Our Healthy Streets ?Dulwich

[Sue]

seenbeen Wrote:

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

> we are now in the season for idling

> engines...there is a form to fill in anonymously

> on the Southwark website for 'idling hotspots' and

> smoking chimneys

Really? Do you have a link? Thanks!

[intexasatthe moment]

In my opinion consultations are a parallel ( and expensive ) universe .

I've been trying to follow Southwark on this one

Phase 1 saw a large area -Upland Rd/Peckham Rye in the North ,Underhill in the East ,Court Lane/Dulwich Village in the south,East Dulwich Grove /Townley Rd ,Lordship Lane in the N. West -discussed at Dulwich Library ,Dulwich Village and the Dulwich Fair .

Lots of comments from Dulwich Village area .

Junction of Barry Rd and Underhill identified as top priority ,road safety hotspot , junction of South Circular with Lordship Lane no safe crossing for pedestrians as second top priority

"what you told us "https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/roadworks-and-highway-improvements/street-improvements/our-healthy-streets-dulwich )

Phase 2

Public mtgs held at Alleyns School and Half Moon Lane .

Focus is on area west of Lordship Lane and the priorities from Phase 1 are parked( see what I did there ) and key locations are Court Lane Calton Ave Dulwich Village,Townley Rd/East Dulwich Grove Lordship Lane ,

I'm not clear how the priorities were achieved in the "What you told us doc " but in the June doc "All Suggestions " priorities seem to be based on number of comments and Calton Ave j Court Lane with poor air quality knocks out the accident hot spot on Barry Rd and absence of crossing point at South Circular /Lordship Lane .

I guess if in Phase 1 you take your " stall on a roadshow to Dulwich Library ,Dulwich Village and the Dulwich Fair " then you're likely to get mainly comments on that geographical area . I guess it may also shape the next phase of the consultation .Particularly if the demographic of that area is particularly articulate .

The recent meeting at ChristChurch concerned a v narrow area and didn't stretch as far as the junction of Barry Rd and Underhill .No doubt comments collected there will be fed back to support priorities .

I see that the Dulwich Village area has meetings scheduled for December .It would be great to have a schedule of when other areas will have feedback mtgs .

As far as I can tell ( not v far I'm afraid ) this https://ohs-dulwich.co.uk/ allows comments on various locations and presumably they will be taken into consideration by Southwark .

[Penguin68]

And yet again I ask - 'do you trust Southwark council and councilors...?'

[seenbeen]

Sue Wrote:

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

> seenbeen Wrote:

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

> -----

> > we are now in the season for idling

> > engines...there is a form to fill in

> anonymously

> > on the Southwark website for 'idling hotspots'

> and

> > smoking chimneys

>

>

> Really? Do you have a link? Thanks!

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/air-quality/air-quality-queries-and-complaints

[Earl Aelfheah]

Segregated cycle routes linking with the tube at Brixton and Oval / kennington would be good (but will never happen as it would mean the loss of on street car storage). Southwark could work with some of the e-bike schemes (such as Lime) to bring them to the south of the borough (having failed to work with TFL on 'Boris' bikes). Other than that, the biggest opportunity for half a century to improve local transport (the Bakerloo extension) has been missed, with the decision not to extend to Peckham.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I would really like to see a thoughtful, joined up, area wide (and radical approach) to permeable street closures. That would make a genuine difference to peoples quality of life and is in the councils gift.

[Earl Aelfheah]

When are the council going to properly pedestrianise North Cross Road? Would be great with some street furniture and planting etc.

[Sue]

seenbeen Wrote:

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

> Sue Wrote:

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

> -----

> > seenbeen Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > we are now in the season for idling

> > > engines...there is a form to fill in

> > anonymously

> > > on the Southwark website for 'idling

> hotspots'

> > and

> > > smoking chimneys

> >

> >

> > Really? Do you have a link? Thanks!

>

> https://www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/air-quali

> ty/air-quality-queries-and-complaints

Thanks for this link.

