LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[northernmonkey]

Banning traffic at peak times isn?t the full story though is it?

From the ?one dulwich? website:

?Instead, we believe that timed restrictions (stopping through traffic at peak hours, while still allowing residents access to their homes) would be a sensible and pragmatic compromise.?

So not banning traffic at peak times, instead banning non resident traffic. I accept that it would certainly be quieter than now, but what is it about dulwich village residents that make them less likely to kill my child (directly or via pollution) than people from outside Dulwich.

This is before you get to the question of who has permits, just those in area B? Or area C too? What about those on the next street?

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> They specifically say they would ban traffic on

> certain roads at peak times.

>

> This would allow timid cyclists and pedestrians

> exclusive use of those roads at those times

[first mate]

But aside from commuter through traffic (always given as the primary reason for CPZ) isn?t the bulk of traffic at such times largely from parents driving their children to and from school, particularly those parents whose children live further away? Is this not an issue for schools and parents to be finding solutions within the school, persuading fellow parents not to drive for the sake of their own as well as other children?s health?

[Abe_froeman]

How many times has your child actually been killed to date ?

[exdulwicher]

But aside from commuter through traffic (always given as the primary reason for CPZ) isn?t the bulk of traffic at such times largely from parents driving their children to and from school, particularly those parents whose children live further away? Is this not an issue for schools and parents to be finding solutions within the school, persuading fellow parents not to drive for the sake of their own as well as other children?s health?

We're back at what I said on Page 12:

The problem is that most people want fewer cars - provided it's not THEIR car. Everyone thinks that the neighbourhood should be green and peaceful, provided that THEY don't have to change anything about THEIR life. Everyone else's children should walk/get the bus but THEY have to drop their little darling right at the school gates because.....

[first mate]

We agree. What is especially galling though is that the changes are being driven by a demographic on the basis of their children?s health, the same demographic also causing elevated traffic around children at school delivery and pick up, but the changes will not negatively impact them as much as other sectors. The irony.

[KatyKoo]

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.

[first mate]

Starting somewhere is convincing schools and parents who drive their children to and from school to start walking, cycling and using public transport, has there been much in the way of active campaigning within schools and between parent groups?

Through traffic is a slightly different matter as, after all, we have to weigh the impact on the economy, not to mention vulnerable groups, if we shut down road after road. Nonetheless, One Dulwich is proposing measures to reduce through traffic at key times of the day. I think that is a very useful start, better than trying to bend an increasingly resistant majority to the will of the Council and the vocal and dogmatic pressure groups that are supporting it.

[KatyKoo]

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.

[march46]

What are the specific measures onedulwich is proposing first mate? Do you have any details? Which roads? How would the traffic physically be restricted at peak times?

first mate Wrote:

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

> Starting somewhere is convincing schools and

> parents who drive their children to and from

> school to start walking, cycling and using public

> transport, has there been much in the way of

> active campaigning within schools and between

> parent groups?

>

> Through traffic is a slightly different matter as,

> after all, we have to weigh the impact on the

> economy, not to mention vulnerable groups, if we

> shut down road after road. Nonetheless, One

> Dulwich is proposing measures to reduce through

> traffic at key times of the day. I think that is a

> very useful start, better than trying to bend an

> increasingly resistant majority to the will of the

> Council and the vocal and dogmatic pressure groups

> that are supporting it.

[Lynnea]

Hi there, just to clarify - the ULEZ extension will not come in until October 2021. So won't help us in the current pandemic were we are pretty stuck: air pollution is very likely a strong contributing factor to the frequency and severity of COVID19 cases and according to modelling car traffic is likely to double when lockdown ends/normal'ish life resumes as public transport capacity will remain likely significantly reduced. Then double the traffic will literally squeeze new (and possibly more experienced) cyclists also into the car while at the same time air pollution will not "just" do its usual harm but could also increase COVID19... Somethings gotta give...

