Rockets

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From the BBC website today > > BBC News - Low Traffic Neighbourhoods: Anger, hate > and the politics of the planter > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-54180 > 647 Every day the pressure mounts on the closures. I think the BBC article hits the nail on the head with some of the challenges LTNs are facing. Public awareness of the problems they are causing is growing all the time. When do the next phase of closures come in (Townley, Dulwich Village northbound, Turney, Burbage etc?). I do wonder whether the new leader of Southwark council might be forced to take action.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People used to drive from roads like Heber, > Uplands Ullverscroft etc and park near the station > - especially when it rained as per above. Expect > those commuters would just walk (like they always > should have - but were enabled by not being > restricted) Interesting isn't it that time limited CPZs have been very effective in areas like Herne Hill in deterring commuters yet protecting the local community shops and Southwark opted for the all day option. Read into that what you will!

roywj Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lordship Lane is not in the CPZ area so will be > unaffected. A lot of people commenting on the CPZ > who do not actually live within the zone. Sounds > like sour grapes to me. > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > first mate Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Yes, well you might but it was always argued > > that > > > commuter parking was the central issue, this > > could > > > have been dealt with by the time limited > > option. > > > Goodness, we had tales of commuter stalkers > in > > > cars harassing householders and all sorts. > The > > > health centre and schools were never > mentioned. > > > The all day CPZ has facilitated CPZ creep in > a > > way > > > that was never necessary. > > > > Why they didn't go for the 2-hour window is > beyond > > me - but then again we know what the real > > motivation for this is - another example of the > > council not listening to the constituents. > > > > We will soon find out how much of the problem > was > > commuter related because if those who were > > lobbying for it on the basis of commuters were > > right we will see huge swathes of empty spaces > > around the station. > > > > I really worry about the impact on Lordship > Lane > > as the combined factors of the creep from the > CPZ > > and now the horrendous congestion caused by the > > closures will have a detrimental impact. But it's pretty damn close and the neighbouring roads which will suffer from the displacement. I am not suffering from sour grapes - just, and always have been, worried about the impact all of these changes will have on Lordship Lane and the wider community. A bit like the road closures - a few people will benefit whilst the majority suffer. Hardly sour grapes being concerned about the impact on others.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, well you might but it was always argued that > commuter parking was the central issue, this could > have been dealt with by the time limited option. > Goodness, we had tales of commuter stalkers in > cars harassing householders and all sorts. The > health centre and schools were never mentioned. > The all day CPZ has facilitated CPZ creep in a way > that was never necessary. Why they didn't go for the 2-hour window is beyond me - but then again we know what the real motivation for this is - another example of the council not listening to the constituents. We will soon find out how much of the problem was commuter related because if those who were lobbying for it on the basis of commuters were right we will see huge swathes of empty spaces around the station. I really worry about the impact on Lordship Lane as the combined factors of the creep from the CPZ and now the horrendous congestion caused by the closures will have a detrimental impact.

