LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[alice]

Where is the Dulwich that C4dulwich refers to?

[Rockets]

Ah the retort to One Dulwich from the pro-closure lobby groups - it was inevitable. One wonders if the council has provided funding for this either directly or indirectly......;-) sorry couldn't resist....

Which reminded me to check how the e-petition in support of the closures is going......it's closed now but it has managed 9 more signatures since last month bringing the total to 60..........

[slarti b]

edit to remove duplicate post, sorry

[slarti b]

A friend sent me a copy of the Alliance leaflet and I had a quick google of the "Better Streets For Southwark". Seems to be a very recent group made up of the normal very vocal but minority pressure groups, with a big influence from "Safe Routes to Private Schools".

They have a Twitter feed showing a very prominent "Road Closed" sign at the DV junction.

This rather contradicts their first FAQ "The term Road Closures is innacurate"

They then go on to suggest that the recent massive congestion on the DV bypass roads (EDG, LL etc) is nothing to do with the council's changes but are caused by increased traffic in the last 10 years. Leaving aside the faulty logic we know from the councils own traffic figures that is not the case for Dulwich Village.

[redpost]

rockets - no, it's not obvious which streets to close, we're firmly in the realms of rocket science here

east dulwich grove has 4 schools and a health centre - close that?

dulwich village/gallery road have 3 schools - close that?

then you immediately turn it around in the thread on asking someone else what they would do:

"Out of interest, what do you think should be done to resolve the issues these closures have created?"

I applaud you for engaging unlike many here, but as I said, you offer no viable alternative to reduce traffic apart from general hand waving

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Redpost - pretty obvious where school streets

> could be implemented quickly and efficiently and

> would be a lot less disruptive than closing 2 of 4

> East/West routes across Dulwich as we have now.

>

> My posts are laced with council criticism because

> I feel the council are laying themselves open to

> criticism with the way they have been handling the

> LTNs. I am not alone in that and the council need

> to be criticised by their constituents if the

> constituents don't like what they are doing. I

> know that doesn't make life easy for the council

> or the pro-closure lobbyists but in a democracy

> that's what constituents are supposed to, and

> entitled to, do. I am not critical of Southwark

> Cyclists per se, I am sure they are a lovely bunch

> of people, remember I am a cyclist myself, but the

> relationship between the council and Soutwark

> Cyclists clearly steps over a line in terms of

> balance and impartiality. There is no way

> Southwark Cyclists should be given more weighting

> and priority in consultations than those people

> who live in the area affected by the measures

> (which has happened repeatedly).

>

> JohnL - more than happy to have a consultation on

> any ideas - that's all many of us want - dialogue

> with the broader community not just a small

> minority. If there had been a proper consultation

> over the LTN closures I can guarantee we would not

> be in the mess we are now and the council would

> not be under so much scrutiny from many in the

> community.

>

> More generally, what is the leaflet from the

> Coalition4Dulwich? I have the FOMO too!!!! ;-) Are

> they for or against the closures?

[KidKruger]

So is the thread now a competition for who has THE solution, or is it about recognising the codswallop closures and issues they?re causing ?

If EDF posters were the source of best solutions for traffic issues the council could have skipped their own thinking / planning and come straight to us !

[Rockets]

Kid - perhaps they should - there have been better ideas put forward here than the plans the council decided to implement on their own!!! ;-)

Redpost - of course there are some schools that cannot have a school street but at least if you close the ones that can during school drop-off and pick-up times you encourage modal shift. Remember the council's current plan (per Cllr Smith) is to divert traffic from residential roads onto main roads via the closures so those schools you mentioned (bar the ones in Dulwich Village) are currently the biggest losers from this.

The reason I ask what some of the pro-closure would do to resolve the issues caused by the closures is that there seems to be a general reluctance by many pro-lobbyists to even entertain an alternative - they have become very entrenched. Many of us on the anti-closure side are saying that we acknowledge the need for change and happy to meet people in the middle and implement plans that are fair to everyone.

[redpost]

Again rockets, a nebulous answer.

School streets don't work anyway, witness bessemer grange, loads of parents in cars waiting in side streets.

[n dulwich northerner]

Unless you take an absolutist position, Bessemer Grange works perfectly well. Loads more parents and grandparents standing around waiting - even maintaining some social distance.

[Rockets]

Redpost - hardly a nebulous answer - well no more nebulous than your retort that school streets don't work - and your response amplifies my point that many of the pro-closure lobby do not want to entertain any of the middle-ground alternatives ;-)

What the pro-lobby don't realise is that their entrenchment actually creates more problems and it creates resentment and people move from a pragmatic "let's try and work on finding a middle ground" to a "rip them all out" stance and that does nobody any good. This is being demonstrated very aptly by what is going on in west London right now in Kensington and Chelsea. A perfectly sensible, and much needed, protected cycle lane had been put in running from Kensington out to Chiswick - it's now being pulled out such is the local acrimony towards them. A pragmatic approach from both sides will result in positive outcomes for everyone, otherwise we run the risk of going back to how things were and that benefits no-one.

[Earl Aelfheah]

So assuming 'one dulwich' get their way, and we allow people to cut down side streets again in order to save a little time - can someone explain how this will discourage short car journeys and encourage walking and cycling please?