What is an "idling hotspot"? One where various vehicles sit with their engines on at different times?

There doesn't seem to be any way to report a single vehicle?

[Sue]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> When are the council going to properly

> pedestrianise North Cross Road? Would be great

> with some street furniture and planting etc.

Well, the people who live there may not be too happy about that ....

Nor may the shops and restaurants which need deliveries .....

[goldilocks]

The issues re residents and shops are relevant considerations - but not necessarily a reason not to close the road to vehicle traffic between defined times. For example the road could be closed between 'Willow' and Lodrship Lane, with access only for deliveries at certain times.

I understand that on occasions people living above the shops on the left or in the very few houses on the right hand side of the road as you walk towards Lordship would need deliveries, but realistically these could be made from parking next to the closure.

It would definitely be transformative for the businesses along that area and make it a more appealing area to spend time

[Sue]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> The issues re residents and shops are relevant

> considerations - but not necessarily a reason not

> to close the road to vehicle traffic between

> defined times. For example the road could be

> closed between 'Willow' and Lodrship Lane, with

> access only for deliveries at certain times.

>

> I understand that on occasions people living above

> the shops on the left or in the very few houses on

> the right hand side of the road as you walk

> towards Lordship would need deliveries, but

> realistically these could be made from parking

> next to the closure.

>

> It would definitely be transformative for the

> businesses along that area and make it a more

> appealing area to spend time

Sorry to be dim, but I can't see how it would make much difference, even in the Summer months.

There are relatively few shops, restaurants and cafes there, and surely if you are going there to shop or to eat/drink you are going to spend most of your time inside the shops/restaurants/cafes? Except on market days.

Unless you are sitting on the seats outside The Palmerston (which are for customers only, of which I have not been one since it changed hands) or on the seat down by the photos. Which people do anyway, though the road is not closed off.

Have I missed something? Quite probably :)

[intexasatthe moment]

I think the point being missed is that if you have views on this subject ,as well as debating them on the EDF,if you want them considered by S'wark you need to post them on here

https://ohs-dulwich.co.uk/road-safety-hotspot/53?map=true

[Earl Aelfheah]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> I think the point being missed is that if you have

> views on this subject ,as well as debating them on

> the EDF,if you want them considered by S'wark you

> need to post them on here

> https://ohs-dulwich.co.uk/road-safety-hotspot/53?m

> ap=true

I don't think North Cross road is in the highlighted area.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Sue Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > When are the council going to properly

> > pedestrianise North Cross Road? Would be great

> > with some street furniture and planting etc.

>

>

> Well, the people who live there may not be too

> happy about that ....

>

> Nor may the shops and restaurants which need

> deliveries .....

That is a manifesto for never reducing car use anywhere and is why we need bold leadership. Look at what they have done in Barcelona with the introduction of 'mega blocks'. It was vociferously opposed by residents and businesses before it was brought in. It's now almost universally approved of.

[intexasatthe moment]

"I don't think North Cross road is in the highlighted area."

like I said .parallel universe time .

It seems to be within the boundaries of the area/map being considered but it appears that you can only add comments to locations which have already been commented on .

I'd just click on the nearest dot and comment anyway .

But I'm a bit odd .

[intexasatthe moment]

On reflection ,although I've only just come across it I suppose the map was put up during the first phase of this exercise and I guess it's no longer available for raising new areas of concern . Though you can comment on ones already raised .

Which leads me back to my earlier post today - drop ins / consultations /touring stall held in the Dulwich Village area ,responses from these allow S'wark to tell us what "our" concerns are .

[goldilocks]

It was never a consultation covering NorthCross road - that just came up as a point on here. The main thing to realise is that:

1. There is a healthy streets consultation for Dulwich Village within a defined area which closes shortly (as per above) and if you would like to respond then you need to do so via the consultation process as outlined above.

2. This covers a small area within Dulwich Village ward only.

[intexasatthe moment]

goldilocks there is a current consultation collecting views on the DV area .But this is a part of a wider exercise and area which does indeed include North X road .

