Pevara

With respect, I strongly disagree. This is the hope and expectation of those who hold to it, nothing more. I haven't come across anyone with concrete real life examples or reliable statistics that show that road closures will indubitably reduce traffic movements, so long as alternative routes are available. I expect that traffic will simply flow down the alternate routes, blighting the lives of those who live on narrower side roads for no real environmental gain. The posts referred to on Wikipedia simply refer to modifications to game theory, which show that traffic can speed up in some very carefully selected instances if certain roads are closed (due to how drivers decide which routes to take). There is nothing to show that there is an actual or significant expectation of reduction in traffic levels. I think this argument on reduction of traffic really needs to be examined scientifically, not based on certain persons' hopes and expectations. To me, it is a totally counter-intuitive expectation to hold; I think if one has reasonably close alternative route available, one will continue to travel, simply down those alternative routes instead. We should not allow side streets to become motorways in the hope and prayer that traffic levels will reduce simply because larger roads are closed and the diversions take a little longer. I stress again, this will bring misery for all of us who live along the newly created rat runs via side streets (and more clamour for side street barriers), for no benefit to the environment. Hope and expectations are completely improper tools to rely on to make significant transport policy changes, especially when it has significant adverse impacts on neighbouring streets. wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Is the theory - close a road ,traffic forced on > to route b ,route b becomes congested ,people > eventually become so annoyed that they give up > driving /traffic evaporates ? > > > That's a reasonable way to look at it. The theory > is that those whose journeys are most easily > substituted will be the first to give up. Not sure > how well that holds up in reality, because people > have varying degrees of attachment to their cars, > varying degrees of tolerance for sitting in jams, > and all sorts of other soft factors besides just > getting them and their stuff from A to B quickly. > So, in reality, some people with longer journeys > to make will lose out more, and some people making > short, easily substituted trips will continue to > sit it out. > > But in balance, people do whatever's easiest. Want > them to drive lots? Make that easiest thing to do. > Want them to walk or cycle? Ditto. > > Of course, if you change what's easiest by making > one of the easy options harder, people will, quite > reasonably, complain. Especially if you manage to > screw up one of the alternatives at the same time > (buses) and don't exactly do a great job of fixing > another (cycling). Expecting it all to happen at > once is too much to ask, but they could (for > example) have put in cycle exemptions/contraflows > on some of the one way systems near LJ before > closing the roads, made sure the area had Boris > Bikes, and not carry out the trial at a time when > the buses were already in a bad way due to other > works. > > It's social engineering, certainly - the question > is whether the conclusions of a report like this > one from the GLA last month justify it. > > https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Heal > th_Impact_of_Cars_in_London-Sept_2015_Final.pdf

