DulwichCentral

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?

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!

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.

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Like the ridiculous events held in the summer on > the road space at the base of Calton Avenue, which > were stopped because council needed to permit > this, we now have a large Christmas tree in the > carriageway surrounded by official barriers, so > does that mean that side of the carriageway is not > a road (tell the cyclists and kids on scooters) > and if it isn't, where are the permissions posted > please? It is probably a Southwark Council tree > or up with their blessing, what does everyone > think? Of course rumour has spread that benches > and a bike rack of some kind are going to also > appear in this space. I think it's lovely :) and it's in the middle bit on the island so not blocking cyclists or scooting. Benches would be nice too! No offence but it does seem a bit 'grinchy' to disapprove of a Christmas tree - whatever you think of the road changes.

ali2007 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No Raeburn - exactly as Rocket said. 2 years ago I took my son for guitar lessons in Forest Hill and sometimes had to cancel half way because traffic was so bad from Lordship Lane to Forest Hill - we'd miss our slot. A friend in forest hill used to drive her child to school in Dulwich - took her at least an hour both ways. To blame ALL the traffic going south on Lordship Lane on Dulwich traffic measures is exaggerating imho.

I've noticed people here accusing the council of using Covid as an excuse to implement traffic measures as if its some kind of conspiracy theory. Slarti above 'says under the cover of Covid'. But there's a climate crisis too which the council and government have to act upon. So even when Covid is hopefully over, and people return to public transport (hopefully less cars on the roads) we still have to reduce emissions. I see lots of people have taken up cycling in lockdown and now have safe routes to get across the area. Covid or not - that needs to stay in place - and more needs to be done to reduce cars and make main roads safer too.

As you quote Rockets - ?With sat nav unaware of new closures it could not reroute us,? states the report. Same point Raeburn was making - maybe their sat nav's dont update as quickly as others? Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Raeburn Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But the article you linked to is about Sat Navs > > not having current data? I understand the > systems > > in these vehicles take minutes to recalculate a > > new route, sometimes needing to be completely > > reset, taking 5+ mins. That was the issue in > Feb, > > nothing to do with LTN?s > > > > Problem is any reasonable debate is lost when > > things like this happen. > > > > Strange thing is an ambulance would have been > able > > to drive around the initial planters ....but > > people driving cars also kept mounting the > > pavements to drive around them. Ergo, it?s > these > > drivers who have Put lives at risk - ? > > Sorry these incidents were in August and Sept - > are we reading the same article - looks like their > sat navs take months to update? > > > > > PARAMEDICS SAY LOW TRAFFIC ROADBLOCKS DELAYED > RESPONSE TO TWO LIFE-THREATENING EMERGENCIES > BECAUSE SATNAVS DIDN?T RECOGNISE THEM > JOSH SALISBURY (30 November, 2020) > Medics have complained they were delayed to at > least two life-threatening seizures in Southwark > > 5 > 40840 > Image: Cook's Road before a camera-operated > barrier was installed last month > Paramedics say they have been delayed on 999 calls > to patients in life-threatening conditions because > their sat navs have not recognised new ?low > traffic? roadblocks. > > Medics complained of delays getting to at least > two people having life-threatening fits in > Southwark. > > One of the roadblocks singled out for causing > delays to emergency calls is on Cook?s Road, SE17 > according to reports written by paramedics for an > NHS database logging patient safety incidents. > > In one call on August 19, a paramedic crew was > asked to respond to a category one emergency ? for > the most serious life-threatening injuries ? for a > fitting patient in nearby Olney Road. > > A planter blocked the way on Cook?s Road, > approximately 200 yards before the turn to arrive > on-scene. > > Crews turned around but then hit another barrier > in Chapter Road, ?where another planter box in the > middle of the road prevented any vehicles from > passing through.? > > > This forced paramedics to take a longer route, > taking roughly seven minutes extra. > > > Paramedics have also complained about a roadblock > on Chapter Road SE17 > > On September 23 another crew who were again called > to a fitting patient in a life-threatening > condition but were stopped by planter boxes on > Cook?s Road. > > ?This significantly delayed our response to the > CAT 1, and we were delayed by approx.5 mins,? they > say. > > > Another incident on August 30 reports a delay of > ten minutes to a category two call for an > emergency in Otto Road because of sat-navs not > recognising the roadblocks. > > ?With sat nav unaware of new closures it could not > reroute us,? states the report. > > ?Our response time to a CAT 2 call was > significantly hindered as a result.? > > > A further delay was reported by a different crew > of up to eight minutes on a call because of the > ?brand new flowerpot road blockage? on the 12th > September at roadblocks in SE17. > > In another incident, paramedics complained of a > delay on a 999 call because of council roadblocks > in East Dulwich Road and Carlton Avenue. > > Cllr Catherine Rose, the council?s transport boss, > said Southwark was working with the emergency > services to make sure they could get to patients. > > ?We?ve converted a number of permeable road > closures to camera operated controls, at the > request of the Emergency Services,? she said on > Friday. > > ?Cooks Road is among these ? we introduced a > camera system there, back in October. > > ?The Ambulance Service raised Chapter Road in a > meeting with us yesterday, so we are investigating > options here currently as well.? > > > > Internally the ambulance service says it has seen > ?multiple no/low harm incidents reported and an > increase to on scene to hospital times,? as a > side-effect of traffic calming measures across the > capital. > > The service?s chief operating officer Khadir Meer > wrote to local authorities earlier this year to > express his concern, and the ambulance service is > consistently opposing physical barriers like > planters on the grounds they could delay > ambulances. > > However, academics last week published a paper > which appeared to show that LTNs do not cause > delays to the emergency services. > > Researchers analysed the response times of > firefighters in Waltham Forest, which has had LTNs > since 2015. > > Academics found that while delays had not actually > increased, a greater proportion of delays were > being blamed on LTNs rather than less visible > causes such as congested roads. > > ?These findings demonstrate that traffic calming > measures can initially be identified as delaying > some trips without any overall effect on response > time performance,? states the paper. > > Asked for comment, the London Ambulance Service > repeated a statement it gave this paper in > September. > > The statement says they have the ?potential? to > delay life-saving calls, and that the service is > lobbying to make sure that is considered. > > ?That is why we continue to work with Transport > for London (TfL) and local authorities, including > Southwark, to ensure emergency vehicle access is > properly considered, and the impact of any changes > monitored,? said an LAS spokesperson. > > A number of factors affect response times such as > congestion, weather, and ambulance staffing levels > meaning it can be hard to tell whether Low Traffic > Neighbourhoods are causing delays or if any delays > are being caused by another factor.

