed things you would do to improve other streets (but significantly less than closing them) but not what you would say to those suffering the negative effects of the LtNs. Or is it a case of tough luck, if you are lucky the council might do something but we still want our roads closed and yours to take the excess traffic? As I said saying ?people would support measure on other roads? really isn?t good enough to people who are being harmed by this. Who now breath even more pollution caused by LTN diversions. And can you point me to the evidence that traffic has reduced, as I seem to have missed this? My suggestion is genuine data should be looked at to provide a solution to help everyone, not just some people living on and using certain roads. I think legal alien has a good idea regarding court lane and Carlton. School streets allow safe routes for school Children and making the other changes would hopefully mitigate some of the negative effects of the closures.

Dulwich central I don?t think you can accuse others of ignoring posts when you didn?t answer my question of what you would say to those who cannot use these closed streets, who instead now need to use the roads which have taken their traffic such as lordship lane east dulwich grove? My children now breathe in far more pollution since the introduction of the LTNs as do those going to the schools and nurseries on edg, those who play in the playground Near East dulwich road and many more. Can you really expect people who now experience more pollution to support this scheme? As an aside as mrs D points out, how many cycled before on this or a different route or who walked and now cycled? We don?t have pre data for car traffic which is the main aim, so perhaps in order to do a genuine comparison the LTNs should be removed and data gathered then a genuine consultation with accurate data can look at the best way to help everyone.

But I don?t think the failure relates to some changing their modes of transport, that?s great. But if it harms children using roads to schools and nurseries, cause people who walk down Lordship lane and east dulwich grove to now breathing in more pollution then that is a failure. I?ve seen no evidence that overall traffic has gone down and as there wasn?t monitoring beforehand I?m not sure how that will occur. I?d also be interested to know if even if there are less cars(not proven) if they are now driving further, in slower traffic and idling more. Ironically increasing pollution in the area. I have no skin in the game of driving, and it would be nice if this wasn?t constantly jumped on as the only reason for someone to object to LTNs when there are clearly a lot of issues. But I do walk my children now increasingly polluted roads, and get no benefit from these LTNs and as the streetspace survey shows I?m not alone in this.

But again the question I asked is what would you say to those experiencing the traffic from the closed roads, whose quality of life and health has been damaged by the closures? Do they have to put up with the traffic from those roads to protect certain routes/roads. You suggest a few measures to help, why aren?t those measures good enough for the closed roads? The reality is that the diversion roads would still experience excess traffic from the closed roads even if those were put in place. If the measures were put in for everyone then everyone would benefit, instead of the current situation of helping some and harming others? As for your final point it?s not ?opening up residential roads? it?s ending the in my opinion failed experiment, the roads which have been diverted to are residential also, with schools and health centres on. How can this possibly be considered fair or reasonable? DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But that?s not really answering my question. > > Dulwich central: to echo another question you > > haven?t answered when was court lane a grid > locked > > rat run?! > > I think I did - at least the one you said I hadn't > yet answered. > > In answer to your other question and following on > from what others have discussed here, I would > support protected cycle lanes on main roads, > reduced parking and 24/7 bus lanes (the parked > cars on LLane block the buses and then cause > congestion as the buses have to pull out) and road > pricing and ULEZ ASAP. I think it would be more > productive to push the council for those things > urgently. > > I don't think opening up residential roads to > 'spread out' the traffic is a step in the right > direction because it will just go back to how it > was, I think it's better to move forwards not > backwards if we genuinely want to reduce traffic > overall (which I do) - I think its really > important to push the council for *more* not less, > because what has been proven is that by filtering > residential roads people are more likely to switch > to cycling or walking - which is an important part > of reducing traffic overall.

But that?s not really answering my question, what would you say to those now living with the pollution from those roads. To those whose children?s lung are now exposed to worse quality air, possibly health complications. Saying people would ?support measures for main roads? while directing their traffic to other roads really isnt enough. And frankly what are you suggesting, closing lordship lane and east dulwich grove? If you live on a road where you now have nose to tail traffic like EDG are you just expecting people to live with this to protect those going to and from the village. When you speak on unity that would be great, except would you be willing to have increased traffic on your roads to reduce it on the other roads.

