KatyKoo

dougiefreeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't think you're going to get an answer > Dulwichgirl82... Well I could say they're doing similar in Lambeth, Peckham, Hackney etc etc But I came on to ask what solutions people might have other than what the council are doing. But can't see any real alternatives to reduce traffic - just a lot of criticism. Thanks guys. Have a nice day :)

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now, please answer my questions: > - are Dulwich Village, Townley, Court Lane Calton > "Rat runs"? > - If you close those roads, which roads do you > think the displaced traffic should use instead > - Is it right to displace increase congestion and > pollution and displace traffic onto the "main" > roads which, in the case of Soutwark are oftern > residential and shopping streets as well. > Becuase that is the effect of these changes nd > indeed the OHS scheme on which they were based. > > I look forward to your reply Clearly we will have to agree to disagree. But in answer to your questions those roads have had severe congestion on them for years, closing the junction will cause some displacement initially - nobody disputes that. From what I see daily the congestion on DV, EDG and LLane is levelling off to more or less what it was before the junction closure. The data will tell. I would like to see traffic reduced on those roads too even if it does settle to the same levels as before the closures. Townley road is at times worse - but more restrictions coming soon to sort that out. If you believe in data and evidence - we'll just have to wait and see what the traffic counts say.

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well I?m glad we can agree that the traffic is > worse on these roads (I would argue significantly > more than ?not that much worse? but as you say the > counts will hopefully say and either way we agree > it is worse). But my question wasn?t about that > it was how is it ok to increase traffic on a road > with so many schools and community assets used by > children and vulnerable people (taking the > hospital and health centre into account) In favour > of roads that have very few or none of these? > > > KatyKoo Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Katykoo.. question for you. You mention > making > > > school streets safer. However East Dulwich > > grove > > > has by far the most schools and a nursery > > compared > > > with these closed roads. As the road that has > > > taken most of the displaced traffic how is > that > > > good? This has made more children?s route to > > > school more congested. > > > > The council have counted traffic on East > Dulwich > > Grove in September and I think they're > monitoring > > again in December. Same with Lordship Lane & > > Dulwich Village. > > > > I did see an increase in traffic on Dulwich > > Village, EDG and Lordship Lane initially when > the > > junction filters first went in - but it seems > to > > have settled now and is not that much worse > than > > usual. That's what I see - but the traffic > counts > > will tell. > > > > Of course data can be interpreted to suit > beliefs > > i.e. One Dulwich push the council for more data > > all the time, but then refuse to accept the > data > > that traffic is high outside peak hours. I think you have misread my comment - I said I saw traffic was worse *initially* - but now it seems to have settled back to how it was before the filters went in. The data will tell. As far as traffic reduction in general on East Dulwich Grove - yes I've always supported that too! :)

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Katykoo.. question for you. You mention making > school streets safer. However East Dulwich grove > has by far the most schools and a nursery compared > with these closed roads. As the road that has > taken most of the displaced traffic how is that > good? This has made more children?s route to > school more congested. The council have counted traffic on East Dulwich Grove in September and I think they're monitoring again in December. Same with Lordship Lane & Dulwich Village. I did see an increase in traffic on Dulwich Village, EDG and Lordship Lane initially when the junction filters first went in - but it seems to have settled now and is not that much worse than usual. That's what I see - but the traffic counts will tell. Of course data can be interpreted to suit beliefs i.e. One Dulwich push the council for more data all the time, but then refuse to accept the data that traffic is high outside peak hours.

