LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Penguin68]

But if commuting into town / traffic is much reduced as a result of changes in working patterns, then these changes make even more sense don't they?

Blocking roads that used to be used by through commuters (but aren't now) and forcing local traffic onto fewer roads causing traffic hold-ups makes no sense. If we are saying that (some) local roads now should be reserved for their occupants and local traffic that used to use them should now be funnelled away from them (but, by the way, those people living in those protected local roads can still use other local roads for their needs) then we are creating pockets of privilege at the expense of their neighbours. Which I, for one, don't sign up to.

[mikeb]

@ RahRahRah - I clicked at random on a couple of the pages in this thread. It's not hard to find propositions such as (paraphrasing to avoid this being a personal attack): "if we don't do something now then the next step will be a total ban in the future"

I rarely drive but seeing people propose "this road isn't closed, it's just filtered and open to cycles etc" is provocative sophistry: these roads are closed; yes the footpaths remain open and bikes can get through, but that's entirely unremarkable.

[heartblock]

I don?t drive

?The two views seem to be:

1. Those who really want to be able to drive without hindrance

2. Those who want to make it easier to walk and cycle and more difficult to use ones car.

The main disagreement is whether attempts to achieve this with filtering traffic on certain roads, leads to better or worse outcomes in general, when it comes to health, the environment, quality of life etc. Reasonable people may take different views on this, as clearly there are knock on impacts. But if you agree with aim 2. , but not the approach to trying to attain it, then it would be interesting to hear alternatives suggestions.

I haven't really heard however, anyone explaining how the first approach (sticking with the status quo) can possibly make anything better.?

I walk and cycle...my road is now awful to cycle or walk on for 4 hours a day during the working week. I?m sure if my road had been closed I would also be saying ?these closures are wonderful?.... but instead I now have all your traffic on my road. Thanks.

[Rockets]

LTNs were the subject of a news item on the BBC 10 o'clock news last night. Very balanced with those for and against both featured but the BBC did use, as the catalyst for the story, that there are plans to make many of them permanent.

[Metallic]

Still so many adults cycling on the pavement! If you are with your child it is perfectly easy to keep level with him or her whilst being a few feet away on the road. Yesterday I took an earlier walk than usual just to have a look at cycling behaviour and was appalled to see how many adult cyclists are weaving in and out of pedestrians, often with dogs or small children, on pavements through EDG, Dulwich Village (the worst examples), and even in the park where there is a SHARED pathway.

[rachp]

At a macro level, the real outcome of this should be not be being able to walk and cycle on your own road more easily but more of us being motivated to get from A to B over long distances on bike or foot- that's where the individual behaviour change will happen and collectively, we would see less cars on the roads. I don't think the council has done a good job on this front in terms of showing how people can use the closed roads as a new travel network and indeed enabling this e.g. through installing Santander bikes.

And yes, it is really rough on those impacted by increased pollution on their roads. My kids are on EDG and LL 5 days a week and that worries me but I was already worried about pollution so the do nothing option doesn't work for me either. If we all expect that we can keep driving as much as we always have, and with Covid, more so, pollution is only going in one direction. And the psychological evidence shows that the external environment needs to change for most of us to make meaningful changes to our habits, people aren't going to wake up en masse one day and change because they are worried about the environment (or at least not until the tangible pain of pollution is so great that they feel they have no choice and we don't want to get to that point)

heartblock Wrote:

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

> I don?t drive

>

> ?The two views seem to be:

>

> 1. Those who really want to be able to drive

> without hindrance

> 2. Those who want to make it easier to walk and

> cycle and more difficult to use ones car.

>

> The main disagreement is whether attempts to

> achieve this with filtering traffic on certain

> roads, leads to better or worse outcomes in

> general, when it comes to health, the environment,

> quality of life etc. Reasonable people may take

> different views on this, as clearly there are

> knock on impacts. But if you agree with aim 2. ,

> but not the approach to trying to attain it, then

> it would be interesting to hear alternatives

> suggestions.

>

> I haven't really heard however, anyone explaining

> how the first approach (sticking with the status

> quo) can possibly make anything better.?

>

> I walk and cycle...my road is now awful to cycle

> or walk on for 4 hours a day during the working

> week. I?m sure if my road had been closed I would

> also be saying ?these closures are wonderful?....

> but instead I now have all your traffic on my

> road. Thanks.

[Rockets]

rachp Wrote:

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

> At a macro level, the real outcome of this should

> be not be being able to walk and cycle on your own

> road more easily but more of us being motivated to

> get from A to B over long distances on bike or

> foot- that's where the individual behaviour change

> will happen and collectively, we would see less

> cars on the roads. I don't think the council has

> done a good job on this front in terms of showing

> how people can use the closed roads as a new

> travel network and indeed enabling this e.g.

