LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[JohnL]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> 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?

[dougiefreeman]

cwjlawrence Wrote:

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

> but if I can

> reduce my car journeys by over 95% then I think

> that the majority of our community can too.

And here is the crux of the problem.

You, like the majority of the rest of the pro-closure lobby have decided, without any data, that it is perfectly possible for nearly everyone to stop using their car and either cycle or walk (or maybe use PT).

It appears you have a complete disregard to the countless different issues that many many different people have.

Just to give a few examples:

? The disabled or immobile

? Tradespeople, construction workers all of which have heavy tools needed for work

? Freelance events people with heavy equipment needed for work

? Musicians - again with large instruments needed for work

? Delivery drivers

? People who live in areas poorly served by public transport

You will undoubtedly say to me "but loads of people make un-necessary journeys too and so they need to be stopped"

You are quite right - but it doesn't seem a sensible approach to penalise / punish all the people using a vehicle for genuine purposes just to stop that. There IS a better and fairer approach.

'If I can do it, everyone else can' is a negligent position to take and one that should be challenged strongly in my view.

[Dulwichgirl82]

Cmjlawrence.

Quite a few things in your posts have struck me of the problems these closures have caused: you mention how disgusting it was breathing in the fumes on a closed road.. which must be much less than the roads which have taken the brunt of it. Your daughter is lucky she gets to go that way as if it were east dulwich grove it would be constant since the closures came in.

You also highlight the traffic on edg, next to two schools! Surely these are the routes we should be protecting.many children have to walk to these schools too.

Finally you mention not choosing between giving traffic to road a b or c, but this is what has happened. Some roads have given their traffic to others.

Overall the aim seems to be the same but the idea of anything is better than nothing I think is where we disagree, yes we need to find ways to make local journeys better by alternative means but we also need to acknowledge that not every can or will and also quite a lot of traffic isn?t local. So whatever we do need to help everyone not help some and disadvantage others.

cwjlawrence Wrote:

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

> Hi Slarti,

> Good question - I fear that I'm not going to give

> the answer that you want though :-)

>

> I'm not pro closure but I am extremely pro a

> massive reduction in pollution. You may have read

> my post this morning about the pollution I was on

> the receiving end of on both Carlton Avenue and

> Hillsboro - it was disgusting and poisonous - and

> these are streets that should have benefited from

> the road closures! I personally feel incredibly

> guilty about the amount that I have used my car

> over the last 15 (approx) years of living in East

> Dulwich. I am trying extremely hard to now not

> use my car at all - and yes - it is very difficult

> to do so but it's all I can do, to reduce the

> amount of driving that I do and hope that others

> do the same.

>

> I may be a bit stupid, but the problem I keep

> coming back to is that cars are so amazingly

> convenient that to get people to avoid using them

> is extremely difficult. Take this morning - I

> cycled back along East Dulwich Grove and there

> were people sitting in the lights at Alleyns/JAGs

> crossroads with their engines idling. If people

> are thoughtless enough to keep their engines

> running at a junction of 2 schools then what hope

> of getting them to get out of their cars?

>

> My personal view is that it is necessary to make

> car driving not so convenient and other forms of

> non-polluting transport more convenient. I would

> do this through a number of measures - but

> unfortunately, I think they amount to the same

> thing - making it less easy to drive. Having

> grown up outside of London, I can see that we are

> blessed here with really good public transport and

> there nothing stopping us (apart from ourselves)

> to reduce traffic. Of course, there are very good

> reasons why people need to drive, but if I can

> reduce my car journeys by over 95% then I think

> that the majority of our community can too.

>

> One thing that I hope we can agree on is that the

> road closures certainly are making us all think

> about our communities more and I dearly hope that

> the result will be a longer term set of strategies

> to reduce driving and make East Dulwich a nicer

> place for my family and of course yours also to

> live in.

>

> Best wishes,

> Chris

[Nigello]

'If I can do it, everyone else can' is a negligent position to take and one that should be challenged strongly in my view.

