LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Metallic]

Suoerquick order of planters for the new SE22 sites. I wonder how long Dulwich Village will have to wait for the cameras to really muck it up totally.

[sally buying]

If you are under the impression that these trials are only for a temporary period see email regarding Champion Hill.

Just keep moving the goalposts

"Thank you for your e-mail.

I note your query on the reason for retaining the ?No Entry? restriction on Champion Hill.

Given the challenges in establishing the full CW 17 route to meet TfL?s cycling quality criteria , we recognise that the Champion Hill trial still needs further time to be in place before we can fully assess its impact on the local road network. We have therefore used the powers granted to the council under the May 2020 TMO changes to carry out a further trial period before determining whether this change should be made permanent. The re-trial will be in place for a maximum of 18 months, after which a decision on the way forward will be made, taking into consideration feedback or comment received from the public and monitoring data.

Your comment will be considered carefully in determining the way forward after the trial period

Given the reduced use of public transport in the lockdown, and the anticipated low usage levels for many months, it is important that the council and other strategic transport bodies consider how people will move around the capital. If we are to avoid this shift resulting in increased levels of car use it is vital for those bodies to take steps to encourage a modal shift towards walking and cycling. As you will be aware, the modal filter on Champion Hill was installed to assist in that modal shift."

Regards

[Spartacus]

Johnl

I think the engine running in stationary traffic refers to sitting in the queues created by the scheme, not people just sitting in a stationary vehicle at the side of the road.

With older cars, stopping and starting the engine often results in higher pollution levels then leaving it running for the sane period. Obviously this isn't the same for modern cars with auto stop / start

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I believe some schools have gone back today and

> as

> > I ran through Dulwich Village this morning at

> > around 7.30am there was stationary traffic from

> > the Village roundabout going northbound all the

> > way to the East Dulwich Grove junction. The

> folly

> > of these closures is there for us all to see

> and

> > we know the council is going to try and close

> the

> > village northbound to chase the displacement

> away

> > from the area but these closures are not

> working

> > and are creating far worse problems than

> before.

>

> I ran through Dulwich Village this morning at

> 7:30. It was pretty quiet. So what's this mean?

Well as I didn't run through the village this morning I cannot challenge that and but what I can say is my wife did at around 8.30am and her exact words to me upon her return was: "OMG it's gridlock in Dulwich Village - who was stupid enough to believe this wasn't going to be the outcome"....and my wife is always right! ;-)

[Rockets]

JohnL Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > heartblock Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > Frustrated car drivers making dangerous

> turns

> > > in

> > > > the road... children walking to school

> > > breathing

> > > > in traffic fumes. Time to rethink road

> > > closures.

> > >

> > > The answer to traffic fumes - make it easier

> > for

> > > people to drive anywhere they like!

> >

> >

> > But you have to admit a moving car emits less

> > fumes than a stationary car - so why create

> > gridlock and stationary traffic if you are

> trying

> > to reduce pollution?

>

> You're not supposed to have the engine on when

> stationary.

>

> https://www.edf.org/attention-drivers-turn-your-id

> ling-engines#:~:text=Turn%20off%20your%20ignition%

> 20if,driving%20it%2C%20not%20by%20idling.

They are supposed to but they do don't they - you're confusing the dream world with the real world and we deal with real world consequences and we can all say, categorically, that these closures are causing more congestion therefore more pollution on those roads not closed.

[Rockets]

Metallic Wrote:

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

> Suoerquick order of planters for the new SE22

> sites. I wonder how long Dulwich Village will

> have to wait for the cameras to really muck it up

> totally.

I suspect they wanted to get them in before/as the schools went back so they can blame the congestion and chaos on an increase in school traffic. Look how quickly Cllr Livingstone was to grandstand to his echo chamber on twitter yesterday.

[Abe_froeman]

Suspect they wanted to get them in quick before the backlash elsewhere against this nonsense fully tips into ED and it became impossible for them to implement.

[mrwb]

What has happened was totally obvious. Total gridlock around going to work and school time.

Standing traffic all over the place, more pollution than before. Hard to decide if local or central government are more incompetent at the moment ? They're both so awful it's pretty hard to decide...

Luckily I was walking today.

I also noticed children queuing outside bessemer grange primary this morning. Surely they can't be planning to do that all winter in snow and rain? Is ok in warm weather like today, if you want kids to get sick that is sure way of achieving it!

[Peckham Park]

Not that I?m much of a daily mail reader, but a google map graphic of congestion in London today at 8.30am shows that dulwich seems to be one of the worst affected areas in London for congestion. See https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8693455/New-cycle-friendly-road-blocks-stop-paramedics-reaching-patient.html

Maybe Southwark Council are turning Dulwich into a car park?

