LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Dulwichgirl82]

And at goose green?

Raeburn Wrote:

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

> Me too. Intrigued I followed the gridlock

> eastbound along to junction with South circular

>

> ...the gridlock is caused by the xmas tree sales

> opposite the Grove. Vehicles on both sides (but

> largely from North) waiting to turn into the

> small, full, car-park. Staff are trying to manage

> the situation(?!) but it?s preventing traffic

> flow. Every cycle of the lights allows v few cars

> onto South Circular.

>

> As I left an articulated lorry was trying to

> navigate the column of 5(?) cars waiting to get

> into the xmas tree sales.

>

> That?s what?s causing the tailback today.

[Raeburn]

No idea - I didn?t go there.

[Dulwichgirl82]

I did, a couple of times. Just traffic. And yesterday at the grove tavern end of LL no trucks or whatever reason, just traffic.

[Rockets]

Raeburn Wrote:

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

> Me too. Intrigued I followed the gridlock

> eastbound along to junction with South circular

>

> ...the gridlock is caused by the xmas tree sales

> opposite the Grove. Vehicles on both sides (but

> largely from North) waiting to turn into the

> small, full, car-park. Staff are trying to manage

> the situation(?!) but it?s preventing traffic

> flow. Every cycle of the lights allows v few cars

> onto South Circular.

>

> As I left an articulated lorry was trying to

> navigate the column of 5(?) cars waiting to get

> into the xmas tree sales.

>

> That?s what?s causing the tailback today.

So it's Xmas trees sales today....what about the preceeding months....? Yesterday you said it was something in Forest Hill.

As I was saying....there's always some sort of excuse from the pro-closure lobby. The issue is very clear for everyone (bar the most blinkered) to see. The LTNs are forcing too many vehicles down too few roads which is causing congestion and an increase in pollution caused by idling engines. A lot of us had the common sense to realise this was an inevitable impact of the closures. LTNs do not reduce car usage enough to mean there isn't significant impact on other roads that have to absorb the displacement.

How some of our councillors can tell us they go to Lordship Lane regularly and think traffic is no heavier than before is beyond me. It's all very Comical Ali.

[DulwichCentral]

A lot of people here seem to conveniently forget that public transport is running at massively reduced capacity.

There was a horrific amount of cars on the roads *throughout* London today not just Lordship Lane. Everywhere.

Because people all think *I* want to go Christmas shopping in *my* nice comfy car - without it crossing their minds that so will another several million other people have exactly same idea. Then they get angry they're stuck in traffic.:) and some people here seem to think it's all caused by a Christmas tree in Dulwich Square.

If the roads in Dulwich and other LTNS around London were re-opened they will FILL UP immediately by all these people in their nice comfy cars. So who are the few and who are the many?

[Raeburn]

- traffic also extended up Horniman Hill > Forest Hill, big I didn?t go up there. The queue of cars for the xmas trees was clearly a major cause of LL gridlock, and was likely contributing yesterday afternoon/evening too. You?ve said today is the worst you?ve seen for 15 years, here?s the most probable cause, but you fixated on the LTN.

My point is, you keep presenting evidence which when examined has little or no substance. You then change the subject, conflate topics, mis-direct, or ignore. It undermines any reasonable points that might be up for discussion.

[Spartacus]

He had said to him "Before the rooster crows today, you will deny the traffic is caused by LTNs three times" and the whole of East Dulwich went out and wept bitterly at the gridlock !

[Rockets]

Raeburn Wrote:

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

> - traffic also extended up Horniman Hill > Forest

> Hill, big I didn?t go up there. The queue of cars

> for the xmas trees was clearly a major cause of LL

> gridlock, and was likely contributing yesterday

> afternoon/evening too. You?ve said today is the

> worst you?ve seen for 15 years, here?s the most

> probable cause, but you fixated on the LTN.

>

> My point is, you keep presenting evidence which

> when examined has little or no substance. You then

> change the subject, conflate topics, mis-direct,

> or ignore. It undermines any reasonable points

> that might be up for discussion.

My picture and commentary was in relation to the northern end today......

I am glad, however, that you have admitted there is congestion at the southern end...as they say the first step to recovery is admitting there is a problem....it's more than many of the pro-closure lobby can bring themselves to admit!

[DulwichCentral]

Rockets Wrote:

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

...as they say the first step to recovery is admitting there is a

> problem....it's more than many of the pro-closure

> lobby can bring themselves to admit!

It is precisely the people who support making space for walking and cycling who are taking the first step to recovery.

[geh]

traffic on lordship lane this afternoon - terrible

[DulwichCentral]

geh Wrote:

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

> traffic on lordship lane this afternoon - terrible

Traffic all over London this afternoon - terrible

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> ...as they say the first step to recovery is

> admitting there is a

> > problem....it's more than many of the

> pro-closure

> > lobby can bring themselves to admit!

>

> It is precisely the people who support making

> space for walking and cycling who are taking the

> first step to recovery.