Firstly in response to ?Bicknell? I?m asking these questions because the ?Southwark Council are a totalitarian dictatorship? rhetoric seems to be getting a bit hysterical. Objectors suggest shouting ?louder and louder? ? but I couldn?t see any actual alternative solutions being put forward. So thank you Rockets and Slarti B for taking the time to write what your solutions might be. Clearly we don?t agree on everything but I hope you agree it?s good to focus on ways forward. Apologies for any repetition in my reply but I?ve tried to reply to both of you here. ROCKETS: ?Everyone recognises that encouraging people out of the car is urgently needed? agree. ?Proper analysis weighting all transportation modes equally? Agree an equitable approach is needed. The Council recorded an increase in cycling during and since lockdown ? as has happened across London - as people avoid public transport. It is equitable to provide infrastructure for these road users too. As vulnerable road users particularly safety is key. ?Anaylsis to drill down specifically exactly where these cars are going and what they?re doing?. The council have been monitoring traffic in Dulwich throughout the OHS consultation and previous consultations in the area over the years. What they have found is an increase up to 80% on some residential roads. Why do people choose cars over public transport? ? in current circumstances because they are understandably scared of catching covid on public transport. So emergency measures were brought in. ?The council then needs to implement measures a) b) c) and d)? Agree, except that 'timed restrictions only' don?t address off peak traffic which is also high. ?School bus services? the foundation buses for private schools already exists and public transport buses for state school pupils. TfL have offered free bus usage for schoolchildren as part of the Covid transport measures ? something I believe One Dulwich opposed? ?Councillors need to listen to everyone? I believe there were 6 public meetings for the OHS consultation, leafleting, street stalls and both online and hard copy feedback forms along with online commonplace feedback maps. What else do you think they could have done to engage with the community? ?You are no doubt one of the lucky ones benefitting from the closures?. Not in terms of exactly where I live. But I benefit in that there are some safe routes for walking and cycling now which there weren't before. And I support the measures because I believe the Council has to start somewhere.. ?Implementing LTNs programmes? I think behavior change is necessary to get people out of cars and the only way to achieve that is to provide the safe infrastructure for active travel ? so more or less what you outlined in your point (5). With reduced capacity on public transport urgent change is needed. The council and TfL are working with limited budgets in a crisis situation. LTNs are a start ? reduce traffic on residential roads, encourage local active travel as an alternative to car use, tackle main roads with TfL (who are responsible for public transport routes). SLARTI B: ?London wide problem? ? individual councils across London are implementing these measures. A network of LTNs with cycleways to link them up. It?s happening in most European cities. The biggest impediment to people cycling is fear ? with safer routes more people cycle. ?Decrease in car traffic? In 1991 there were 20million registered vehicles on UK roads, in 2020 38.3million ? and 40million predicted for 2022. ?ULEZ? Agree ULEZ will help to reduce pollution ? but it won?t change infrastructure to provide safe routes for active travel. That has to be designed and built into our cities. ?Traffic Analysis? ? see above in response to Rockets. ?Improve Public Transport? ? agree but as far as I know Council work with TfL where they can, but TfL are responsible for public transport. ?Travel to School? - Agree set up school streets and LTN?s to encourage children / parents to walk & cycle to school. Isn?t that what Southwark are trying to do? Traffic in Dulwich is heavy outside peak hours and weekends too ? how would it be safe to cycle during these times if restrictions are limited to peak hours only? ?Withold schools planning permission and introduce CPZs? ? agree. However I think if the council made it a condition of entry that parents do not bring children by car the accusations of ?dictatorship? would go through the roof? But ? agree it would be good if they could. ?LTNs Generally? Traffic worse on main streets ? tackle that too in conjunction with TfL. The whole process can only be done step by step. ?Cleaner travel? ? agree ? and encourage people to use collect plus. But switching all vehicles to electric isn?t problem free (brake dust & tyre pollution, lithium mining) nor does it change infrastructure ? cities will still be built around cars not active travel. ?Improving cycling facilities?. Interesting you see the one form of entirely clean transport other than walking as merely a ?nice to have? but ?unlikely to have a major impact? and ?likely to increase congestion?. As hypothetical leader of Southwark Council in a climate emergency that seems a bit defeatist? and strange as you have advocated school run congestion could be reduced by enabling cycling. ?Work with local residents?. See above. Hope you'll agree its good to think about solutions.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Feel free to troll back through one of these > threads as I posted my suggestions there a while > ago after a pro-closure lobbyist asked me for my > ideas. Needless to say that they didn't respond > which leads me to believe that some of the ideas > might not have been so outlandish! ;-) I've had a quick scroll but can't find your suggestions on how to reduce motor traffic and pollution - would you mind posting them again please? Genuinely interested to see what other ideas there are on how to reduce cars and pollution other than what the council are doing.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > slarti b Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > KatyKoo > > "I would imagine Council / Tfl have baseline > data > > for these roads as they are bus routes." > > So that sounds like,despite promising they > would > > carry out full monitoring of the effect of the > DV > > junction closre, the Council did not monitor > those > > roads onto which traffic would be displaced. > If > > not why not? > > > > The problem is which way round do you do it if > you > > want to reduce car usage and pollution > > (particularly short car journeys that could be > > walked or cycled)? Do you close residential > > rat-runs first , then tackle main roads with > wider > > interventions like ULEZ, cycle lanes and > improved > > public transport... or do you close main roads > > first?? Can't see how that would work other > than > > to push even more traffic onto residential > roads. > > > > As the council explained during the OHS > > consultation, the traffic they wished to divert > > onto main roads such as EDG and Lordship Lane, > > about 7,000 vehicles a day, was through traffic. > > > This traffic is highly unlikely to evaporate so > > Southwark should have considered the impact. > > > > You seem to suggest that roads such as Dulwich > > Village, Court Lane Towley Road and Calton > Avenue > > are "rat runs" Is that correct? > > > > Not sure why you are suggesting closing main > > roads, is this the council's next secret step? > > > This does come down to what you might define a > rat-run. > > The dictionary describes one as: > > a minor, typically residential street used by > drivers during peak periods to avoid congestion on > main roads. > > I think most rational people's definition of a > rat-run is not Dulwich Village, Court Lane, > Townley Road or Calton Avenue. Melbourne Grove yes > but the others not even close. Most of the > aforementioned roads are part of a limited number > of east/west routes across Dulwich and it was > glaringly obvious what was going to happen when > the roads were closed. As we have said numerous > times before the best any LTN achieves is 11% > traffic "evaporation" leaving the remaining > traffic to find another route so it doesn't take a > planning genius to have predicted what was going > to happen. > > The fact the council did not put any monitoring or > pollution monitoring in on the displacement roads > is the smoking gun that demonstrates they knew > exactly what was going to happen. Thanks. But I'm still waiting for Slarti b's answer. How would Slarti b reduce pollution and motor traffic in Dulwich and further afield if Slarti b was leader of Southwark council? Assuming that's what Slarti b wants to do. Unless of course you have any solutions other than LTNs?