[Nigello]

Maybe too many drivers take too many trips that could be walked or cycled? Maybe too many people get up too late to accommodate breakfast, school bag packing and the ?school run?? Maybe too many people think common sense is for others? 🤨

[Earl Aelfheah]

I know people keep saying there is traffic chaos, but I haven't seen any evidence of it. Take a walk to Dulwich Village at 7:30 tomorrow and see for yourself.

The arguments that the south circular is suddenly polluted and congested as a result of Calton Avenue being made a no through road to cars, is frankly hilarious. As for the claim that people are only concerned about the impact on BAME communities... come on, really?

The suggestion that making it as easy as possible for people to drive is the best way to reduce pollution, seems fairly questionable.

[Rockets]

That map shows exactly what many on here were predicting - that Dulwich will soon be encircled by constant gridlock - although I hasten to add that I am not using Google Maps on the Daily Mail as the gospel!

What is interesting is that it appears both sections of the A205 west and east were struggling - at 8.30am it is normally only the west bound section that is congested but it appears eastbound too now - no doubt as people avoid using Dulwich Village.

It will probably be even worse come evening rush-hour.

Also, Lordship Lane now seems to be very red.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Ultimately, if you want to reduce pollution, you have to reduce the number of car journeys. It has been shown time and time again that when you make it more difficult to use the car for short journeys, the number of journeys reduces. Not all traffic gets displaced onto other roads.

I would like to see better monitoring of the impacts, as there are likely to be some unintended consequences. I would also like to see more investment in alternatives - public transport, local hire bike schemes etc. But ultimately, we do have to take some action to improve the local environment and creating some low traffic neighbourhoods is a good start.

The idea that there is a 'war on the motorist', or that Southwark want to 'punish people who drive' is absurd. Motor vehicles are given massively disproportionate amount of space, resources and general deference. They dominate almost every street in Southwark, despite most people not owning a car. Cars are hugely indulged despite their pretty significant downsides for everyone.

I would appeal people to let the schemes bed in and try to honestly assess their impact over the coming months.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> That map shows exactly what many on here were

> predicting - that Dulwich will soon be encircled

> by constant gridlock - although I hasten to add

> that I am not using Google Maps on the Daily Mail

> as the gospel!

>

> What is interesting is that it appears both

> sections of the A205 west and east were struggling

> - at 8.30am it is normally only the west bound

> section that is congested but it appears eastbound

> too now - no doubt as people avoid using Dulwich

> Village.

>

> It will probably be even worse come evening

> rush-hour.

>

> Also, Lordship Lane now seems to be very red.

Yet people on this thread are claiming that Dulwich Village is back to back trafffic?!

[Earl Aelfheah]

Also, when was the South Circular not red during rush hour? During lock down perhaps, but I'm old enough (over 6 months old) to remember when this was the normal state of things.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Ultimately, if you want to reduce pollution, you

> have to reduce the number of car journeys. It has

> been shown time and time again that when you make

> it more difficult to use the car for short

> journeys, the number of journeys reduces. Not all

> traffic gets displaced onto other roads.

> I would like to see better monitoring of the

> impacts, as there are likely to be some unintended

> consequences. I would also like to see more

> investment in alternatives - public transport,

> local hire bike schemes etc. But ultimately, we do

> have to take some action to improve the local

> environment and creating some low traffic

> neighbourhoods is a good start.

> The idea that there is a 'war on the motorist', or

> that Southwark want to 'punish people who drive'

> is absurd. Motor vehicles are given massively

> disproportionate amount of space, resources and

> general deference. They dominate almost every

> street in Southwark, despite most people not

> owning a car. Cars are hugely indulged despite

> their pretty significant downsides for everyone.

> I would appeal people to let the schemes bed in

> and try to honestly assess their impact over the

> coming months.

But rahrahrah - even Exdulwicher who works in the business says these schemes only net about a 10% reduction in car traffic - these schemes won't "bed in" as not enough people will stop using their cars. That means 90 odd percent of the traffic has to find another way.

And your comment on Dulwich Village not showing red on the Daily Mail map is because the map is not zoomed in far enough to show non A-roads. That's how Google Maps works you would have to zoom in further to see how non A-roads are being impacted.

[thebestnameshavegone]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> @bestnamesetc

> Which roads do your childern use to get to school,

> The ones the councillors are diverting traffic

> onto?

My kids walk to school. Anyone driving their kids to school shouldn't be allowed to live in London.

[Abe_froeman]

You're a lucky guy.