> through installing Santander bikes.

>

> And yes, it is really rough on those impacted by

> increased pollution on their roads. My kids are

> on EDG and LL 5 days a week and that worries me

> but I was already worried about pollution so the

> do nothing option doesn't work for me either. If

> we all expect that we can keep driving as much as

> we always have, and with Covid, more so, pollution

> is only going in one direction. And the

> psychological evidence shows that the external

> environment needs to change for most of us to make

> meaningful changes to our habits, people aren't

> going to wake up en masse one day and change

> because they are worried about the environment (or

> at least not until the tangible pain of pollution

> is so great that they feel they have no choice and

> we don't want to get to that point)

>

>

>

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I don?t drive

> >

> > ?The two views seem to be:

> >

> > 1. Those who really want to be able to drive

> > without hindrance

> > 2. Those who want to make it easier to walk and

> > cycle and more difficult to use ones car.

> >

> > The main disagreement is whether attempts to

> > achieve this with filtering traffic on certain

> > roads, leads to better or worse outcomes in

> > general, when it comes to health, the

> environment,

> > quality of life etc. Reasonable people may take

> > different views on this, as clearly there are

> > knock on impacts. But if you agree with aim 2.

> ,

> > but not the approach to trying to attain it,

> then

> > it would be interesting to hear alternatives

> > suggestions.

> >

> > I haven't really heard however, anyone

> explaining

> > how the first approach (sticking with the

> status

> > quo) can possibly make anything better.?

> >

> > I walk and cycle...my road is now awful to

> cycle

> > or walk on for 4 hours a day during the working

> > week. I?m sure if my road had been closed I

> would

> > also be saying ?these closures are

> wonderful?....

> > but instead I now have all your traffic on my

> > road. Thanks.

I don't think anyone is suggesting to not do anything what people are saying is don't do this thing as it won't work and it is making things worse. Closing lots of roads is clearly not the solution.

[Earl Aelfheah]

mikeb Wrote:

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

> @ RahRahRah - I clicked at random on a couple of

> the pages in this thread. It's not hard to find

> propositions such as (paraphrasing to avoid this

> being a personal attack): "if we don't do

> something now then the next step will be a total

> ban in the future"

>

> I rarely drive but seeing people propose "this

> road isn't closed, it's just filtered and open to

> cycles etc" is provocative sophistry: these roads

> are closed; yes the footpaths remain open and

> bikes can get through, but that's entirely

> unremarkable.

Fair enough, I haven't seen people calling for a total ban of motor vehicles, but I haven't been reading the whole thread. Clearly, that's a ridiculous proposition.

The roads are filtered, not closed. They can be used by cars, vans etc. for access. Bikes, scooters, pedestrians etc can pass through, large vehicles cannot.

[slarti b]

@rahrah

You say "The roads are filtered, not closed. They can be used by cars, vans etc. for access. Bikes, scooters, pedestrians etc can pass through, large vehicles cannot."

Is this your definition of a "permeable filter" or "permeable closure"? That is not the case at the DV junction and not the way these terms are used in the Southwark documents

[Abe_froeman]

The roads are obviously closed. They even have signs at the end of them that say "Road Closed"

[Nigello]

Metallic Wrote:

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

> Still so many adults cycling on the pavement! If

> you are with your child it is perfectly easy to

> keep level with him or her whilst being a few feet

> away on the road. Yesterday I took an earlier

> walk than usual just to have a look at cycling

> behaviour and was appalled to see how many adult

> cyclists are weaving in and out of pedestrians,

> often with dogs or small children, on pavements

> through EDG, Dulwich Village (the worst examples),

> and even in the park where there is a SHARED

> pathway.

Yes ? our yummy mummy/daddy types think because they?re being green they don?t have to obey laws, even at peak times foot footpath use (school opening and closing). The trikes/Dutch types with the kid-carrying baskets are particularly irksome.

[Rockets]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> The roads are obviously closed. They even have

> signs at the end of them that say "Road Closed"

I am glad someone pointed this out as a few on here were saying the roads are not closed and were moaning when people refer to them as thus - but each road has a very big red sign on it saying Road Closed - which is pretty definitive.

The council tried to change the signs to green "Road Open to" and removed the Road Closed signs but I suspect they fell foul of laws regarding road signage as the red Road Closed signs re-appeared again pretty quickly thereafter. Now many have one red Road Closed and one green Road Open to sign.

