LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Dulwichgirl82]

I?ve realised there?s a fundamental value difference, I don?t feel that the more vulnerable in

Society should be sacrificed to protect the more affluent. The idea that ?something must be done? and therefore even something harming people is better than nothing is the issue.

There are other options some of which have Been discussed In this thread. Something designed to help everyone ESPECIALLY those most disadvantaged is what is needed, not to protect the wealthy few at the expense of others.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Nigello Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Rah x 3 talks sense.

>

>

> .... if you happen to be so inclined to the stuff

> they talk....

>

> I think the majority actually want all road users

> to be considered and not have a lot of roads

> closed to one section of road users....now that's

> sense!

>

> It seems that anything other than an A road is

> considered by Rahrahrah as a side street and

> somehow should be for the exclusive use of

> cyclists only....

[legalalien]

Dulwichgirl82 - I think it?s more an issue of the liberal elite in action at a local level. Those supporting the closures likely genuinely believe that at a macro level they are doing the best overall for society as a whole. They think that those complaining are unenlightened and probably a bit thick. That?s why their guidelines for local government (I?m still trying to get my head around the idea of lobby groups producing guidelines of this kind tbh) that say things like this:

?We keep asking residents to make decisions in the wrong place at the wrong time. Given that residents vote for politicians and policies across an area, we shouldn?t then repeatedly query those mandates on a street by street basis.

It is for politicians and officers, as experts, to work out how to get more people cycling, whether more car parking is a public good or not etc. Residents should instead be empowered to make decisions that involve their specific expertise about where they live: which are the most important short trips, where should planters go, what happens at night on your street, etc. Our current approach means consultation all too often reinforces the status quo rather than promoting the change we (almost) all know we need.?

The ?(almost)? really makes me bristle.

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> I?ve realised there?s a fundamental value

> difference, I don?t feel that the more vulnerable

> in

> Society should be sacrificed to protect the more

> affluent. The idea that ?something must be done?

> and therefore even something harming people is

> better than nothing is the issue.

> There are other options some of which have Been

> discussed In this thread. Something designed to

> help everyone ESPECIALLY those most disadvantaged

> is what is needed, not to protect the wealthy few

> at the expense of others.

>

>

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Nigello Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Rah x 3 talks sense.

> >

> >

> > .... if you happen to be so inclined to the

> stuff

> > they talk....

> >

> > I think the majority actually want all road

> users

> > to be considered and not have a lot of roads

> > closed to one section of road users....now

> that's

> > sense!

> >

> > It seems that anything other than an A road is

> > considered by Rahrahrah as a side street and

> > somehow should be for the exclusive use of

> > cyclists only....

[exdulwicher]

I think the majority actually want all road users to be considered and not have a lot of roads closed to one section of road users....now that's sense!

This smacks of the countless "Share The Road" campaigns that have been done over the years, all promising improved road safety and "awareness" and "respect" between drivers and cyclists / pedestrians.

None of them have ever worked, they're essentially ways for Government to say that they're very keen on promoting road safety and then never actually doing anything and just leaving the status quo of cars everywhere.

To drivers it means "Get out of the way, stop bothering me" and to pedestrians / cyclists / wheelchair users it means "Please don't kill me!"

For the last 30 years, no-one has considered "all" road users, they've considered how to make things easier for drivers. Cyclists get that bit of pointless paint along a bumpy kerb. Pedestrians get a couple of inconvenient zebra crossings 300m away from the shops they actually want to visit. Bus and train users have seen decades of fare rises and falling reliability. Meanwhile drivers get acres of free parking right outside the shops and a ten-year freeze on fuel duty.

That's the outcome of "considering all road users". It's marginalised cycling and walking to single digit percentages, it's made "the school run" a thing, even radio stations refer to it as "drivetime". We've sleepwalked into a state where driving half a mile is the default normal thing to do because it's so cheap and easy and because people are fundamentally lazy, they'll always take the easy option. Loads of roads, free parking = lots of driving.

Take away the free parking (CPZs), filter a few of the roads to actually FORCE change (the roads are not CLOSED, you can access any part of them by car, you just can't use them as a cut-through), make it more inconvenient to drive and easier to just walk / cycle through a filtered road and you start transitioning to considering ALL road users. Not just the easiest / quickest way through for cars.

The speed of the change is pretty unprecedented, not least for councils who are unused to working at this sort of speed of delivery but the longer the changes are left, the more severe they're going to have to be. Sorry, but that tipping point has been reached.