[bels123]

I notice in this doc from the website that OneDulwich strongly urge 'clearer separation of cycles from cars on key roads Calton Avenue and Court Lane'. Does this mean segregated cycle lanes? It would be great if there was support for rebalancing the roads, removing car parking to enable cycling.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ee5b2552f1141316ee2efc9/t/5ee5d4427a6102337ee2bbb2/1592120390448/One+Dulwich+Proposal+for+Traffic+Restrictions+in+Area+B.pdf

[slarti b]

Lynnea Wrote:

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

>according to modelling car traffic is likely to double when lockdown ends/normal'ish life resumes as public transport > capacity will remain likely significantly reduced.

Can you provide a link to that research to show that likely to double please and also does it explicity claim that traffic in London will double?

I think there will be many factors at play, people using cars rather than public transport yes, but fewer people going into work. Schools (responsible for much of the peak traffic in Dulwich) not opening fully for many months. Also, in London we now have a 24\7 ULEZ and congestion charge zone and expensive parking; these will be big disincentives to going to work by car. So, subject to yout links, I am sceptical traffic will double.

On teh other hand, if you are correct and car traffic doubles, then blocking off the DV junction is just going to divert traffic, much more traffic by your suggestion, onto Dulwich Village and EDG. If you then apply the rest of the OHS measure ( as teh councillors hgave propsoed as a phase 2 for teh COvid measures) that traffic will divert onto Croxted Road, Lordship Lane EDG Half Moon Lane etc. What are your thoughts on that?

Edited to clarify I am asking for evidence that Lonond traffic will double

[Rockets]

KatyKoo re: alarmist misinformation - "a 47% increase in traffic through the DV junction".......and do bear in mind that was the major tenet of the council's reasoning for the measures and used to garner support from the local community and formed the backbone of their narrative...which has now been exposed as a complete fabrication.

Hardly makes you trust their motives does it? Taken in isolation you could say it was a "mistake" but the council seems to make a lot of "mistakes" when it comes manipulating things to get what they want.

It's ironic isn't it that the moment a group comes along who seem to be representing a balanced view other than the party line council wants people to swallow suddenly people start attacking them and questioning their motives (even some who have felt compelled to register here solely to post their views in the last day or so).

All the power to One Dulwich - it's high time the council listened to the many rather than the few!!! ;-) Every day more people are registering support for One Dulwich so they appear to be getting something right.

And remember, no-one on here is saying that these issues are not important and don't need addressing they just don't like the way the council is going about it. Many want an area-wide approach asthe path the council is taking is going to be a disaster for the area as a whole and, as we saw from Lambeth, these councils and councillors will never admit they made a mistake and take action to rectify anything - just look at the mess Dulwich Village is now after the first round of improvements - the council thinks it was a great success! Anyone who uses that junction knows the opposite is true.

[rjsmall]

I'm still not sure how the P13 and P4 are meant to cope with an increased passenger load if people stop using their cars. Pre CV19 the buses were full during the school rush time - with restricted CV19 capacities this situation will be even worse. With traffic being pushed on to the South Circular which is pretty much a car park at these times I cannot see how these routes will cope. Cycling or walking with young children is fine during late spring / summer / early autumn but not in the darkness of winter.

It demonstrates a lack of a holistic view of the traffic situation in East Dulwich and Dulwich Village. Looks very much like a piecemeal approach.

[wulfhound]

Bravo @sim1 for showing the way forward. "Be the change you want to see in the world".

This echoes my experiences 100%. Bellenden Road on a cargo bike is horrid - many drivers don't give you the extra time or space needed to get around the corners safely.

Wish Lambeth would hurry up and build the segregated cycle lane we've been promised for Rosendale. With that plus Southwark's proposals at DV, plus something to address Turney & Burbage Roads (I can't tell if the Village plans will make those two worse or better - anyone?) we'd be well on the way to a comprehensive network.

[exdulwicher]

Can you provide a link to that research to show that likely to double please and also does it explicity claim that traffic in London will double?

I think there will be many factors at play, people using cars rather than public transport yes, but fewer people going into work. Schools (responsible for much of the peak traffic in Dulwich) not opening fully for many months. Also, in London we now have a 24\7 ULEZ and congestion charge zone and expensive parking; these will be big disincentives to going to work by car. So, subject to yout links, I am sceptical traffic will double.