Raeburn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But the article you linked to is about Sat Navs > not having current data? I understand the systems > in these vehicles take minutes to recalculate a > new route, sometimes needing to be completely > reset, taking 5+ mins. That was the issue in Feb, > nothing to do with LTN?s > > Problem is any reasonable debate is lost when > things like this happen. > > Strange thing is an ambulance would have been able > to drive around the initial planters ....but > people driving cars also kept mounting the > pavements to drive around them. Ergo, it?s these > drivers who have Put lives at risk - ? That's a really good point Raeburn, and I've heard from someone who's relative is a paramedic that their satnavs don't update road changes as quickly as Waze. Apparently its older technology - NHS costs?

kiera Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Forcing all traffic onto the bus routes is going > back to the days before bus lanes were introduced, > when buses were so delayed by all the other > traffic, that no-one could rely on them e.g.to get > to work on time. The buses have been ignored by > the council in their LTNs, but they are essential > in encouraging people to abandon their cars and > use public transport. Bus gates?

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Did we all get that inaccurate leaflet from > Coalition4Dulwich? What did you all think? I saw a copy of the leaflet. Seemed quite reasonable to me.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Speaking of the Guardian a very interesting > pre-lockdown article that looked at congestion, > well worth a read..... > > This quote in particular stuck out for me in light > of what we are seeing today with the LTNs... > > For McNamara, there is a clear class dimension to > the debate: ?The myth of the anti-car lobby is > that it?s someone in a Rolls-Royce flicking cigar > ash out of the window at the cyclists. It?s the > working class that are driving the commercial > vehicles in central London, and they are being > forced out by the wealthy inner-London elite, who > can afford to live in Islington and want to ride > their bike to St Pancras. They want to sit in > Oxford Circus and drink their skinny caramel > coconut latte without any thought about how the > constituent parts got there. And they want > something, they buy it on their phone and they > expect it delivered the next day.? > > But then, as Travers says: ?The truth is that > almost everyone using the streets ? cabs, buses, > pedestrians and cyclists ? has a sense of > entitlement.? > I don't understand why reducing traffic and encouraging active travel has to be a class war in this country. It's like Brexit - which in my opinion was the 'elite' pretending to support the 'left behinds' in order to get what they wanted.