It depends on the person who hears it. Person A will say ?Hmm. Maybe s/he?s right. Let me make a concerted effort to cut down on some, not all, journeys at least three days a week.? Person B will say ?How dare people conclude that I can be like those who?ve reduced their car journeys. I?m offended and will make no effort to cut down because I feel maligned and slighted (even though the poster has literally no idea who I am and vice versa).?

[cwjlawrence]

@dougiefreeman and @Dulwichgirl82 - thanks both for your responses to my posts.

I am really struck by actually how aligned we all are in what we want. Dougie - I do take a little exception in your comments that I may have a complete disregard to peoples' issues. I can assure you that this isn't true - :-). Also, I'm not pro closure - I just want to be able to live somewhere that does not have the levels of pollution and traffic that we see in East Dulwich (and I'd like it sooner rather than later!)

The perfect strategy would be that people would only use their cars if they absolutely had to - e.g. musicians needing to carry their double basses, tradespeople and of course the list goes on. But the problem is that cars are just so convenient that of course relying on people to only make 'necessary journeys' is never going to happen. Hence, my point that we need to make it difficult for people to drive their cars which is probably through direct or indirect taxation - which in itself discriminates against people who can't afford this additional cost.

Dougie - my apologies if I have made my points badly or that they're unclear. But, please don't suggest that I have a complete disregard to others. That is not a fair comment. I completely respect your position and points of view and I hope that the opposite is the same.

Dulwichgirl82 - I think your points are very prescient. I get quite angry when I cycle along EDG - but I guess my ire is (probably in some cases very wrongly) at the drivers rather than a council trying to make things better (and quite potentially not getting it right). We want the same outcome I think!

[Dulwichgirl82]

I agree we are probably mostly aligned, idling cars are one of personal bug bears. I think it?s that I think something more borough wide is needed, something more significant. As I mentioned before making the LL end edg bus only or pedestrianising part of LL to discourage through traffic could maybe help everyone not just an affluent few. No idea of the practicality of this with tfl etc but maybe an idea. Then the side roads would hopefully only have local traffic on.

cwjlawrence Wrote:

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

> @dougiefreeman and @Dulwichgirl82 - thanks both

> for your responses to my posts.

>

> I am really struck by actually how aligned we all

> are in what we want. Dougie - I do take a little

> exception in your comments that I may have a

> complete disregard to peoples' issues. I can

> assure you that this isn't true - :-)

>

> The perfect strategy would be that people would

> only use their cars if they absolutely had to -

> e.g. musicians needing to carry their double

> basses, tradespeople and of course the list goes

> on. But the problem is that cars are just so

> convenient that of course relying on people to

> only make 'necessary journeys' is never going to

> happen. Hence, my point that we need to make it

> difficult for people to drive their cars which is

> probably through direct or indirect taxation -

> which in itself discriminates against people who

> can't afford this additional cost.

>

>

> Dougie - my apologies if I have made my points

> badly or that they're unclear. But, please don't

> suggest that I have a complete disregard to

> others. That is not a fair comment. I completely

> respect your position and points of view and I

> hope that the opposite is the same.

>

> Dulwichgirl82 - I think your points are very

> prescient. I get quite angry when I cycle along

> EDG - but I guess my ire is (probably in some

> cases very wrongly) at the drivers rather than a

> council trying to make things better (and quite

> potentially not getting it right). We want the

> same outcome I think!

[first mate]

So if you pedestrianise part of LL and many side streets disallow traffic, how would you make necessary journeys that could not be undertaken via active travel or public transport?

[Dulwichgirl82]

Don?t get me wrong this is an off the cuff idea. But those journeys would go via side streets or public transport or I guess a much longer way round. It would need modelling, data and a proper consultation!

first mate Wrote:

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

> So if you pedestrianise part of LL and many side

> streets disallow traffic, how would you make

> necessary journeys that could not be undertaken

> via active travel or public transport?

[dougiefreeman]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> 'If I can do it, everyone else can' is a negligent

> position to take and one that should be challenged

> strongly in my view.