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/roadworks-and-highway-improvements/street-improvements/our-healthy-streets-dulwich

[rollflick]

And coming full circle back to my earlier post. People are clearly (and rightly) concerned about air pollution, safe routes (particularly to schools) for the Dulwich area within the consultation. But this consultation fails to give any info about the measures needed to bring pollution within legal or safe limits, or the previously proposed routes.

Other tremendous examples mentioned like Barcelona or indeed closer to home in London did not take this bizarre approach of residents mini-referenda on each traffic restriction that Southwark seems increasing driven towards. It's a silly way to design area wide traffic measures that won't deliver the radical changes we need to breathe clean air or enable 8-80 year olds to feel safe on foot or cycling. Plus without holistic area measures like emissions based CPZs, you risk ending up with more pollution on through roads.

[intexasatthe moment]

"bizarre approach of residents mini-referenda on each traffic restriction that Southwark seems increasing driven towards. It's a silly way to design area wide traffic measures that won't deliver the radical changes we need to breathe clean air"

Well put rollflick .It's all smoke ( ha! ) and mirrors enabling S'wark to say that they are consulting with the public .

They seem to place a higher value on "consultation" than action .

[Rockets]

To be honest Southwark should probably stop any further works and spend more time fixing the mess they have made of their previous round of improvements - like the abomination that is the new Court Lane/Dulwich Village "improvement works" that have made the junction more dangerous to pedestrians, cyclists and car users alike by way of a flawed design that has, additionally, increased pollution levels due to the daily gridlock it creates.

Anyone who uses it either on foot, on a bike or in a car can see it is an accident waiting to happen yet no-one from the council seems to care and laud it as an example of best-practice when in fact it is anything but and seems to serve no purpose other than forwarding their own agenda.

Does someone have to be badly injured there before they take heed or can they only take action if they have had a "consultation" to fix the errors made from the previous "consultation"?

[exdulwicher]

rollflick Wrote:

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

> Other tremendous examples mentioned like Barcelona

> or indeed closer to home in London did not take

> this bizarre approach of residents mini-referenda

> on each traffic restriction that Southwark seems

> increasing driven towards. It's a silly way to

> design area wide traffic measures that won't

> deliver the radical changes we need to breathe

> clean air or enable 8-80 year olds to feel safe on

> foot or cycling. Plus without holistic area

> measures like emissions based CPZs, you risk

> ending up with more pollution on through roads.

"consulting" the general public with traffic plans (in fact with most things...) is a recipe for disaster. Most people will say that where they live / work / play / shop should be free access for them at all times but everyone else should be charged / restricted / banned. They want - no, they demand - free parking at all times for them while simultaeously saying that everyone else should get the bus, walk, or be charged to park.

It's why consultations take years of back and forth; people comment, the proposals are taken back and re-worked, they're re-presented to the public who again complain bitterly and round we go again. Eventually, the option that is proposed is so watered down that it becomes pointless doing it but they do it anyway and you end up with a scheme like Dulwich Village or the re-worked Townley Road / East Dulwich Grove junction where coaches clog the road up cos it takes them an hour to turn around the extended pavements.

[seenbeen]

'Healthy Streets'- you must be joking! I've been out for a walk this evening and I could barely breathe around Landells Road, Jennings Road, Landcroft Road for the wood smoke in the air- the cars are nothing in comparison

[Earl Aelfheah]

rollflick Wrote:

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

> Other tremendous examples mentioned like Barcelona

> or indeed closer to home in London did not take

> this bizarre approach of residents mini-referenda

> on each traffic restriction that Southwark seems

> increasing driven towards. It's a silly way to

> design area wide traffic measures that won't

> deliver the radical changes we need to breathe

> clean air or enable 8-80 year olds to feel safe on

> foot or cycling. Plus without holistic area

> measures like emissions based CPZs, you risk

> ending up with more pollution on through roads.

I couldn't agree more with this. Why don't Southwark come up with a radical, area wide plan? Create a low traffic neighbourhood.