Oddly enough, I don't disagree with a lot of what you've said. Except for the strawman you set up on status quo - I was clearly referring to keeping roads open both ways (not closing them), which is an objective status quo. One hopes over time that the fuel use becomes cleaner (electric/solar) but I can only speculate on that. However, I still don't see closing major roads as part of any solution - simply creates more problems for others (including non-car users like me living along smaller residential streets). Don't see it as car user versus cyclist - which is what this has become. There are other stakeholders as well. For instance, I am neither a car owner (user, yes, I use taxis once in a while) nor a cyclist. I don't have a stake in the car user versus cyclist or pogo stick debate. I do have a stake in any debate which encourages cycling by pushing cars down smaller streets. This makes me sit up and ask whether it solves any problems while inconveniencing hundreds of folks like me. Let me be very clear when I say the answer is no - it is only going to make air pollution worse and increase stress levels by displacing noise pollution down smaller roads. You want to reduce deaths due to pollution - I bet you that won't do it! rodneybewes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pevara Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Got any suggestions yourself that would keep > the > > larger roads open to traffic both ways? If not, > > I'm all in favour of the status quo rather than > > wholesale change. > > > > However often the cycle lobby may say it, there > is > > no concrete evidence that closing down larger > > roads to traffic (one way or both ways) will > > reduce traffic or consequent pollution - the > > central assumption on which all of these > proposals > > appear to be based. > > > > It will merely diverts both traffic and the > > localized air and noise pollution onto smaller > > roads that are less capable of handling them, > and > > causing more stress to residents. Indeed, some > of > > those very smaller roads from which our > > hypothetical independent 10 year old will > commence > > cycling to school. > > > > What is more plausible is that any larger road > > closure proposals will INCREASE air pollution > (and > > certainly divert noise pollution) as cars move > > more slowly through congested smaller roads and > > journey times increase (even if only by a few > > minutes). It really isn't rocket science. > > > > > No I don't have any suggestions that would keep > the amount of roads available to motor traffic the > same as they are now. The idea that there is a > "status quo" is laughable - there isn't one. > Traffic is going up because driving a car is > cheaper in real terms than it used to be and the > population is increasing. And the amount of space > available to cars is either staying the same or > going down. Can you tell me where the status quo > is in that? > > I would employ a number of measures - take more > road space away from motorised traffic and give it > to pedestrians, runners and cyclists (or pogoists > for all I care, anything that is non-polluting), > increase the congestion charge out to zone 3, > increase vehicle excise duty (which is based on > the amount of pollution a vehicle creates) for > areas of high pollution (London being extremely > high) and use any revenue gained to create > tramlinks crossways across London and increase > cycling routes, penalise single car use and > incentivise car pooling, have a city wide > metropolitan run uber service with big discounts > for the elderly and the non-ambulatory, double > decker trains, charge by the mile driven rather > than the current flat rate.... > > There are absolutely loads of things that can be > done to help reduce the huge impact of pollution > that don't pay homage to the non-existent "status > quo", if only there was some imagination to > implement them. Instead what will happen is there > will be a death by a thousand cuts of punishments > to road users to agonisingly drive them off the > roads - all stick and no carrot. Because if there > is one thing that politicians surely know it's > that Londoners will quietly accept a few thousand > extra deaths a year through pollution but they'll > froth at the mouth if you openly say you'll > interfere with their car use. > > You'll probably say this is utopian but it doesn't > really matter. Come back in 15 years time and see > if any of this is implemented or if traffic is > smoothly flowing through London at the current > levels or more. I know where my money is.

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The main reason the cycling infrastructure is > being improved is because people voted for it at > both London and Borough elections - or at least > voted for people who had it as part of their > manifestos. Same goes for the 20mph limit. > Specializing a few of the 60,000 odd London > streets to prioritise cyclists isn't going to > cause traffic chaos other than maybe some local > differences but it seems a reasonable way to > improve things and you have to remember this isn't > the only transport policy being implemented. > > If you want a party that thinks the solution to > London transport problems is more private car use > and pandering to every whim of the car lobby - > then I think UKIP is the only one. I don't believed any party suggested in its manifesto that cycling infrastructure should be improved by diverting motor traffic down side streets (or implementing plans that would achieve that result). I wouldn't vote for such a policy. Most wouldn't. So please stop suggesting that these plans are the result of any informed voter choice.

Got any suggestions yourself that would keep the larger roads open to traffic both ways? If not, I'm all in favour of the status quo rather than wholesale change. However often the cycle lobby may say it, there is no concrete evidence that closing down larger roads to traffic (one way or both ways) will reduce traffic or consequent pollution - the central assumption on which all of these proposals appear to be based. It will merely diverts both traffic and the localized air and noise pollution onto smaller roads that are less capable of handling them, and causing more stress to residents. Indeed, some of those very smaller roads from which our hypothetical independent 10 year old will commence cycling to school. What is more plausible is that any larger road closure proposals will INCREASE air pollution (and certainly divert noise pollution) as cars move more slowly through congested smaller roads and journey times increase (even if only by a few minutes). It really isn't rocket science. rodneybewes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So we solve the problem of traffic deaths injuries > and pollution by squeezing cyclists into the paths > of the real non-injuring, non-polluting section of > the population - pedestrians. Whilst leaving cars > as they are. Tremendous work.

