Dulwichgirl82

I think there should be a middle ground, though with you first point I would argue there is more traffic queueing past schools than before due to the locations of the closures (east dulwich grove has 3 schools and a nursery and has taken a significant amount of the excess traffic from the other streets) I totally agree measures need to be put in place to reduce traffic but disagree with what has been done which is to close a few (notably affluent) streets and divert the traffic onto the less affluent ones. It feels like a shotgun measure put in place on the basis of some specific streets wanting theirs closed rather than a sensible connected plan to reduce traffic and improve the lives of everyone in the area. I?m not a road planner ( I don?t think anyone commenting on these forums is as far as I am aware) but something more significant is probably needed which causes enough inconvenience than alternative Transport really is better, possibly a closure of part of edg or lordship lane (which would help to make LL a more pleasant place to shop) but I don?t know how feasible it is. I think the dichotomy of opinions is also split between those that live on the closed streets and therefore benefit and those that have had their environment worsened by the closures. mikeb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've only dipped into this every so often because > the thread goes round in circles. > > It seems to be polarised between two groups who > just aren't going to agree. > 1. those who want a return to pre-closure state, > who can't see anything wrong with the traffic as > it was before, including when it involves passing > and queueing at many many primary and secondary > schools > 2. those for whom the current changes are only the > start of a new paradigm whereby pretty much no-one > ever drives > > Does anyone have any real ideas how to reconcile > these two groups, both of which seem to me to be > unrealistic?

I?m not entirely sure if you are agreeing traffic has got worse or not there? The one thing I would agree is that the Melbourne grove junction was a mess, possibly a one way system would help there to prevent that. Anyway what I would say is maybe look at the street space page. There?s a hell of a lot of people who feel traffic has got worse, many of whom live on the roads effected. northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think that a lot of it used to come down > Melbourne grove (ie along the south bit as a cut > through) and then cut through Melbourne or Derwent > if Melbourne looked busy - or be rushing up the > streets to get to Matham - so that has been re > routed. I also think that there is a hell of a > lot of traffic from people driving to schools > where they really don't need to so some of that > will have evaporated. > > There is also the point that lots of entrances > onto a road causes greater congestion with more > stop start of cars which is obviously worse for > pollution (and wouldn't help with electric cars > either as it is the breaking that produces more > pm2.5). Maybe by not having traffic trying to > constantly get out from these roads then the flow > is smoother too - especially true of the section > at the end of melbourne grove where the crossroads > was just chaos.

But not on this occasion as I walked down there. Or on friday lunchtime when traffic was queueing back to the hospital (I walked all the way to lordship lane and it was just traffic. This isn?t me looking for it, it?s when I happen to walk down there. Genuine question, if you are saying it isn?t worse do you believe that the traffic that used to use the closed roads has a) evaporated or b) wasn?t there in the first place as it must have gone somewhere? I don?t understand the claims that traffic on the alternate routes aren?t worse as surely that traffic didn?t cease to excist and I?m not convinced the the addition of a few hundred yards and a 5-10 minute increase would discourage all those users. northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And again - it does back up sporadically > throughout the day - at weird times too - like > 11:37 should not be a peak time, so its generally > that a taxi or delivery van has stopped on the > single yelows near the junction and that this > unloading is causing a weird peak - generally 5 > mins later its gone.

