Dulwichgirl82

This re the tree. Sure everyone would Love to have some quiet areas outside their houses but some now have horrendous traffic while others get a tree. dulwichfolk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To me it appears the majority of people in favour > of the LTN are: > 1) already bike riders so active travel measures > make minimal difference to them > 2) live in a LTN > 3) have at least one child who is going to a > school in the dulwich village area. > 4) followed by the councillors on Twitter > > All of this is fine it just must be upsetting for > people to see a Xmas tree in quiet streets of > dulwich square while outside the homes in croxted > road, lordship lane, EDG, grove vale and others > outside the LTN just see the displaced cars.

The few are those living in closed roads, the many those using or living on displacement roads/ areas. Eg lordship lane the main shopping area...the children?s park.. the schools on EDG.. the health centre... Also dulwich central surely you a knowledging public transport is massively reduced is a reason to not put in measures like this currently, if public transport isn?t there to give an alternative then why do it now?! Dulwich square? I assume you mean the road that is currently experimentally closed? And may open again? DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A lot of people here seem to conveniently forget > that public transport is running at massively > reduced capacity. > There was a horrific amount of cars on the roads > *throughout* London today not just Lordship Lane. > Everywhere. > Because people all think *I* want to go Christmas > shopping in *my* nice comfy car - without it > crossing their minds that so will another several > million other people have exactly same idea. Then > they get angry they're stuck in traffic.:) and > some people here seem to think it's all caused by > a Christmas tree in Dulwich Square. > > If the roads in Dulwich and other LTNS around > London were re-opened they will FILL UP > immediately by all these people in their nice > comfy cars. So who are the few and who are the > many? > > > 75,-0.0954453,11z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x47d8a00baf21de > 75:0x52963a5addd52a99!8m2!3d51.5073509!4d-0.127758 > 3!5m1!1e1

Actually as I said above that wasn?t a factor yesterday at all. At least when I drove by. I?m not even sure they were open yesterday but I certainly it didn?t see them. Were you there and saw this causing a problem? Raeburn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > - traffic also extended up Horniman Hill > Forest > Hill, big I didn?t go up there. The queue of cars > for the xmas trees was clearly a major cause of LL > gridlock, and was likely contributing yesterday > afternoon/evening too. You?ve said today is the > worst you?ve seen for 15 years, here?s the most > probable cause, but you fixated on the LTN. > > My point is, you keep presenting evidence which > when examined has little or no substance. You then > change the subject, conflate topics, mis-direct, > or ignore. It undermines any reasonable points > that might be up for discussion.

I did, a couple of times. Just traffic. And yesterday at the grove tavern end of LL no trucks or whatever reason, just traffic.

And at goose green? Raeburn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Me too. Intrigued I followed the gridlock > eastbound along to junction with South circular > > ...the gridlock is caused by the xmas tree sales > opposite the Grove. Vehicles on both sides (but > largely from North) waiting to turn into the > small, full, car-park. Staff are trying to manage > the situation(?!) but it?s preventing traffic > flow. Every cycle of the lights allows v few cars > onto South Circular. > > As I left an articulated lorry was trying to > navigate the column of 5(?) cars waiting to get > into the xmas tree sales. > > That?s what?s causing the tailback today.

Lordship Lane horribly busy and goose green roundabout backing up east dulwich road to the children?s playground. I wonder if this will make the area less attractive to come to as It?s fairly unpleasant waking along the shops or sitting outside the pubs etc now.

But only for the few not the many. As an aside you mentioned putting bench?s in the DV closed area, these are experimental measures no so this would be a waste of council money as they may well have to be removed when the road reopens? DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think people are talking about all the changes > in general aren't they? Someone even complained > about a Christmas tree :) Traffic is usually bad > at weekends. Which shows why restrictions at peak > times only don't make car-free areas for people to > cycle (and change their habit of always using the > car) the minute it's not peak hours it just fills > up with cars again. At least there are now some > safe routes which are being used a lot by people > walking and cycling which is great!

But the original restrictions are present all the time which I think are the ones we are taking about. So it can be a result of that. DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Traffic seems bad everywhere today so it can't be > a result of latest restrictions because they don't > run at weekends. > It's often bad at weekends anyway with all the > school sports events. > > Probably today Christmas shopping? Understandably > people still not using public transport. > > But if people are shopping locally (and hopefully > supporting small business) surely most people > don't need to drive? Unless they are buying > something huge.