So it is pretty clear that it is perfectly ok to refer to them as closed roads!!! ;-)

[rachp]

I think there are people who say you can do what you like, as long as you put no restriction on my driving. There are so many posts on this subject thst I have probably missed the ones that list out viable alternatives that would reduce the number of cars on the road without upsetting anyone. And

ockets Wrote:

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

> rachp Wrote:

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

> -----

> > At a macro level, the real outcome of this

> should

> > be not be being able to walk and cycle on your

> own

> > road more easily but more of us being motivated

> to

> > get from A to B over long distances on bike or

> > foot- that's where the individual behaviour

> change

> > will happen and collectively, we would see less

> > cars on the roads. I don't think the council

> has

> > done a good job on this front in terms of

> showing

> > how people can use the closed roads as a new

> > travel network and indeed enabling this e.g.

> > through installing Santander bikes.

> >

> > And yes, it is really rough on those impacted

> by

> > increased pollution on their roads. My kids

> are

> > on EDG and LL 5 days a week and that worries me

> > but I was already worried about pollution so

> the

> > do nothing option doesn't work for me either.

> If

> > we all expect that we can keep driving as much

> as

> > we always have, and with Covid, more so,

> pollution

> > is only going in one direction. And the

> > psychological evidence shows that the external

> > environment needs to change for most of us to

> make

> > meaningful changes to our habits, people aren't

> > going to wake up en masse one day and change

> > because they are worried about the environment

> (or

> > at least not until the tangible pain of

> pollution

> > is so great that they feel they have no choice

> and

> > we don't want to get to that point)

> >

> >

> >

> > heartblock Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > I don?t drive

> > >

> > > ?The two views seem to be:

> > >

> > > 1. Those who really want to be able to drive

> > > without hindrance

> > > 2. Those who want to make it easier to walk

> and

> > > cycle and more difficult to use ones car.

> > >

> > > The main disagreement is whether attempts to

> > > achieve this with filtering traffic on

> certain

> > > roads, leads to better or worse outcomes in

> > > general, when it comes to health, the

> > environment,

> > > quality of life etc. Reasonable people may

> take

> > > different views on this, as clearly there are

> > > knock on impacts. But if you agree with aim

> 2.

> > ,

> > > but not the approach to trying to attain it,

> > then

> > > it would be interesting to hear alternatives

> > > suggestions.

> > >

> > > I haven't really heard however, anyone

> > explaining

> > > how the first approach (sticking with the

> > status

> > > quo) can possibly make anything better.?

> > >

> > > I walk and cycle...my road is now awful to

> > cycle

> > > or walk on for 4 hours a day during the

> working

> > > week. I?m sure if my road had been closed I

> > would

> > > also be saying ?these closures are

> > wonderful?....

> > > but instead I now have all your traffic on my

> > > road. Thanks.

>

>

> I don't think anyone is suggesting to not do

> anything what people are saying is don't do this

> thing as it won't work and it is making things

> worse. Closing lots of roads is clearly not the

> solution.

[slarti b]

@Rockets

The council tried to change the signs to green "Road Open to"

Out of interest are the green signs legal? My understanding is that any non-standard road traffic signs have to be approved by the Dept of Transport but I am happy to be corrected. If so, have the grren signs been approved?

Like the painted flowers, which had to be spray cleaned, it seems the council is happy to spend money to support the Margy Plaza vanity project while at the same time pleading poverty when local resident suggest improvements to their ill thought out schemes.

[slarti b]

The latest I hear is that Southwark are planning to install benches at the temporary Road Closures of DV as a way of "slowing down cyclists". Can anyone on here with links to our local councillors confirm or deny that?

The ostensible reason for the temporary road closures was to provide more space for social distancing due to Covid, though this was of course underminded by the irresponsible holding of concerts at the junction. I cannot see how installing benches is consistent with that objective.

Also, given the changes are temporary road closures why is the council planning to put benches on teh carriageway?

[Rockets]

I am not entirely convinced the council has the first clue what they are doing anymore. They seemingly don't have a plan - they carpet bombed the closures, are chasing the displacement and are now trying to work out what to do next.

Benches seems a bizarre idea and I can't believe they want to slow down cyclists - is there a problem with speeding cyclists there or maybe the council is turning it's attention away from the war on cars and now is going after cyclists!!! ;-)

It is becoming increasingly clear that none of these closures were intended to be temporary.

[roywj]

Batch 4 out now

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50023738&Opt=0

[Rockets]

Wow....a couple of things really standout from this Batch 4 proposal.

1) The council seems to be doing their utmost to keep adding more closures that affect more people thus creating more overall resistance to what they are doing. The turkeys are voting for Christmas with each batch of proposals.

