LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Earl Aelfheah]

What would be really good, would be a plan for a low traffic neighbourhood in ED and a segregated bike route into town.

[Metallic]

eastdulwichlocal99 Wrote:

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

>

> I?m also not surprised the majority of Dulwich

> Village residents would be in favour of the One

> Dulwich proposal - it effectively creates a

> private gated community. When will those residents

> realise that they do not own the roads they live

> on - they are PUBLIC and for use by ALL. If you

> want privacy and no congestion move to the

> countryside, not the capital city! They have no

> more right to use ?their? roads than anyone else

> in the country.

Living on a new rat. run instead of traffic being spread everywhere and keeping on the move.

I was under the impression many were in favour of traffic islands to keep the traffic moving, and it would have been better than displaced traffic on Woodwarde Road, College Road, Lordship Lane, and Dulwich Village itself.

[intexasatthe moment]

"During lockdown, there was a massive increase in walking and cycling - now a lot of that was cos there was simply nothing else to do so people that would normally have gone to the gym switched to walking and cycling. But a fair chunk of it was also families, kids, people who would never normally be on a bike because the roads are too hostile. And key workers found it invaluable, even if there was a spike in bike thefts from outside hospitals."

some fair points here but it needs to be remembered that there was a drop in vehicle movements due to a massive increase in working from home,people staying indoors ,reduced bus services .

people do now need to earn salaries and commute to work ,there may even be some who want to travel and visit friends and relatives .

[worldwiser]

As others have pointed out, I'm really looking forward to what happens when all schools are back come September. I doubt the website will be able to cope with the fury. All these measures are taken by some utopian lunatic with no thought to the resulting pressures and the assumption that everyone is just gagging to hop on a bike. Not everyone is able-bodied. People have children. They come with a lot of baggage. More if they're disabled. Some people have heavy equipment they need for their work. Are they supposed to stick that in a rucksack? And even assuming people are at some point to return to public transport, the links into ED are nothing short of appalling at the best of times. Asking people to swap a twenty minute car journey for an hour on a bus is completely nuts.

It's laudable to have a vision for the future of city life but there need to be viable alternatives in place or in the pipeline when the revolution starts otherwise you're just asking for chaos. September.. put it in your diary.

[barrybrush]

i agree with Worldwiser's earlier comment that it is the better off streets which benefit. if you go on the SE23 forum look at their Road Closures thread. Lewisham has introduced a similar scheme for covid reasons with iffy consultations. A very leafy street called Bishopsthorpe Road has been closed off. This street contains the deputy mayor, a leading member of the Sydenham Society and various Labour Party luminaries- Lewisham is a one party state. It was ever thus.

[Siduhe]

Why is Rye Lane blockaded with utilitarian posts and blocks while Court Lane has wooden planters ?

I thought exactly the same when I cycled down it this morning. Part of the reason appears to be that there is a need to allow construction traffic in (so one of the barriers is a movable construction type barrier), with the result that all the delivery vans are just moving it out the way and driving down to do deliveries. They will all be on camera but don't appear to care.

However, it was very noticeable how much quieter the shops on Rye Lane are than normal. Obviously you can't reach a conclusion on a few days observation, but if this keeps up, the road closure will have a massive impact on the profitability of those shops. As a cyclist it's great, but there's a much bigger picture here.

[Nigello]

Re the pretty vs ugly road blockers ? I agree that those who made the decision thought ?DV and Melbourne G are pretty so need pretty road blockers?. I don?t think they actively thought ?Rye Lane isn?t pretty so doesn?t need pretty road blockers? but that something more unconscious was going on. To be fair, Rye Lane isn?t pretty and I?d prefer it if the council used this time to prettify it so that this obvious bias against it by planners wouldn?t be manifested.

[intexasatthe moment]

I agree about the impact on the shops Sidhue - the staff in couple I visited yesterday were very glum .

I can't remember the configuration of the posts in the blockade near Primark ,maybe the posts were only on one side ,maybe to allow construction traffic .I hadn't thought about that .