>

> It depends on the person who hears it. Person A

> will say ?Hmm. Maybe s/he?s right. Let me make a

> concerted effort to cut down on some, not all,

> journeys at least three days a week.? Person B

> will say ?How dare people conclude that I can be

> like those who?ve reduced their car journeys. I?m

> offended and will make no effort to cut down

> because I feel maligned and slighted (even though

> the poster has literally no idea who I am and vice

> versa).?

Person C will say "I wish I could but I can't because of xyz"

And that is why we need a more open approach.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> slarti b Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Can any of the pro closure people,

> > Rahrah,Northern, CJR Lauranc, tell me which

> roads

> > in the local area you believe cars and other

> motor

> > vehciles should be allowed to use, and any

> > conditions on that use, eg delivery or access

> > only, not during school hours etc?

>

> There are currently no roads that motor vehicles

> can't use. There are a small number of streets

> which are filtered - you can still drive a car

> down them, just not cut through.

Ha ha - filtered! Love it.

They're closed. Or did I miss the Road Filtered sign on the front of them! ;-)

I am also a real fan of the the "you can still drive a car down them, just not cut through". What you mean to say is you can't drive down them if you want to get to somewhere they were built to get you to!!! ;-)

[Nigello]

Tell us what constitutes such an approach. Most people can choose to use their car less. Most are not disabled or caring for disabled. People are selfish and need to be nudged, so these closings may be doing that. I?m in favour and want to see more, though not on parallel roads like is seen now.

[Rockets]

JohnL Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > 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?

>

>

> l/waltham_forest_the_suburb_that_pioneered_the/

That Reddit post is another classic example of the pro-closure propaganda that can be readily found (and often referenced by councils and councillors) but is not base don fact.

It's only when you scratch beneath the surface and analyse the council's own data that you can get a handle on what is actually happening and it appears to me (unless you live in the closed area) that there is a definite negative impact on the wider community.

Just look for yourselves. Do as I did and look at where the "boundary" roads are that Waltham Forest council has acknowledged have had an increase in traffic - the one that is 28% is 3.1 miles from the closures. 3.1 miles away (that's from Dulwich to the Oval) and they are feeling the negative impact of the closures.

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

So, unless the council plans to ringfence the whole of Dulwich or every car disappears then the displacement problem will persist.

Lewisham have seen sense and are amending some of the closures and I think Southwark should follow suit pretty quickly thereafter.

[dougiefreeman]

cwjlawrence Wrote:

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

>

> Dougie - my apologies if I have made my points

> badly or that they're unclear. But, please don't

> suggest that I have a complete disregard to

> others. That is not a fair comment. I completely

> respect your position and points of view and I

> hope that the opposite is the same.

Apology accepted ;-)

No, fair enough - I'm only going by what I'm reading into your comments on here so apologies if I have mis-construed your views - I do of course respect your position also.

> Hence, my point that we need to make it

> difficult for people to drive their cars which is

> probably through direct or indirect taxation -

> which in itself discriminates against people who

> can't afford this additional cost.

>

The problem with this is that, certainly in a wealthier area like Dulwich Village, many of the un-necessary journeys are conducted by people who can afford higher cost of driving. The convinience of driving to the shops, gym etc will outweigh additional costs for many of these residents and so higher taxation will do little to curb such journeys.

And then making a journey physically take longer or more difficult just adds to the stresses and costs of those who actually need to make them. Most tradesmen / musicians like myself have no other option and can't afford to buy a brand new vehicle so they just have to suck up the additional cost. Meanwhile, you've got people driving round park lane and mayfair in ferraris and lamborghinis for no purpose whatsoever and you can chuck all the extra costs in the world you want at them and it'll make no difference. There has to be a better solution than this. Wouldn't camera enforcement of timed closures / congestion charges with exemptions for those who genuinely need to use vehicles be a fairer option? Or something along those lines...

Just to give you an example from my own personal experience, if I am booked to perform at an event in central london requiring me to take my stage piano and speaker (it is very rare that a piano is provided for private events simply as most venues don't have them) I am hit with double ULEZ, congestion charge and diesel parking surcharge amounting to ?50-60.