It's not just parking that will be displaced - the motor traffic will itself be diverted if you start closing the larger roads. Which is what this thread is about - the closure of main roads and the reduction of parking on them. So either you're not paying any attention to the topic on hand and are simply evangelising the benefits of cycling (no bad thing in itself, but not really adding to the discussion this thread is about) or you're supporting road closure and parking displacement - which draws my ire due to diverted traffic. The last option is that you're only suggesting parking displacement but not suggesting road closure. If so, I apologise for having misunderstood you, but I genuinely don't think that is the tenor of your proposals on this thread. Sorry abt typos, phone is acting up. Townleygreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > painful Pevara said > I see - so in your mind, the side streets will be > used for increased parking (bad enough) but won't > consequently also become through routes from the > same arterial roads where parking and traffic > movement have been displaced? Fascinating. You > should become a road planner - not. SIGH! > > Pevara, once again you are talking nonsense, > putting words in my mouth etc etc. > > ALL I said was that parking might be displaced > into quieter roads from the main roads. That was > all. the rest is your invention, supposition etc. > SIGH.

Yes, so sorry for not falling in line and acqueiscing to having my quiet little side street turned into a motorway. And for what? Nothing, other than vague suppositions from morally superior types that the world as we know it will end if we don't. And people will die. And no evidence that what they propose will actually better anything - apparently people will just stop driving their cars and join the cycle rapture en masse. Ampersand Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Pevara It rather sounds like you do not care what > road the traffic goes down as long as it is not > along the road that you live.

Instinctively, I am not someone who favours blocking roads that connect two major roads (such as EDG to DV crossing, connected by Calton). The law of unintended consequences means that traffic will not simply follow the larger roads such as LL, EDG and DV (including because they will get more congested as a result over time because of connecting road closures), but will ultimately come down other side streets - Eynella etc, i.e. new connections will be formed and used. However, I'll have a root around the map and give it some thought. I note there is an option which keeps Calton open both ways - is this not good enough? wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How about the block they've proposed at the top > (Townley) end of Calton as an alternative? > > I can't see anyone from the Village junction using > Dovercourt Rd to get to EDG, nor vice versa. > > If you're on Lordship Lane, you might do Court > Lane / Dovercourt Road / Townley instead of Court > Lane / Calton Ave / Townley, but as far as I can > see, most people stick with LL all the way up to > Townley if they're headed that way - not much > traffic turns right from Court Lane (westbound) in > to Calton Ave (northbound). > > It's maybe an annoyance for those living at the > north end of Calton Ave, as to go north you'd > first have to double back via Village or Woodwarde > - but assuming you're going to end up on Half Moon > La, Red Post Hill or LL eventually anyway, it's > not actually that bad, doesn't add more than a > couple of hundred metres.

Townleygreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pevara, before you keep having a go at me please > read what I actually said. I was talking about > where cars might be PARKED when I mentioned side > streets. Not that traffic should use them. > SIGH! I see - so in your mind, the side streets will be used for increased parking (bad enough) but won't consequently also become through routes from the same arterial roads where parking and traffic movement have been displaced? Fascinating. You should become a road planner - not. SIGH!

wulfhound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > - but I've never met anyone from the cycle lobby > who wanted more traffic on side streets. I do wish others in the cycle lobby were as tempered in their views as you. As this thread has shown me, they aren't. It's not that they positively want more traffic down side streets, it's more that they don't care this will come about if a road like Court Lane is closed to traffic one way (see TownleyGreen's comments somewhere above that he was ok if the side streets took on the extra traffic - no care for the residents of those side streets at all). Coming back to specifics, the problem with Calton is, if you close it down from the Court Lane side, people will definitely get to Calton (and thence to ED Grove ) via the smaller Dekker/Desenfans/Druce Road connections into Woodwarde - so closing Calton (Court Lane side) or Court Lane will cause a side street/"rat run" (loaded term alert!) problem. I am not as familiar with Turney Road, so won't comment on the proposals relating to that road.

Good grief- scary stuff. I will follow your tips. I hope you are able to recover your money soon and without too much further hassle.

bawdy-nan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do take your point about side streets > potentially becoming through routes and I think it > is important to have proper modelling and trials. Let's not gloss over this point so quickly (as you and Townleygreen seem wont to do - Wulfhound, I salute your taking a stand on this and saying you'd find the closure of Court Lane difficult to fathom). There is no rocket science modelling required - if you close an arterial road, traffic (just like water) will find a way through the side streets. This is common sense (also, see recent experience in relation to Loughborough road if common sense is too much of an ask). What is completely unclear (and very unlikely in my opinion, at least in my lifetime) is whether forcing traffic through side streets will reduce traffic as drastically as the cycling lobby would like to assume. I, for one, am not willing to tolerate an unverifiable central assumption underlying the cycle quietways - forcing traffic down side roads will reduce overall traffic - to inflict unjustifiable noise and localized air pollution on residents of various side streets surrounding the arterial roads under discussion.

