Dulwichgirl82

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).

But it doesn?t, it does it for a few roads and makes it worse for the others. I think low traffic neighbourhoods is a confusing term as really it?s low traffic streets. Either end of Melbourne, Elsie and Derwent is traffic and pollution. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Because that is what is meant by ?there are fewer > roads for people to find their way around the > closure?. > > I for one am glad that the LTNs are in place to > stop this from happening.

Also agree Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James - Well done, you have listened and reacted > and we all appreciate that. Your post is clear and > I am glad to see that the council is taking an > area-wide view of the challenge now. > > We all want to see the pollution issue tackled and > I am hopeful that the council can bring all those > from all sides of the argument into the discussion > to come up with equitable solutions to tackle the > problem.

I think the view of the nursery in east dulwich grove is both telling and sad.

Don?t get me wrong this is an off the cuff idea. But those journeys would go via side streets or public transport or I guess a much longer way round. It would need modelling, data and a proper consultation! first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So if you pedestrianise part of LL and many side > streets disallow traffic, how would you make > necessary journeys that could not be undertaken > via active travel or public transport?

I agree we are probably mostly aligned, idling cars are one of personal bug bears. I think it?s that I think something more borough wide is needed, something more significant. As I mentioned before making the LL end edg bus only or pedestrianising part of LL to discourage through traffic could maybe help everyone not just an affluent few. No idea of the practicality of this with tfl etc but maybe an idea. Then the side roads would hopefully only have local traffic on. cwjlawrence Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @dougiefreeman and @Dulwichgirl82 - thanks both > for your responses to my posts. > > I am really struck by actually how aligned we all > are in what we want. Dougie - I do take a little > exception in your comments that I may have a > complete disregard to peoples' issues. I can > assure you that this isn't true - :-) > > The perfect strategy would be that people would > only use their cars if they absolutely had to - > e.g. musicians needing to carry their double > basses, tradespeople and of course the list goes > on. But the problem is that cars are just so > convenient that of course relying on people to > only make 'necessary journeys' is never going to > happen. Hence, my point that we need to make it > difficult for people to drive their cars which is > probably through direct or indirect taxation - > which in itself discriminates against people who > can't afford this additional cost. > > > Dougie - my apologies if I have made my points > badly or that they're unclear. But, please don't > suggest that I have a complete disregard to > others. That is not a fair comment. I completely > respect your position and points of view and I > hope that the opposite is the same. > > Dulwichgirl82 - I think your points are very > prescient. I get quite angry when I cycle along > EDG - but I guess my ire is (probably in some > cases very wrongly) at the drivers rather than a > council trying to make things better (and quite > potentially not getting it right). We want the > same outcome I think!

Cmjlawrence. Quite a few things in your posts have struck me of the problems these closures have caused: you mention how disgusting it was breathing in the fumes on a closed road.. which must be much less than the roads which have taken the brunt of it. Your daughter is lucky she gets to go that way as if it were east dulwich grove it would be constant since the closures came in. You also highlight the traffic on edg, next to two schools! Surely these are the routes we should be protecting.many children have to walk to these schools too. Finally you mention not choosing between giving traffic to road a b or c, but this is what has happened. Some roads have given their traffic to others. Overall the aim seems to be the same but the idea of anything is better than nothing I think is where we disagree, yes we need to find ways to make local journeys better by alternative means but we also need to acknowledge that not every can or will and also quite a lot of traffic isn?t local. So whatever we do need to help everyone not help some and disadvantage others. cwjlawrence Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Slarti, > Good question - I fear that I'm not going to give > the answer that you want though :-) > > I'm not pro closure but I am extremely pro a > massive reduction in pollution. You may have read > my post this morning about the pollution I was on > the receiving end of on both Carlton Avenue and > Hillsboro - it was disgusting and poisonous - and > these are streets that should have benefited from > the road closures! I personally feel incredibly > guilty about the amount that I have used my car > over the last 15 (approx) years of living in East > Dulwich. I am trying extremely hard to now not > use my car at all - and yes - it is very difficult > to do so but it's all I can do, to reduce the > amount of driving that I do and hope that others > do the same. > > I may be a bit stupid, but the problem I keep > coming back to is that cars are so amazingly > convenient that to get people to avoid using them > is extremely difficult. Take this morning - I > cycled back along East Dulwich Grove and there > were people sitting in the lights at Alleyns/JAGs > crossroads with their engines idling. If people > are thoughtless enough to keep their engines > running at a junction of 2 schools then what hope > of getting them to get out of their cars? > > My personal view is that it is necessary to make > car driving not so convenient and other forms of > non-polluting transport more convenient. I would > do this through a number of measures - but > unfortunately, I think they amount to the same > thing - making it less easy to drive. Having > grown up outside of London, I can see that we are > blessed here with really good public transport and > there nothing stopping us (apart from ourselves) > to reduce traffic. Of course, there are very good > reasons why people need to drive, but if I can > reduce my car journeys by over 95% then I think > that the majority of our community can too. > > One thing that I hope we can agree on is that the > road closures certainly are making us all think > about our communities more and I dearly hope that > the result will be a longer term set of strategies > to reduce driving and make East Dulwich a nicer > place for my family and of course yours also to > live in. > > Best wishes, > Chris