On teh other hand, if you are correct and car traffic doubles, then blocking off the DV junction is just going to divert traffic, much more traffic by your suggestion, onto Dulwich Village and EDG. If you then apply the rest of the OHS measure ( as teh councillors hgave propsoed as a phase 2 for teh COvid measures) that traffic will divert onto Croxted Road, Lordship Lane EDG Half Moon Lane etc. What are your thoughts on that?

Edited to clarify I am asking for evidence that London traffic will double

@slartib :

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/14/congestion-set-to-exceed-pre-lockdown-levels-as-cars-crowd-back-on-to-uk-roads

There's that news item which has various links within it and there's stuff which I've got (not directly applicable to London, more a general trend of data from a range of sources):

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

This came from an analysis of home-working potential by occupation type and trip length, coupled with general reduced mobility during lockdown, and the implication is:

Continued promotion of home-working for occupations where this is possible will:

Keep car travel around 22% below pre-lockdown levels;

Protect around 56% of rail capacity and around 17% of bus capacity for key workers who need to use it.

Further policies that support active travel modes could:

Reduce car travel by a further 1-18%

Increase protected rail capacity to 58-63% and significantly increase protected bus capacity to 52-71% for key workers who need to use it.

These scenarios include e-bikes that could be key to shifting middle-distance bus and rail trips to active trips.

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

There's a lot of "could" and some rather wide percentage range stuff in there, the data simply isn't there to pull out much more at this stage and as I say this is NOT Southwark data, it's an amalgamation of patterns seen elsewhere and adjusted slightly based on a range of assumptions, information and observations. Personally I wouldn't read too much into it yet although it's an interesting baseline set of numbers to work off.

Hope that helps.

[slarti b]

Katy, I see you have made 3 of your 4 EDF posts yesterday, on this subject, so I guess you are pretty new to the forum - welcome. I will try and address your points but will also ask questions which I hope you have the courtesy to answer. Given your comments and phrasing I suspect you are close to or involved with either the DV ward Councillors or one of the pressure groups they have been working with on their informal "Steering Group", so you should be able to answer my questions below. .

For full transparency I am involved with the One Dulwich group but I must emphasise I am responding in my personal capacity rather than on behalf of the group.

Apologies for the long repsonse but it is a complex subject that cannot be solved by emotive slogans and I look forward to your answers to these questions

1) Misinformation

The One Dulwich group, of which I am part, has tried to be as open as we can and, as a community led group, I hope we have not been spreading misinformation. If so, we will try and correct this. However, we have concrete examples where Councillors and their supporters have spread misinformation about the DV Junction and their proposed scheme but have refused to admit and correct it. I hope they will change their stance on this. Examples of deliberate misinformation (or totally negligent assertions) include:

- the traffic through the junction has increased by 47% on a like for like basis since the 2017 remodelling. This is quite frankly outrageous and discredits any other statistics promoted by the Council.

- if the council had known about the current, ie 2018, traffic volumes they would not have decided in 2015 to put Quietway 7 through the DV junction. See above...

- the remodelling of the DV junction in 2017 was down to TFL and nothing to do with Southwark council...

- the claim of "3,500-4,000 pupils at peak hours" crossing Calton Avenue and Court Lane

Examples of unsubstantiated assertions include:

- "The vast majority of responses received for the phase 3 consultation were from within or immediately adjacent to the consultation area and 55% of respondents agreed with the proposal to close the Dulwich Village/Calton Avenue/Court Lane junction to motor traffic. "

2) Phase 3 Consultation

You claim the Council has been consulting on this for over 6 months (updated to 12 months in a later posting?) . I believe the phase 3 consultation started in late Jan 2020 and after 3 stage managed public meetings, led and controlled by promoters of the scheme, we reached early March when meetings with eg RA's became very problematic due to Covid. Also, many peoples attention was focussed on other Covid related issues, nevertheless the council continued withe their timetable. This interfered with the normal consultation process. But lets look at the responses to the Phase 3 Consultation.

You say the council received over 2000 responses to the Phase 3 consultation and claim 55% want the junction to be a "permeable filter" ( this phrase can cause confusion since the meaning was not explained in the councils slides) .

Question: Where have the results of the phase 3 consultation been published and where can we see the detailed analysis?