Serena2012 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Northernmonkey to address your comments: > > 1. I do not live at the junction of two A roads, > in fact, our house is quite a distance from the > junction, and the only reason we are currently > experiencing idling traffic is because the volume > of traffic caused by the closures elsewhere is > overwhelming for this stretch of road. In case you > hadn?t noticed, Melbourne Grove, Derwent and Elsie > also have junctions with two A roads. All these > closures have done is to take the problems > previously experienced at some of those junctions, > particularly the Melbourne/ EDG junction and > shoved it down the road, where the infrastructure > cannot cope. There is a reason buses did not go > down this section of EDG historically and went > down Melbourne instead, and that is because this > stretch of road is very very narrow. > > 2. What needs to happen therefore is that rather > than bunging planters in and hoping for the best, > which clearly isn?t working, and is inevitably > significantly increasing air pollution, there > should be a detailed consideration of all the > options. This includes school streets alone, and > one way streets. Expecting a narrow stretch of EDG > to cope with all the additional traffic is naive, > and quite frankly dangerous. Serena2012 - unfortunately what many of us predicted would happen is happening. The council has dome zero analysis of the impact of these closures on the remaining open roads. The combination of the DV closure and Melbourne Grove etc is putting unmanageable pressure on East Dulwich Grove. Of course, when the council closures off Dulwich Village completely during certain hours of the day you may get some relief. But again, that traffic is going to have to go somewhere and the burden will likely be shouldered by Lordship Lane (which again today was tailing back to passed the M&S heading towards the Goose Green roundabout). Of course any relief from that may be tempered by the closures/restriction of access to Townley, Burbage etc. I suspect the Townley closure will force more and more traffic down EDG. I am afraid it could be about to get a hell of a lot worse. Instead of championing, and actively lobbying for, these closures our local councillors should have been assessing the likely impact of the closures on their constituents and fighting them - especially the DV closures which I think are the root cause of the majority of problems people are experiencing now. There has been a complete dereliction of duty from them - preferring to tow the party line over their constituents.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are some links to studies on the effects of > LTNs here: > https://londonlivingstreets.com/2019/07/11/evapora > ting-traffic-impact-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods- > on-main-roads/ > > I do accept the LTNs are not a panacea - there > will be some issues and some displacement > (particularly in the immediate term). But this has > to be offset against the improvements to > residential / side streets, the increase in > walking and associated health impacts and the > alternative of doing nothing / allowing traffic to > slowly take over every street. It's that same report that says half the case studies led to a 11% decrease (which leads you to suspect the other half didn't get close to 11%). Is 11% considered success if congestion increases on other roads as a result?

roywj Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lots of tickets issued today I just walked along East Dulwich Grove towards Lordship Lane and every other car parked there has a ticket - bumper bonus day for the traffic wardens and council. Very little signage on the section of EDG in front of the old hospital to tell you it is permit only which might explain why so many people are falling foul of it.

Looks like we have these closures for a minimum of six months. Per yesterday's OneDulwich update which I have pasted from their email: On 19 June, decision-maker Councillor Livingstone said, ?The measures are flexible as the experimental nature of the trial allows us to make amendments and changes within the first six months.? But he seems to have changed his mind. In a recent email to One Dulwich on 12 September, he says, ?The council has stated that we will review the permeable filter trial after its six months? The current scheme has only been in place for two months and we do not believe that this is a sufficient period within which to fully assess whether it has been a success.? In neighbouring Wandsworth, the council has acted more quickly, and has decided its scheme isn?t working. The planters are being removed this week. In Ealing, Islington and Lambeth, thousands of people turned out this weekend to protest against road closures. Transport minister Grant Shapps ([email protected]), who gave the funds to local councils to put in emergency measures, said in the Telegraph last week that some of the trials hadn?t worked, ?We?re also telling councils that now the height of the emergency has passed, there?s time to consult people more. Where some councils have abused the cash, my message is clear: speak to local residents, get it fixed or no more cash.? Unfortunately, Southwark Council seems intent on listening to lobbyists from outside the area, and a vocal minority who personally benefit from road closures, rather than the majority who live and work in and around Dulwich.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > @Rockets I ah e always said that I disagreed > > with > > > the council?s approach. But now the LTNs have > > been > > > created, I believe we should support them, at > > > least for the length of the trial. My > personal > > > view is that we need to start allocating more > > > space to pedestrians and cyclists to make it > > > easier for people to chose those options for > > short > > > journeys. Continuing with total car dominance > > Over > > > every street is going to get us nowhere. > > > > I don't disagree with you that more space needs > to > > be dedicated to cyclists and pedestrians - but > > closing roads to through traffic is not the > > solution. We have seen plenty of schemes across > > London to dedicate large parts of the road to > > bikes and other non-car modes of transport and > > there is debate about whether they have > increased > > the number of journeys being made by bike or on > > foot and how effective they have been. > > > > A shared road usage plan, paired with a frank > > discussion on transport links, is the only way > > these issues can be dealt with effectively. > > The change this time was the government (shapps) > said coloured parts of roads shared with cars > aren't good enough. > > there has to be physical separation to encourage > people to feel they can cycle . > > https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/2 > 7/well-build-thousands-of-miles-of-protected-cycle > ways-pledges-boris-johnson/#26e0def26b2c I don't think that you'll find too many people who will disagree with that on here and that is what has been happening for a long time now across London with the cycle superhighways. The challenge, of course, is determining how to do it - it's easy to do it across Vauxhall Bridge or on roads with a lot of space but more challenging elsewhere. But you can find quiet routes to navigate your way around them - you don't have to fight your way along Camberwell New Road and around The Oval to get to town. And nor do you have to close roads to through traffic to achieve it. When I used to cycle to Hammersmith there was this great cycling website (I think it was from a cycle group but can't remember where) that plotted a route for you that avoided the traffic hotspots so I used to have a really pleasant cycle (well except the bit up and down Dog Kennel Hill - great way to start and finish a 50 minute cycle!) around the back of Ruskin park, then around the back of Brixton, along Union Road, around Battersea Park then behind Queen's Club to Hammersmith and there was probably one or two spots where you had to be super careful but it was a great way to avoid traffic. So there have always been ways to find routes where people feel safe.