Actually using logic the other lane is just after the traffic lights so likely to only be busy in bursts after they open,If you go further down LL which I did yesterday traffic was awful from around Melbourne grove south to goose green roundabout in that direction. Coming that way down from FH if heading to HH DV etc you would use S circular closures or not I?d imagine. Raeburn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So applying your logic ...in your photo the > opposite lane is clear = LTN has evaporated > traffic? (it hasn?t). > > I?m simply pointing out that you can?t present a > photo as evidence, without context or even an > attempt to understand what?s going on. > > Your last two points were similarly hollow. The > lack of critical thinking is either on purpose > ...or not.

And when I came back. All the way back to health centre about 12pm. Nothing blocking the junction I could see.

Actually I was just on east dulwich grove about 1 hours ago and traffic from queueing back to Melbourne grove, no skips etc blocking. I was going to take a photo but I managed to drop my phone cleverly. Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I see fewer cars parked near me (8am on Saturday, > so not a time when folk are usually out in their > cars_ and I would think that a fair few people > have gone away for the weekend, for the first time > in ages. This has to have had an impact on queues, > especially when you see it was at post-work, > post-school time.

As above the traffic on LL is terrible, this is likely related to those being unable to go to the village/HH and beyond via court lane and turney road, so all having head along LL to S circular. Agree ali2007 other kids are just inhaling the fumes now.

The thing I notice on here is the nursery on east dulwich grove asking for a balanced view. They have a different view out of their windows now sadly. 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

Can I ask where you got that from? I couldn?t find anything and the dulwich society seems to indicate EDG will be the main entrance though Jarvis road remain open. northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think thats still accurate - its very old. > Was my understanding that Jarvis Road will still > be used even once the main entrance is more > 'open' > > > Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > https://www.southwarkccg.nhs.uk/our-plans/improvin > > > > g-services-in-dulwich-and-the-surrounding-areas/de > > > > veloping-our-plans/Documents/East%20Dulwich%20Hosp > > > > ital%20Site%20-%20Public%20Consultation%20Boards%2 > > > 0combined%20160607%20low%20res.pdf > > > > So the Southwark planning indicates the main > > entrance is on edg, I think I saw this at the > time > > of the original consultation. However this may > > have changed but I couldn?t find anything > updated, > > and I don?t have children attending so may not > be > > up to date.

https://www.southwarkccg.nhs.uk/our-plans/improving-services-in-dulwich-and-the-surrounding-areas/developing-our-plans/Documents/East%20Dulwich%20Hospital%20Site%20-%20Public%20Consultation%20Boards%20combined%20160607%20low%20res.pdf So the Southwark planning indicates the main entrance is on edg, I think I saw this at the time of the original consultation. However this may have changed but I couldn?t find anything updated, and I don?t have children attending so may not be up to date.

Dulwich central. Two points 1. As dulwich folk said surely school streets would be enough then if we are concerned re the children 2. You have listed a whole load of schools NEAR Carlton avenue not actually on it. Surely the roads that should be considered would be the roads with schools on. The roads such as dulwich village and east Dulwich grove which received the diversion traffic. Closing a road some children walking down it and sacrificing the roads the school is actually on seems nonsensical. Re charter East, Melbourne grove being an ltn only really means a few yards of quiet road as anyone will have to go down the much busier edg or grove vale to get there. Also I have heard that that the entrance will be moved to edg and next year so will be even worse if true.

I don?t understand this, at least in the east dulwich closures the roads closed mostly didn?t have any schools on, and the roads they divert to (lordship land and east dulwich grove) have multiple schools on them so surely those school Children are getting much more pollution now. And if they were taking the ?majority of the through traffic?, which I don?t think was proven, then that traffic is now on the roads with all the schools. I don?t think the roads were closed for the reasons you describe but rather they have powerful lobbyists who wanted their roads closed, and sadly now the school roads are worse off. DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > But would you not agree that the implementation > of > > the LTNs has been to the benefit of the most > > wealthy areas of Dulwich which is causing > massive > > displacement to those areas less well-off? > > The streets that have been closed have been closed > (or restricted) because they were taking the > majority of through traffic and hundreds of local > kids use those routes to get to school. Is it > 'socially just' that because kids have to walk > past expensive houses to get to school they should > breathe in high levels of pollution? Agree a lot > more needs to be done to reduce traffic on main > roads too.