I don't necessarily agree with all the changes, I think some are going to have to be altered but the critical thing is that the information is established and acted upon. If you look to areas like Hackney and Walthamstow where these sort of changes have been in place for a while under whatever name they were given (Mini-Holland, Quietway, LTN etc), most have worked very well indeed and no-one wants the streets re-opened to a big free-for-all. Lambeth has actually done very well out of theirs, the communication has seemed a bit better.

[dougiefreeman]

Agree Dulwichgirl82

All the rhetoric I've read from RahRahRah, Nigello, Exdulwich and the few vocal others on here seems to have been roughly following these ideas:

1) Something has to be done - this is better than nothing

2) It doesn't matter if this something causes worse pollution / congestion for some Dulwich residents because the something is better than nothing (and then a bit of mis-direction firing a question back along the lines of 'WHY DO YOU WANT NOTHING? DO YOU LIKE POLLUTION?' etc)

3) We have to get rid of cars out of London, period. Literally any problems that that ideology causes is worth it - no exceptions.

4) We don't care that other residents are suffering. In fact we don't really believe they are suffering - this is all just moaning because people are desperate to drive everywhere.

I really don't understand why the pro-closure people are so reluctant to listen to the residents who are being adversely affected by these road closures. Why can't you just listen to them? I don't live on any of these roads - so am largely unaffected either way* - but I really feel for residents and businesses who are suffering as a result of these road closures. And I feel very strongly that a council not consulting residents beforehand is just wrong on all levels.

*This is of course unless I have to make an unavoidable journey in the car, in which case getting out of Dulwich is taking significantly longer at peak times due to the added congestion

[Dulwichgirl82]

Particularly agree about the residents of the affected roads and if you look at the street space thing for east dulwich there?s clearly a lot of uNhappy people including the residents of some of the roads affected. They report much higher traffic levels. Surely they should be listened to as they will experience it the most.

dougiefreeman Wrote:

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

> Agree Dulwichgirl82

>

> All the rhetoric I've read from RahRahRah,

> Nigello, Exdulwich and the few vocal others on

> here seems to have been roughly following these

> ideas:

>

> 1) Something has to be done - this is better than

> nothing

> 2) It doesn't matter if this something causes

> worse pollution / congestion for some Dulwich

> residents because the something is better than

> nothing (and then a bit of mis-direction firing a

> question back along the lines of 'WHY DO YOU WANT

> NOTHING? DO YOU LIKE POLLUTION?' etc)

> 3) We have to get rid of cars out of London,

> period. Literally any problems that that ideology

> causes is worth it - no exceptions.

> 4) We don't care that other residents are

> suffering. In fact we don't really believe they

> are suffering - this is all just moaning because

> people are desperate to drive everywhere.

>

> I really don't understand why the pro-closure

> people are so reluctant to listen to the residents

> who are being adversely affected by these road

> closures. Why can't you just listen to them? I

> don't live on any of these roads - so am largely

> unaffected either way* - but I really feel for

> residents and businesses who are suffering as a

> result of these road closures. And I feel very

> strongly that a council not consulting residents

> beforehand is just wrong on all levels.

>

> *This is of course unless I have to make an

> unavoidable journey in the car, in which case

> getting out of Dulwich is taking significantly

> longer at peak times due to the added congestion

[slarti b]

@ Exdulwicher

Thank for responding to, though not answering, my question ;-). Anyway, responding to some of your points.

"I've not answered because here is no one answer to "what roads should be used instead?". It depends on the journey. Start/end points, "ideal" route vs other options......"

I accept that displacement will depend on many factors but, to my mind, that is not a valid reason for not doing some forecasting of what will happen. In particular where there is an obvious alternative route, eg DV\EDG rather than Calton surely that should be looked at? You do not need ot be a qualified traffic engineer to work out how the traffic flows will change.

In seems to me highly irresponsible to say, as the councillors did with the OHS scheme which forms thr basis of these measures, "we are going to divert 7,000 vehicles a day onto 'main' roads" but not even attempt to establish which roads those are and what the effect will be on the inhabitanats of those roads.

"One of the benefits of doing it this way with temporary measures and then just looking at what actually happens is you don't really need a huge amount of "before" data

But if you want to see the effect on roads such as EDG surely you need "before data"? We are already seeing councillors, sorry posters such as KatyPoo, saying EDG was always this bad. But, conveniently they haven't actually measured how it was before? Sadly though, Southwark Councillors and officers have a track record of maniupulating traffic data so any figures they do produce will be questionable.

