LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[JohnL]

Roky Erickson Wrote:

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

> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/05/grant-

> shapps-tells-councils-stop-abusing-250m-fund-meant

> -green/

>

> This is brilliant news. I?m sure the Dulwich

> changes are very eminent candidates for this sort

> of reversal, given the obvious problems caused

Every closure had to be submitted to central government for scrutiny and approval.

"The government therefore expects local authorities to make significant changes to their road layouts to give more space to cyclists and pedestrians. "

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reallocating-road-space-in-response-to-covid-19-statutory-guidance-for-local-authorities/traffic-management-act-2004-network-management-in-response-to-covid-19

Maybe cancel all of them tomorrow as requested by Shapps ?

It's like he has two personalities .... oh :)

[JohnL]

Actually I'm fed up with drunken people from the Rye Lane nightclubs trying to catch taxi's outside my flat at 4AM because it's still open. LOL. I put up with it for the greater good - but if nobody wants it :)

[mockingbird]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/05/grant-shapps-tells-councils-stop-abusing-250m-fund-meant-green/

this link to Shapps article should work

[Spartacus]

The good thing about this change of heart from Shapps is that councils will now need to consult on changes rather than dictate to their voters

It may still result in the same changes occurring but at least people will feel that they've had their input to the process.

[JohnL]

mockingbird Wrote:

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

> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/05/grant-

> shapps-tells-councils-stop-abusing-250m-fund-meant

> -green/

> this link to Shapps article should work

The last one worked for me - but there is a paywall on telegraph

[JohnL]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> The good thing about this change of heart from

> Shapps is that councils will now need to consult

> on changes rather than dictate to their voters

>

If you keep changing policy it may show to some you are listening but you can't really plan ahead for this sort of governing. The next time a cyclist pops into see Cummings will it change again ?

[Metallic]

I'm too old and a bit too skeletally delicate to carry shopping or cycle. If one more person asks me to book a cargo bike delivery I will explode.

[Mrs Nicklin]

I can't believe this is happening. Cycling is not really an option when you have to get 2 small kids to get to school and there is literally no other way that the South Circular and a car, electric or not.

The standstill traffic is horrific for pollution and traffic AND not all the schools have even gone back yet. We might have to take ours out of their school as we just cannot afford a 1h 45 min round trip twice a day when we're both working.

Totally mismanaged and selfish by the looks of what I've read. You cannot just do this to people. It stinks of NIMBYism

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

mrwb Wrote:

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

> Crime, unemployment and associated economic crisis

> what we need to deal with. Car usage will

> naturally decline as people leave.

What population level will "naturally" take us down to an acceptable level of congestion and pollution in London? How long will that take?

[Shaggy]

Mrs Nicklin Wrote:

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

> I can't believe this is happening. Cycling is not

> really an option when you have to get 2 small kids

> to get to school and there is literally no other

> way that the South Circular and a car, electric or

> not.

>

> The standstill traffic is horrific for pollution

> and traffic AND not all the schools have even

> gone back yet. We might have to take ours out of

> their school as we just cannot afford a 1h 45 min

> round trip twice a day when we're both working.

>

> Totally mismanaged and selfish by the looks of

> what I've read. You cannot just do this to people.

> It stinks of NIMBYism

This is clearly causing chaos, and inconveniencing many people. However, what exactly is selfish or NIMBYish about this situation?

Inconvenient, yes. Annoying, yes. But selfish? Who is being selfish?

[Bicknell]

some streets empty of traffic, others crammed full. People in the empty streets say, its lovely, and wont listen to anyones problems. thats selfish I guess.

[rachp]

I don't think it's accurate to portray this debate as the privileged few living on now quieter roads vs. everyone else. There are lots of people (myself included) who don't live on these roads but welcome the opportunity to get around locally and access these streets on foot and bike because they are safer and nicerto travel on. And I genuinely hope that over time, there will be enough people who think differently about local travel because ?there are too many cars on the road, creating too much pollition. We are all selfish if we advocate an outcome that suits us better, that's how this works.