This Twitter site makes me fairly uncomfortable as it doesn?t seem to acknowledge any of the problems this has caused, even when directly asked by east dulwich grove nursery. It feels like a propaganda piece. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A reminder: > > 251947008?s=21

I think what you are saying is very accurate. I would think a reasonable middle ground might be to keep some of these changes(experimentally) and open some, for example I think opening Melbourne grove north and court lane would relieve some of the congestion on edg and ll but allow many of the closed roads to remain ?congestion free?. Also relieving the pressure of GG roundabout which causes back ups along grove vale and easy dulwich road. Serena2012 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RahRah: My own personal experience is that > children have always walked to school along Calton > Avenue and Melbourne Grove. In fact, wasn?t one of > Southwark?s stats in one of their propaganda > pieces relating to OHS based on the number of > schoolchildren using the DV junction via active > travel every day? > > I?m a big fan of school streets, and definitely > think the number of parents dropping off at Goose > Green has reduced due to the school street on > Elsie which is a good thing. > > What I am however seeing is huge volumes of > children (including the entirety of years 10 and > 11 at Charter ED whose entry point to school is > from EDG) walking along a much more heavily > congested EDG than ever before. I?ve also seen a > significant increase in breaches of the Highway > Code on EDG, including an increase in lone adult > cyclists on the pavement. > > Historically, with children at nurseries in DV and > Herne Hill, we would always hop on the 42/37 bus > to take us to the junction of Townley if we were > running late on the nursery run, as this would > invariably shave 5-10 minutes off our journeys. > Now, I have yet to have a morning where I haven?t > beaten every 37 and 42 bus that had passed me on > the walk between the LL junction and Townley along > EDG as the road going South is bumper to bumper > every morning. > > The changes simply aren?t working here. Some of > them need to be removed entirely and others > converted to school streets.

Looking at what she has written it seems they haven?t really counted the effect on surrounding streets, or traffic counts at all? Just noted those living in the LTN Potentially use their cars less, and seem to do more active travel. There don?t seem to be any significant findings on those outside the ltn. This feels rather incomplete as surely the effect of causing other traffic to travel further may negate this. Impossible to say as they don?t seem to be studying this legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It looks from this (blog and subsequent comments > from the author) that there isn?t yet a lot of > hard evidence out there - in particular evidence > that takes account the impact on neighbouring > roads- but there are some ongoing studies. > > http://rachelaldred.org/research/low-traffic-neigh > bourhoods-evidence/