It won't all be perfect but it's a lot better than building an entire new junction then coming back and redoing it 2 years later. Well , that is exactly what Southwark have done with the DV junction. They ignored residents who pointed out all the the issues, spent huge sums on teh remodelling which made thinsg worse and are now justifying the these new measures on the basis of lies about traffic volumes.

However, what we are seeing here is not "temporary measures" From the tone of the councillors comms this is a back door way to implement the old OHS scheme with no scrutiny or consultation on the basis it will become permanent at the end of 18 months.

I'm not a fan of weekend concerts and other assorted crap in Dulwich Square (or whatever its name is this week) by the way. It's a road and it's still used by pedestrians and cyclists; muppets doing the waltz there get right in the way!

I think it is now Margy Newens plaza ;-).

On a technical point can you help me. The official road signs say "Road Closed". My understanding is this for all vehicles including cyclists. They dont't say "Road closed except for cyclists" do they?

There are the strange green signs saying access for pedestirans, scooters etc but, as far as I am aware they are not official and have no legal status. Indeed they are very confusing.

What is the legal position here

(not yet edited for spelling, sorry)

[legalalien]

Don't think the green signs are official : https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2020/sep/03/road-closed-open-signs-low-traffic-neighbourhoods. The closures, as gazetted, apply to vehicles other than pedal cycles.

[slarti b]

But the road signs are very clear, they say "Road Closed" not "Road closed except for cyclists" which is a valid alternative. Doe sthis mean Soutwark have screwed up with the signs? Given their history it wouldn't suprise me

And if the green signs are not official, who put them up and what is their legal status? If the council put them up do they have the authority to do this?

Anyway, lets see how ExDulwicher, who I think is a traffic expert employed by a local authority, responds.

[alex_b]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> But this rather begs the question, what are side

> streets and what are 'main arteries'. There are NO

> 'main arteries locally - even the South Circular

> is no more than a 2 lane highway for much of its

> length - and many of the 'side streets' are no

> less wide than the 'not' side streets.

> Furthermore, if you're driving about SE London the

> 'obvious' way to get somewhere is through the

> 'side streets' which are direct links - and, as

> I've said, hardly less wide, sometimes the same

> width, as the 'main' streets.

Well LL, EDG and the South Circular are all designated as A roads and have been for decades. So it?s pretty clear that through traffic should be on these roads, not on side roads. As for the side streets being the ?obvious? route, taxis aside I think the ?obvious? routes only became that way with the advent of Waze and other apps. For instance there?s no way you?d be getting foreign coaches and articulated lorries getting stuck on the corner of Adys Rd and Nutbrook St on an almost weekly basis without satnavs ?helping? them shave two minutes off their journey.

[Rockets]

Interesting that the pro-closure lobby cites what is happening in Waltham Forest as a shining light of the LTN yet go to their Streetscape site and things don't look too rosy....well very rosy given the overwhelming red comments submitted...

https://newhamwalthamforestltn.commonplace.is/schemes/proposals/give-us-your-feedback/details

Also it is worth looking at the numbers from Waltham Forest themselves. 5 of 12 surrounding streets experienced increases in traffic when they did the trial. This dropped when the trial was made permanent but on the 3 border roads traffic increased on all of them.

https://enjoywalthamforest.co.uk/work-in-your-area/walthamstow-village/comparison-of-vehicle-numbers-before-and-after-the-scheme-and-during-the-trial/

It's amazing what happens when you do your own research.

Also very interested to hear what the maximum amount of traffic "evaporation" was seen in any of the 60 schemes worldwide that have the median average of 11%.

Even Living Streets posted an article last year that said the following....

In half of the case studies, there was a 11% reduction in number of vehicles across the whole area where roadspace for traffic was reduced, including the main roads.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/londonlivingstreets.com/2019/07/11/evaporating-traffic-impact-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-on-main-roads/amp/

[slarti b]

exdulwicher Wrote: Back on page 41, I posted a link to a meta-analysis study which had looked at 60 traffic

> reduction schemes worldwide to assess various measures and outcomes. Obviously very few people actually bothered

> reading the thing and someone asked about overall reduction - I copied and pasted an extract from

> the report which stated a MEDIAN (not a maximum) outcome across all these various schemes

ExDulwicher,

The original study , which I think dates from 1998, make interesting reading, though I confess I have not yet read the whole document. However, from what i have seen the figures quoted for "average " traffic reductions are highly flawed and the statistics are far from "scientific". To be frank it seems to be a biased study designed to support the authors pre concieved opinions and it stinks.