And this is where we disagree, even yesterday at 11.37 (I took a photo and just checked the time hence the rather exact number) it was backEd up along lordship lane and ed grove. As I?ve said I?m not bothered re car journey time from a. Personal perspective but the knock on effects at what concern me. I think the people best placed to comment on this are those living on Ed grove(and probably matham/Oxonian) as they will see it. While those on the closed roads are best placed to comment on how quiet their roads are. As an aside I used to cross Ed grove twice a day roughly around Elsie road at rush hour to drop/get my children from the nursery (they no longer go there) and I never had to go between standstill traffic in roughly 20 months of doing so. No there seems to be frequently long queues way back down. This is only anecdotal as is everything said on here but it does seem worse. northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You're absolutely right - there was a huge > noticeable difference the day the planters went in > - for a couple of days the gridlock on East > Dulwich grove was horrific - it was right up past > the hospital all the way up to Lordship lane. > This was well beyond the normal realms of > congestion. Pre lockdown the furthest queues > generally went up to maybe Melbourne grove. Had > this continued i'd agree that it was > unsupportable. > > However, after about 2 days that congestion fell > away dramatically - if anything ED grove is > quieter now than it ever was on the stretch > between the hospital and Lordship lane - i expect > that some of this is due to cars who would cut > through the streets that are now closed, onto ED > grove and down Matham to turn right onto the Lane. > There are still the occasional snarl ups - this > morning there was a random queue (probably someone > unloading closer to the junction or delivering), > but 5 mins later it was totally gone again. > > > > > Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But there was a noticeable difference the day > the > > plantars went in. A stepwise increase which has > > been noted by the residents on east dulwich > grove > > who have written on here and the street space. > > I also don?t think the tooting example is all > that > > relevant. Whether it goes up or down it a a > > different area and from what I?ve read with > other > > factors in play. I think this is a case by case > > basis as each area has different traffic. Flows > > and closures. What we really need it an expert > ( > > of which I?m not) to do something to genuinely > > reduce our local traffic! Hopefully the ulez > may > > help somewhat 🤞🏼

But there was a noticeable difference the day the plantars went in. A stepwise increase which has been noted by the residents on east dulwich grove who have written on here and the street space. I also don?t think the tooting example is all that relevant. Whether it goes up or down it a a different area and from what I?ve read with other factors in play. I think this is a case by case basis as each area has different traffic. Flows and closures. What we really need it an expert ( of which I?m not) to do something to genuinely reduce our local traffic! Hopefully the ulez may help somewhat 🤞🏼

But there?s the fundamental difference i don?t feel it is a separate issue. I think that the pollution has worsened near the nursery(As one example but a particularly heartbreaking one to me) , and would improve if the planters were removed(and the comments on the street space from parents seem to agree) . If we are to do something to improve this it should be for everyone rather than just those living on a few roads. I think all children(And people) should have the benefit and experience you describe as much as possible. The worsened health outcomes associated with lower socioeconomic status (and the reciprocal) are well documented and this is a good example of that being exacerbated Similar for the park and lordship lane. And Oxonian and Matham as an aside. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But I think what you are wanting to offset is > > other people?s homes and lives. It?s a nursery > > which has increased levels of pollution, a > > playground and park. > > > > Also I think for me the ultimate issue is that > > this doesn?t feel like a low traffic > neighbourhood > > it?s a few low traffic streets, with busy roads > at > > either end of them. if something would > genuinely > > reduce the overall car use of be thrilled. > > I think this is where we disagree though. A > nursery on a busy main road is likely to suffer > from pollution. I'm not saying that's a good idea > of course, but it's a separate issue. I don't > believe that removing the planters will improve > the situation on those main roads, certinaly not > for more than a few weeks. What it will do, is > expose people (including nursery aged children) > living on residential side roads to higher and > higher levels of pollution over time as well. And > it's not just about pollution, it's also the > experience of growing up on a street with speeding > cars, excessive noise of motorbikes, the > disinsentive to walk and cycle, the loss of > community that comes from a road dominated by > traffic etc. etc. Again, the arguement in favour > of high traffic neighbourhoods is one for > levelling down.

But I think what you are wanting to offset is other people?s homes and lives. It?s a nursery which has increased levels of pollution, a playground and park. Also I think for me the ultimate issue is that this doesn?t feel like a low traffic neighbourhood it?s a few low traffic streets, with busy roads at either end of them. if something would genuinely reduce the overall car use of be thrilled.

I think that?s fair but I?d imagine it would be very small as I honestly done think these measures are inconvenient enough to prevent car use. Also the journeys would be both shorter and likely with less idling which might counteract it a bit. Regarding levelling down it isn?t really correct if the currently worse off routes improve their levels Of congestion/pollution.