I agree, I walked down and there were quite a lot like that. Felt a bit rude to those in the community who have been negatively impacted by this. Not good for a ?community event? as those on east dulwich grove are some of the worst affected. I also walked down east dulwich grove and lordship lane and the traffic there was awful once again. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Galileo Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I can assure you no offence was intended, in > fact > > quite the opposite. An upside to making a > > Halloween walk more enjoyable for all in these > > rubbish times is to increase footfall along the > > road which should hopefully help advertise the > > local businesses. I?m sure there are those who > > will happily sit at their phones and write that > > it?s not enough etc but it has been weeks of > > planning and work by the local community for > the > > enjoyment of all, which I am saddened to see > you > > have chosen to view as some form of veiled > threat. > > > > > > FairTgirl Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Rockets Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > I did chuckle to myself as I walked down > > > Melbourne > > > > Grove today - the residents have done a > great > > > job > > > > decorating the street for Halloween and > > putting > > > up > > > > the gravestones but I love how one of them > is > > > > trying to make a point by creating a couple > > of > > > > headstones with "Rat Run" on them.....and > > Cllr > > > > Newens suggests there is a problem with > > trolls > > > > from the anti-closure lobby!!!! ;-) > > > > > > > > I wonder if the Rest in Pieces headstone is > > in > > > > fact a reference to the businesses on > > Melbourne > > > > Grove being impacted by the closures.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 568787456?s=09 > > > > > > This has not gone unnoticed by the businesses > > and > > > I dare say it doesn't feel terribly > > coincidental > > > to them given the threats to boycott them > > > personally and on this very forum. There is > one > > > entitled 'Yule Be Next' aimed at a business. > It > > > would be understandable if someone took that > > > personally given the context of what is > > happening > > > on the road. > > > > > > Tiddles, 'Shat on' does seem quite apt and > yes > > > most businesses in DV and ED bar a few are > > saying > > > they are struggling since road closures. > > > > > > On another note does anyone know if Southwark > > > Spine Cycling Route is still planned to go > > ahead? > > > If it does it might involve removing parking > > for > > > Bellenden Road businesses, and putting > > permeable > > > filters on Crystal Palace Road among othr > > changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/a > > > > > > > > > ctive-travel/cycling/cycle-improvements?chapter=3& > > > > > > article > > > > > > If they go ahead with Phase 4 in Peckham cars > > will > > > be seeking routes through Crystal Palace Road > > and > > > residential roads in Peckham where they plan > to > > > put this Southwark Spine Route. > > > > > > Having had a look at the present cycle routes > > in > > > Southwark - with very few east to west just > > like > > > Southwark bus routes, that cycling lobbyists > > would > > > be satisfied with these road closures. They > > don't > > > seem to be serving them either. Surely they > > would > > > like to see some proper investment in actual > > > interlinked cycle paths, rather than short > > closed > > > roads which then spit them onto busier more > > > polluted RMR roads. > > > > > > Southwark is giving them cheap as chips > > planters, > > > not real routes that go anywhere, and > everyone > > > increased pollution and congestion on other > > roads. > > > I am sure no offence was meant but the Rat Run > attached is a bit tone deaf considering the shops > at the end of the road are struggling so much > because of these closures. I appreciate what you > might be trying to do but to politicise it and > revel in the closures seems a little blinkered. > Keep it on message; don't use it to try to deliver > a message.

Errrm my silence is purely that I?m on holiday! So I?d advise you to have a look through the previous threads and you will many ?always busy roads? ?not worse than before? comments. However I?m going to enjoy the last holiday I imagine we can any time soon! rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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

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. rst mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How odd, I don?t believe I have ever noticed > Melbourne north regularly blocked or lots of road > rage incidents and over the years I have been up > down frequently.

Well the nursery seems to think it is if you look at their twitter feed. It?s on the corner of Matham grove so yes I think the closures significantly effect them and would imagine most children get there on foot, all of whom have to go down either edg/matham and experience the pollution pushed into their play areas. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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.

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?

Disagree re Melbourne grove north, I?d say it?s as wide as the part of edg down to Ll, and did used to be a bus route I believe. Possibly one way would be helpful to prevent the cars trying to pass each other. Also think it?s the cause of a lot of traffic going down edg then goose green. I also don?t understand why when you comment it?s always either all or nothing, either these specific measures or cars packing every road. There are lots of options which have been discussed previously that are more equitable. I don?t think anyone is suggesting let?s pack cars down every road but it seems to be what you come back to each time. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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)

We?ve been through this before and think we?ve talked it to death. I think something to reduce everyone?s traffic is fair not the lucky few at the expense of others. I also agree re James post, I?m hopeful a middle ground can be found to help everyone. As I?ve mentioned restoring Melbourne grove and court lane May be a useful step and see if that relieves the excess congestion on ll and edg while allowing some streets to be closed. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @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-gree > n-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).

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).