You asked about flaws and bias in this study

- the statistics quoted calculate the % changes based on the road closed rather than the wider area. Very nerdy but this is a highly subjective choice that favours the author's premise rather than an objective evaluation of the consequences of road closures. The choice of this demonstrates this is a biased polemical article rather than an unbiased scientific analysis.

- in calculating the "average" traffic reduction the authors double or treble counted examples that favoured their premise, eg Nurnberg (but see below), eg A13 repeated 3 times for a 1 day, pre-advertised closure, Partingdale Lane etc etc

- in many of the samples used, the "study" assumed there were no alternative routes that needed monitoring

- some of the examples used in calculations were totally incorrect, eg we have the double counted examples of Nurnberg showing reductions of 146% ( yes really) and 86% but from a follow on article it seems the traffic over the wider area actually increased.

- the calculations of the mean and median had no weightings based on on size or length of study.

I am surprised by the prominence given to this study. Can you tell me whether the study itself and more specifically the statistical results were peer reviewed? If so, please provide a reference

The meta-analysis used data going back over 50 years and was originally published over 20 years ago and from from my review the conclusions it draws seem highly flawed. Can you provide an up-to-date, peer reviewed, fully objective study that shows when and under what circumstances evaporation occurs.

[Abe_froeman]

Even if that study were bullet proof the favoured statistic that keeps being churned out means that in half of all LTNs traffic evaporation was less than 10.9 %

So there's a fifty fifty chance than more than 90% of all the traffic previously using closed roads is simply displaced onto other roads. As we see so obviously on Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove.

Those comments above from cyclists about the additional pollution suffered by schoolchildren being a necessary evil are absolutely appalling. No wonder they find it so hard to bring non-cyclists with them when they promote such monstrous ideas.

[legalalien]

It looks from this (blog and subsequent comments from the author) that there isn?t yet a lot of hard evidence out there - in particular evidence that takes account the impact on neighbouring roads- but there are some ongoing studies.

http://rachelaldred.org/research/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-evidence/

[Earl Aelfheah]

?It?s the liberal elite? and people ?without compassion? now, who support LTNs 🥴.

Where as those who believe every street should be available for (a minority of) car owners to cut through, are fighting variously for:

The BAME community

The poorest in society (even though they?re less likely to drive themselves of course, but you know we?ll spread our pollution so...considerate

The children (will no one think of the children?)

The elderly and sick (better crammed on to narrow pavements for their own safety)

The emergency services (LTNs are literally killing people!!!)

Anti pollution (I do drive an SUV, but if you let me drive it faster and where ever / whenever I want it?ll help honest)

Sharing space with everyone (not in a balanced or proportionate way though, some are more equal than others)

What the anti ?space to play, walk and cycle? peeps definitely aren?t upset about, is any personal inconvenience. No, no, this is about a deep concern for others. Definitely.

What is absolutely clear, is that the only answer to traffic and pollution is to do nothing. And certainly not to do anything to make it less convenient to drive. On this, we must all surely agree.

[Dulwichgirl82]

Looking at what she has written it seems they haven?t really counted the effect on surrounding streets, or traffic counts at all? Just noted those living in the LTN Potentially use their cars less, and seem to do more active travel. There don?t seem to be any significant findings on those outside the ltn. This feels rather incomplete as surely the effect of causing other traffic to travel further may negate this. Impossible to say as they don?t seem to be studying this

legalalien Wrote:

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

> It looks from this (blog and subsequent comments

> from the author) that there isn?t yet a lot of

> hard evidence out there - in particular evidence

> that takes account the impact on neighbouring

> roads- but there are some ongoing studies.

>

> http://rachelaldred.org/research/low-traffic-neigh

> bourhoods-evidence/

[Rockets]

My goodness, when you scratch a little deeper the Waltham Forest results are shocking. So when I looked at the ?bordering road? that has seen a 28% increase in traffic on Google maps it looked a very long way from the LTN area.

Here?s the location they saw the 28% increase:

Shernhall Street - traffic count North of Maynard Road, approximately outside the Methodist Church 7,231 9,276 2,045 28 per cent increase

That measuring point is 3.1 miles away from Ramsay Road which is the northern most street in the LTN area.

3.1 miles away and they were feeling a 28% increase in traffic which makes you wonder what the increases are within half a mile of the closures.

It?s basically like saying the Oval will feel a 28% increase in traffic from the DV closures.

Even the street with the lowest increase (Hoe Street 2%) is 4 miles from the northern most closure point.

