Do you want Controlled Parking YES or NO

[alex_b]

Sally Eva Wrote:

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

> Road-closures (filtered permeability) to stop

> rat-running are the approach supported by

> southwark cyclists. The problem is that

> Councillors are frightened to suggest them because

> of angry reception such ideas receive.

>

> If you feel that road-closures are a safer way

> forward, please write to your councillor

I have, repeatedly. Unfortunately I live in the Lane Ward so I might as well write to a brick wall. I've also participated in all of the quietway consultations, unfortunately the filtered permeability suggestions get ignored and instead we're supposed to believe that "better sightlines" will turn Adys Road from a busy rat-run into a cycling and pedestrian mecca.

[Blah Blah]

kibris Wrote:

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

> What I don't understand is why the Borough of

> Southwark has money to ask us if we want CPZ but

> doesn't have money to fill in the large number of

> pot holes everwhere

This is NOT a Southwark Council survey but a local Liberal Democrat one. Much of the earlier posts in this conversation were pointing that out and questioning the validity of a Libdem fishing exercise.

[Chick]

No

[DulwichLondoner]

Sally Eva Wrote:

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

> Road-closures (filtered permeability) to stop

> rat-running are the approach supported by

> southwark cyclists.

So what? This only means it would be in the interest of cyclists. It doesn?t mean it won?t increase congestion noise and pollution in the roads nearby.

It?s never straightforward to find the right balance between the desires of a small group of residents and those of the wider community. It is, however, important to ensure that NIMBY approaches do not end up damaging everyone else ? we all want quieter roads, but if making your road quieter means more pollution congestion and noise for everyone else, well, I?m not sure your wish should be granted (I am talking in general ? I don?t know the specifics of your road).

Do you remember what happened in Lambeth a few years ago? The council trialled some ?experimental road closures? in the Loughborough Junction ? Calais road area. Of course the sale pitch was the usual: everyone will benefit, less pollution, less congestion, we?ll all be happier bla bla bla. In reality, it was a disaster. They couldn?t physically block the roads, because the emergency services still needed access, so came up with very confusing signs which left everyone puzzled, like this double no entry:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/travelnews/ddouble-no-entry-road-markings-on-south-london-street-leave-drivers-confused-a2943841.html

The supposed benefits and advantages did not materialise. Residents revolted. And, luckily, the council made a U-turn: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/11/lambeth-council-u-turn-on-the-loughborough-junction-road-closures-sees-loughborough-road-reopening/

This also reminds me some discussions here about people applauding the closure of Camberwell Grove because it stops the rat-run, because people are meant to use other roads (really? Which ones? Why?). If you just look at the map, Camberwell Grove is a relatively long, straight and wide road that runs mostly parallel to Denmark Hill. Why it should not be used is beyond me. Just because it?s not an A road?

Btw, where does the highway code define rat-running? Maybe nowhere?

[almost peckham]

More or less what Dulwich Londoner says above.

Since Camberwell Grove has been shut a lot of traffic has been displaced to Avondale/Bellenden/Choumert/Danby/Copleston. This has resulted in the Avondale/Copleston crossroads being really quite dangerous at certain times of the day. Traffic jams, arguments, car horns, P13 buses blocking part of the junction because car drivers tend not to cede to them as they wait to get down Avondale. Absolute loss of sightlines for pedestrians, cyclists, kids, dog walkers - anyone really. Plenty of pollution. And many drivers, venting frustration, once able to, speed off down adjoining streets at dangerous speeds. So, while some are having a lovely time tootling up and down CG many others (cyclists included) are at the risk of injury and generally tolerating a shitty atmosphere just round the corner.

The traffic light situation at CG was, I think, pretty good at managing traffic. I know it was set up to limit the weight on the bridge but it also slowed traffic down and installed an element of doubt that it would definitely be a quicker route to drive.

BTW, Sally, cyclists 'rat-run', too if all that term can be held to mean is to take the straightest route.