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > KatyKoo > "I would imagine Council / Tfl have baseline data > for these roads as they are bus routes." > So that sounds like,despite promising they would > carry out full monitoring of the effect of the DV > junction closre, the Council did not monitor those > roads onto which traffic would be displaced. If > not why not? > > The problem is which way round do you do it if you > want to reduce car usage and pollution > (particularly short car journeys that could be > walked or cycled)? Do you close residential > rat-runs first , then tackle main roads with wider > interventions like ULEZ, cycle lanes and improved > public transport... or do you close main roads > first?? Can't see how that would work other than > to push even more traffic onto residential roads. > > As the council explained during the OHS > consultation, the traffic they wished to divert > onto main roads such as EDG and Lordship Lane, > about 7,000 vehicles a day, was through traffic. > This traffic is highly unlikely to evaporate so > Southwark should have considered the impact. > > You seem to suggest that roads such as Dulwich > Village, Court Lane Towley Road and Calton Avenue > are "rat runs" Is that correct? > > Not sure why you are suggesting closing main > roads, is this the council's next secret step? Before I answer your questions maybe you could answer the question I asked first? Which way round would you do it? That is assuming you want to reduce motor traffic and pollution in Dulwich and elsewhere. If you were leader of Southwark Council what would you do? Genuinely interested to know.