I guess what I want to ask is do you think the traffic which uses these roads only appears and disappears if they are open or not? Otherwise if the same(ish) traffic is either using 5 roads or 1 road then clearly There would be less congestion using 5 though I?d imagine not evenly distributed. I don?t think Closing these roads has made the cars which used them previously disappear, so they logically have been diverted onto other roads to the detriment of those living and using those them. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I can?t speak for everyone but I rarely drive, > I?m > > usually a pedestrian often with small > > Children and due to where we live the closures > > don?t really effect my journey times. So from a > > selfish perspective (which we all have) my > > concern is for the pollution in the ?communal > > areas? such as lordship lane and goose green > where > > I take my children which I feel is worse since > the > > closures . However I also dislike seeing > > inequality and this feels sadly the case. I > would > > love to reduce car use over the borough, for > > everyone, but I don?t think helping some and > > making it much worse for others is fair. > > I actually think we are roughly on the same > side > > regarding car use but possibly not in the > respect > > of what is fair. > > Fair enough. I just wonder how much difference it > would really make if we were to remove all the > planters. Traffic levels have increased all over > london since we came out of lockdown, even in the > outer boroughs. In Tooting, where they've reversed > all the changes, congestion hasn't improved, it's > just made side roads more dangerous and polluted > too.

I can?t speak for everyone but I rarely drive, I?m usually a pedestrian often with small Children and due to where we live the closures don?t really effect my journey times. So from a selfish perspective (which we all have) my concern is for the pollution in the ?communal areas? such as lordship lane and goose green where I take my children which I feel is worse since the closures . However I also dislike seeing inequality and this feels sadly the case. I would love to reduce car use over the borough, for everyone, but I don?t think helping some and making it much worse for others is fair. I actually think we are roughly on the same side regarding car use but possibly not in the respect of what is fair. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Do people really want to see traffic funnelled > > down roads like Melbourne Grove? Do people > really > > believe that if you do, EDG will suddenly > become > > free of congestion? > > They've removed all the planters in Tooting and > > it's made no difference at all, except now > there > > is congestion everywhere, not just the main > roads. > > Because I don't believe it. I think that in the > majority of cases, people are just frustrated that > they can't take the most direct route to where > they're going / drive where they want. It's > nothing to do with their concern for pollution, > BAME communities, the elderly, or congestion. You > cannot get rid of congestion by encouraging more > car journeys. I dunno, I'm sure some of these > concerns are genuine in some cases, but there are > a lot of people who really just don't want any > impediment to their driving wherever they want > imo. > If you remove all the planters, within a couple of > weeks, the congestion will be right back to where > it was before. It will make no difference, except > side roads will also fill up.

What I don?t understand is those that live on the closed roads claim traffic isn?t worse on the roads it?s been diverted to, however this doesn?t really make sense as either: 1) they believe the traffic that previously used their roads (Apparently bad) has entirely disappeared in the last 2 weeks which seems incredibly unlikely or 2) there wasn?t that much traffic on their roads anyway and hence why has it been closed? I feel for those living on east dulwich grove and think they are most likely to know what the traffic changes are like as they will experience it the most. All the data is currently anecdotal but surely those who are there the most have the best idea And as I mentioned before lordship lane now has increased traffic which I think will be a detriment to the whole area sadly as will the traffic around goose green. I hope it reduces down but I?m not convinced the diversion creates enough inconvenience to drivers to discourage the journeys at the moment. I?m aware they can?t close east dulwich grove due to the buses but could they make part of it bus only or something. I think a civil engineer would be best placed to try and look at traffic reduction measures without the interests of individual roads coming into play. albert Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I live on East Dulwich Grove, the Lordship Lane > end. The traffic is much worse. In the morning > and in the afternoon it is almost stationary > outside my house and backed up to Dulwich hospital > and probably beyond. The fumes are awful. My air > quality is now dreadful. My children and their > friends walk up and down East Dulwich Grove at > rush hour. The road is the main route for many > children in East Dulwich to travel to Charter > North Dulwich, Charter East Dulwich, Jags, > Alleyns, Dulwich Hamlet, Dulwich infants, Goose > Green. Their air quality on the walk to school > has now deteriorated massively. The road has > become more dangerous to cross. I've always been > pretty laid back about local matters, but this is > beyond daft. I've been moaned at about it by one > paramedic, local businesses, the keeper of Goose > Green school who lives there, and ALL my > neighbours on the road. The side streets, Elsie, > Derwent and Melbourne are now glorified car parks. > No doubt the air quality is much nicer for these > roads, and no doubt these residents find life > quieter, but for the children who walk to school, > for the businesses in the area, for the residents > of East Dulwich Grove (many with young children) > this is hell. We all want cleaner air, but this > is concentrating fumes on two roads, Lordship Lane > and East Dulwich Grove. It appears the council > and fellow side street residents don't care about > people who live on these roads, or have given a > thought to the hundreds (yes hundreds) of children > who walk down them every day. What on paper seems > a solution to noisy campaigners is actually ill > thought out and harms those who we should be > looking out for most.