Particularly agree about the residents of the affected roads and if you look at the street space thing for east dulwich there?s clearly a lot of uNhappy people including the residents of some of the roads affected. They report much higher traffic levels. Surely they should be listened to as they will experience it the most. dougiefreeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agree Dulwichgirl82 > > All the rhetoric I've read from RahRahRah, > Nigello, Exdulwich and the few vocal others on > here seems to have been roughly following these > ideas: > > 1) Something has to be done - this is better than > nothing > 2) It doesn't matter if this something causes > worse pollution / congestion for some Dulwich > residents because the something is better than > nothing (and then a bit of mis-direction firing a > question back along the lines of 'WHY DO YOU WANT > NOTHING? DO YOU LIKE POLLUTION?' etc) > 3) We have to get rid of cars out of London, > period. Literally any problems that that ideology > causes is worth it - no exceptions. > 4) We don't care that other residents are > suffering. In fact we don't really believe they > are suffering - this is all just moaning because > people are desperate to drive everywhere. > > I really don't understand why the pro-closure > people are so reluctant to listen to the residents > who are being adversely affected by these road > closures. Why can't you just listen to them? I > don't live on any of these roads - so am largely > unaffected either way* - but I really feel for > residents and businesses who are suffering as a > result of these road closures. And I feel very > strongly that a council not consulting residents > beforehand is just wrong on all levels. > > *This is of course unless I have to make an > unavoidable journey in the car, in which case > getting out of Dulwich is taking significantly > longer at peak times due to the added congestion

I?ve realised there?s a fundamental value difference, I don?t feel that the more vulnerable in Society should be sacrificed to protect the more affluent. The idea that ?something must be done? and therefore even something harming people is better than nothing is the issue. There are other options some of which have Been discussed In this thread. Something designed to help everyone ESPECIALLY those most disadvantaged is what is needed, not to protect the wealthy few at the expense of others. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nigello Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Rah x 3 talks sense. > > > .... if you happen to be so inclined to the stuff > they talk.... > > I think the majority actually want all road users > to be considered and not have a lot of roads > closed to one section of road users....now that's > sense! > > It seems that anything other than an A road is > considered by Rahrahrah as a side street and > somehow should be for the exclusive use of > cyclists only....

I agree re improving main roads, but think that should be done first. It would likely benefit the side roads too. I also agree the poorest are less likely to have cars, and yet are the ones being harmed by this. The residents of the closed roads now drive via the displacement roads. As I?ve said before I don?t really drive but do walk around with small children, use the health centre and the parks which have been harmed by this. It?s absolutely nothing to do with driving convenience for me and that seems to be the default position of the closure party. It?s not about levelling down? Those roads were open and have closed (temporarily apparently) so have managed to get their traffic diverted away at the expense of those less likely to own cars as you point out. But I guess the difference if that I?m not happy to accept harming the more vulnerable and I assume you are if you consider it the greater good(or I?m guessing personal benefit of you live on one of these closed roads) ahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The poorest households in London are generally > less likely to own and drive a car. So I don?t buy > the idea that allowing the people of Dulwich to > cut through side roads in their SUVs is some sort > of equality issue. I think a lot of the noise is > people concerned about personal inconvenience and > not a grand concern for the greater good, for BAME > communities, or the poorest in society as often > claimed. I think those living on main roads are > exposed to more pollution, yes. The problem is too > many cars. If you make it easier to drive and less > pleasant / safe to use alternatives, you?ll > increase the number of car journeys. As I said > above, I don?t believe that opening every street > to cars in an attempt to be ?fairer? (I.e. > ensuring everyone has increased exposure to > pollution), will make very much difference to main > roads for more than a few weeks. You increase > capacity, it fills up. We know this. But even if > you?re right to some extent, I don?t support a > levelling down agenda. Let?s try to improve main > roads rather than creating problems everywhere

Ok but you have acknowledged there?s been displacement, Is it fair for some to benefit and some to suffer? And those suffering already in a likely worse health position than those benefiting? No ones saying cars should run freely anywhere, but I didn?t think we lived in a society where people?s health was considered collateral damage. The space for people to walk and cycle benefits some, the worsened traffic harms others. Can you at least acknowledge this? rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This isn?t true. The truth is that if you make it > easier for people to drive, the net effect is more > suffering. The idea that it?s only fair to allow > every road to be dominated by traffic doesn?t make > sense. Neither am I convinced that main roads are > significantly more congested as a result of > efforts to create some space, some where for > people to walk and cycle. Most people don?t have > access to a car.

