DulwichCentral

@Rockets you have spent the last year (??) inventing conspiracy theories accusing the council of withholding information. Now they've released data you say 'it's simply not borne out by what the majority of people are seeing and experiencing'. One Dulwich recently slated the review process as flawed because it's about 'feelings' or 'perception' rather than data. So which do you prefer? Perception? Data? Or data you agree with according to your perception? ;)

Are you saying the problem isn't too many people driving - it's too many little spaces carved out for people who want to travel by other means that caused the delay to your journey?

So the problem isn't too many people driving? It's too many little spaces carved out for people who want to travel by other means that caused the delay to your journey.

@rockets My goodness what an excellent conspiracy theory! Another one to add to your list ;)

@Rockets no comment on Spartacus comparing Southwark Council to the Nazis though

@Alice Totally agree that junction needs to be made safer too. A pedestrian crossing as @AylwardS suggested above. And a cycle lane / crossing there would help kids cycling to school from the other side of Lordship Lane - continued up East Dulwich Grove. 24/7 bus lanes on Lordship Lane would prevent congestion caused by parked cars. Maybe if you like some of these suggestions you can add them to your response to the council.

@Alice Dulwich Village / Court Lane is central to 20 schools in the area with people travelling through from all directions to all schools. You seem to want it opened up to cars and lorries making it dangerous and polluted again? a All those people walking or cycling through now - what would they do? Go back to driving?

@ab29 Court Lane was also in the video and it wasn't quiet at all.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh, so it is ok to make the already busy and > polluted roads even more so? Shouldn't the 'clean > air for all' start from making it better for those > already very badly affected e.g. people living on > South Circular? > > And looking at the bigger picture - how is pushing > the traffic from one road to another better for > the overall air pollution and climate change, > which the pro-LTN groups like to refer to? So having seen the video will you withdraw your previous comment that pushing traffic from 'quiet roads' was untrue? Those roads were clearly very busy for a very long time. I'm sure most of the people who support the measures in Dulwich also support further measures elsewhere. I hear that view being expressed all the time. But people opt for active travel locally first - using the safe routes to do so. Hopefully this means they will use their cars less which is happening because I witness the vast increase in cycling on a daily basis, and overall traffic will reduce. With more safe routes linking up across London people will cycle further. I'm sure the LTN supporters would, if they could, wave a magic wand and instantly reduce traffic everywhere. But it's not that simple is it? How do you suggest improving main roads like the south circular before tackling residential roads? Dulwich, as a wealthy area, has higher than average car ownership - so people more likely to drive. That's not equitable - because poorer areas suffer more from pollution but own less cars.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How does this justify road closures and pushing > traffic from quiet roads to those already busy and > polluted? Why do people keep denying the roads that were closed were quiet? They clearly weren't - see the video in the tweet.

The criteria for filtering streets is to stop rat-running (largely caused by sat-navs) and create safe routes for active travel. Hence the measures in Dulwich. Did Google / Waze consult us before 'redesigning' streets into rat-runs?

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Vanity project for Village Councillors ... wealthy > areas trying to be ? a house in the country? by > exporting traffic to poorer areas, So how do explain same happening in Brixton, Peckham and Oval? 400 plus filters have been installed all over London.

Shame they didn't spend it in the shops :)

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I am sure that they are > more than aware of the pandemic. So why didn't DA mention it in their flyer?

@ Alice Seem to be doing ok to me

Yes its strange isn't it. When TfL evidence shows that businesses do better in low-traffic areas - why on earth would Dulwich Village shops support DA? Maybe they've fallen for the propaganda - such as not mentioning Covid when it comes to a drop in takings.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don?t trust the Council, and I don?t need to > trust the Dulwich Alliance as they don?t have any > decision making power. > Fair enough you can choose who you trust its a free country. But being ok with Dulwich Alliance spreading misinformation and propaganda to 'offset' what you believe to be the propaganda the council spreads? Seems an odd choice.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Even if the DA flyer is as you say, it at > least helps to offset the misinformation > /propaganda that the Council has been propagating > :) So it's OK to 'offset' propaganda and misinformation with more propaganda and misinformation? Who to believe? Southwark Council who ran a year long consultation in 2019 with numerous public meetings, surveys, stalls, flyers... involving highways engineers, TfL, and consultation with emergency services. A council that were democratically voted in on their mandate to reduce traffic in a climate emergency. OR One Dulwich. A group of Dulwich village people who attended those meetings - shouted that they would be 'kettled' in their homes (the first of many bogus claims), then demanded permits *for themselves*, then denied the consultation ever happened, and are now saying rip out all measures and go back to status quo.