I think generally everyone is in agreement car use needs to be reduced However this measure seems to sacrifice some roads (including schools, a nursery, Park, playground and shopping area) in order to protect a few residential roads. If this genuinely reduced traffic then I would be thrilled but I just feel this is benefiting a few affluent roads and having a significant negative impact on those, less affluent, which the traffic is being diverted to, aswell as impacting ?communal? space The council should consider what could be done to actually equitably reduce traffic and that probably requires more significant intervention. I don?t think it?s fair to ask the children at east dulwich grove nursery for example to spend the next 18 months (or longer) having idling traffic polluting their playground, to give one example. first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You are not really answering my question though. > > We all get the theory but we also need to address > the reality. Owing to very recent measures there > has been a sharp, unprecedented, rise in traffic > displacement onto main routes, causing a massive > rise in congestion. One effect is to negatively > impact those who do need to make urgent journeys > as well as reduce access to emergency services. > > These impacts are very, very recent. Do you view > the suffering of some as necessary to secure an > ambition to reduce car ownership? > > > > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > first mate Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Yes, but in the here and now, is it your > > position > > > that those with genuine urgent needs, as well > > as > > > requiring access to emergency services > should, > > > effectively, be sacrificed in the interests > of > > a > > > long-term agenda to reduce car usage and > > > ownership? Not forgetting that the overriding > > > rationale of that agenda is to reduce > pollution > > to > > > produce a healthier environment? > > > > You can't improve the lives of those with > > "genuine, urgent needs" without getting rid of > the > > people whose journeys are not necessary. You > could > > make every road in London a dual carriageway > and > > there would still be traffic jams and > pollution- > > demand for free unrestricted road space is > always > > going to exceed supply in London. Everyone - > > residents, businesses and travellers - is going > to > > have to change (and already is changing) the > way > > they get around and organise things to some > > degree. That's not going to come without some > > short term inconvenience and friction.

Agree re lordship lane today, it actually makes me concerned about its viability as if it stays like this its likely to drive customers away. It definitely puts me off spending time there. East dulwich road was also very busy next to the park and playground. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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.

Hoya I?ve sent you a pm but not sure if the alerts are coming through! AlexandHelenC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don?t understand the fundamental purpose of this > scheme. If the answer is to close the roads, what > is the question? The roads are still open, albeit > quieter, so the scheme doesn?t create any more > space to walk on (was lack of space for > pedestrians even a problem in the first place??). > > > The impact of the displaced traffic is dramatic. I > live on Oxonian Street and we?ve seen a huge > increase in cars cutting through, frequently > speeding in the wrong direction on the one way > street. The dramatic increase in congestion and > therefore pollution from the displaced traffic is > absolutely evident and has made Lordship Lane > unpleasant to walk along. I think I saw that > they?re planning to keep this in place for up to > 18 months! It?s truly shocking.

bels123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > 12.50 on a Friday. Idling traffic all the > way > > > to > > > > the medical > > > > Centre > > > > > > > > > 5pm on a Wednesday, absolutely no traffic on > > that > > > stretch of the road at all. > > I?m > > Sure there will > > Be times there isn?t. But having just walked > back > > at 2pm it was still there. I don?t live on that > > road but feel very sorry for those that do. > (Also > > it?s a long way from the junction, that should > be > > the norm!!) > > There can be more than one cause for a tailback > there. > > 930964993?s=21 > > Hopefully something the council can quickly > address. Of course though not in this case as I walked past the EDG/LL and it was just queuing traffic.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > 12.50 on a Friday. Idling traffic all the way > to > > the medical > > Centre > > > 5pm on a Wednesday, absolutely no traffic on that > stretch of the road at all. I?m Sure there will Be times there isn?t. But having just walked back at 2pm it was still there. I don?t live on that road but feel very sorry for those that do. (Also it?s a long way from the junction, that should be the norm!!)