I think this is what?s sad, those living on those roads have been effectively sacrificed and they were likely already having lower health outcomes. I also think that the total collateral damage is probably greater than the benefit as it?s communal areas which are harmed. I don?t actually Live on the affected roads but my background is looking at health inequalities so that?s why I find it so difficult to see what the council are thinking, I would think improving the health of the worse off should come first. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwichgirl82, I suspect that the answer is that > you?re basically collateral damage. The policy > agenda seems to be driven by professional and well > funded lobby groups who are focussed on the big > picture: if a relatively small number of people on > some roads have to suffer to enable the ?modal > shift? then so be it. > > I suspect that given the degree of regulatory > capture, the way forward is to appeal to the > (local) democratically elected representatives. > Southwark Cyclists have helpfully issued > instructions to people wanting to lobby new > cabinet members about how good the closures are - > if anyone wants to pass on their views the info is > here > > https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/southwark-council > s-new-cabinet/

But according to the pro closure lobby the traffic was terrible on these side streets.. so must have been fairly significant to need closing?!? And edg is supposed to absorb 89% of this terrible traffic from 5 roads? It?s not like edg is the south circular it?s a residential road with nurseries and schools along it. And at the lordship lane end or edg there are 5 roads in very close proximity closed(both sides of Melbourne grove, Derwent, Elsie and tintagel) and while I?m sure the Melbourne grove junction is much better the edg/ll is much worse. Maybe ask the nursery at that end how they like having idling traffic outside all the time. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I think 11% would be great if it was simpley > that > > traffic was lost and no harm came to anyone > else.. > > > > But if we take the 11% figure does that not > mean > > the other roads now have to accept 89% of > diverted traffic > > It?s not an 89% increase to traffic on main roads > because they are filtering smaller streets and > there are only a handful of them, mostly in > different places. Also, the congestion that is > caused at junctions are reduced, significantly > improving ?flow? (a good example is where EDG > meets Melbourne Grove - previously a nightmare > where cars and vans used to get blocked as create > tailbacks).

Ok so a second question do you think it?s fair that those living and using facilities on the displaced roads accept the extra pollution to protect those roads which are closed. Is it ok that if you get some modal shift which helps some, others loose out significantly (and I?d imagine overall more loose than gain) Also If you acknowledge there is displacement if the roads are opened then the ?displacement roads? will have less traffic. The amount of traffic that was there before would go back to its previous state I would imagine, not suddenly create more. Bearing in mind that these roads were open and the change has been closing them, moving their traffic elsewhere. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Rahrah > > > > I?ve a question to ask the pro closure lobby > and > > you seem > > To be a strong advocate of this. > > If you believe: > > 1. Traffic on these side roads was terrible > > before, with high volumes etc > > And > > 2. There is no increase in traffic on the > > displacement roads since they were closed. > > > > There seems to be a paradox, unless you are > saying > > that all those cars previously using the side > > roads have disappeared they must have gone > > somewhere. > > > > Do you think that the closures are enough that > all > > those people have chosen to walk/cycle or not > make > > the journey? > > It just doesn?t make sense from a logical point > of > > view. > > > > And no I don?t think all roads should have high > > traffic in the spirit of fairness, I just done > > think the affluent should get to send their > > traffic to the poorer roads to protect > themselves. > > > > > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > What do people think will actually be > achieved > > by > > > allowing cars to fill up side roads as well > as > > > main ones? Do they honestly believe that the > > > traffic on main roads won?t just increase to > > > previous levels again within weeks? Is it > just > > a > > > the case that they want every road is > dominated > > > with traffic in some strange idea of > > ?fairness?? > > > How will this help anything? > > I think that there is some displacement yes. I > think there is also modal shift, with people > switching for some journeys because of the > increased inconvenience of driving and improved > environment for cycling / waking scooting > whatever. If you create a little more capacity, it > quickly fills and you?re back where you started. > There is lots of evidence for this. As stated, if > you remove the filters and allow cars to use side > streets as cut through a, it will create some > relief on side streets, but it won?t last more > than a few weeks and you?ll end up with both > congestion on the main roads and traffic on back > streets.