[eastdulwichhenry]

New to this debate, but I have to say I think it's a good thing and I hope they roll out more of these restrictions in the near future. As someone who cycles in the area with children, I have long found that the volume of traffic on all our roads from Townley Road to Melbourne Grove to Dulwich Village is just horrendous and dangerous, and safe backstreet routes are essential. The next step is to put a similar barrier on Townley Road, to make that a safe through route for bikes.

[redpost]

Why would it have a negative impact? you can't park on rye lane anyway, although quite a lot ignore this and therefore endanger cyclists and pedestrians plus delay buses.

There is parking at morrisons, the back of ASDA and quite a few pay and displays less than 100m away.

People will probably linger and shop longer now there is less traffic.

Siduhe Wrote:

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

> Why is Rye Lane blockaded with utilitarian posts

> and blocks while Court Lane has wooden planters ?

>

> I thought exactly the same when I cycled down it

> this morning. Part of the reason appears to be

> that there is a need to allow construction traffic

> in (so one of the barriers is a movable

> construction type barrier), with the result that

> all the delivery vans are just moving it out the

> way and driving down to do deliveries. They will

> all be on camera but don't appear to care.

>

> However, it was very noticeable how much quieter

> the shops on Rye Lane are than normal. Obviously

> you can't reach a conclusion on a few days

> observation, but if this keeps up, the road

> closure will have a massive impact on the

> profitability of those shops. As a cyclist it's

> great, but there's a much bigger picture here.

[mynamehere]

eastdulwichhenry Wrote:

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

> New to this debate, but I have to say I think it's

> a good thing and I hope they roll out more of

> these restrictions in the near future. As someone

> who cycles in the area with children, I have long

> found that the volume of traffic on all our roads

> from Townley Road to Melbourne Grove to Dulwich

> Village is just horrendous and dangerous, and safe

> backstreet routes are essential. The next step is

> to put a similar barrier on Townley Road, to make

> that a safe through route for bikes.

I agree. In London commerce does not need a car parked outside a shop.

[Bicknell]

Seems to me its the council that wants to make public roads private, not One Dulwich. Tahts what closures do - make little private roads. That's not what ONe Dulwich is saying. Look at their website www.onedulwich.uk.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Most people don't need to drive to schools. Unless we want to see higher levels of breathing problems, road deaths and escalating obesity levels, we should be encouraging those who can, to walk and cycle. Closing a few junctions does not amount to banning cars. 80% or more of all public space is still given over to motor vehicles. We're just looking for a modest rebalancing in favour of people.

[nxjen]

I?m concerned that One Dulwich are showing quite accurately on their website where their supporters live, showing the road and to such an extent it would be easy to discern which house. Would this not contravene the data protection rules?

[Earl Aelfheah]

If you want to reduce traffic, improve air quality, and encourage walking and cycling, then you have to restrict the number of car journeys. It's pretty simple.

The majority of people in Southwark don't have access to a car. Most streets have two lanes for parked cars / long term vehicle storage and two more for moving traffic. This doesn't leave much room for people. The amount of resource given over to car drivers is completely disproportionate and the reaction of people to a few pretty timid attempts to reallocate a little space to make it easier for people to get about, is pretty incredible imo.

'One Dulwich' seem to be calling for local residents to be exempt from restrictions applied to others. If you live on Court Lane, or Carlton Avenue, you're looking at perhaps another 5 minutes in the car to get round the diversions. Alternatively, if you're not going far and you're part of the majority of people who are able to cycle or walk, perhaps you could do so. After all, they claim to be in favour of healthy streets.

[bels123]

I?ve looked at their website and have to disagree. One Dulwich want the roads in area B to be open only to area B residents. They want closures at peak times (7-10am, 3-8pm perhaps?) to keep out non residents.

If you?ve signed up as a supporter thinking they are anti closures you are mistaken.

Bicknell Wrote:

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

> Seems to me its the council that wants to make

> public roads private, not One Dulwich. Tahts what

> closures do - make little private roads. That's

> not what ONe Dulwich is saying. Look at their

> website www.onedulwich.uk.

[tiddles]

so can you get the bus up rye lane to the station then?

[Dulres3]

The reason you?re seeing the reaction to the ?pretty timid? restrictions is due to the assumption of privilege to dictate to others how they should conduct their lives.