When I look over my shoulder in my car I see my children - so please don't paint me with your generalising paint brush! My point was quite clear (you're choosing to try and pick a fight when there isn't one) that those two cyclists were being inconsiderate to other road users yet you seem to think it was perfectly acceptable. Fair enough we will agree to disagree on that one - but I know I am in the majority though.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > perhaps you should do some highway profiency and > read the highway code, there is nothing wrong with > riding two abreast > > daily-mail comments like yours (riding two > abreast, cylists should pay road tax etc) only > serve to give car drivers a bad rap and illustrate > your ignorance of the law > > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Siduhe Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > I agree. Cyclists are not necessarily dangerous > to > > other road users but many are dangerous to > > themselves. I used to cycle to work from > Dulwich > > to Hammersmith and some of the stunts pulled by > > other cyclists used to amaze me. As a car driver > I > > respect everyone else's right to use the roads > and > > am mindful of ensuring everyone has space. But > > sometimes cyclists seem to think they are the > only > > road users and somehow have more priority than > > others. A few weeks ago two cyclists wearing no > > helmets (not Mamils but 20 millennials) were > > riding two abreast on the A205 in front of > > Alleynian's Rugby club, seemingly taking great > > pleasure in slowing all traffic to crawling > pace. > > I understand there is a mindset of we want to > use > > the road but really...it's why cyclists get such > a > > bad rap. > > > > The other danger in London are the Boris bikes > - > > it seems by default that people who use these > have > > zero clue how to either 1) ride a bike 2) any > idea > > how to remain safe on them 3) have zero road > > sense. > > > > Everyone who cycles should be made to do some > sort > > of cycling proficiency (as we did at school) as > > they are a law unto themselves sometimes. Ha ha, there we go - you illustrate my point beautifully...don't you think riding two abreast on the A205 might be somewhat, I dunno, inconsiderate to other roads users? Just because you can doesn't mean you should. And a correction - I didn't say cyclists should pay road tax I said they should be encouraged to take cycling proficiency - you went all Daily Mail on me and put words into my mouth! ;-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Rockets I ah e always said that I disagreed with > the council?s approach. But now the LTNs have been > created, I believe we should support them, at > least for the length of the trial. My personal > view is that we need to start allocating more > space to pedestrians and cyclists to make it > easier for people to chose those options for short > journeys. Continuing with total car dominance Over > every street is going to get us nowhere. I don't disagree with you that more space needs to be dedicated to cyclists and pedestrians - but closing roads to through traffic is not the solution. We have seen plenty of schemes across London to dedicate large parts of the road to bikes and other non-car modes of transport and there is debate about whether they have increased the number of journeys being made by bike or on foot and how effective they have been. A shared road usage plan, paired with a frank discussion on transport links, is the only way these issues can be dealt with effectively.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wandsworth have knee jerked at the inevitable push > back from a long indulged and entitled minority > being asked to share a bit more space with others. > Interestingly though, the traffic jams caused by > increases in people cycling and driving coming out > of the lockdown (and as a result of people > avoiding public transport in the face of COVID), > have not eased. It will be interesting to see what > people put congestion down to now that all the > planters have been removed AND the alternatives to > using a car in areas like Tooting, are to become > less appealing once more. But that's the point we have been trying to make for ages. The approach by councils to carpet bomb these closures in place lead/led constituents to think one thing: the closures are causing the problems. Everyone knew that car use would go up post Covid but that is being lost in the noise created by the closures. The closures have become an easy target to blame all the traffic ills on them. The councils were incredibly short-sighted and could not see what was going to happen and now have completely lost control of the narrative, they did not think in a joined-up manner and, as we saw across Dulwich, each councillor tried to pander to a few local residents and now have a huge mess on their hands. Remember, Cllr McAsh was lobbying for the closures on Melbourne Grove on the basis of the increase in traffic expected when DV closed as part of OHS - at no point did he say, hang on a minute that closure in DV is going to create a nightmare for my constituents. All councils, and councillors, will now be looking at political survival more than the rational behind the closures and I expect to see more decisions like Wandsworth's to follow.