I think 11% would be great if it was simpley that traffic was lost and no harm came to anyone else.. But if we take the 11% figure does that not mean the other roads now have to accept 89% of diverted traffic? And its not like these are empty major roads they are residential roads with schools nurseries and health centres on them. exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Can anyone show any scheme which has > SIGNIFICANTLY reduced motor volumes? The best even > the most pro-scheme lobbyist can show is a maximum > of 11%. > > NO IT ISN'T! > > Back on page 41, I posted a link to a > meta-analysis study which had looked at 60 traffic > reduction schemes worldwide to assess various > measures and outcomes. > > Obviously very few people actually bothered > reading the thing and someone asked about overall > reduction - I copied and pasted an extract from > the report which stated a MEDIAN (not a maximum) > outcome across all these various schemes in > several different countries of 11%. In fact the > exact phrase I posted is here: > > The mean average was a reduction of 21?9% and the > median ? which is a better measure of central > tendency here, given the variability of results ? > was a reduction of 10?6%. > In other words, in half the cases, over 11% of the > vehicles which were previously using the road or > the area where > roadspace for general traffic was reduced, could > not be found in the surrounding area afterwards. > > Now in that context, median is kind of the best > statistical tool to use (rather than mean) because > it takes account of outliers. Depending on what > the scheme is, where it is, the control measures > introduced etc, it showed a wide range of outcomes > but this time, you can actually go back and read > it yourself because it's very clear that the 11% > figure has been held up as some kind of absolute > gold-plated figure for all schemes everywhere and > it's "only" 11% (and therefore not worth doing??) > > > What's even more telling is that the meta-analysis > got shouted down as being: > old / out of date (apparently science done before > 2000 is no longer valid?!) > flawed (go, on, tell me HOW it's flawed, I'd love > to hear it) > biased (no it's not, the whole point of > meta-analysis is that you're looking at previous > studies and studying their methodology, not the > original raw data) > > And yet all the people saying that the study was > rubbish simultaneously grabbed the 11% figure that > came from that same study like a dog with a bone > and now won't let it go and are twisting it to > their own ends.

Rahrah I?ve a question to ask the pro closure lobby and you seem To be a strong advocate of this. If you believe: 1. Traffic on these side roads was terrible before, with high volumes etc And 2. There is no increase in traffic on the displacement roads since they were closed. There seems to be a paradox, unless you are saying that all those cars previously using the side roads have disappeared they must have gone somewhere. Do you think that the closures are enough that all those people have chosen to walk/cycle or not make the journey? It just doesn?t make sense from a logical point of view. And no I don?t think all roads should have high traffic in the spirit of fairness, I just done think the affluent should get to send their traffic to the poorer roads to protect themselves. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What do people think will actually be achieved by > allowing cars to fill up side roads as well as > main ones? Do they honestly believe that the > traffic on main roads won?t just increase to > previous levels again within weeks? Is it just a > the case that they want every road is dominated > with traffic in some strange idea of ?fairness?? > How will this help anything?

Agree lordship lane is a big issue, it?s always had too much traffic I agree but since the closures the bit around the Edg junction and goose green is awful. I don?t really go thee now as my kids are also exhaust height. Something to protect this would be good also. cwjlawrence Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Dulwichgirl, > I think you make some really great points here. > I've only been in ED for about 15 years, so a > relative "@#$%&" as Louisa used to call us :-). > > I've always dreamt of Lordship Lane being traffic > free - it seems so perverse that having somewhere > that purposefully attracts pedestrians is > somewhere with terrible pollution. And I think > it's always been that way - I used to get very > angry pushing my children in their buggies many > years ago when they were at the same height as the > car exhaust fumes. My theoretical solution was to > make LL one way with cars coming back along CPR > which I'm sure would not have too popular with the > residents of Crystal Palace Road! > > I completely agree on your points of equality - we > should be trying to work out how to improve air > quality for everyone and of course not just the > lucky few. This is why personally I would like to > see a significant reduction in car journeys - > wherever the pollution happens it is still > pollution. > > My personal preference would be to increase the > tax on car usage, either through a congestion > charge or an increase in car tax and petrol. But > of course, this would raise the objection that > it's unequal insofar as if you're rich then you'll > be able to afford the increased taxes. > > @Dougiefreeman - I'm certainly not referring to > you as a "whinging moaner" and I don't agree that > only the view of cyclists has been heard. I know > cyclists can come across as holier than thou - but > actually what a great way to get around in a city. > No pollution, don't take up much room and get > people fit and healthy. What's not to like?! :-)