[rupert james]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> mrwb Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Crime, unemployment and associated economic

> crisis

> > what we need to deal with. Car usage will

> > naturally decline as people leave.

>

> What population level will "naturally" take us

> down to an acceptable level of congestion and

> pollution in London? How long will that take?

The ULZ according to Khan the Magnificent will have the potential to take 2.7million off the road in 2021.

Many of these cars may not be replaced as the people who have and rely on their cars will not have the money to replace them.

[thebestnameshavegone]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> The good thing about this change of heart from

> Shapps is that councils will now need to consult

> on changes rather than dictate to their voters

>

> It may still result in the same changes occurring

> but at least people will feel that they've had

> their input to the process.

Do you remember when you voted for your local councillors? That was when you had 'input to this process'.

[heartblock]

I cycle and walk and use public transport. Mynroad East Dulwich Grove is now a nightmare for cyclists, pedestrians and bus users. Everyone walking down that road 5 days a week to school or work is breathing in standing traffic fumes. It is also horrible living on my street during the 6 hours that the road is taking up displaced traffic.

[Metallic]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> I cycle and walk and use public transport. Mynroad

> East Dulwich Grove is now a nightmare for

> cyclists, pedestrians and bus users. Everyone

> walking down that road 5 days a week to school or

> work is breathing in standing traffic fumes. It is

> also horrible living on my street during the 6

> hours that the road is taking up displaced

> traffic.

Exactly.

[Rockets]

rachp Wrote:

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

> I don't think it's accurate to portray this debate

> as the privileged few living on now quieter roads

> vs. everyone else. There are lots of people

> (myself included) who don't live on these roads

> but welcome the opportunity to get around locally

> and access these streets on foot and bike because

> they are safer and nicerto travel on. And I

> genuinely hope that over time, there will be

> enough people who think differently about local

> travel because ?there are too many cars on the

> road, creating too much pollition. We are all

> selfish if we advocate an outcome that suits us

> better, that's how this works.

I think it is fair, however, to say that one of the consequences of the closures in Dulwich Village in particular is that they are displacing a lot of traffic away from some of the least populated parts of the area and are causing congestion and additional pollution on roads that pass through some of the most densely populated parts of the area.

[JohnL]

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> Spartacus Wrote:

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

> -----

> > The good thing about this change of heart from

> > Shapps is that councils will now need to

> consult

> > on changes rather than dictate to their voters

> >

> > It may still result in the same changes

> occurring

> > but at least people will feel that they've had

> > their input to the process.

>

>

> Do you remember when you voted for your local

> councillors? That was when you had 'input to this

> process'.

We are only a democracy at that point you put your vote in the box, that's why you should vote for someone you trust to do as they say and have a moral compass.

[Rockets]

JohnL Wrote:

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

> thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Spartacus Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > The good thing about this change of heart

> from

> > > Shapps is that councils will now need to

> > consult

> > > on changes rather than dictate to their voters

>

> > >

> > > It may still result in the same changes

> > occurring

> > > but at least people will feel that they've

> had

> > > their input to the process.

> >

> >

> > Do you remember when you voted for your local

> > councillors? That was when you had 'input to

> this

> > process'.

>

> We are only a democracy at that point you put your

> vote in the box, that's why you should vote for

> someone you trust to do as they say and have a

> moral compass.

But hang on a minute....two years ago when we voted for our councillors there was a clearly defined process for such closures which involved a "consultation" process. As Cllr McAsh admits the council (at the behest of central government I hasten to add) are now doing things backwards - putting the closures in place and then doing the consultation...which is a bit like announcing a new prime minister and then asking for the people to vote on whether they agree with it or not - which as far as I am aware isn't used anywhere globally as part of a democratic process....

Of course, the concern for the councillors must be that an 18 month trial period takes us pretty much to the next council elections....