Rockets Wrote: > Exactly. Trying to suggest that these are > comparable to the closing of the DV junction or > any other through routes by the person who wrote > the EDSTN thread is beyond tenuous! Unless of > course they are trying to suggest that people used > to drive around the estates for the hell of it!!! > ;-) Surely you're not suggesting people drive around Dulwich just for the hell of it? ;)

FairTgirl Wrote: > > The reason no one is clamouring to have them > removed is because they are not really LTNs, they > are designed social housing estates that sit away > from main roads, they have much fewer cars than > residential side roads (see how few cars can be > seen per flat) don't add to traffic, cause > displacement.... etc etc > > I wonder if this is an attmept to say LTNs don't > just help the well off of Court Lane... but the > difference couldn't be more stark... It's funny I didn't read it like that at all. To me its just an observation that the planning / design / architecture of the estates is a good example of housing for communities - quiet roads, playgrounds etc. I've seen brand new affordable housing built in a similar way - cul-de-sacs, pedestrian areas, playgrounds, and away from main roads. Its really good this type of housing is protected by there being no through-roads. Rat-runs are designed out right from the beginning. I don't think it's saying the closure of Court Lane helps these estates. Its saying these estates are protected already because of the way they're designed. As for the residents of Court Lane.. well that's another matter.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hmm seems to be blocking me Yes its weird - I've been blocked from a few anti-closure twitter accounts. Seems to cut both ways.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > East Dulwich Grove - 3 schools. Calton Ave - zero > schools. LTN in Calton, traffic diverted to EDG. Top of Calton Avenue junction with Townley Road & East Dulwich Grove - 2 schools (JAGS & Alleyns) Bottom of Calton Avenue: 3 schools to the right (Hamlet, DVIS & JAPS) - and 2 to the left (Dulwich Prep, Dulwich College) or more if you count 2 schools turning right on the south circular (Oakfield & Rosemead). Calton Avenue is a through route used by a lot of school children going back and forth to all these schools. Charter North has dreadful traffic on Red Post Hill. Charter East is set far back from East Dulwich Road and now has a safe route in from Melbourne Grove - in an LTN. East Dulwich Grove is of course a route for many and I agree it needs some measures to reduce traffic there - but at least lots of kids now have a safe alternative via Calton Avenue which was really bad before the filters went in.

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.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > redpost Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > "despite what the council and pro-closure lobby > > would like people to believe it is now a > majority > > of people who object to what the council is > > doing" > > > > source please? and don't say Donald Trump > > Let's start with the e-petition - currently 2778 > who have signed the petition to remove the > closures and 54 who have signed the petition to > keep the closures. Now, of course, that isn't > scientific and the pro-closure lobby will accuse > the 2778 of having been swelled by the mass ranks > of the Daily Mail reading cab drivers! It was > interesting because at the time it was set-up I > was aware of a lot of local What's App groups that > were alerting people to it and a lot of people on > my street were aware of it and passing it on via > their own What's App groups and word of mouth. Of > course, there are no postcodes associated with the > council e-petitions (a failing of the council not > the person who set it up). > > Of course One Dulwich has been collecting > postcodes of those people who have registered with > them. They have 1700 registered supporters here > https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters and they plot > where the people are from. It's pretty > compelling. > > I also hear lots of people talking negatively > about the closures from across all 4 corners of > Dulwich. Once again, not scientific but, as > someone who has been discussing CPZs and OHS for > some time I can assure you many more people are > discussing these closures. Why? Because it impacts > people directly. Most people in Dulwich own a car > (somewhere between 70%-80% depending on which part > of Dulwich you live in) and anyone who has a car > will be impacted in some way by these closures. > Also, you only have to shop on Lordship Lane to > realise how detrimental these closures are being > on traffic across the area. > > So, I am pretty confident it is a majority and I > think it will get even higher once the cameras go > in next week as more and more people fall victim > to the timed closures. Remember nearly 50,000 > people fell foul of the Lewisham LTN cameras in > the first month or so. > > Finally, look at the numbers of people across > London who are fighting these closures. Thousands > of people have been on marches across London - > there are groups in every borough fighting these > closures and fighting the councils who are doing > it. I very much suspect this is organic - if not > it is the best organised guerrilla protest > organisation ever! ;-) You forgot to add Nigel Farage https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8924869/NIGEL-FARAGE-Stop-pious-pay-road-tax-obey-rules-like-motorists.html