I don?t really get your point. Everyone seems to agree car use needs to be less. However As these measures have just shifted the traffic onto less affluent roads, so penalising some and benefiting others who both may or may not be drivers so it?s not drivers who are automatically getting penalised here. Ironically those on melbourne grove, Derwent and Elsie now have to use the over burdened waylay dulwich grove for any car access also. Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The solution is to drive less especially at > traditionally busy times. (With no car for twenty > years I?m halo-polishing a little but I?m not part > of the problem and that prevents any charge of > hypocrisy when I ask for people to use their > vehicles less.)

I totally agree we need to reduce some car journeys, I think both sides agree on this, if only this. I do think improving public transport is important (difficult now clearly) and making it preferable over short car journeys. Parking restrictions can help with this. I think road closures should be more restructuring, I don't honestly think what?s been done is enough of a deterrent to drivers, I speak for the east dulwich end mostly as that?s what I see. It adds 5-10 Minutes to a journey, and increases distance travelled and time spent in idling traffic. Paradoxically I think this potentially increases pollution overall as you don?t loose much traffic it?s just in a different place going further and more slowly. If for example (just conjecture) the edg LL junction was bus only,I think this would actually be better as that?s less time travelled and allow the buses to avoid getting stuck in traffic making them more attractive. Also protecting the roads further down, the nursery park etc. Also I think it?s very important to consider the equality aspect of this, it looks rather bad if you look at the roads closed versus the roads diverted to from a socioeconomic status point of view. Socioeconomic status is one of the major determinants of health and air quality is a factor in this, and it seems this is worsening things for the already more disadvantaged. As an aside as I?ve mentioned above EDG has a lot of communal Assets which are obviously suffering due to this closure. cwjlawrence Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi All, > I'm not going to try and convince anyone of my > views of why the road closures are a positive > thing (it does appear that most peoples' minds are > rather fixed either pro or con) and I can also > completely see the argument that they are not > good. Both arguments are compelling and it's > unlikely that too many people will move from their > points of view. > > Hence it does seem a bit of a waste of time trying > to convince people. So 2 points, if I may: > > I do strongly believe that the current volume of > car usage is far too much in our city and there > does seem to be a general consensus to that point > on this thread. Away from just the pollution and > the space they take up, driving 1500kg of car to > move 70kg of person doesn't seem too intelligent a > thing to do in built up areas. > > Secondly, cars are great way of getting around, > you can sit comfortably in your own space, > listening to the music/radio that you want, with > no physical effort required and ultimately a car > will take from where you want to go from to where > you want to go. The car is a really great way to > get around (excepting the impact on the > environment in the broader sense of the word) and > definitely the path of least resistance - I can't > think of another method that is "easier" for an > individual. > > So, with these 2 statements, how do you > stop/reduce people driving in our cities? > 1. Increase car taxes (e.g. Congestion charge, > increase car tax, increase cost of petrol) > 2. Reduce available parking so as to make it far > more of a hassle > 3. Introduce significant parking charges > 3. Only allow specific cars on specific days (cf > Singapore) > 4. Close / block roads to make other forms of > transport the preferred option > 5. Change road usage away from priortising cars - > e.g. more cycle lanes, more bus lanes > 6. Improve public transport so it is just easier > not to drive > 7. Rely on peoples' good will to stop driving. > 8. +++ > > I'm sure that there are a lot of other additional > ways that could be used. So, why don't we have a > positive discussion on what would be the better > way to do this rather than us all restating our > positions on why road closures are either right or > wrong? > > What are peoples' views? Are there too many cars > and car journeys? And if so, what would be the > best way to reduce both the number of cars and > journeys?