2) Very, very telling that in the Peckham Rye documentation it says this:

Emergency services (Fire, Police and Ambulance) have indicated they

will not support schemes which promote hard road closures, as they

will increase response times. Their preference is for camera enforced

closures without physical prevention for vehicles.

This is huge as it shows the emergency services are saying "enough - you're causing problems with these closures". It is exposing one of the major Achilles heals of all these programmes and shows they ARE having a negative impact on response times. What does this mean for those hard road closures already in place one wonders?

Additionally can someone remind me, am I right in thinking there is no right turn from Peckham Rye onto East Dulwich Road? If so, how do vehicles get from Peckham to East Dulwich when these closures go in?

3) The closure of Burbage is again chasing the displacement that will be caused by them closing the northbound route through Dulwich Village and the closure of another east/west route across Dulwich.

It's clear they have created a monster that they are unable to control it and their only solution is to close more and more roads and with those closures come more misery for others in the area.

[Spartacus]

Looking at the Peckham Rye document, the only route now to get to Nunhead from the Forest Hill Road direction is now to go up Heaton Road then turn onto Consort Road and to Nunhead that way

Or turn left onto East Dulwich Road down to the roundabout then back up East Dulwich Road and into Nunhead that way.

Talk about adding more traffic congestion to already busy roads.

This madness has to stop especially as the solution for the Peckham proposal is to simply put a cycle path on the rye it's self thus keeping cars buses and cycles segregated.

But that's not the councils agenda is it.

[AlexandHelenC]

It is truly astonishing that the Council is openly and unapologetically ignoring the concerns of the emergency services.

[n dulwich northerner]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Additionally can someone remind me, am I right in

> thinking there is no right turn from Peckham Rye

> onto East Dulwich Road?

Correct that for a year or two you haven't been able to turn right at the lights where Kings on the Rye used to be. But it's not too troublesome to go on the Nunhead side of Peckham Rye and then turn right, another set of lights, but no slower in my experience.

> If so, how do vehicles get

> from Peckham to East Dulwich when these closures

> go in?

Can't comment on the closures, but I eagerly await the day when they start the scheme to have joggers running with red flags 10m before every motorised carriage.

[Rockets]

I believe that Nunhead right turn now won't be possible with this closure as it is closing the Nunhead fork to anything but buses and bikes so not sure where cars trying to turn right onto East Dulwich Road will be supposed to go when these measures get the inevitable greenlight.

Surely this will displace traffic along Barry Road that will be forced to cut down Upland?

Another case of robbing Peter to pay Paul? Or am I missing something? It seems the Peckham Rye closure is designed solely to stop any right turns from Peckham Rye onto East Dulwich Road. And how do residents of Whorlton Road and, in particular, Nunhead Crescent get access?

What is it that the council has about any east/west travel across Dulwich? It's as if someone got a big red marker and told the roads team - draw a red line on any route east west and work out how we can close it.

[roywj]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> I believe that Nunhead right turn now won't be

> possible with this closure as it is closing the

> Nunhead fork to anything but buses and bikes so

> not sure where cars trying to turn right onto East

> Dulwich Road will be supposed to go when these

> measures get the inevitable greenlight.

>

> Surely this will displace traffic along Barry Road

> that will be forced to cut down Upland?

>

> Another case of robbing Peter to pay Paul? Or am I

> missing something? It seems the Peckham Rye

> closure is designed solely to stop any right turns

> from Peckham Rye onto East Dulwich Road. And how

> do residents of Whorlton Road and, in particular,

> Nunhead Crescent get access?

>

> What is it that the council has about any

> east/west travel across Dulwich? It's as if

> someone got a big red marker and told the roads

> team - draw a red line on any route east west and

> work out how we can close it.

Yes pre existing no right turn where Kings on Rye use to be (15+years) and plans will stop drivers going up the other branch of Peckham Rye to turn right to get onto East Dulwich Road. This leaves the only options either going up Barry Road or going on the one way system and turning left onto Nigel road or turning right onto Kinsale road. All these options will result in increased traffic on narrow back streets - cannot see the point of this at all!

[KidKruger]

That?s really crazy.

[Spartacus]

So that will result in Upland Road being blocked off , traffic then diverting down Underhill Road which will then be blocked off and traffic diverting down Goodrich Road ....

Before we know it every side road in Dulwich will either be clogged with traffic or blocked off.

Did Grant Shapps say that he would intervene if councils abuse the scheme and introduce restrictions without consultation ?

If so how can we get him involved to pause and review what Southwark Council are doing ?