Dulwich central: to echo another question you haven?t answered when was court lane a grid locked rat run?! Also regarding point c- the closed roads allow people who need to go to and from dulwich village, one of the most affluent areas in the region not from one side of dulwich to the other. What do you say to families like mine who aren?t fortunate enough to live in that area or have children attending schools there, who instead need to use the roads which take all the traffic from those roads. Or attend schools or nurseries on east Dulwich grove which is so much more congested and polluted than it was before? Or the families living on east dulwich grove who have repeatedly said how much worse pollution is for them? I think it?s ?bedded in? enough by now to see it?s failing surely. As rockets point out the streetspace consultation and the petition shows the strength of feeling about this. Mostly about pollution on other streets than any complains about driving times/wanting to use cars DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is there anybody here in the Dulwich debate who > supports the LTN who doesn't ALSO want further > measures on main roads? I doubt it. > > There is a mantra being repeated over and over > here. As Rockets puts it, some kind of 'Nirvana' > has been created for the 'lucky (selfish) few' who > live on the filtered streets. > > A) those streets were initially chosen to be > filtered because they were gridlocked rat-runs > (not because 'wealthy selfish people' live on > them) > > B) the people benefiting are not just the > residents of those streets because: > > C) most importantly these streets are now ROUTES > used by people who don't live on those streets. > People who want to get from one end of Dulwich to > the other using clean transport - they link up > then with other ROUTES like Railton LTN, Ferndale > LTN etc etc and other cycleways on main roads. > > To keep implying that the residents on the > filtered streets are the *only ones* who benefit > is simply not true. > > To keep suggesting that these people are selfish / > uncaring / anti-social/ wealthy / socially unjust > (and even racist) sadly does nothing but stir up > unnecessary division. > > Yes, these people are no doubt relieved their > horrible streets are better - and probably fully > support more being done because they know how > horrible it is to live on a gridlocked road. If > there was more unity to push the council for more > (instead of creating division) that would be so > much more productive for ALL imho :)

Dulwich central what about those people for which their routes don?t happen to take them to/from dulwich village... where are their ?safe routes?? Covered in pollution from the spillover from the closed roads? Also unless you know something the rest of us don?t these experimental measures are due to be reviewed so the current LTNs may well not be there, at least in their current format? DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets if I may say so you are contradicting > yourself. > > You accept higher attachment to cars during a > pandemic is due to fear of infection on public > transport. > > But then you say: 'reports like this demonstrate > that the impacts of LTNs could actually get a lot > worse when life starts getting back to some sense > of normality.' How come? When life starts getting > back to 'some sense of normality' people will > return to public transport. > > The LTNs will still be there as safe routes for > those who want to cycle or walk - and the RAC > motorists will start considering getting on a bike > or walking again - especially if there are safe > cycle routes for them to do so :)

The congestion likely has lots of causes but surely seeing how much worse traffic is one of two things can be concluded A) the congestion is from other causes than the LTN and therefore it hasn?t discouraged traffic/car use in the area and so has failed in its purpose Or B) Road closures are contributing to the worsening traffic on certain roads, again indicating a failure of purpose Assuming of course that the purported purpose is to reduce traffic for everyone not just those living or using an LTN road which is Clearly not everyone. If it?s to protect school routes then school streets achieve this and only apply to some of the closed roads.

Yes obviously it?s multi factorial, which just means now is a terrible time to make the changes and be able to assess them at all. I think the ?urgently put in - few piddling safe routes? ignores the facts that those are only for some, many people don?t use those routes but have to use the now heavily traffic routes such as EDG and lordship lane etc and experience increased pollution. Should those People have to accept negative impact on their children?s lives so some can have quieter cleaner roads? Should some children have worse pollution to protect others?

No I just showed the first two photos I took walking, it continued up past there but I didn?t walk any further. Was there when I walked back half an hour or so later.

Other end from what? They show goose green end, I walked from there to the post office. Traffic the whole way. DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Traffic backed up beyond the picture house, > 12.30 > > on Friday. > > Correct me if I'm wrong - but those pictures show > the other end of Lordship Lane?

Traffic backed up beyond the picture house, 12.30 on Friday.

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

I think I echo rockets that a fair and transparent process would be good, though this should have been done before these measures went in not after. I think there needs to be acknowledgement on both sides of the benefits and issues of these Schemes. 6 months is only feb/March and so that would be a reasonable timescale but still enough for ?bedding in? as is often mentioned. I?m not sure the pro closure side would agree however, as many seem unwilling to consider the negative impacts of these changes. I also think we need to consider what is classed as a ?main? road, as I don?t think sacrificing EDG/LL is acceptable or fair considering what is present on them and how many people use them. Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks @rahrahrah and @Dulwichgirl82 - your posts > underline what I thought - for the vast majority > of people on this thread, there's far more that > we're aligned on than not. I can't help thinking > it helps the extremes on either side (and/or > Southwark Council) to keep us all sniping at each > other as if the only solution was to reverse the > closures entirely or keep them entirely. > > So here's my starter for 10 - we keep the closures > in place for six months but with a proper > monitoring and assessment process that looks at > the overall impact on our area and a firm > commitment to consider outcomes for all roads > fairly at the end of it. Do you think those > strongly in favour of the closures would buy into > that? If so, I'd much rather push for that than > the immediate reversal of the closures, but the > only way to get the Council to commit to that is > for the majority of the pro and anti groups to get > behind that sort of idea.

Oddly enough rahrah I think we are on the same side in that we would like less traffic and pollution. However we differ in that I don?t believe the LTN in it?s current format is doing that, in fact I think it?s making things worse for many people. We have discussed the inequality of the roads closed versus those damaged by it. But also overall i think pollution is worse as traffic is stuck idling in a few places rather than disappearing. Impacted roads include other side roads, look at Matham. So I feel that the LTN should be changed, maybe removed and rethought maybe partially so, but I am also concerned based on the recent council meeting just how much they are actually interested in a fair consultation.