?But in answer to your question? That didn?t answer my question.. KatyKoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > slarti b Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Now, please answer my questions: > > - are Dulwich Village, Townley, Court Lane > Calton > > "Rat runs"? > > - If you close those roads, which roads do you > > think the displaced traffic should use instead > > - Is it right to displace increase congestion > and > > pollution and displace traffic onto the "main" > > roads which, in the case of Soutwark are oftern > > residential and shopping streets as well. > > Becuase that is the effect of these changes nd > > indeed the OHS scheme on which they were based. > > > > I look forward to your reply > > Clearly we will have to agree to disagree. > But in answer to your questions those roads have > had severe congestion on them for years, closing > the junction will cause some displacement > initially - nobody disputes that. From what I see > daily the congestion on DV, EDG and LLane is > levelling off to more or less what it was before > the junction closure. The data will tell. > I would like to see traffic reduced on those roads > too even if it does settle to the same levels as > before the closures. > Townley road is at times worse - but more > restrictions coming soon to sort that out. > > If you believe in data and evidence - we'll just > have to wait and see what the traffic counts say.

I actually don?t think I did but for the sake of argument let?s say this: If the data does support that traffic has increased on EDG (another question-where has it all gone, surely you don?t believe that all those cars just stopped making journeys?)do you think it is acceptable to sacrifice that road, school, nursery and health centres air quality to help these residential roads. Will you therefore support the removal of these planters? KatyKoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Well I?m glad we can agree that the traffic is > > worse on these roads (I would argue > significantly > > more than ?not that much worse? but as you say > the > > counts will hopefully say and either way we > agree > > it is worse). But my question wasn?t about > that > > it was how is it ok to increase traffic on a > road > > with so many schools and community assets used > by > > children and vulnerable people (taking the > > hospital and health centre into account) In > favour > > of roads that have very few or none of these? > > > > > > KatyKoo Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > Katykoo.. question for you. You mention > > making > > > > school streets safer. However East Dulwich > > > grove > > > > has by far the most schools and a nursery > > > compared > > > > with these closed roads. As the road that > has > > > > taken most of the displaced traffic how is > > that > > > > good? This has made more children?s route > to > > > > school more congested. > > > > > > The council have counted traffic on East > > Dulwich > > > Grove in September and I think they're > > monitoring > > > again in December. Same with Lordship Lane & > > > Dulwich Village. > > > > > > I did see an increase in traffic on Dulwich > > > Village, EDG and Lordship Lane initially when > > the > > > junction filters first went in - but it seems > > to > > > have settled now and is not that much worse > > than > > > usual. That's what I see - but the traffic > > counts > > > will tell. > > > > > > Of course data can be interpreted to suit > > beliefs > > > i.e. One Dulwich push the council for more > data > > > all the time, but then refuse to accept the > > data > > > that traffic is high outside peak hours. > > > I think you have misread my comment - I said I saw > traffic was worse *initially* - but now it seems > to have settled back to how it was before the > filters went in. The data will tell. > > As far as traffic reduction in general on East > Dulwich Grove - yes I've always supported that > too! :)

Well I?m glad we can agree that the traffic is worse on these roads (I would argue significantly more than ?not that much worse? but as you say the counts will hopefully say and either way we agree it is worse). But my question wasn?t about that it was how is it ok to increase traffic on a road with so many schools and community assets used by children and vulnerable people (taking the hospital and health centre into account) In favour of roads that have very few or none of these? KatyKoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Katykoo.. question for you. You mention making > > school streets safer. However East Dulwich > grove > > has by far the most schools and a nursery > compared > > with these closed roads. As the road that has > > taken most of the displaced traffic how is that > > good? This has made more children?s route to > > school more congested. > > The council have counted traffic on East Dulwich > Grove in September and I think they're monitoring > again in December. Same with Lordship Lane & > Dulwich Village. > > I did see an increase in traffic on Dulwich > Village, EDG and Lordship Lane initially when the > junction filters first went in - but it seems to > have settled now and is not that much worse than > usual. That's what I see - but the traffic counts > will tell. > > Of course data can be interpreted to suit beliefs > i.e. One Dulwich push the council for more data > all the time, but then refuse to accept the data > that traffic is high outside peak hours.