I wrote: > I thought all the traffic is key workers,carers > and people making essential journeys? Thats the > rhetoric expressed on here in defence of people > driving. Can't have it both ways ;) > Rockets wrote: > Er DC....the rules have changed a bit since the > beginning of lockdown on essential > journeys...shops are open, people aren't > restricted on where they travel to and from etc > etc...what's happening is what many of us > predicted would happen...;-) I wasn't referring to essential journeys in relation to Covid Rockets, so no need to be patronising ;) I was referring to the One Dulwich rhetoric that people *absolutely have to* drive and can't possibly walk or cycle because they depend on their car to make *essential journeys* i.e. they are disabled, elderly or key workers. According to One Dulwich rhetoric one would think these journeys constitute the majority of traffic on our roads. My point was, just to be super clear, that it is highly unlikely that all the traffic on the roads fits that definition of essential journey. And more likely people are driving for a number of reasons (i.e. to get work or to get their nails done) because they're avoiding public transport. And yes - this is what was predicted by TfL, the government and Mayors office - a car recovery. Hence the need for safe routes for people who *do* want to walk and cycle.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But DC - many people are not yet back to their > offices or places of work either so if there is > increased congestion now it is not unreasonable to > suggest that it will only get worse. > I thought all the traffic is key workers, carers and people making essential journeys? Thats the rhetoric expressed on here in defence of people driving. Can't have it both ways ;)

There are more cars on the roads because people still aren't using public transport. If increased public transport is, as is often stated here, a preferred alternative to LTNs, then it follows that the current *reduction* of public transport usage is having a negative impact and the actual results of experimental low-traffic measures can't be properly assessed until public transport is running at pre-pandemic levels.

Reduced capacity / use of public transport is a factor in the current level of cars on the roads. If increased public transport is, as is often stated here, a preferred alternative to LTNs, then it follows that the current *reduction* of public transport usage is having a negative impact and the actual results of experimental low-traffic measures can't be properly assessed until public transport is running at pre-pandemic levels.

'Latest transport statistics show rail and Tube continuing to crawl upwards while road nudges 100% of pre-COVID use.' Reduced capacity / use of public transport is a factor in the current level of cars on the roads. If increased public transport is, as is often stated here, a preferred alternative to LTNs, then it follows that the current *reduction* of public transport usage is having a negative impact and the actual results of experimental low-traffic measures can't be properly assessed until public transport is running at pre-pandemic levels.

In 2016 we were temporarily living in Camberwell. Drove child to school in the village then. Got stuck on East Dulwich Grove every day. I remember how stressful it was and now I think wow - why on earth didn't we cycle. We could have come down Greendale... oh - but then bit from there to village was so gridlocked we would have had to cycle on the pavement.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also - there is a new thread called 'Air pollution > in East Dulwich - what can we do?'- many ideas > there. Would that be electric cars and better public transport? Even if ALL new cars were electric right now - it would still take 15-20 years to phase out combustion engine vehicles. People can create as many threads as they like and spend as much time as they like pontificating - but showing some respect for those who are trying to do their bit a little more urgently would go a long way. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/03/climate-tipping-points-could-topple-like-dominoes-warn-scientists 'Tipping points occur when global heating pushes temperatures beyond a critical threshold, leading to accelerated and irreversible impacts. Some large ice sheets in Antarctica are thought to already have passed their tipping points, meaning large sea-level rises in coming centuries... ...The study suggests that below 2C of global warming ? ie in the Paris agreement target range ? there could still be a significant risk of triggering cascading climate tipping points,?