LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[JohnL]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > ...also, what is the evidence that Lordship

> Lane

> > and Dulwich Common have seen increases in

> traffic

> > as a result of Calton Avenue being made a no

> > through road?

>

> Have you taken a walk (or cycle) around any of the

> impacted areas recently - if not, go and take a

> look for yourself - it's quite shocking how much

> heavier the traffic is on those roads. As I said

> yesterday, there was a huge tailback northbound

> through the village at 7.30am yesterday morning.

>

> The council have now agreed to put monitoring

> along all the main roads surrounding the closures

> to determine whether there has been an increase in

> traffic along those road - but of course not sure

> what conclusions they will be able to draw as they

> have no base as they weren't monitoring before the

> closures. Which is all a bit odd as they had been

> lobbying for the DV closures for a long-time

> before Covid and they knew what they wanted to do.

> It will be interesting to know whether they manage

> to get the monitoring in place before the second

> road of closures they are suggesting - if I was a

> betting man I'd suggest they won't.

>

> They are not, however, doing any pollution

> monitoring on the impacted roads. I believe that

> is due to the cost but the cynics might say that

> it is because they know what the outcome will be.

> Remember, their last meddling with the DV junction

> lead to a "moderate" increase pollution so the

> current closes will undoubtedly have led to a

> significant increase in pollution but if they are

> not monitoring we won't ever know.

>

> All in all the council are rushing these plans

> through and have not given proper thought to the

> longer-term impacts and are now desperately

> chasing the displacement.

This is the plan - eventually people will rethink their transport if they sit in queues all day. I'm not saying thats good but it seems to be one of the way things are done these days.

[Rockets]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rockets Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > ...also, what is the evidence that Lordship

> > Lane

> > > and Dulwich Common have seen increases in

> > traffic

> > > as a result of Calton Avenue being made a no

> > > through road?

> >

> > Have you taken a walk (or cycle) around any of

> the

> > impacted areas recently - if not, go and take a

> > look for yourself - it's quite shocking how

> much

> > heavier the traffic is on those roads. As I

> said

> > yesterday, there was a huge tailback northbound

> > through the village at 7.30am yesterday

> morning.

> >

> > The council have now agreed to put monitoring

> > along all the main roads surrounding the

> closures

> > to determine whether there has been an increase

> in

> > traffic along those road - but of course not

> sure

> > what conclusions they will be able to draw as

> they

> > have no base as they weren't monitoring before

> the

> > closures. Which is all a bit odd as they had

> been

> > lobbying for the DV closures for a long-time

> > before Covid and they knew what they wanted to

> do.

> > It will be interesting to know whether they

> manage

> > to get the monitoring in place before the

> second

> > road of closures they are suggesting - if I was

> a

> > betting man I'd suggest they won't.

> >

> > They are not, however, doing any pollution

> > monitoring on the impacted roads. I believe

> that

> > is due to the cost but the cynics might say

> that

> > it is because they know what the outcome will

> be.

> > Remember, their last meddling with the DV

> junction

> > lead to a "moderate" increase pollution so the

> > current closes will undoubtedly have led to a

> > significant increase in pollution but if they

> are

> > not monitoring we won't ever know.

> >

> > All in all the council are rushing these plans

> > through and have not given proper thought to

> the

> > longer-term impacts and are now desperately

> > chasing the displacement.

>

> This is the plan - eventually people will rethink

> their transport if they sit in queues all day.

> I'm not saying thats good but it seems to be one

> of the way things are done these days.

10% - that's all you get....a 10% reduction in car use but at what cost elsewhere.....that is what a lot of us are worried about, that the ends don't justify the means and in fact the means are far, far more damaging.

[Abe_froeman]

That might work in normal circumstances John, but the public have been scared witless by the Mayor that they will die of coronavirus and take a few key workers with them if they travel on public transport .

People would rather be inconvenienced by traffic than be inconvenienced by a deadly virus in a public transport petri dish.

[Spartacus]

Has anyone started a petition against the road closures yet and lack of pre and post monitoring ?

From what I'm seeing on here a lot of people borough wide would sign it !

[redpost]

Spartacus, perhaps you should live up to your name and start one?

[Earl Aelfheah]

I knew it. The real reason people object to not being able to cut through Calton Avenue in their car, is a concern for BAME communities. It's really all very noble.

[Spartacus]

redpost Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Spartacus, perhaps you should live up to your name

> and start one?

From past experience when I started a revolution, the Appian Way leading to Tooley Street will be littered with crucified car drivers.

Although it does appear to be Southwark Councils master plan to crucify us all anyway.

[Rockets]

Looks like the council approved the next batch of closures as they chase the displacement. More misery for the residents of those roads not being closed

....

[jane21]

rockets how do you know?

[Rockets]

Richard Livingstone confirming it to the Dulwich Society twitter feed saying he approved them all but the council website has not been updated. The whole lot appears to be moving forward as someone asked if the DV, Burbage and Turney were approved and he said yes - in addition to Derwent, Melbourne North etc.

It's going to be chaos.