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > KatyKoo Wrote: > "The next phase of measures are planned to go in > in October - Townley Road will have Timed > Restrictions to reduce traffic at peak hours. This > should discourage rat-running. The Council > predicted that further measures would be needed > on Townley Road and Dulwich Village after putting > the filters in at the Village junction. All > boundary roads are being monitored so that will > provide the evidence." > > What this actually means is more traffic being > diverted onto the main roads, ie Lordship Lane > East Dulwich Grove, Half Moon lane etc. Though at > the moment the timed closures affect only > Northbound traffic on Townley. > > You say that the boundary roads, ie EDG, Lordhip > Lane etc are being monitored. Were they > monitored before the road closure at the DV > junction? My memory is that the they were not but > happy to be corrected. I would imagine Council / Tfl have baseline data for these roads as they are bus routes. The problem is which way round do you do it if you want to reduce car usage and pollution (particularly short car journeys that could be walked or cycled)? Do you close residential rat-runs first, then tackle main roads with wider interventions like ULEZ, cycle lanes and improved public transport... or do you close main roads first?? Can't see how that would work other than to push even more traffic onto residential roads.

FairTgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dulwichquine Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I cycled to work via Townley Road and onto > > Greendale yesterday. Shocked at traffic queues. > > Cyclists, including myself, are having to cycle > in > > middle of road, weaving our way through till we > > reach the traffic lights. Far harder to cross > the > > actual junction now, as well, given huge > increase > > in traffic. Feels more dangerous than before. > > As a cyclist you should write to your coucillor > and express this and go on to Streetspace and > express your fears. Given that much of the road > closures have been lobbied for by cyclist groups, > as a cyclist it is important that if it is not > safer or working for you that you let them know. The next phase of measures are planned to go in in October - Townley Road will have Timed Restrictions to reduce traffic at peak hours. This should discourage rat-running. The Council predicted that further measures would be needed on Townley Road and Dulwich Village after putting the filters in at the Village junction. All boundary roads are being monitored so that will provide the evidence.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They're being asked to implement these measures > *specifically* via the ETRO process, by both the > Mayor, and the DfT, as a way to enable active > travel as a response to coronavirus. This is an > emergency, and the appropriate tools are being > used. At last a voice of reason :)

Nope. They're all in their cars because too scared to use public transport. Do you read the news Slarti?

The council ran a year long consultation - didn't you know? it got one of the highest responses ever in a Southwark consultation - over 2000. There were lots of posters around advertising public meetings, and leaflets, street stalls etc. Would have thought you being so knowledgeable on the subject you might have attended some of the meetings?

At last a voice of reason :)

There are traffic count tubes in all over the area - 10 in total. They're monitoring the impact and will hopefully announce further measures to mitigate displacement.

First mate Well its remarkable in the sense that air pollution levels in Dulwich are over illegal limits, people have been campaigning to reduce traffic here for years (decades) the council have conducted a 12 month (correction from my previous post) public consultation - and research is emerging that covid is worse in highly polluted areas (a disease affecting the elderly most). Central government, the Mayors office and TfL are all urging councils to implement urgent measures to enable active travel and to avoid cars journeys in London rising to double pre-covid levels causing the capital to grind to a halt. Not great for recovery I'm sure you'll agree. So yes in that sense yes you could say its all a remarkable coincidence. Personally I don't think its a Southwark conspiracy though. 'noticeable you underline they are only 12 percent of the population after all...meaning what?' Meaning these decisions should be made by fair representation. There are also a lot of schoolchildren who could cycle to school if the roads were safer - 13000 attend schools in the area so yes more could cycle if the roads were safer. My real concern about the elderly residents of Woodwarde road (re original post), just in case I didn't make it clear, is that they are being fed alarmist misinformation by One Dulwich - which could be seen as morally dubious and exploitative to further their own agenda. If the residents of Woodwarde road were reassured that access to their homes will be unaffected (of course), that they can still drive whereever they want but it might just take literally a few more minutes - and pollution will be reduced throughout the area which is good in terms of covid risk for them in particular - then maybe they wouldn't be so distressed? If on the other hand the distress is caused by the prospect of pollution being driven onto quieter roads, such as Woodwarde - then that's a different matter and should be treated as such. Again, reassurance that the council are monitoring the impact of the junction and will introduce further measures if necessary might help to ease that distress. If One Dulwich truly want to 'bring the community together' then they surely they would accept that we have to start somewhere to reduce pollution in the area as a whole - for everybody.