[DulwichLondoner]

I remember that somewhere near Streatham ? the South Circular there are a few roads with no access signs, except for access, in force from 10pm till 8am, or something like that. I have no idea if it?s really enforced, nor how (cameras check if cars leave the area?); if I were to guess I?d say it?s not. But the concept is at least more reasonable, because it tries to grant residents less noise at night, ie at a time when the main roads are less likely to be congested. I don?t remember exactly where because I ended up there by mistake, after a few wrong turns.

[Sally Eva]

I don't think it means the straightest route, which is usually the main road. It means what is thought to be the quickest route.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rat_run

cyclists often don't take the straightest route (you should see my route between Peckham and New Cross) they take what they believe to be the safest. So I never cycle along Nunhead Lane, East Dulwich Road and East Dulwich Grove to get to Dulwich Village. I go via Peckham rye park, Friern Road and Dulwich Park because that is a lot safer.

We (southwark cyclists) run rides at the weekends an incidental point of which is to show people how to cycle around safely. Don't follow those buses, don't go the way your neighbour drives, go this much safer way.

The problem arises for us when the backstreets way is made dangerous by car drivers going that bit further in order to get there faster and taking unsuitable roads to do it. I did for a while have to cycle up Adys Road once a week and mighty dangerous and unpleasant it was.

[alex_b]

Almost London, DulwichLondoner - I think there is a difference between Camberwell Grove (long, straight, set back houses, alternative routes are narrower) and the Bellenden roads. Clearly people are using these roads as a cut through from Peckham Road (A202) to East Dulwich Grove and further south in order to avoid the congestion on non-residential Copeland and Consort Roads. Although I'm mindful on knock-on effects of point closures, I don't think it's unreasonable for residents to expect traffic to be kept on main routes as much as possible.

I also think that the navigation apps are a significant cause of the problem, routing large numbers of vehicles down unsuitable roads to save 2-3 minutes on a journey. The weekly crashes at the corner of Adys and Nutbrook as some coach, tipper truck or lorry tries to navigate a too tight turn bears this out to some extent.

The situation this week while Maxted is shut for pavement repairs bears out how little of the traffic round here is really for access.

[alex_b]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

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

> I remember that somewhere near Streatham ? the

> South Circular there are a few roads with no

> access signs, except for access, in force from

> 10pm till 8am, or something like that. I have no

> idea if it?s really enforced, nor how (cameras

> check if cars leave the area?); if I were to guess

> I?d say it?s not. But the concept is at least more

> reasonable, because it tries to grant residents

> less noise at night, ie at a time when the main

> roads are less likely to be congested. I don?t

> remember exactly where because I ended up there by

> mistake, after a few wrong turns.

I think this would at least cause the apps to remove the route from their navigation options which I suspect would dramatically cut down traffic. For instance see this article from LA about a similar problem http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lopez-echo-park-traffic-20180404-story.html

[rendelharris]

almost peckham Wrote:

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

> Since Camberwell Grove has been shut a lot of

> traffic has been displaced to

> Avondale/Bellenden/Choumert/Danby/Copleston. This

> has resulted in the Avondale/Copleston crossroads

> being really quite dangerous at certain times of

> the day. Traffic jams, arguments, car horns, P13

> buses blocking part of the junction because car

> drivers tend not to cede to them as they wait to

> get down Avondale. Absolute loss of sightlines for

> pedestrians, cyclists, kids, dog walkers - anyone

> really. Plenty of pollution. And many drivers,

> venting frustration, once able to, speed off down

> adjoining streets at dangerous speeds. So, while

> some are having a lovely time tootling up and down

> CG many others (cyclists included) are at the risk

> of injury and generally tolerating a shitty

> atmosphere just round the corner.

Not doubting your veracity, but I live on Copleston less than a hundred yards from that junction, and I walk, cycle and occasionally ride the bus through it many, many times a week at peak and off-peak times and I've noticed none of this at all.

[DulwichLondoner]

Sally Eva Wrote:

> The problem arises for us when the backstreets way

> is made dangerous by car drivers going that bit

> further in order to get there faster and taking

> unsuitable roads to do it. I did for a while have

> to cycle up Adys Road once a week and mighty

> dangerous and unpleasant it was.