[heartblock]

School run and commuter traffic... EDGrove at a standstill. Our Healthy Streets, not for us poorer ED residents who do not live on the ?new? private roads.

[heartblock]

Frustrated car drivers making dangerous turns in the road... children walking to school breathing in traffic fumes. Time to rethink road closures.

[thebestnameshavegone]

I think it should be compulsory to drive children to school, anyone makes my children breathe fumes I swear I'll do time

[slarti b]

@bestnamesetc

Which roads do your childern use to get to school, The ones the councillors are diverting traffic onto?

[Earl Aelfheah]

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Frustrated car drivers making dangerous turns in

> the road... children walking to school breathing

> in traffic fumes. Time to rethink road closures.

The answer to traffic fumes - make it easier for people to drive anywhere they like!

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I believe some schools have gone back today and as

> I ran through Dulwich Village this morning at

> around 7.30am there was stationary traffic from

> the Village roundabout going northbound all the

> way to the East Dulwich Grove junction. The folly

> of these closures is there for us all to see and

> we know the council is going to try and close the

> village northbound to chase the displacement away

> from the area but these closures are not working

> and are creating far worse problems than before.

I ran through Dulwich Village this morning at 7:30. It was pretty quiet. So what's this mean?

[Penguin68]

There seem to be two interpretations of 'healthy streets' being made. One is about street use making you more healthy - so the emphasis on walking and cycling (fine for shorter journeys and for the young(er) and fit, not so good for the old(er), disabled etc etc. and for long journeys or journeys where you need to take stuff like buggies or heavy shopping).

The other interpretation is about removing polluting traffic from residential roads (which should not mean moving polluting traffic to other residential roads). One way of doing this is to reduce (as the ULEZ is meant to do) the pollution capability of traffic - and of course this is what the use of electric vehicles is meant to do.

But the actions of Southwark, and others, confuses and conflates these two interpretations into - 'punish people in cars' - actually 'punish people in cars and milk them if they try to park.' With, I've noted, a number of class warriors waving their red flags over the issue.

And in the mean time some clever folks have created effectively gated communities for themselves - actually enabled by our elected class warriors - what are the odds?

[Paradise2]

The wooden plant pots are being put across Melbourne Grove etc this morning so now closed. The children in the schools in Dulwich Village go back to school on Monday 7th so things may get worse with traffic then. That?s until they close the roads through the village at peak times

[slarti b]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The answer to traffic fumes - make it easier for people to drive anywhere they like!

Most of the through traffic displaced by these knee jerk road closures will not evaporate. It will go on other "main" roads as we are seeing. Remember that was one of the objectives of OHS.

[seenbeen]

Thinking back to when my youngest went to school and I went back to work- my children were in the schools in the Village then I had to get to Bermondsey by 9.30 which is impossible without a car. At one point I was working in Greenwich -a 9am start- and had to leave the children with a paid minder at 8am and she took them to school and then I managed to get to work.

I feel really sorry for anyone who has to do this type of juggling- single parents, women or men who have to drop children and get to work in places ill-served by public transport, low income families trying to do the right thing but cannot afford a wrap-around child minder.

I think Southwark are ridiculous quite honestly, I have worked for them in the past and I know certain departments ARE ridiculous- and as for council meetings for crying out loud.....

[JohnL]

Does everyone employ child minders then - I was shocked when a friend said he had a nanny and a cleaner. My mother worked after my father died and we didn't even have our own key - just "latchkey kids" as they called it then - and we were supposed to be middle class.

LOL Just Googled Latchkey Kids and "The latchkey generation?also known as Generation X?was raised by working parents who left them alone after school. ..."

I'm GenX

[sally buying]

Paradise2 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The wooden plant pots are being put across

> Melbourne Grove etc this morning so now closed.

> The children in the schools in Dulwich Village go

> back to school on Monday 7th so things may get

> worse with traffic then. That?s until they close

> the roads through the village at peak times

Also Elsie and the other roads are now also being prepared. Madness.

[macutd]

We should do a protest sit down in the road. Grove Vale or East Dulwich Grove.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> heartblock Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Frustrated car drivers making dangerous turns

> in

> > the road... children walking to school

> breathing

> > in traffic fumes. Time to rethink road

> closures.

>

> The answer to traffic fumes - make it easier for

> people to drive anywhere they like!

But you have to admit a moving car emits less fumes than a stationary car - so why create gridlock and stationary traffic if you are trying to reduce pollution?

[JohnL]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > heartblock Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Frustrated car drivers making dangerous turns

> > in

> > > the road... children walking to school

> > breathing

> > > in traffic fumes. Time to rethink road

> > closures.

> >

> > The answer to traffic fumes - make it easier

> for

> > people to drive anywhere they like!

>

>

> But you have to admit a moving car emits less

> fumes than a stationary car - so why create

> gridlock and stationary traffic if you are trying

> to reduce pollution?

You're not supposed to have the engine on when stationary.

https://www.edf.org/attention-drivers-turn-your-idling-engines#:~:text=Turn%20off%20your%20ignition%20if,driving%20it%2C%20not%20by%20idling.