My neighbour's kid starts at the Judith Kerr school next week. 1.5 miles walk each way is quite a big expectation for a four year old, especially at the end of the day.

[Serena2012]

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> slarti b Wrote:

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

> -----

> > @bestnamesetc

> > Which roads do your childern use to get to

> school,

> > The ones the councillors are diverting

> traffic

> > onto?

>

>

> My kids walk to school. Anyone driving their kids

> to school shouldn't be allowed to live in London.

My kids will also walk to school, and by and large, for those who are state educated, or indeed privately educated at nearby schools, this is feasible. The difficulty arises in the context of the area?s private schools (and indeed, state schools with very large catchments), where you have parents from all over South London driving their children to school. I don?t condone this behaviour, BUT I can totally see that if you live in Clapham, Brockley or Forest Hill and have a child at Alleyn?s, JAGS or Dulwich Prep, if they?re too young for school coaches, with public transport East- West being so poor, the only realistic way of getting them to school, unless you?re a very confident cyclist (and even then, cycling more than one child is tricky), is to drive.

I say this, as someone who now has queuing traffic outside their home for the first time as a result of these changes. It has been obvious from the start that closing roads without addressing the reason people jump into their cars to begin with (which is that public transport infrastructure in this part of London is very poor) is a recipe for disaster.

[Spartacus]

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> slarti b Wrote:

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

> -----

> > @bestnamesetc

> > Which roads do your childern use to get to

> school,

> > The ones the councillors are diverting

> traffic

> > onto?

>

>

> My kids walk to school. Anyone driving their kids

> to school shouldn't be allowed to live in London.

Controversy could reverse that and say anyone living in London shouldn't be allowed to have kids. 😱

Strangely whilst I don't agree with it as a statement it has the potential to reduce the population in London, thus reducing the number of journeys needed to be undertaken by cars.

The Chinese practiced birth control allowing only one child per couple, maybe that's the lesson we should take from communism. Reduce the population to reduce car journeys 😆 (just don't tell the council as it will be on the next council agenda)

[seenbeen]

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> slarti b Wrote:

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

> -----

> > @bestnamesetc

> > Which roads do your childern use to get to

> school,

> > The ones the councillors are diverting

> traffic

> > onto?

>

>

> My kids walk to school. Anyone driving their kids

> to school shouldn't be allowed to live in London.

When you allow parents to send their children to any school of their choice then some- especially those going to faith primary schools- will have to drive them- just go and have a look around Francesca Cabrini school morning and afternoon.

Unfortunately you cannot drop your kids at school and then get to work for a reasonable time by public transport given the poor service to some areas.

[Metallic]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > That map shows exactly what many on here were

> > predicting - that Dulwich will soon be

> encircled

> > by constant gridlock - although I hasten to add

> > that I am not using Google Maps on the Daily

> Mail

> > as the gospel!

> >

> > What is interesting is that it appears both

> > sections of the A205 west and east were

> struggling

> > - at 8.30am it is normally only the west bound

> > section that is congested but it appears

> eastbound

> > too now - no doubt as people avoid using

> Dulwich

> > Village.

> >

> > It will probably be even worse come evening

> > rush-hour.

> >

> > Also, Lordship Lane now seems to be very red.

>

> Yet people on this thread are claiming that

> Dulwich Village is back to back trafffic?!

I went to look this morning. Yes, back to back to back to back to back, coaches, cars and vans. What fun to breathe that in if you live in those cottages opposite the Dog.

[heartblock]

It was always busy on East Dulwich Grove, but this morning traffic driving up to the Village was at a standstill and cars were belching out fumes. Walk down the road at 8:00 tomorrow to see for yourself. Maybe stand there for 30 minutes and breath in the lovely fumes. I strongly believe in people taking up cycling, walking and driving electric cars. I also support healthier streets.. but for all residents, not just the lucky gated few that now have all their traffic on my road, outside my house, polluting my family.

[andrewc]

Today at 3.45pm

[Serena2012]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> It was always busy on East Dulwich Grove, but this

> morning traffic driving up to the Village was at a

> standstill and cars were belching out fumes. Walk

> down the road at 8:00 tomorrow to see for

> yourself. Maybe stand there for 30 minutes and

> breath in the lovely fumes. I strongly believe in

> people taking up cycling, walking and driving

> electric cars. I also support healthier streets..

> but for all residents, not just the lucky gated

> few that now have all their traffic on my road,

> outside my house, polluting my family.

Hear hear Heartblock. I couldn?t agree more. And YES RahRah, the traffic on the Northern section of EDG today is worse than it has ever been.