Question: Of the 2,000 responses you mention, how many were within the Consultation Area (as defined by the Council) and how many were from outside the Consultation Area

Question: Of the responses from inside the Consultation Area, how many supported closure of the DV junction?

Question: We know that outside pressure groups such as Southwark Cyclists requested their members to reply to the on-line consultation and instructed them how to answer the questions. Does the council consider these responses to have equal weight with residents within the Consultation Area?

Question: Was the Dutch Estate east of East Dulwich Grove included in the consultation area and leafleted, they were not shown on the map.

3) OHS Phase 2 Consultation

The phase 2 consultations happened, I think, in Q3 2019 and the council has said these are the basis of the plans put forward for phase 3 consultation. Though councillors have also said the phase 3 proposals for Area B are fixed so it is not a proper consultation. Ho humm..

Anyway, I went to one of the Phase 2 workshops which had very few other attendees and seemed to be more of a propaganda exercise to excuse why Southwark's previous scheme had made congestion worse. To be frank, I think a lot of people were, like me, totally disillusioned by the Council's so called consultation process and couldn't be bothered to turn up. However, since these are the basis of the OHS scheme, which is being implemented by the back door using the COVID crisis measures, can you answer these?

Question: How many events, public meetings, street stalls etc did the Council carry out for phase 2

Question: How many people responded to the phase 2 consultations, split by on-line and paper.

Question: how many of the responders to the phase 2 consultation, on which the Council's OHS scheme is based, voted for a permanent closure of the DV junction.

Question: How many of the people in the phase 2 consultation who voted for a permanent closure of the DV junction were in The Consultation Area?

3) Interaction with local residents

The local councillors have claimed they have been working closely with local residents associations, ie those in the consultation area, on these phase 3 plans.

Question: Can they provide a timetable of which groups, eg residents Associations, Safe Routes to School, etc they contacted and when?

Question: in the event of any meetings that occurred, did the Councillors receive full support for the phase 3 proposals or not?

Questions: Presumably any interactions on which the councillors claim to rely will have been properly minuted by someone independent and the results recorded. Where can these be seen?

4) Covid measures - Phase 2

You mention in your post that "There are traffic count tubes all over Dulwich - monitoring the impact ready to implement further measures in Phase 2"

Can you explain what your (or rather the Councillors) intentions are for "phase 2" of the emergency Covd measures? The Covid documents refers to further actions on Townley Road, Eynella Road, Turney Road , Dulwich Village and Eynella Road. That suggests you (or the councillors) are trying to impose the full OHS scheme while avoiding scrutiny or consultation. Can you expand on this please?

Also, In terms of traffic counts, the current situation is far from normal. Any traffic counts and comparisons need to be considered even more very carefully than normal to ensure they are on a like for like basis. As we have seen, the council has used highly misleading comparisons during the phase 3 consultations, ie the "47% increase" in traffic.

5) Specific issues re One Dulwich proposals

You say the following about One Dulwich

"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."

Question: Can you detail when the One Dulwich proposals were considered in workshops and who attended them? Also, have they actually been responded to or just dismissed as being annoying interference?

a) Southwark Council's OHS scheme includes timed restrictions and, according to the main Southwark Council officer, 3 or possibly 4 ANPR cameras. One Dulwich , based on schemes elsewhere, does not think these are all necessary but if they are, will be similar to the councils own scheme.

Question: what is the difference between Southwark Council's and the One Dulwich approach and why would the One Dulwich approach be any more expensive than the council?

b) The Council are rejecting local Residents's Associations surveys because they do not like the result. On the other hand they are very happy to use the result of an unpublicised phase 2 survey with a tiny number of respondents to justify massive changes to the local neighbourhood.

Question :what are the criteria the council has set out to accept the results of residents surveys and where can these be found, presumably on the Council's webs site?

c) With the major exception of the permanent closure of the Dulwich Village junction, the Council's proposals are very similar to those of One Dulwich, not surprising since these were first drawn up by local residents and presented to the council 5 years ago. Our proposals will therefore have the same effect on making cycling and walking easier as the OHS scheme.