Who decides whether they?re suitable for cars or not? Big lorries, HGVs, etc are one thing, but ordinary cars? Most of these arguments are typically rationalised by people, like cyclists or the residents of Camberwell Grove, who want the road to themselves. This is akin to saying that taxes are what other people should pay for because they are richer than us ? there?s always a reason to rationalise why something should inconvenience other people more than us!

Practical example: to go from King?s College hospital to Oval, instead of driving along Denmark Hill and Camberwell new rd, you could do: Coldharbour lane, Denmark road, Calais street, Patmos rd, Elliott rd and Foxley rd: https://goo.gl/maps/StNYego8N132

Calais street was one of the roads closed in Lambeth?s catastrophic ?experimental road closures?; it?s now open to traffic, even if there?s still a red sign at the beginning of the road saying it?s closed, which is wrong.

Is this one of the evil rat-runs that should be off-limits for everyone except cyclists? Isn?t it better if part of the traffic is directed towards alternative routes? I must have ridden there daily for 2 years, and never noticed any particularly stupid behaviour (not more than in any other road).

alex_b Wrote:

I don't think it's unreasonable for

> residents to expect traffic to be kept on main

> routes as much as possible.

Not at any cost. If this doesn?t wreak havoc nearby, yes. So the Lambeth road closure were idiotic. The Streatham signs, no entrance at night except for access, are more sensible (but hard, if not impossible, to enforce).

[Sally Eva]

I think safety-at-speed is one of the things which says whether a road is suitable for through traffic or not.

If I could go back to my definition of rat-running: going further in order to get there faster. The route is further but is expected to have fewer traffic lights and congestion so using it is expected to be quicker. It's full of twists and turns which have to be taken at speed in order to arrive faster. A hold-up is super-annoying because the whole point of this (longer) route is that it's not congested. If it is then wow it's neither shorter nor quicker. GET OUT OF MY WAY.

Traffic which is nearly home has achieved some sort of peace. it's slowing down. It's looking for a parking spot. Those kids might be my neighbour's kids -- I'm looking out for them.

Adys road is parked on both sides and the space in the middle will not take two cars passing. It is an extremely worrying as a cyclist to meet a car coming towards you on Adys road at speed. Since it's going fast the driver will be in the middle of the road -- he doesn't want to get near the parked cars at that speed. OTOH he doesn't want to slow down -- there's still got a long way to go before he's safely back on his route.

[almost peckham]

Rendell H wrote

Not doubting your veracity, but I live on Copleston less than a hundred yards from that junction, and I walk, cycle and occasionally ride the bus through it many, many times a week at peak and off-peak times and I've noticed none of this at all.

Well, you are doubting my veracity, really. Aren't you, Rendell?

I must be quite unlucky, then. About 6ish on a weekday can be pretty chaotic. Are you doubting the increase in traffic on those roads since CG has been shut?

Alex-b. Yes, I agree, it would be good if traffic could somehow be kept to main roads (let's not forget people live on main roads as well, though) but the main roads needs to be viable ways of getting places. Sometimes they aren't. Keeping with CG as an example; if someone has driven from the Oval and wants to visit Rendel, the 'main road' route would involve a right turn at camberwell green (prohibited), and then 9(?) sets of lights before turning into Copleston. Or you could go over camberwell green, turn right up CG and encounter 1 set of lights on your over the top and down the other side. I agree about the streets between bellenden and east dulwich road, completely stupid some days and you might be right about phone apps/sat navs.

Sally (at 2.43).

As a part time cyclist I agree with most of that but some cyclists do go the quickest route - check out greendale

path some time.

[DulwichLondoner]

Interesting theory. However, is it a theory or a fact? Do you know for a fact that ?rat runs? are more dangerous, with more accidents, etc., or do you simply suspect there?s a chance but do not, in fact, know? If you don?t know, your is simply unsubstantiated speculation.

Luckily, it?s not like we have hundreds of collisions on every road, so inferring conclusions from what is luckily a limited number of events is tough if not impossible. I don?t know how representative or not it is, but all I can report is that, in my experience of doing the rat-run I described almost every single day for about 2 years I did not notice any particularly outrageous behaviour; sure, there were idiots, but just like on any road. Oh, and that run-run is only 0.4 miles longer than the ?ordinary? route; the time needed to cover those 0.4 miles is more than offset by the time saved by going through fewer traffic lights and by having fewer suicidal phone-zombie pedestrians jumping in the middle of the road without looking, without the need to go at crazy speeds.