Unless you?re lucky enough to be able to set your own terms, most of us have to work and travel around under time pressures that are not of our choosing. Some even want to be able to make journeys that are too far to walk or cycle, and don?t fit in with the ?hub/spoke? model that public transport is good at.

This is just another hurdle put in place by the local authorities that breeds more resentment and lowers the quality of life for most ordinary people.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> If you want to reduce traffic, improve air

> quality, and encourage walking and cycling, then

> you have to restrict the number of car journeys.

> It's pretty simple.

>

> The majority of people in Southwark don't have

> access to a car. Most streets have two lanes for

> parked cars / long term vehicle storage and two

> more for moving traffic. This doesn't leave much

> room for people. The amount of resource given over

> to car drivers is completely disproportionate and

> the reaction of people to a few pretty timid

> attempts to reallocate a little space to make it

> easier for people to get about, is pretty

> incredible imo.

>

> 'One Dulwich' seem to be calling for local

> residents to be exempt from restrictions applied

> to others. If you live on Court Lane, or Carlton

> Avenue, you're looking at perhaps another 5

> minutes in the car to get round the diversions.

> Alternatively, if you're not going far and you're

> part of the majority of people who are able to

> cycle or walk, perhaps you could do so. After all,

> they claim to be in favour of healthy streets.

Just because the majority of people don't own a car in Southwark is not a justification for punishing those people who do - your comments highlight the reason so many people get annoyed by the utopian view of the world taken by some on the forum who hail the "turn all the streets to cycle only" narrative. It is a narrative and aspiration that is wholly unrealistic.

I cycle. My whole family cycles. I also have a car. I cycle when I can but use my car when I need to - be that on journeys that are too long to cycle or involve transporting people or things that I can't get on my bike. I also drive when the weather is terrible - I don't like arriving looking like a drowned rat - I also prefer driving when it is cold, wet and dark. I used to cycle 10 miles each way to my office but don't anymore as my office moved even further away.

This is how most people use their cars and blocking roads may reduce car use by 10% (if you're lucky). If people's eyes are blinkered by their belief that everyone can cycle or walk then they can't see, or are ignoring, the bigger challenges faced by a huge metropolis. Which is why a more inclusive and measured approach to traffic management is required. Not one that relies on the false promise that "Close the Streets and the bikes will follow". It just doesn't work like that.

Rahrahrah - I presume you don't own or need a car?

[eastdulwichhenry]

I've just taken my first walk up Melbourne Grove since the restrictions came in, and it's made such a difference. Hardly any traffic, peace and quiet, this is long overdue. I just hope the council has the guts to face down the petrol heads and apply more of these pinch points. I've been as guilty as anyone of overusing the car for local journeys, but our streets are just too clogged and polluted and unsafe right now and frankly this is long overdue. Thank you Southwark and London authority.

[Rockets]

eastdulwichhenry Wrote:

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

> I've just taken my first walk up Melbourne Grove

> since the restrictions came in, and it's made such

> a difference. Hardly any traffic, peace and quiet,

> this is long overdue. I just hope the council has

> the guts to face down the petrol heads and apply

> more of these pinch points. I've been as guilty as

> anyone of overusing the car for local journeys,

> but our streets are just too clogged and polluted

> and unsafe right now and frankly this is long

> overdue. Thank you Southwark and London authority.

How was it on East Dulwich Grove or Lordship Lane? Did the peace and tranquillity you so enjoyed extend to there or was traffic and pollution a lot worse because Melbourne Grove has been closed? ;-) And are we to presume you will be selling your car now you have seen the light?

[eastdulwichhenry]

Rockets Wrote:

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

>

> How was it on East Dulwich Grove or Lordship Lane?

> Did the peace and tranquillity you so enjoyed

> extend to there or was traffic and pollution a lot

> worse because Melbourne Grove has been closed? ;-)

> And are we to presume you will be selling your car

> now you have seen the light?

Well those roads were busy, certainly, but then they're always busy so nothing new there.