Apologies for the lengthy post but it is a complex problem that cannot be solved by emotive slogans. I look forward to you answers, especially about the Phase 3 Consultation

[slarti b]

@Exdulwicher thank for that though it is more an opinion piece than a proper study. I note that TFL are talking about traffic levels being 78% of normal at teh begining of June, so nowhere near the alarmist "doubling" quoted by Lynnae, the OP. I expect these levels will rise, but lets see.

Personally I am guessing that there will be a big increase in e-bikes and e-scooters, especially if the law is changed. However, using a bike or e-bike in the summer is very different to a wet, dark winter ride so it is moot what teh long term effects will be.

One thing that will definitely help is better access to Public Transport, much of Dulwich has low PTAL scores, and increased bus frequency, especially if capacity is reduced due to Covid. Sadly the council doesn't seem to consider this a priority

[wulfhound]

One thing that will definitely help is better access to Public Transport, much of Dulwich has low PTAL scores, and increased bus frequency, especially if capacity is reduced due to Covid. Sadly the council doesn't seem to consider this a priority

It's not in the council's gift, at this point. Running bus services is TfL's job, and in principle they can, and should, run more - but it costs money. A lot of it. And TfL's finances are an utter disaster right now - to the extent that they've had to ask for an emergency bailout. The idea of a self-funded transport authority running buses with maximum capacity of 15 people (single-decker) or 20 (double-decker) and breaking even doing so is obviously unviable.

Central Government is now running TfL on a very short leash. If you believe, as I do, that public transport is a public good, they are who we need to lobby, but good luck getting anywhere with that.

And that, I believe, is why we've landed where we've landed. No more space to accommodate extra cars - and air quality a more critical issue than ever. No more money to run extra buses or trains - and not enough capacity even if they did. We all recognise that there is a proportion of the population who cannot walk, cycle, scoot etc. for most of their trips - but they really do need to get _everybody_ that _can_ to adopt active travel of one sort or another. It seems fair to say that we're still a very long way from that goal (even for fairly narrow interpretations of "can" - for example, "able-bodied, working-age people with less than ten miles to travel") and that drastic interventions are needed.

[dande]

As the person who revived this discussion thread, I thought maybe I should reiterate what I stated a couple of days ago, namely the need for all of us - as a community - to consider both:

A) The things that are in our narrow personal interest; and

B) The things that are in the interests of our neighbours (especially when there is a divergence between the two).

As I mentioned earlier: the closure of Dulwich Village Junction is something that my family would personally benefit from. We live on Woodwarde Road. Our children cycle and walk to school. We rarely use our car. And the closure of Dulwich Village Junction will make our environment quieter and nicer...for us. But we can't ignore the fact that what benefits us may have a really damaging impact for the following:

1) Our elderly neighbours for whom this blanket restriction in access is something which is a major source of distress and a reduction in mobility and independence;

2) Our local shopkeepers, many of whom have already been battered by reductions in trade caused by Covid19 and feel that the council have not listened to their concerns; and

3) The less affluent communities onto whom we risk displacing the traffic that otherwise flows through our streets.

As I read through the comments on this thread, my guess is that - in reality - there is probably far more that unites us than divides us. I suspect that we all want to find a way to make our streets healthier and safer. But surely this needs to be done in a way that is genuinely consensual.

For example, I like the "Research" page on the One Dulwich website (onedulwich.uk) which contains links to BOTH the research done by Southwark Council and the results of the surveys done by individual residents associations.

Let's try to listen to one another. There are so many pointless "culture wars" going on in Britain at the moment. And it would be tragic if a discussion about healthier streets ended up dividing young against old; or vocal against less vocal. We are all caught somewhere in the middle.

[bels123]

dande - ref your point 3. I?m interested to know how you think the onedulwich alternative tackles the displaced traffic you?re worried would be an issue under the council?s plan?

If onedulwich believes traffic is only an issue at peak times and this is when the restrictions will be in place then it follows that all this traffic will still be displaced. Is there some additional measure proposed that isn't clear from the documents?

[slarti b]

bels123 Wrote:

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

> dande - ref your point 3. I?m interested to know how you think the onedulwich alternative tackles

> the displaced traffic you?re worried would be an issue under the council?s plan?