But it's making things worse....how long do we have to wait before these people realise this is not the solution? The big issue remains that the most supportive voices come from those who are within the area directly benefitting from the closures. As long as their street is quiet they don't care about anyone else's and the council doesn't dare do proper monitoring because they know what it will show: it's making things worse.

[Spartacus]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> geh Wrote:

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

> -----

> > traffic on lordship lane this afternoon -

> terrible

>

> Traffic all over London this afternoon - terrible

Have you been all over London today or are you speculating ?

[Dulwichgirl82]

Actually as I said above that wasn?t a factor yesterday at all. At least when I drove by. I?m not even sure they were open yesterday but I certainly it didn?t see them. Were you there and saw this causing a problem?

Raeburn Wrote:

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

> - traffic also extended up Horniman Hill > Forest

> Hill, big I didn?t go up there. The queue of cars

> for the xmas trees was clearly a major cause of LL

> gridlock, and was likely contributing yesterday

> afternoon/evening too. You?ve said today is the

> worst you?ve seen for 15 years, here?s the most

> probable cause, but you fixated on the LTN.

>

> My point is, you keep presenting evidence which

> when examined has little or no substance. You then

> change the subject, conflate topics, mis-direct,

> or ignore. It undermines any reasonable points

> that might be up for discussion.

[heartblock]

So today...I?m gaslighted by Christmas trees... see how it goes..Oh the traffic is heavier.its because of Christmas trees... New Year...oh it?s the fireworks...look it?s busy on EDG... Easter Bunny...oh now it?s Summer Solstice..look at all those pagans running amok around LL...always a reason..never the LTNs. Can you honestly not see how completely ridiculous this is..it would be laughable if it wasn?t endangering lives. I?m not being overly dramatic, coroners case right now due to the death of an asthmatic child.

[Dulwichgirl82]

The few are those living in closed roads, the many those using or living on displacement roads/ areas. Eg lordship lane the main shopping area...the children?s park.. the schools on EDG.. the health centre...

Also dulwich central surely you a knowledging public transport is massively reduced is a reason to not put in measures like this currently, if public transport isn?t there to give an alternative then why do it now?!

Dulwich square? I assume you mean the road that is currently experimentally closed? And may open again?

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> A lot of people here seem to conveniently forget

> that public transport is running at massively

> reduced capacity.

> There was a horrific amount of cars on the roads

> *throughout* London today not just Lordship Lane.

> Everywhere.

> Because people all think *I* want to go Christmas

> shopping in *my* nice comfy car - without it

> crossing their minds that so will another several

> million other people have exactly same idea. Then

> they get angry they're stuck in traffic.:) and

> some people here seem to think it's all caused by

> a Christmas tree in Dulwich Square.

>

> If the roads in Dulwich and other LTNS around

> London were re-opened they will FILL UP

> immediately by all these people in their nice

> comfy cars. So who are the few and who are the

> many?

>

>

> 75,-0.0954453,11z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x47d8a00baf21de

> 75:0x52963a5addd52a99!8m2!3d51.5073509!4d-0.127758

> 3!5m1!1e1

[legalalien]

If only we could have a break down of where those supporting / not supporting live and their demographic. I personally know loads of people within the LTN - business owners, friends and acquaintances who are opposed to the DV /Calton closures. For a variety of reasons - problems for the business; mobility problems; parents trying to get to after school and sports activities; and despite some posters on here insisting that social conscience cannot possibly be a thing, a large number believing it?s unfair to do an instant, under- analysed migration of all traffic to residential A roads. I know hardly anyone locally (in fact possibly no-one other than the posters I see on here) who supports the closures.

Those who support the closures presumably have a group of friends / acquaintances who believe the same as them - I don?t think they?re being ingenuous when they suggest they support a majority view. So one way or another we?re in bubbles. Is it maybe age related / related to how long people have been in the area? Is it younger people with primary aged children who have moved to Dulwich more recently who are in favour and older, old timers against? I put that up there as a straw man in the interests of trying to understand why both sides are so far apart and believe their views are majority views - not (before anyone jumps on me) as some sort of ?anti-newcomer? sentiment.

[alex_b]

The junction between Lordship Lane and Dulwich Common has caused tailbacks for years, it?s due to the right turn phasing and often vehicles trying to force their way over to the right too late. Perhaps the LTNs are making it worse (I don?t know) but it?s always been on edge of locking up. No idea how you could redesign it to make it better though.

[ab29]

I'm not 'older'; have been in the area for about 16 years and for about six in my current place. I live not far from the Grove Tavern and can see the traffic from my windows. It became much worst immediately after the LTNs were put into place - I saw it with my own eyes from my own windows(but obviously pro-closure peeps know better).

It used to be the rush hours that were v. busy; now it is rush hour all day long with idling traffic, screeching brakes, shouting drivers & cyclists and endless honking - have not seen anything like this here before. No one benefits from this blasted scheme except for people living on the closed roads - majority is being treated with extra fumes and noise so they can have Halloween parties.