12.50 on a Friday. Idling traffic all the way to the medical Centre

Goose green on a Saturday afternoon(3-4 pm).

This is at 6.50Pm. It can be busy here but never this much and never at this time.

Hi James, Can I ask if you looked at the EDG/LL junction as this certainly has had long queues of traffic for those waiting to turn left onto LL, and matham grove seems to have increased traffic avoiding that junction also. I was sat opposite the junction on lordship lane yesterday and it was unpleasant with the volume of traffic passing through, at times you could actually see the fumes in the air. People were asking to sit inside due to it. I?m still confused why two relatively affluent roads, where houses largely have gardens and are set back were closed to divert traffic onto those less affluent and with multiple schools/ a nursery/a health centre on? James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I made a point of checking Effra's concerns about > East Dulwich Grove traffic backing up for myself. > > 7.50 Dulwich Village junction of EDG - virtually > no traffic or queueing on three arms. The arm > going north from the village had circa 15 cars > just before going green which all passed through > on green. > 8.20 EDG/Townley Road. Just before the lights go > green 5 cars queuing going west and 4 cars + 1 bus > queuing going East. All passed through on green. > Private schools are on summer holidays which will > reduce traffic levels. But carmegeddon East > Dulwich Grove is not.

bels123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A lot has changed since 2015, our understanding of > the damaging impact air pollution has on our > health, climate change to name a few. During > lockdown there has been a big increase in cycling > which should be encouraged, less cars on the road > and all that. Residential roads like Melbourne are > an obvious choice to be a safe cycle route > alternative to Lordship Lane. Will make a big > positive difference to pedestrian safety crossing > Melbourne Grove/East Dulwich Grove junction too. But worsen pedestrian safety at Matham grove/East dulwich grove junction (where there is a nursery and hence lots of young children crossing), Lordship lane/east dulwich grove and lordship lane/matham grove junction which are both important pedestrian routes as on the lane and the routes to schools. Reducing traffic and pollution on residential roads is a concern for many roads in east dulwich but this proposal only helps the one road and likely worsens it on others. If there are to be road closures they need to be done in a sensible, area wide manner taking into account of the likely displacement of traffic to other roads, not just the protection of one road at the expense of others.

Hi James, while I appreciate this response I don?t understand how this can be considered as an isolated measure. This will clearly impact surrounding streets, in a significantly negative manner. This seems grossly unfair that because they haven?t been as vocal the council want to arbitrarily increase pollution and traffic along their streets. I asked earlier regarding the edg and LL junction as this will massively increase traffic there as well as goosegreen roundabout which is already horribly polluted. Surely this should be sorted before any local roads are? Bearing in mind the plans you describe will increase traffic on east dulwich grove which has a nursery, 3 schools and a health centre how can this be considered acceptable without a wider view of the area and changes made to prevent the increase of pollution which will effect the children and patients of the health centre?

I also don?t understand why Melbourne grove, Derwent and Elsie road as getting singled out. And I have to ask James what is your plan for the east dulwich grove lordship lane junction? As clearly this traffic won?t evaporate as they are going Somewhere this will substantially (if as you claim there are a lot of cars using these other roads as a bypass) increase traffic there. It?s already a difficult and dangerous junction and also left turn only, so that will increase traffic at goose green roundabout assumably as people double back on themselves to head up lordship Lane. This is already horribly busy and polluted at peak times. Lots of roads locally have this problem of both cars and narrow pavements and changing the rules on one part should not even be considered without a larger overall plan. I?m Confused as to why these particular roads have such sway?

Yup!

I think we are also the same nursery. Seems to be a significant outlier compared to the rest.