I can't afford to change a perfectly good economical (60mpg) car until we absolutely have to (next Oct) and so I've just been taking the (ever-increasing) finanical hit because I also can't afford to turn down the work.

I really think incentivising people to use alternative means of transport is a much better approach. Taking a bus or train to do a short journey must be the more convinient option - but I don't believe making genuine journies hell is a reasonable sacrifice to acheive that. I think that's the cheapskate option. If the council work with TFL (rather than just continously saying 'public transport ain't our responsibility - that's TFL' whenever PT is brought up in a discussion) then huge improvements could be made to our area which would drastically change peoples' behaviour.

[Abe_froeman]

At the very least I think Southwark need to urgently reopen Melbourne Grove North and Calton Avenue.

Both are key through routes and both are mixed use with a combination of commercial and residential property on (indeed, Calton Avenue used to even have a massive car sales room FFS!)

[apbremer]

The developers of the huge site behind the DV shops and fronting Gilkes Crescent, for some extraordinary reason stuck up a big green hoarding blocking access from Dulwich Village to Gilkes.This was a short cut to East Dulwich Grove and relieved all the RH turn pressure at the traffic lights which now largely cause these immense tailbacks.The land has had planning consent for years, nothing has happened and the hoarding serves no useful purpose at all. Dulwich Estate are not interested as one might expect. Could 100 Dulwich not get on the case?

[Clutterqueen]

apbremer Wrote:

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

> The developers of the huge site behind the DV

> shops and fronting Gilkes Crescent, for some

> extraordinary reason stuck up a big green hoarding

> blocking access from Dulwich Village to

> Gilkes.This was a short cut to East Dulwich Grove

> and relieved all the RH turn pressure at the

> traffic lights which now largely cause these

> immense tailbacks.The land has had planning

> consent for years, nothing has happened and the

> hoarding serves no useful purpose at all. Dulwich

> Estate are not interested as one might expect.

> Could 100 Dulwich not get on the case?

I thought the same thing the other week apbremer. Some great big green wall suddenly appeared with no prior warning in the middle of a normally used road. Who has the authority to do that?

[Metallic]

cwjlawrence Wrote:

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

> Hi Slarti,

> Good question - I fear that I'm not going to give

> the answer that you want though :-)

>

> I'm not pro closure but I am extremely pro a

> massive reduction in pollution. You may have read

> my post this morning about the pollution I was on

> the receiving end of on both Carlton Avenue and

> Hillsboro - it was disgusting and poisonous - and

> these are streets that should have benefited from

> the road closures! I personally feel incredibly

> guilty about the amount that I have used my car

> over the last 15 (approx) years of living in East

> Dulwich. I am trying extremely hard to now not

> use my car at all - and yes - it is very difficult

> to do so but it's all I can do, to reduce the

> amount of driving that I do and hope that others

> do the same.

>

> I may be a bit stupid, but the problem I keep

> coming back to is that cars are so amazingly

> convenient that to get people to avoid using them

> is extremely difficult. Take this morning - I

> cycled back along East Dulwich Grove and there

> were people sitting in the lights at Alleyns/JAGs

> crossroads with their engines idling. If people

> are thoughtless enough to keep their engines

> running at a junction of 2 schools then what hope

> of getting them to get out of their cars?

>

> My personal view is that it is necessary to make

> car driving not so convenient and other forms of

> non-polluting transport more convenient. I would

> do this through a number of measures - but

> unfortunately, I think they amount to the same

> thing - making it less easy to drive. Having

> grown up outside of London, I can see that we are

> blessed here with really good public transport and

> there nothing stopping us (apart from ourselves)

> to reduce traffic. Of course, there are very good

> reasons why people need to drive, but if I can

> reduce my car journeys by over 95% then I think

> that the majority of our community can too.

>

> One thing that I hope we can agree on is that the

> road closures certainly are making us all think

> about our communities more and I dearly hope that

> the result will be a longer term set of strategies

> to reduce driving and make East Dulwich a nicer

> place for my family and of course yours also to

> live in.