It is growing clearer and clearer to me that all these great examples the pro-closure lobby cite are in fact anything but and the information being presented to the public is being manipulated by the councils and planning departments to try and create a positive message when none exists.

A bit like a bomb being dropped somewhere the blast zone and damage travels a long way from the epicentre.

Can any of the pro-lobby provide anything to counter this?

[Serena2012]

RahRah: Conscious that you will never agree with me on this topic. Like many others, what I want to see is a carefully modelled, borough wide, considered approach to air pollution, as opposed to the current square peg, round hole approach which significantly benefits some of the borough and the UK?s most affluent streets to the significant detriment of some of its poorest citizens, as well as thousands of schoolchildren. I?m also concerned about the impact on local trade as Lordship Lane has become far less pleasant now that traffic sits on its shopping area bumper to bumper for much of the day. Other shopping areas, such as Melbourne North are also far more difficult to get to than hitherto.

The research on the impact of fine particulate air pollution and Covid-19 whilst in its infancy makes it very clear that even very small increases in fine particulate pollution results in a significant increase in morbidity and mortality in the context of Covid-19. My section of EDG is seeing 6-8 hours of idling traffic Monday-Saturday in circumstances where it encountered none previously. It doesn?t take a rocket scientist to work out that my chances of being hospitalised and dying in the context of Covid-19 has just skyrocketed thanks to Southwark. This goes for all the residents of this street. Don?t even get me started on the life long negative consequences of exposure to air pollution.

My objection has nothing to do with maintaining the status quo (I don?t even drive), and everything to do with pointing out to the council that their current ill-thought through plans are fundamentally flawed; have made the EDG/ Lordship Lane junction more of a death trap than ever before; and are in fact increasing rather than reducing pollution as congestion on our roads is much greater than it ever was before.

I found this list of the top 5 most affluent streets in each borough quite interesting. It contains Court Lane Gardens, Burbage Road and Dulwich Village (all of which will ultimately benefit from Southwark?s meddling once phase 3 is introduced): https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.mylondon.news/news/property/london-house-prices-full-list-19067236.amp

[Serena2012]

Another resounding success for the Streetspace initiative? Is anyone else getting the impression that Southwark has taken money awarded as a result of the first wave of Covid-19 and used it in a way that creates another health crisis right on our doorstep? From pedestrianising Rye Lane, thereby making scenes like this a possibility to causing huge volumes of congestion (and therefore air pollution) on roads on which thousands of children are educated.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@serena2012 a fair enough, I do think there are legitimate criticisms of the way the council has gone about this and the way that they are measuring the impacts. I don?t doubt that there are many with genuine concerns. But there are at least as many who are simply annoyed that it?s harder for them to drive short journey and use side streets as cut throughs.

The Village changes are challenging, because it is such an affluent area - it?s east for people to cry foul. Rye Lane less so though. And across London, we are now seeing car journeys increase to above those of pre lockdown levels, due to people wishing to avoid public transport. This makes it more urgent to create some spaces which are ?relatively? congestion free, so that there are alternative routes for those wishing to walk and cycle. I?m confident that the local LTNs have led to fewer car journeys. I know I can?t prove it (this is where the council should be doing a better job collecting the data) but I see the number of kids walking down Melbourne Gtive and Carlton Avenue to school. I see it and my own experience is that I?m using the car less too. Those campaigning to ?get rid? of LTNs aren?t offering much by way of realistic alternatives and I don?t consider ?spreading the pain so that all areas are congested? to be an alternative.

Apologies for typos- typing on the go

[macutd]

these changes don't mean that more people will cycle. I find it much more dangerous now.I can't just stick to the back streets and have to use the overcrowded, polluted roads that have been created by these side roads closing.

[Serena2012]

RahRah: My own personal experience is that children have always walked to school along Calton Avenue and Melbourne Grove. In fact, wasn?t one of Southwark?s stats in one of their propaganda pieces relating to OHS based on the number of schoolchildren using the DV junction via active travel every day?

I?m a big fan of school streets, and definitely think the number of parents dropping off by car at Goose Green has reduced due to the school street on Elsie which is a good thing.

What I am however seeing is huge volumes of children (including the entirety of years 10 and 11 at Charter ED whose entry point to school is from EDG) walking along a much more heavily congested EDG than ever before. I?ve also seen a significant increase in breaches of the Highway Code on EDG, including an increase in lone adult cyclists on the pavement.