It?s a bit confusing as others of the pro closure lobby do seem to think there was a large amount of traffic on the closed roads... however it doesn?t take a lot of traffic on each individual road to cause a lot of traffic on one when you go from 6 roads to 1? Say each road had 2 cars per hour (random number for example) and so now instead of that one road had 12 an hour and 5 roads had 0. Now I doubt it was evenly split like this but the point is each road didn?t need a lot of traffic (though that seems to be a matter of contention) to cause a lot of displacement elsewhere. I also have never said ending the experimental measure and restoring the original routes (which we should remember is the change here) would discourage short car journeys, I also don?t think the LTNs have done this. Not enough to warrant the problems they have caused elsewhere. I genuinely believe my children get exposed to more pollution now as we use communal areas negatively effected by these changes, and don?t live on a closed road. Can you explain to me how this is improving their health or quality of life? rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But it?s not redirecting? The redirection has > been > > from the closed roads to the main road, > > effectively giving their traffic to others. > > restoring the status quo would be going back to > > what it was. And there have been 5 roads closed > in > > east dulwich onto one road. So yes I would > rather > > 6 roads get some traffic than one road with > > houses, schools nursery?s and a health centre > gets > > it all. > > > > > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I have never accepted the argument that there > > is > > > huge amounts of displacement into main roads. > > > Interestingly though your logic works the > other > > > way round... if there has been massive > > > displacement as you suggest then it is hard > to > > see > > > how it would be reasonable to redirect all > > those > > > cars down the side streets. > > You are insisting there has been massive > displacement of traffic from side streets. This > relies on the premise that these roads (a) can > carry large amounts of traffic, (b) that large > amounts of traffic on side streets is acceptable. > > My experience is that in reality it only takes a > truck, or a couple of vans meeting each other / > trying to cut through a street like Melbourne > Grove to cause chaos - both on the road itself and > at the junctions of that road. > > But either your argument is right, and removing > the LTNs would send large numbers of cars onto > narrow side streets, or it's not, in which case > the LTNs cannot be the primary cause of increased > congestion since the start of the pandemic. > > Either way, I don't see how allowing cars to use > side roads as 'cut throughs' discourages short car > journeys.

Dulwich central your comments don?t make sense. Apparently traffic was terrible on all these roads but now on LL and EDG where they displace to it?s not worse than before? Where exactly has all this ?terrible traffic? gone then? I assume you aren?t claiming everyone of those cars now cycles or walks?

But it?s not redirecting? The redirection has been from the closed roads to the main road, effectively giving their traffic to others. restoring the status quo would be going back to what it was. And there have been 5 roads closed in east dulwich onto one road. So yes I would rather 6 roads get some traffic than one road with houses, schools nursery?s and a health centre gets it all. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have never accepted the argument that there is > huge amounts of displacement into main roads. > Interestingly though your logic works the other > way round... if there has been massive > displacement as you suggest then it is hard to see > how it would be reasonable to redirect all those > cars down the side streets.

Interesting. So traffic wasn?t terrible on the closed roads but I assume we can agree it is now often on EDG and LL. so how do the closures make sense? EDG LL end isn?t very wide, and also residential (housing on both sides) Regarding Melbourne grove north it?s actually as wide as the northern end of EDG if you take out one side of parking as they have on EDG rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don?t think traffic was terrible on side streets > before. But they were never the less used as cut > throughs to and from the main roads.

I didn?t say that. I said it takes longer in more congested traffic did I not? Twisting words to make more dramatic isn?t particularly helpful in order to actually have reasonable discourse on this. It?s also not credible that traffic isn?t worse on the diversion roads now but was previously terrible on the closed roads? rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So the LTNs are simultaneously making it > ?impossible? to drive anywhere and *also* doing > nothing to discourage short car journeys. It?s > just not credible that both these things are true > > Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I?m fairly sure we?ve been through this before > > rahrah. Yes traffic needs to be reduced, short > > journeys are good to target for this. However > can > > you show that closing the roads does this > rather > > than just divert those journeys elsewhere, > > ironically probably travelling further in more > > congestion increasing pollution. I think the > onus > > is on the pro closure lobby to prove this works > > rather than the other way, as this is an > > experimental order after all. Those living and > > using the diversion streets report much worse > > traffic and congestion and yet this seems to be > > entirely ignored by the pro closure lobby. > > > > > > > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Does anyone on here arguing against LTNs also > > > agree that we need to reduce the number of > > short > > > car journeys? If so, can you explain how > > allowing > > > cars to use side streets as cut throughs will > > > achieve this?

I?m fairly sure we?ve been through this before rahrah. Yes traffic needs to be reduced, short journeys are good to target for this. However can you show that closing the roads does this rather than just divert those journeys elsewhere, ironically probably travelling further in more congestion increasing pollution. I think the onus is on the pro closure lobby to prove this works rather than the other way, as this is an experimental order after all. Those living and using the diversion streets report much worse traffic and congestion and yet this seems to be entirely ignored by the pro closure lobby. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does anyone on here arguing against LTNs also > agree that we need to reduce the number of short > car journeys? If so, can you explain how allowing > cars to use side streets as cut throughs will > achieve this?