[redpost]

Yes, we can all see how K&C always have the best interests of their poorer and more vulnerable residents at heart.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Redpost - hardly a nebulous answer - well no more

> nebulous than your retort that school streets

> don't work - and your response amplifies my point

> that many of the pro-closure lobby do not want to

> entertain any of the middle-ground alternatives

> ;-)

>

> What the pro-lobby don't realise is that their

> entrenchment actually creates more problems and it

> creates resentment and people move from a

> pragmatic "let's try and work on finding a middle

> ground" to a "rip them all out" stance and that

> does nobody any good. This is being demonstrated

> very aptly by what is going on in west London

> right now in Kensington and Chelsea. A perfectly

> sensible, and much needed, protected cycle lane

> had been put in running from Kensington out to

> Chiswick - it's now being pulled out such is the

> local acrimony towards them. A pragmatic approach

> from both sides will result in positive outcomes

> for everyone, otherwise we run the risk of going

> back to how things were and that benefits no-one.

[kiera]

Forcing all traffic onto the bus routes is going back to the days before bus lanes were introduced, when buses were so delayed by all the other traffic, that no-one could rely on them e.g.to get to work on time. The buses have been ignored by the council in their LTNs, but they are essential in encouraging people to abandon their cars and use public transport.

[DulwichCentral]

kiera Wrote:

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

> Forcing all traffic onto the bus routes is going

> back to the days before bus lanes were introduced,

> when buses were so delayed by all the other

> traffic, that no-one could rely on them e.g.to get

> to work on time. The buses have been ignored by

> the council in their LTNs, but they are essential

> in encouraging people to abandon their cars and

> use public transport.

Bus gates?

[kiera]

As I understand it, the bus gates will only assist the P4 when it goes through Dulwich Village. Are there going to be bus gates which will help the buses on the South Circular, Lordship Lane or, most importantly, East Dulwich Grove?

[dulwichfolk]

And croxted road the new displacement area...

[Rockets]

redpost Wrote:

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

> Yes, we can all see how K&C always have the best

> interests of their poorer and more vulnerable

> residents at heart.

>

>

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Redpost - hardly a nebulous answer - well no

> more

> > nebulous than your retort that school streets

> > don't work - and your response amplifies my

> point

> > that many of the pro-closure lobby do not want

> to

> > entertain any of the middle-ground alternatives

> > ;-)

> >

> > What the pro-lobby don't realise is that their

> > entrenchment actually creates more problems and

> it

> > creates resentment and people move from a

> > pragmatic "let's try and work on finding a

> middle

> > ground" to a "rip them all out" stance and that

> > does nobody any good. This is being

> demonstrated

> > very aptly by what is going on in west London

> > right now in Kensington and Chelsea. A

> perfectly

> > sensible, and much needed, protected cycle lane

> > had been put in running from Kensington out to

> > Chiswick - it's now being pulled out such is

> the

> > local acrimony towards them. A pragmatic

> approach

> > from both sides will result in positive

> outcomes

> > for everyone, otherwise we run the risk of

> going

> > back to how things were and that benefits

> no-one.

Given the closures in Dulwich Village can we assert that Southwark still have the interests of their poorer and more vulnerable residents at heart as they are the ones dealing with displacement tsunami from these closures?

P.S. Redpost you should have seen that one coming....;-)

[Metallic]

I haven't met one resident yet from what I would term the closed or bus gated roads, that ever said they wanted what they have been given. I have been living in this area for decades, I do know quite a few people, and so I'm just wondering how this is all going to end?

[Rockets]

Ambulance teams complaining that Carlton Avenue (amongst others) closure delayed 999 response....https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/paramedics-say-low-traffic-roadblocks-delayed-response-to-at-least-two-life-threatening-emergencies-because-satnavs-didnt-recognise-them/?cmpredirect

[Rockets]

And despite Cllr McAsh not remembering anyone saying this Cllr Charlie Smith did definitely say it during his comments during the evening ED LTN meeting.

[hammerman]

Bessemer Grange School Streets thing is a waste of time.

Lots of parents parking up in nearby streets for drop off and pick up.

All probably living nearby in the surrounding areas and beyond!

Most of them could have dropped off/picked up their children within walking distance but choose to park up nearby.

[hammerman]

Will Norman, the bloke for cycling etc. is the person to bring into the equation for a lot of what is going on not just for Southwark but all across London! He proudly stood for photos in front of Bessemer Grange Primary School but is now nowhere to be seen for questions about the consequences!

[n dulwich northerner]

hammerman Wrote:

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

> Bessemer Grange School Streets thing is a waste of

> time.

>

> Lots of parents parking up in nearby streets for

> drop off and pick up.

>

> All probably living nearby in the surrounding

> areas and beyond!

>

> Most of them could have dropped off/picked up

> their children within walking distance but choose

> to park up nearby.

Yes, I agree it is a waste of time, but your reasons are misleading.

I walk through there a few times a week, including at the start or end of the school day - the latter being more easy to judge - and have done before and after the timed closures. Yes, a few people are sitting in cars, but there's no way you or I know they aren't from further away or have other tasks they need to do. Many, many more people are standing and waiting, and walk away afterwards.

So why is it a waste of time? Because that road is never busy anyway!

[Raeburn]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Ambulance teams complaining that Carlton Avenue

> (amongst others) closure delayed 999

> response....https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/p

> aramedics-say-low-traffic-roadblocks-delayed-respo

> nse-to-at-least-two-life-threatening-emergencies-b

> ecause-satnavs-didnt-recognise-them/?cmpredirect

The article is about sat navs not recognising changes to road layouts and not having updates to their maps yet? This is a recognised problem with older equipment fitted to these vehicles, and has widely been reported. Describes an incident in Feb, before implementation of LTNs, so the LTN?s have only served to highlight the issue more clearly. Interesting read, lots of useful perspective.

[redpost]

And yet again, no mention of excessive car usage contributing to congestion and delays to emergency services