>

The Council itself has not stated how they will tackle the displaced traffic under their own scheme. Any questions about this have been brushed aside with airy comments about evaporation, though by their own estimate over 6,000 vehicles will be displaced onto "major" roads. This means EDG, SOuthern part of DV, Croxted rd, Lordship Lane, Half Moon Lane, Burbage South, South Circular etc. This a major flaw in their scheme.

All I can say is that if the DV closure is restricted only at peak times the amount of displaced traffic will be less than under the COuncil's scheme.

Edited to add

If you can provide detailed data for teh traffic movements though the junction, ie O&D data or traffic count data for all arms by time period we can certainly come up with some estimates. There is a certain amount of data in the "evidence pack" and supporting schedules but it is quite selective. And the Council and Councillors are generally very reluctant to publish full underlying data, presumably in case it undermines their assertions.

[Abe_froeman]

These surveys (submitted to the council) suggest that by far the majority of people actually living on Dulwich Village completely disagree with these proposals

http://dulwichra.org.uk/index.php/dulwich-village-ra-submission/

[dande]

Dear Slartib,

The question you?ve asked is an excellent one and, in many ways, gets to the heart of the matter.

The truth is that road closures always have two effects. They result in:

? Outcome A: an absolute reduction in traffic (as people switch to other modes of transport); and

? Outcome B: a displacement of traffic from the closed roads to other roads.

In an ideal world, the relative weight of the two effects would tip towards Outcome A. But that usually only happens if the government commits to a concomitant (and significant) investment in public transport.

And, however much we might wish that there was zero displacement, in practice that is always displacement.

Let?s leave to one side the adverse impact of road closures on the mobility of our elderly neighbours and our shopkeepers. And let?s focus purely on the "fairness" trade-offs as between Outcome A and Outcome B.

My personal view is that an absolute reduction in traffic (which we hope the road closures will achieve) can offset (I hesitate to use the word ?justify?) the unfairness of displacing traffic from my road onto other roads. And, indeed, I don?t see how we can move to a healthier, low-carbon, future without having to make these uncomfortable trade-offs.

It would, of course, be fairer if the traffic displacement was from poorer, more densely packed areas to richer, greener, areas. Instead ? in the case of the Dulwich Village Junction closure ? the displacement effect goes the other way round. Not a good look.

But I am enough of a realist to know that most sustainability/healthier living initiatives usually start in middle class areas before they spread to less privileged areas. And that?s why I can support the timed road closures proposed by onedulwich.uk. They will, unquestionably, result in some displacement (regrettable and inequitable) but, hopefully, they will also result in an overall reduction in traffic, from which everybody will, ultimately, benefit.

That?s why it?s so important to ensure that the majority of the most directly affected residents are carried along and don?t feel alienated by a decision making process that must ? inevitably ? result in asymmetric outcomes for different constituents. You can?t please all the people all the time. But you can, at least, desist from rushing into blunderbuss decisions that don?t command broad community support.

[wulfhound]

@dande

1) Our elderly neighbours for whom this blanket restriction in access is something which is a major source of distress and a reduction in mobility and independence;

I have elderly and car-dependent relatives, although not in this area.. I can understand their trepidation (especially in the light of CV19, a terrifying experience for many), but at the same time this reads a little of hyperbole when weighed against the likely reality of five or ten minutes more in the car a couple of times a week.

Unlike OHS, this programme is a trial - they can't make it permanent without a full consultation, at which point those affected will be able to report their lived experience of the outcome.

If that turns out to be ten minutes' extra in the car twice a week, that might be a price worth paying. If it ends up being half an hour sat in fumes on the South Circular each way just to get to the GP, much less so. But the only way to find out is to try.

It would, of course, be fairer if the traffic displacement was from poorer, more densely packed areas to richer, greener, areas. Instead ? in the case of the Dulwich Village Junction closure ? the displacement effect goes the other way round. Not a good look.

I think this viewpoint has been somewhat overblown by people who, overtly or otherwise, want to maintain the status quo. Most if not all of the large mid-C20th housing estates in our area are low-traffic by design: by the time they were built, the problems caused by traffic were widely understood. There are specific roads that need to be kept a close eye on though - Pytchley Road is one that springs to mind, I don't know if any of the current plans are likely to displace traffic on to it, but if so it needs an intervention or rethink.