>

> Best wishes,

> Chris

Everybody!!!! It is spelt CALTON

[legalalien]

Out of interest: does anyone know what approach One Dulwich/ anyone else who has concerns about some of the negative side effects of the current experimental orders, is taking to try and get variations made? Is it to try and get Southwark to reverse the closures and launch a consultation with a view to a different approach or is it to follow/ go along with the process that Southwark have set in motion ie ensure that a sensible/ nuanced range of objections are lodged before the December deadline for these?

I would have thought the latter was the way forward: given the way in which the experimental orders came into place (to take advantage of central government funding), and the need for Southwark/ councillors to save face, a complete volte-face seems unlikely unless the emergency services step in to complain (as happened in Tooting). But I don't think I've seen any communications about the need to make objections and so forth. Objections would carry much more weight if they were thoughtful/ well supported/ nuanced and not just "we don't like these closures"?

On a slightly depressing note, I had a good chat to the grocery delivery driver yesterday, he tells me that they have had to arrange significantly more delivery vans across the south of London as the existing ones are being stuck in traffic snarls caused by the LTNs (yes, I know, also caused in part no doubt by a COVID related up tick in traffic, but the main problems are on the main roads that have become congested as a result of the new barriers). He spent yesterday driving back and forth across south London "helping" other drivers by relieving them of one or two deliveries that would otherwise be super-late and delivering those. That seems far from ideal.

[Glemham]

Such a sweet scene in Dovercourt Road this morning - a small child cycling down the pavement towards Alleyn?s. .........except moments before, he and his bike had been lifted out of a large Range Rover which his Dad had driven from who knows where and parked in this narrow residential road, no doubt to boost the idea that lots of children are travelling to school in a sustainable manner! Remind me again on what basis, during lockdown, the Council agreed to the extension to Alleyn?s Junior School.

[exdulwicher]

Picking this one up from a couple of pages back:

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

Modeller, not planner. And it's a private company.

The green sign is not a traffic sign. As long as the (official) Road Closed sign is displayed, the green sign alongside it acts as "clarification" or guidance or advice or whatever term you want to give to it. Non-issue.

Such a sweet scene in Dovercourt Road this morning - a small child cycling down the pavement towards Alleyn?s. .........except moments before, he and his bike had been lifted out of a large Range Rover which his Dad had driven from who knows where and parked in this narrow residential road, no doubt to boost the idea that lots of children are travelling to school in a sustainable manner! Remind me again on what basis, during lockdown, the Council agreed to the extension to Alleyn?s Junior School.

Dovercourt and, to a lesser extent Beauval, have LONG been used as sink roads for Alleyns. The school literature used to boast of the "ample free parking in surrounding residential streets" (it used to badly impact the Townley Road / EDG end of Calton as well). No-one really minded when it was a dozen or so cars (usually 6th Formers) along the upper reaches of Townley Road away from the houses but when it was school open day, Founder's Day etc, it was absolutely solid around there. And when two massive Range Rovers meet head on along Dovercourt or Beauval, you get a stand-off when neither one is actually capable of reversing their Urban Tank without taking out half the street.

[Abe_froeman]

This constant hyperbole does your credibility no good at all, ex-ED.

[Rockets]

Ex- you need a disclaimer: These views are personal and not at all reflective of the distain in which "impartial" modellers and planners hold for cars and their drivers!!! ;-)

In all seriousness you pull up Alleyns on their open days or Founder's Day in that case would you also advocate closing roads near churches due to the parking issues caused when they hold weddings, funerals or baptisms? Why attack Alleyn's?

We all know there is a big anti-private school sentiment held within many of our councillors so should we presume that the Townley Road closures are prejudicial and aimed at them solely due to those prejudices?

Schools (be it state or private) cause problems as lots of teachers park their cars in the surrounding streets and a lot of parents who drive to drop their children off (granted it is particularly bad at private schools as the catchment areas are much larger).

[exdulwicher]

I'm not attacking Alleyn's for existing or for having a large catchment area. I went to school there myself!