Hi there, I'm a resident in Area B and I'm getting increasingly concerned by the misinformation One Dulwich are spreading. As a group of residents who claim to want to bring the community together over a divisive issue - using untruths to fuel division surely goes against their entire 'mission' statement? CLAIM: 'the Council has stated that it does not need to listen to any of the concerns of residents' FACT: Southwark Council have been consulting on this amongst other measures for over 6 months. They held numerous public meetings, online and paper surveys, leaflets, and street stalls. They received over 2000 responses to the consultation 55% want the junction to be a permeable filter. 37% don't. CLAIM: 'Their suggestions (including timed restrictions to through traffic at peak hours rather than permanent closures) seem eminently sensible but have been completely ignored by the Council.' FACT: Rejected is not the same as 'completely ignored'. Their suggestions have not been ignored by the council - they have been responded to in detail and yes - rejected - both at the workshops and since then in ongoing correspondence for the following what could be seen as 'eminently sensible' reasons:- a) there is no budget for ANPR cameras throughout the area to enforce timed restrictions - using just signage only is not effective / enforceable (think 20mph speed signs) b) the surveys One Dulwich have conducted do not meet basic criteria to be considered - the council have considered other surveys from the community because they did meet the criteria. c) their proposal has no mention of how to make cycling and walking easier - although they 'claim' this to be one of their objectives. Re budget - as a result of the Covid crisis council budgets are limited as you are probably aware. To demand Southwark implements the most expensive option of all (which they could not afford even PRE-covid) seems rather 'entitled of Dulwich' don't you think? Especially when car ownership in Dulwich is 20% higher than the rest of Southwark? So affluent Dulwich residents want the council to spend lots of money on us so that we can have a scheme that means we can all carry on driving short journeys - as long as we keep the riff raff out... How does this 'achieve healthier and cleaner streets in a fairer, more inclusive, fashion'? Fairer and more inclusive - for who? So why the urgency to make the first step towards a low traffic neighbourhood by creating a permeable filter - on the cheap - at Dulwich Village Junction? No doubt, as a resident aiming to become fully carbon neutral you're aware of the harm air pollution causes - and yet you cite the Covid crisis as a reason NOT to take bold measures to reduce traffic - particularly because you care so much about the elderly? The latest WHO guidance is as follows: 'we know if you are exposed to air pollution you are increasing your chances of being more severely affected. We are starting to give messages to countries and regions saying, if you are starting to have cases, in those cities where you have a high level of pollution, reinforce your level of preparedness, because you might have a higher mortality.? I sympathise with elderly residents in the area - and am very concerned for their health particularly in that air pollution affects them, and children, the worst. But just to put this in perspective at the last census only 12% in Dulwich are over 65. Maybe if One Dulwich were less alarmist - misinforming people that they won't be able to drive anywhere - their elderly members would be less distressed? Instead try reassuring your elderly Woodwarde neighbours that in fact they will still be able to drive 100m to the shops in the village and park before the closure, and their access to Lordship Lane is unaffected. Access to Herne Hill via Townley and East Dulwich Grove is same journey time as going through the village. Hopefully that will ease their distress. Maybe the traffic on Woodwarde isn't too bad? Good for you. But it is elsewhere in Dulwich. If One Dulwich really cared about our community as a whole - they would accept that Southwark Council have limited resources to reduce traffic. A permeable filter at the junction is a positive start and will be reviewed throughout the trial period. There are traffic count tubes all over Dulwich - monitoring the impact ready to implement further measures in Phase 2. If anyone out there is thinking of joining One Dulwich - before you do please ask them specifically: How will the alternative scheme meet the objectives to 'reduce traffic volumes, improve air quality making cycling and walking easier and safer'? Thank you