What a load of waffle followed by the (quoted) dimissive statement about "inconvenience", made so blithely. Like I said, a zealot cares for none else. How about we focus on the question here, rather than swinging wildly from ecological catastrophe to loving the ideal of community cycling as reasons to "inconvenience" everyone else. The question in the thread is simply whether the new cycling schemes should result in the closure (one way or two ways or any way) of arterial roads such as Calton and Court Lane to motor traffic. Stepping away from future "judgment day" style rants, it is clear that no cycle scheme should close arterial roads to motor traffic. The cons are: 1. No assurance of reduction in motor traffic 2. Definite diversion of traffic down peaceful side streets, increasing localised air pollution (slower moving traffic down narrower streets) and creating noise pollution and blight in those streets (which is also not good for the health and stress levels of local residents on those streets) - might as well call the scheme cycle "noiseways". The glorious aim of the cycle collective - fearless cycling on the motorways of Dulwich - will also be difficult to achieve since the young cyclists they want to encourage don't automatically arrive on main roads when they leave their houses. They need to first travel from their homes, a lot of which will be on those very side streets which will now see increased traffic if arterial roads are closed. As for comparing the "inconvenience" from parked cars with the health and stress impacting air and noise pollution along side streets that will accompany arterial road closures and diverted traffic - what a risible analogy. bawdy-nan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Snip > > > The difficulty, of course, is that changes can > inconvenience people. But that is already the > case. The streets of East Dulwich weren't built to > accommodate the hundreds of cars now parked on the > roads but the increase in time in vehicle > ownership means that all of the roads are > "clogged" with parked cars inconveniencing all > road users.

The message quoted below shows exactly the wrong approach that zealots rush to adopt. Do something, do something now, think of the children, it preaches!!! I would rather think things through before doing something this drastic. If you close an arterial road like Court Lane or Calton one way and leave traffic to move through side streets, there is no materi body of evidence that this will reduce traffic, just a hope and a prayer. What it will certainly do is divert traffic down streets that weren't designed to take them, thus increasing pollution and noise for residents along those side streets. What's that I hear you say, you don't care? Thought so. Well I do, I love how quiet most of our side streets are and am going to do everything in my power to oppose zealots like yourself, who: - don't know whether their solution will solve or eaxcerbate the problem - don't care about other problems their solution will create - keep pointing to a bad analogy (Copenhagen), which is nowhere near the size and scale of London - assume future scenarios, such as all future immigrants to London will buy cars - don't know whether the problem will sort itself out in 10 years due to different fuel mixes on vehicles such as electric cars or increased pricing on fossil fuels Townleygreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No, miko, if we take action NOW and make the > correct decisions, we can prevent meltdown in the > future and make London more like Copenhagen rather > than the polluted hell that kills 9,500 per year. > We can encourage people to do more cycling, > walking then there needn't be pollution on the > present scale. > You seem to want to increase the number of deaths > per year - why? > I have never said there will be no cars - where > did you get that from? > Copenhagen has plenty of cars but it is a safe > place to live, walk and cycle unlike London. > The point is that in London you have to be brave > to cycle, we need to make it easy and safe so that > kids and older folks and all will feel able to > take part.

Townleygreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't know, presumably there are plenty of side > streets (not involved in these Quietways?) that > could take them. > Charming! So let's divert traffic from the larger roads which were designed to take them into the quieter surrounding residential streets, which will be both narrower (hence slower moving traffic and potentially more localized pollution) and where houses will be closer to the road (hence more noise blight for residents). All this being in addition to the aggravation to the motorists as well. The problem with zealots is they only ever care for their own agenda. There isn't the more community minded (or even, simply, rational) appreciation of how their actions or proposals might impact others. In this instance, wouldn't it be possible to leave the larger roads fully open to motor traffic and route the cycle quietways through roads that are already quiet - the very side streets that you want to inflict motor traffic on? Cycle routes may be a little longer, but hey, that just means your health agenda will be served better, right?