It?s true that a number of roads are too small for two-way traffic, but this would suggest making them one-way, rather than preventing access to non-residents.

?Traffic which is nearly home has achieved some sort of peace?. Again, do you know or are you simply speculating? Studies of motorcycle accidents have shown that more accidents tend to happen near home than in unfamiliar areas; I don?t have the exact references at hand, but this was one of the potentially counterintuitive conclusions reached by a study done in California a while back and (yes, I know, California is very different) also by another one done in Europe and commissioned by the EU. I don?t know exactly about cars, but it?s food for thought.

[dbboy]

I think that it can safely be said that the residents of East Dulwich say HELL NO to a CPZ.

So, Councillors, read it and weep. It's a huge THUMBS DOWN FROM ED TO CPZ.

[rendelharris]

almost peckham Wrote:

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

> Rendell H wrote

>

> Not doubting your veracity, but I live on

> Copleston less than a hundred yards from that

> junction, and I walk, cycle and occasionally ride

> the bus through it many, many times a week at peak

> and off-peak times and I've noticed none of this

> at all.

>

> Well, you are doubting my veracity, really. Aren't

> you, Rendell?

> I must be quite unlucky, then. About 6ish on a

> weekday can be pretty chaotic. Are you doubting

> the increase in traffic on those roads since CG

> has been shut?

No I'm really not, just saying that's not my experience. I agree that traffic has increased on Bellenden, Mcneill etc, I haven't noticed any increase on Copleston or at that junction.

[DulwichLondoner]

If anything, this shows the limits of reaching conclusions based on one's own limited, personal experiences / impressions. Unfortunately, evidence-based policy is a rare thing these days. I am, for example, not aware of any exhaustive study conducted on 20mph or on the cycle lanes, before it was decided that those would be rolled out throughout London. Rendel will remember our discussions on these points!

[rendelharris]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

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

> If anything, this shows the limits of reaching

> conclusions based on one's own limited, personal

> experiences / impressions. Unfortunately,

> evidence-based policy is a rare thing these days.

> I am, for example, not aware of any exhaustive

> study conducted on 20mph or on the cycle lanes,

> before it was decided that those would be rolled

> out throughout London. Rendel will remember our

> discussions on these points!

I do, I still have PTSD (Post-Traffic Symposium Disorder).

[spider69]

dbboy Wrote:

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

> I think that it can safely be said that the

> residents of East Dulwich say HELL NO to a CPZ.

>

> So, Councillors, read it and weep. It's a huge

> THUMBS DOWN FROM ED TO CPZ.

Only so far from the small minority of residents that comment on the forum.

What about others that do not comment on the forum? I suspect most do not know about this sampling. Dont know cannot comment

[Kpandcoa]

Yes please. Filtered permeability would be amazing too. Would certainly make the area more pleasant.

[Droler]

Filtered permeability needs to be introduced in the area. Works well in Hackney.

[DulwichFox]

I had no idea what ' Filtered Permeability ' is so I Googled it.

Filtered (spatial and transport planning) Permeability or connectivity describes the extent to which urban forms permit (or restrict) movement of people or vehicles in different directions.

The terms are often used interchangeably, although differentiated definitions also exist

Hope that helps

[nxjen]

Not really. Is it an over complicated way of saying one way systems?

[DulwichLondoner]

No, it means preventing motorised vehicles from entering an area, while still allowing cyclists and pedestrians through. This can be achieved in a number of ways: bollards, gates, etc. An issue is how to let emergency vehicles through - Lambeth royally messed this up and this was one of the reasons why their "experimental road closure" were an utter failure.

[QueenMab]

Nooooo. One of the reasons I used to like East Dulwich when I lived in Herne Hill was because it was easy to get to and park briefly for shopping or lunch etc. There are places with CPZs where you just wouldn't bother going because of the sheer hassle of parking. Think how many successful businesses the are in East Dulwich, which might well be jeopardised if excessive parking restrictions are put in place.