Also, you can't say that only people living in Dulwich are affected - it is not an isolated village in the middle of nowhere; closures in one borough affect another. If I was working in Lewisham and was stuck on the bus for five hours every day because of the LTNs I would also have a right to complain.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> If only we could have a break down of where those

> supporting / not supporting live and their

> demographic. I personally know loads of people

> within the LTN - business owners, friends and

> acquaintances who are opposed to the DV /Calton

> closures. For a variety of reasons - problems for

> the business; mobility problems; parents trying to

> get to after school and sports activities; and

> despite some posters on here insisting that social

> conscience cannot possibly be a thing, a large

> number believing it?s unfair to do an instant,

> under- analysed migration of all traffic to

> residential A roads. I know hardly anyone locally

> (in fact possibly no-one other than the posters I

> see on here) who supports the closures.

>

> Those who support the closures presumably have a

> group of friends / acquaintances who believe the

> same as them - I don?t think they?re being

> ingenuous when they suggest they support a

> majority view. So one way or another we?re in

> bubbles. Is it maybe age related / related to how

> long people have been in the area? Is it younger

> people with primary aged children who have moved

> to Dulwich more recently who are in favour and

> older, old timers against? I put that up there as

> a straw man in the interests of trying to

> understand why both sides are so far apart and

> believe their views are majority views - not

> (before anyone jumps on me) as some sort of

> ?anti-newcomer? sentiment.

[alice]

This tree is a transformational kick in the teeth. Who paid for it? Who is it for? Very sad to hear.

[legalalien]

Don't get me wrong, ab29, I'm completely with you (I have been here 13 years or so, but in a nearby suburb before that). I'm just trying to try and work out why both sides in the debate are 100% convinced that they are in a majority in their thinking. And I think there may be a slight element of "who you speak to at the school gate" / which neighbours you speak to. I might be wrong. I just get the feeling that those supporting the closures genuinely think that they are in the majority, as do those (people like me) who see the problems with them. I can't see how we solve this absent (i) hard evidence, which doesn't seem to be happening any time soon or (ii) people recognising that they are in bubbles and making a conscious effort to see where others are coming from. Personally, I'd give a fair amount of weight to those who are living on the affected streets. But of course we are on an online forum and people believe what they want to...

[dulwichfolk]

To me it appears the majority of people in favour of the LTN are:

1) already bike riders so active travel measures make minimal difference to them

2) live in a LTN

3) have at least one child who is going to a school in the dulwich village area.

4) followed by the councillors on Twitter

All of this is fine it just must be upsetting for people to see a Xmas tree in quiet streets of dulwich square while outside the homes in croxted road, lordship lane, EDG, grove vale and others outside the LTN just see the displaced cars.

[Rockets]

Legal - I agree. Much is about the echo-chamber you live in. I have yet to meet anyone who supports the closures but we live in a part of Dulwich negatively impacted by them, so all the people I speak to are living with the fallout and so are very much against them.

I just wish the council would give equal weighting to the views of everyone. The recent ED LTN meetings were so skewed towards the pro-closure lobby that it was a bit embarrassing. The opening slides showing only pictures of people cycling on empty streets and regurgitating many of the pictures supplied by the pro-closure lobby and not showing any of the images sent to the council from those on roads impacted by the displacement was funny, was it not such an obvious fudge.

The council is terrified of a level playing field as I believe they know those impacted negatively far outweigh those impacted positively.

[Dulwichgirl82]

This re the tree. Sure everyone would

Love to have some quiet areas outside their houses but some now have horrendous traffic while others get a tree.

dulwichfolk Wrote:

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

> To me it appears the majority of people in favour

> of the LTN are:

> 1) already bike riders so active travel measures

> make minimal difference to them

> 2) live in a LTN

> 3) have at least one child who is going to a

> school in the dulwich village area.

> 4) followed by the councillors on Twitter

>

> All of this is fine it just must be upsetting for

> people to see a Xmas tree in quiet streets of

> dulwich square while outside the homes in croxted

> road, lordship lane, EDG, grove vale and others

> outside the LTN just see the displaced cars.

[legalalien]

And to add to this - there are a good number of people impacted positively (quiet streets) who oppose the measures on fairness grounds. Maybe also some living on streets impacted negatively who agree with the changes as a matter of principle?

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Legal - I agree. Much is about the echo-chamber

> you live in. I have yet to meet anyone who

> supports the closures but we live in a part of

> Dulwich negatively impacted by them, so all the

> people I speak to are living with the fallout and

> so are very much against them.

>

> I just wish the council would give equal weighting

> to the views of everyone. The recent ED LTN

> meetings were so skewed towards the pro-closure

> lobby that it was a bit embarrassing. The opening

> slides showing only pictures of people cycling on

> empty streets and regurgitating many of the

> pictures supplied by the pro-closure lobby and not

> showing any of the images sent to the council from

> those on roads impacted by the displacement was

> funny, was it not such an obvious fudge.

>

> The council is terrified of a level playing field

> as I believe they know those impacted negatively

> far outweigh those impacted positively.