The point I'm making (as a result of the story above about the 4x4 parking on Dovercourt) is that it publicises free parking in the surrounding residential streets which causes knock-on issues - now you can argue that any number of ways:

people knowingly bought a house near a school (several schools actually) so they should know what to expect at least occasionally.

the school was there long before any of us moved to the area.

the school has a responsibility to its surrounding community to address any traffic issues that it directly causes.

the council has a responsibility to help with that from both sides.

And that is coupled with the much greater number of cars on the roads and the greater size of them (modern cars are about 25-30% bigger than cars 30 years ago).

So yes of course there are issues as there are at any venue where lots of people gather in a short space of time (your example about churches).

The point is then about how that is addressed because any one measure on its own (like a single LTN) is not going to sort it, it needs a combination of interventions. Same with most traffic issues to be honest.

[Rockets]

All, whilst many of us welcomed Cllr McAsh's comments yesterday upon closer inspection there is little substance in his post and some alarm bells are ringing for me.

I posted on the Councillor thread but am pasting below some of the questions as I think a lot of the points raised by his post deserve some discussion and my concern is that there is not a definitive timeline for review being shared by the council (yet) and the displacement is now impacting all roads across the area (Underhill, Overhill, Crystal Palace Road, Upland Road, Wood Vale etc) as people try to work their way around the displacement.

What we need right now is the same swift decisions the council made to implement these closures to review them and make the urgent changes to try and turn back the dial on the damage they are doing.

- When will the council be reviewing the data - data collection went in some time after the closures so what is the timeline for the review?

- We kept being told by the council that pollution monitoring was too expense so how are you able to do that now and what baseline will you be using?

- Are we expected to live with the negative impact for the next 6 months whilst the council collects the data?

- Will the next phases of the closures be put on hold or does the council still plan on implementing them?

- Your comment regarding Matham Grove etc worries me as you seem to be focussed on putting measures in place to deal with the displacement rather than focussing on the source of the displacement. This would suggest to me that you think action to remedy the problem may not be forthcoming or a long way off. Is the council commitment to resolving the source of the problem? We do not need a sticking plaster approach to this.

- Given your admission of not consulting with shopkeepers on Melbourne Grove (and your subsequent apology) will you be forced to remove those immediately as this is in direct contravention of the powers given to you by the government to put these in place?

[malumbu]

I've campaigned for yonks about transport and the environment. I am a cyclist, walker, occasional car driver and user of public transport. A continuing challenge is that cars are still seen by most as the default means for getting around.

There's loads of good/strong words from government including the aim that public transport and active travel will be the default as part of the move to zero emissions by 2050. But with all the anguish on these threads from a fairly informed audience I don't know how you are going to persuade the masses .... unless you go for some fairly draconian measures.

On the all mouth and no trousers point an ideal example is 20mph zones. If these worked you'd get reduced congestion and improved road safety as we's all be pootling at 20-25mph not putting our foot down (more pollution and CO2), banging on the brakes at the lights (more pollution) and traffic calming exacerbates that futher with the accelerate/brake. Am I the only person in SE London who knows how to drive smoothly down Court Lane? I can't find anything on Youtube or Google with such driving tips (you back of the accelerator to gently slow the car down and slightly accelerate before the bump, try it, its a no brainer.

On the subject of schools, successive government's who encouraged competition have far worsened the school run. That is before you bring private schools in. Whatever you try to do to discourage this doesn't seem to work - I did like the school in Scotland that simply posted pictures up of irresponsible parents. We campaigned at our primary school, this got the message over and people at least stated to park more responsibly. But the our kids grew up and the same problem happened with the subsequent intakes. The irony of the parent who drives their kid to school due to the dangers of walking including road safety and pollution that they contribute to. Yes in deed I am holier than thou.

Wood Vale was mentioned. That was a dreadful bit of unjoined up thinking between Lewisham and Southwark as this should be the main route through to the South Circ not Honor Oak Road which is a glorified cart track. But driving there earlier this week, a pretty rare journey, WTF do you all need to drive at 40mph? I suppose I could get my clipboard out and watch where all the traffic is going, I expect much of it through using this as a rat run.