And no, I'm not going to sell the car because I still use it for longer journeys that aren't practical by train, and occasional trips to DKH sainsburys for a bigger shop. Personally I'm prepared to take the hit of a slightly longer journey when I do those things, if it opens up through roads that I can safely ride up with my kids without getting a heart attack and also provides me with an extra deterrent to just mindlessly jumping in the car for routine journeys around the area.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Just because the majority of people don't own a

> car in Southwark is not a justification for

> punishing those people who do

Oh for crying out loud - a couple of roads have been opened up to people. Motor vehicles get a completely disproportionate amount of space, funding and general deference thrown their way, despite creating injuries, deaths and pollution. A small diversion and some car drivers act like they're being persecuted, rather than massively and disproportionately indulged.

> your comments highlight the reason so many people get annoyed by

> the utopian view of the world taken by some on the

> forum who hail the "turn all the streets to cycle

> only" narrative. It is a narrative and aspiration

> that is wholly unrealistic.

It's not that unrealistic to share a little of the public realm, through the opening of a couple of streets to pedestrians and cyclists is it?

> I cycle. My whole family cycles. I also have a

> car. I cycle when I can but use my car when I need

> to - be that on journeys that are too long to

> cycle or involve transporting people or things

> that I can't get on my bike. I also drive when the

> weather is terrible - I don't like arriving

> looking like a drowned rat - I also prefer driving

> when it is cold, wet and dark. I used to cycle 10

> miles each way to my office but don't anymore as

> my office moved even further away.

>

> This is how most people use their cars

Actually, most local journeys are incredibly short and could be done on foot. A little over a third (35 per cent) of all car trips are shorter than 2 km. Some journeys need to be done by car - that's fine. But they are the minority and a 5 minute diversion isn't going to make them impossible.

> If people's eyes are blinkered by

> their belief that everyone can cycle or walk then

> they can't see, or are ignoring, the bigger

> challenges faced by a huge metropolis. Which is

> why a more inclusive and measured approach to

> traffic management is required.

TFL estimate that around 40% of adults in the borough, have household access to car. How much of the transport budget and how much space do you think is currently allocated to cars? Yes, I agree with you, let's have a more balanced approach.

> Not one that relies on the false promise that "Close the

> Streets and the bikes will follow". It just

> doesn't work like that.

All the evidence suggests that if you build cycle infrastructure, more people will cycle. London itself has proven this over the last few years

> Rahrahrah - I presume you don't own or need a car?

I do have a car and I do use a car. But I also understand that it's a privilege and not an entitlement and that we can't all just drive around everywhere.

[intexasatthe moment]

"Why would it have a negative impact? you can't park on rye lane anyway, although quite a lot ignore this and therefore endanger cyclists and pedestrians plus delay buses.

There is parking at morrisons, the back of ASDA and quite a few pay and displays less than 100m away.

People will probably linger and shop longer now there is less traffic."

The parking behind Asda is very limited ,that at Morrisons is often at capacity and both are time limited and unless you rush allow only a supermarket shop and not a supermarket shop plus visits to mighty pound ,one below ,Khans etc .The Choumert Rd pay and display car park is fine except that it costs money ,as does the limited meter parking .

And tiddles no ,no buses to near the station . You'll have to factor in an extra 10 mins to run down the road from Nigel Road and the East Duwich direction .

I and many others travel by bus to shop in Peckham ,weekly and other bus passes mean it's not an additional cost to use the shopping facilities.It helps when you have shopping to have a bus stop near the shops .There are now no bus stops from Nigel Road to the Aylsham Centre .Travelling back from Peckham Rye ( laden with shopping ) is means catching a bus from opposite Burger King on Peckham Road or the back of Morrisons or walking back up to Nigel Road .

[Dulres3]

> Oh for crying out loud - a couple of roads have been opened up to people.

The roads have always been open to people. As far as I?m aware there have never been marauding bands of motor vehicles roaming the streets of East Dulwich looking for their next victim.

> I do have a car and I do use a car.

> Motor vehicles get a completely disproportionate amount of space,

> funding and general deference thrown their way,

> despite creating injuries, deaths and pollution.

Sounds like you?re part of the problem that you wish to solve. Why not get rid of the car and be logically and morally consistent?