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've got to say my experience is similar to Abe's. > I wouldn't say other cyclists are the "biggest" > danger (metal box hitting me at speed is plainly a > bigger danger than a lycra'd up person on two > wheels) but they are certainly the most "frequent" > cause of me having to change direction, slam on > brakes and/or receive abuse as a cyclist. > > I'm a driver, pedestrian and commuting cyclist, so > I don't really have any skin in the cyclists v > cars debate. I use the car rarely these days (for > big shopping loads only) and am generally in > favour of measures to get those of us that can, > out of cars and walking or cycling. TBF, I'm also > comparatively slow cyclist on a not very smart > bike who stops at every red light, so I recognise > that other cyclists are going to want to go around > me and I'm fine with that. But generally I find > most car drivers are fine so long as you regularly > look behind you (so they know you know they are > there) before you move out into the road or turn > right. And if you don't go shooting down their > inside but wait behind or go around on the outside > in stationary traffic, again most drivers > (including vans, trucks and buses) are fine giving > you space in my experience as long as they can see > you showing some basic awareness they are there. > > I think it's great there's been a massive uptick > in cycling but some of the behaviour I see really > scares me - and it's not just the lycra'd up > brigade (although they are the most likely to give > you abuse when you stop at a red light they would > rather have gone straight through and vaguely > inconvenienced them into changing direction). The > majority of people don't look behind them before > they move out into traffic, there is a lot of > swapping lanes without looking and shooting up > inside traffic and very little attempt to signal > before turning and, my god, the number of people > wearing headphones and cycling in traffic is > genuinely astonishing. > > And to be clear, there are loads of sensible, > aware cyclists too, but I think the standard of > behaviour has generally deteriorated since more > people started cycling and it drives the overall > cyclist behaviour down. As soon as one person > jumps a light, others follow and it normalises it > etc. I see that every day on my commute into work > (a lot of which is on segregated cycle lanes > and/or have "bike first" traffic lights where > there's no excuse for any cyclist running the red > light). A few people will pull up on red but as > soon as one person goes shooting through (whether > it's a pedestrian phase or a cars coming the other > way phase) everyone else follows. > > One of the things it's made me think about is that > those sort of behaviours aren't too risky when > you're on a cycle path or quietway but get really > dangerous when you're cycling in proper traffic. > I'm coming to the view that no-one should cycle in > full London traffic without having some kind of > training - it was the best thing I did when I > started cycling. > > Edit to add to rahrahrah's point - yes - an idiot > is an idiot whether they are driving a car or > cycling (and even may be the same people I would > guess) but generally, my experience is that > standard of driver behaviour towards cyclists in > our area is better than the behaviour of a lot of > those cyclists. I agree. Cyclists are not necessarily dangerous to other road users but many are dangerous to themselves. I used to cycle to work from Dulwich to Hammersmith and some of the stunts pulled by other cyclists used to amaze me. As a car driver I respect everyone else's right to use the roads and am mindful of ensuring everyone has space. But sometimes cyclists seem to think they are the only road users and somehow have more priority than others. A few weeks ago two cyclists wearing no helmets (not Mamils but 20 millennials) were riding two abreast on the A205 in front of Alleynian's Rugby club, seemingly taking great pleasure in slowing all traffic to crawling pace. I understand there is a mindset of we want to use the road but really...it's why cyclists get such a bad rap. The other danger in London are the Boris bikes - it seems by default that people who use these have zero clue how to either 1) ride a bike 2) any idea how to remain safe on them 3) have zero road sense. Everyone who cycles should be made to do some sort of cycling proficiency (as we did at school) as they are a law unto themselves sometimes.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Rockets - 'cancel car culture'? 😂 Did you like that one - I thought it was a good one - it came to me in a moment on inspiration.....;-)?