[rachp]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> rachp Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I don't think it's accurate to portray this

> debate

> > as the privileged few living on now quieter

> roads

> > vs. everyone else. There are lots of people

> > (myself included) who don't live on these roads

> > but welcome the opportunity to get around

> locally

> > and access these streets on foot and bike

> because

> > they are safer and nicerto travel on. And I

> > genuinely hope that over time, there will be

> > enough people who think differently about local

> > travel because ?there are too many cars on the

> > road, creating too much pollition. We are all

> > selfish if we advocate an outcome that suits us

> > better, that's how this works.

>

>

> I think it is fair, however, to say that one of

> the consequences of the closures in Dulwich

> Village in particular is that they are displacing

> a lot of traffic away from some of the least

> populated parts of the area and are causing

> congestion and additional pollution on roads that

> pass through some of the most densely populated

> parts of the area.

I get that and as I live close to LL, and my kids are in schools and nurseries on LL and EDG, I'm not thrilled about that either. But I do believe that the ultimate solution is less cars, not more roads. We stopped using our car within London along time ago because of the pain of parking on our road...(not because we were taking a moral high ground). Even with two small kids, we still find it preferable to walk or jump on public transport. I'm hoping

that we can now start cycling more. So I hope that with the carrot of more appealing routes, more people will feel compelled to do this. So those living on main roads aren't more adversely affected by pollution than they already were. Obviously there is some incompetence in how this has been implemented, and hopefully the the council will right this. I don't get why so many roads off Grove Vale need to be closed ,and impact on businesses needs to be taken very seriously. It's not always a bad thing for business e.g. in Northcote road, they've reported a big uplift in takings aa a result of the pedestrianised road. But this might not transpire for Melbourne Grove.

I just don't see it as black and white- all road closures bad except for the privileged few.

[Shaggy]

Just putting this out there: possibly undemocratic methods, unintended consequences, and current inconvenience aside, does anyone disagree with the council's goal of reducing traffic?

Does anyone think we should have the right to use our cars as much as we like?

Does anyone think that those who can use alternative means of transport, such as bikes, should?

[dulwichfolk]

Is just seems the pro closure will throw any stat at the subject.

Northcote Road uplift due to pedestrianisation - really? Not due to more people at home or the eat out scheme. Maybe

[Rockets]

The issue remains that similar projects (and I hasten to add projects that were implemented before Covid and before people were wary of returning to public transport) have netted about an 11% reduction in car use, meaning that 89% of the journeys merely are being done via other routes.

The reason they are having to close off the roads around Grove Vale is that when they close Melbourne Grove all the cars will try to find another route. They are chasing the displacement. Close one road here, the cars go there so you close that road too. This then funnels even more traffic down the main roads massively increasingly the pollution as more cars spend time idling in traffic for longer - it has been happening for the last two months only EDG and Lordship Lane since the DV closures.

The closures in Dulwich Village are funnelling traffic along East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane as the council is trying to prevent east west travel through Dulwich and it will get even worse when they close Townley, Burbage, Turney and the north/south route through Dulwich Village with East Dulwich taking the brunt of it.

[Melihoople]

Divide and conquer..Stronger together.

I think the aims of traffic/pollution reduction are something all can agree on.

What is needed is a bold, innovative and creative strategic view which tackles the public transport inequalities. It provides real solutions of which walking and cycling are one component.

People need real solutions not just a few planters blocking roads.

Pedestrians need to be higher up the priority list. The lordship lane/EDG junction is threat to safety as is the dulwich village/EDG junction. They have both become demonstrably less safe which was entirely predictable.

[rachp]

dulwichfolk Wrote:

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

> Is just seems the pro closure will throw any stat

> at the subject.

>

> Northcote Road uplift due to pedestrianisation -

> really? Not due to more people at home or the eat

> out scheme. Maybe

I'm sure people staying closer to home plays a part but it's closed at weekends only so the govt scheme isn't a factor here.