Historically, with children at nurseries in DV and Herne Hill, we would always hop on the 42/37 bus to take us to the junction of Townley if we were running late on the nursery run, as this would invariably shave 5-10 minutes off our journeys. Now, I have yet to have a morning where I haven?t beaten every 37 and 42 bus that had passed me on the walk between the LL junction and Townley along EDG as the road going South is bumper to bumper every morning.

The changes simply aren?t working here. Some of them need to be removed entirely and others converted to school streets.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> @serena2012 a fair enough, I do think there are

> legitimate criticisms of the way the council has

> gone about this and the way that they are

> measuring the impacts. I don?t doubt that there

> are many with genuine concerns. But there are at

> least as many who are simply annoyed that it?s

> harder for them to drive short journey and use

> side streets as cut throughs.

>

> The Village changes are challenging, because it is

> such an affluent area - it?s east for people to

> cry foul. Rye Lane less so though. And across

> London, we are now seeing car journeys increase to

> above those of pre lockdown levels, due to people

> wishing to avoid public transport. This makes it

> more urgent to create some spaces which are

> ?relatively? congestion free, so that there are

> alternative routes for those wishing to walk and

> cycle. I?m confident that the local LTNs have led

> to fewer car journeys. I know I can?t prove it

> (this is where the council should be doing a

> better job collecting the data) but I see the

> number of kids walking down Melbourne Gtive and

> Carlton Avenue to school. I see it and my own

> experience is that I?m using the car less too.

> Those campaigning to ?get rid? of LTNs aren?t

> offering much by way of realistic alternatives and

> I don?t consider ?spreading the pain so that all

> areas are congested? to be an alternative.

>

> Apologies for typos- typing on the go

Rahrahrah - at last, something we can agree on. I agree too that the LTNs have led to fewer car journeys but, paradoxically, Covid was already doing that as people reassessed their transport means in light of the pandemic. Yet the numbers of people able to make the change aren't sufficiently high enough to have a positive macro impact on the rest of the area as traffic is funnelled down fewer roads.

Look at that data I shared on the Waltham Forest LTN. There was a 28% increase in traffic on a road 3.1 miles from the LTN after it went in. Surely the only rational explanation for that is the displacement from the LTN is creating a displacement tsunami? And remember that Waltham Forest LTN happened well before Covid so you cannot pin that increase on that.

And stop defaulting to the weak "get rid of and not offering alternatives" narrative. There have been plenty offered on here - none of which the pro-closure lobby is seemingly keen to discuss. I wonder why?

[Dulwichgirl82]

I think what you are saying is very accurate.

I would think a reasonable middle ground might be to keep some of these changes(experimentally) and open some, for example I think opening Melbourne grove north and court lane would relieve some of the congestion on edg and ll but allow many of the closed roads to remain ?congestion free?. Also relieving the pressure of GG roundabout which causes back ups along grove vale and easy dulwich road.

Serena2012 Wrote:

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

> RahRah: My own personal experience is that

> children have always walked to school along Calton

> Avenue and Melbourne Grove. In fact, wasn?t one of

> Southwark?s stats in one of their propaganda

> pieces relating to OHS based on the number of

> schoolchildren using the DV junction via active

> travel every day?

>

> I?m a big fan of school streets, and definitely

> think the number of parents dropping off at Goose

> Green has reduced due to the school street on

> Elsie which is a good thing.

>

> What I am however seeing is huge volumes of

> children (including the entirety of years 10 and

> 11 at Charter ED whose entry point to school is

> from EDG) walking along a much more heavily

> congested EDG than ever before. I?ve also seen a

> significant increase in breaches of the Highway

> Code on EDG, including an increase in lone adult

> cyclists on the pavement.

>

> Historically, with children at nurseries in DV and

> Herne Hill, we would always hop on the 42/37 bus

> to take us to the junction of Townley if we were

> running late on the nursery run, as this would

> invariably shave 5-10 minutes off our journeys.

> Now, I have yet to have a morning where I haven?t

> beaten every 37 and 42 bus that had passed me on

> the walk between the LL junction and Townley along

> EDG as the road going South is bumper to bumper

> every morning.

>

> The changes simply aren?t working here. Some of

> them need to be removed entirely and others

> converted to school streets.

[Nigello]

👏

[Spartacus]

@rahrahrah

The question you raise about not offering alternatives, as there hasn't or possibly won't be a consultation by the council, anything anyone offered on here is irrelevant and what a lot of people are simply asking for is a proper consultation process on road closures to be run with concerns and views of all not just the few being taken into consideration.

Do you think changes that effect so many should be pushed through without a proper and inclusive consultation ?