It is a retreat because they are not working and creating more problems than they are solving and politicians want to distance themselves from the problems they are causing. At the moment they are impacting far more people than they are benefiting and as people see gridlocked streets caused by displacement they are challenging whether the plans are going to actually make things worse. The far bigger worry remains that such a poorly executed attempt to make change will impact the longer-term viability of properly addressing the issues as no politician will want to go near it.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you go outside your house you can see how much > space is given over to cars. There is tons of > metal sitting on every single street, most of it > rarely moving. > If we want to make it easier for people to use > alternatives, then we need to create safe, quiet > and clean routes for cycling and walking (and > invest in public transport). > Most people are terrified to cycle on roads often > dominated by bigger and bigger (pseudo military) > vehicles... Many regularly ignoring the speed > limits. We have created a hostile environment for > anyone wishing to take to two wheels. Is that > really an constructive situation? > There is a role for cars clearly, but the amount > of space they are allocated is completely out of > proportion and it crowds out other types of > transport. > The entitlement many feel when it comes to their > cars needs to be challenged for what it is. The > reaction to some really mild attempts to create > space for (mainly) pedestrians, just highlights > how indulged the car lobby have become imo. Mild attempts to create space....oh dear....yes it is lovely walking or cycling down Court Lane - I am often the only person or cyclist doing so but the moment I turn onto Dulwich Village the hell returns with interest. All sense seems to have been lost in this debate by the pro-cycle lobby. All many of us are saying is that the route the council is taking to try and deal with these issues is a very blunt, ineffective instrument that will cause far more issues than they resolve - issues that will negatively impact all road users. The cancel-car culture that is being peddled by the pro-lobby is just not realistic. There is a reason so many people choose to own and use cars - it's because the other forms of transport fail to deliver what they need. And closing a load of roads in Dulwich will not resolve those issues it makes them worse and actually more pronounced.

eastdulwichhenry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Yes - if there's one thing West Londoners like > to > > brag about, it's how much they love living > under > > the Westway and how there's no traffic! > > Lol. This is the problem with road building. > However much you do it, and however > well-intentioned, the roads still fill up and > traffic on the local streets rarely goes down that > much. Los Angeles is the craziest - all those ten > lane Freeways, criss-crossing the entire urban > area, but they're still jammed to capacity. Yes and none of us are advocating building more roads we just don't want to see a load of them closed to through-traffic as the displacement and collateral pollution increases are horrendous.

eastdulwichhenry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Everyone glibly says traffic is being displaced > elsewhere, but I'd like to see the evidence of > this. My anecdotal experience is the Lordship Lane > and East Dulwich Grove are not busier than before. > They've always been very busy, and remain so, but > there are still plenty of gaps in traffic too. > Similarly, traffic through Dulwich Village was > very congested in the first few days after the > Calton Road closure but now seems back to > something like normal. Presumably the council will > be monitoring all this with empirical data so that > informed rather than knee-jerk decisions can be > made when the trial preiod ends. Lordship Lane was nose-to-tail from outside Moxons to the Goose Green roundabout for the hour I sat having some food on the Lane on Saturday - it did eventually clear into the mid-afternoon but of all my many years being on the Lane on a Saturday I have never seen it like that). Take a walk around the junction of Dulwich Village and EDG or outside the library at about 3pm and you will see for yourself the impact of the displacement. The council has only just started monitoring. When the DV closures went in they only put monitoring in on the closed roads and not any of the surrounding roads (yeah....go figure) but they have now been forced to put monitoring in across the area more broadly but, of course, they will have nothing to measure it against as the monitoring only went in after the closures were put in place.

I wonder if there are residents on the closed roads (any of them) who may like the quietness and change to their situation but do also harbour concerns about the impact the changes are having on roads and residents elsewhere.

Cllr McAsh.... ...an additional question.... On Saturday traffic was nose to tail for much of the day along the length of Lordship Lane travelling northbound to Goose Green, the problems seemingly being caused by an increase in traffic coming down East Dulwich Grove as a result of the closure of the Dulwich Village Junction. Are you concerned about the increasing pollution levels for your constituents as they shop on Lordship Lane and do you fear that when further closures in Dulwich Village and Townley Road go in the problems will get worse again?

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > An alternative is allowing only 50% of cars out on > every other day - they did this in Athens years > ago I think they call it Road Rationing. > > It moves away from "nudge unit" politics into > banning people from taking out cars on certain > days however. Was it not the case that in Athens they had odd-number and even-number alternating number plate days to try to combat the pollution and a lot of Athenians just went out a bought a second car to ensure they could alternate and avoid the ban? Wandsworth seem to be piling part of the blame for removing their LTNs on TFL and the measures they are implementing...this becomes more and more political and I do wonder whether all Tory councils will remove them.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So the solution to pollution and congestion on the > South Circular is to take traffic off A roads and > push it back onto residential, speed humped roads? > Weird. No the solution was to not create a problem by closing the DV junction in the first place. If they hadn't have done that traffic would not be queuing southbound from the library to the Grove Tavern. It's really not that difficult to comprehend what is happening since the closures went in. Maybe it will be temporary, as the council suggests and cars will evaporate. But what if it isn't - it is making pollution worse so completely negates the point of the closures. Lordship Lane this afternoon was awful, I actually thought there might have been an accident - I have never seen it that bad along the main shopping part of the Lane before and the pollution must have been higher than normal.

Townleygreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets, I think you mean Southbound at the Grove > Tavern junction, towards F Hill. You're right...I was never very good at geography...updated now!

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Short of tracking the entire populations > movements, there?s no way to differentiate between > a journey of 2k and a journey of 15k to an area > poorly served by public transport." > > That's not true - but no-one ever reads the > methodology for data gathering and traffic > analysis which, shocker, is actually quite > developed and very complicated. They just slag off > the "data" because they don't like the conclusion > or don't understand it. Take a look at the "data" gathered for the OHS consultation on the DV closures (before Covid); the lack of granularity in the data is shocking. The council could tell you how many cars passed through the junction every day but they had no idea where they went beyond the junctions in the village - which is vital to determining the likely impacts of closing said roads. If those journeys were all under 1 mile then yes, the impact of the closure could be positive. If the journeys were 3 miles or more then the likely impact would be negative on surrounding roads as displaced traffic tried to find another route. But the council had no clue and I suspect they know but don't want to hear the answer as it would mean people would have questioned the sense in doing it.