LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Rockets]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> James Barber Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I made a point of checking Effra's concerns

> about

> > East Dulwich Grove traffic backing up for

> myself.

> >

> > 7.50 Dulwich Village junction of EDG -

> virtually

> > no traffic or queueing on three arms. The arm

> > going north from the village had circa 15 cars

> > just before going green which all passed

> through

> > on green.

> > 8.20 EDG/Townley Road. Just before the lights

> go

> > green 5 cars queuing going west and 4 cars + 1

> bus

> > queuing going East. All passed through on

> green.

> > Private schools are on summer holidays which

> will

> > reduce traffic levels. But carmegeddon East

> > Dulwich Grove is not.

>

>

> Hardly an official traffic census on all roads in

> and around the changes James

>

> It's a bit like the pro cpz brigade saying on

> Tuesday last week my road was so full of cars you

> couldn't get a piece of paper between them we

> demand a CPZ

> But on the Anti CPZ brigade say on Thursday there

> were loads of spaces I don't see your problem

>

> Without a recognised before, and after survey over

> a sustained period (not just a snap shot as used )

> then there is no evidence that it is or isn't

> working

> Casual observation and hearsay isn't evidence !

>

> The real issue here is lack of proper supporting

> evidence or consultation by the council and

> without it people are rightly going to complain.

> If you want to do something to help then try

> campaigning to get the council to actually engage

> and listen to the full population and not just the

> vocal locals who shout the loudest.

James, perhaps you can help us ask Cllr McAsh why there was, and is, no monitoring on the roads being most impacted by this? He seems to have been less willing to engage via this forum since the beginning of the people-led revolution! ;-)

[Metallic]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> I made a point of checking Effra's concerns about

> East Dulwich Grove traffic backing up for myself.

>

> 7.50 Dulwich Village junction of EDG - virtually

> no traffic or queueing on three arms. The arm

> going north from the village had circa 15 cars

> just before going green which all passed through

> on green.

I'm afraid mornings during school holidays do not give you a sense of what term time is like BUT!! If you go to EDG junction anytime from around 4pm and hand around, you will see what hell is like for residents.

> 8.20 EDG/Townley Road. Just before the lights go

> green 5 cars queuing going west and 4 cars + 1 bus

> queuing going East. All passed through on green.

> Private schools are on summer holidays which will

> reduce traffic levels. But carmegeddon East

> Dulwich Grove is not.

[exdulwicher]

What you are seeing is democracy in action - all I, and I am sure many others on here, ever wanted was for a fair and balanced approach that is inclusive of all the needs of the community. If the One Dulwich community action project helps delivers balance then I, and a lot of others, will be happy. For too long only one voice in the debate has been heard and that needs to change.

I agree in part but "democracy" tends to fall apart a bit when there's no trust between "the people" and "the powers that be" (whether that's local or national Government). Obviously we're well past that stage with both local and national. Locally, the council have been accused of fudging figures, not consulting properly etc; nationally I think most people know that the Government has spent the last 4 years lying solidly about pretty much everything.

The other thing is that democracy really doesn't work when things HAVE to be done. There are ways and means of hiding behind consultations that legally have to be done but if the council has been directed to do something (in this case by Government to say "we're really in trouble if everyone who used to use public transport now decides to get in their car; have some funding to try and embrace the changes in working practices, active travel etc seen during lockdown, help people with social distancing and so on") and "the people" don't want it to be done, there's only one winner and it's the statutory requirement to do it.

Which leads straight back to the breakdown of trust issue and it's Catch-22.

The council have to promote active travel wherever possible because it's a directive from Government and they're getting funding for it (and because if even a small % of those previous public transport journeys transfer to private car, the roads will be gridlocked anyway, interventions or not).

The people don't like the lack of consultation and as a general rule, people object to any restrictions on driving or parking anyway.

The council do it anyway, everyone complains bitterly. Next time the council want to do something, the response is overwhelmingly negative. And so on.

Ultimately, some of this is behavioural psychology - people don't like change and often have to be forced into doing things differently otherwise everyone just carries on as normal.

I'm not sure what the actual answers are - the transport models for this don't exist yet and because most councils (nationally, not just Southwark) are so woefully behind the curve on promoting active travel, they're sort of starting from a very low baseline, not with an idea of what works, what doesn't.

Again all of that ^^ is just facts of the matter; it can be applied across a lot of councils at the moment, not specific to this situation.

[tiddles]

Just driven from gallery road to top of friern. Exiting gallery road at 5.20 traffics heading towards the old harvester was backed up beyond that junction. Crawled along south circular - one police van and two ambulances managed to get thru the almost stationary traffic (cars pulling up onto the pavements etc. Got to top of friern toad at 5.43 . Traffic heading towards the harvester from the library also queuing

[Earl Aelfheah]

I drove from townley/ EDH up through the village to join south circular at 5:30. It was a 5 minute diversion at most.

[thebestnameshavegone]

"Ultimately, some of this is behavioural psychology - people don't like change and often have to be forced into doing things differently otherwise everyone just carries on as normal."

Exactly this. One Dulwich and all the other leafletting groups of car drivers that have sprung up all profess to be mindful of environmental issues and air quality etc, just as long as nothing too inconvenient happens.

Covid has caused a surge in driving overall (I'm currently looking out on a gridlocked nunhead lane) - the anecdata campaigners are providing about the 'failure' of these initiatives is an observation of increased traffic across the board.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I drove from townley/ EDH up through the village

> to join south circular at 5:30. It was a 5 minute

> diversion at most.

5 minutes more pollution each way - it all stacks up....we are presuming you were unable to cycle on this journey! ;-) And remember, if the council have their way you won't be able to use Townley either so how much more time would that add onto future journeys?

[Rockets]

In case anyone missed it Cllr McAsh posted on the Covid forum yesterday the following note about the council finally looking at more social distancing measures on Lordship Lane.

If anyone is seeing any issues that the council isn't able to see it might be worth letting Cllr McAsh know because he seems to be suggesting there are no issues other than outside Moxons (which was addressed).

I have asked the council to do an investigation of the pavements on Lordship Lane to ascertain which sections need further measures. Using previous suggestions we looked at the following areas four times last Saturday

- Post Office area

- M & S

- Stretch of shop @ Moxon?s

- William Rose Butchers

With the social distancing measures in place around Moxon's, all four areas showed no issues.

Do others have different experiences? Or are there other places we should look at insteaD?

Best wishes

James

[Abe_froeman]

I'm struggling to imagine what kind of essential journey you must have been making at that time in that direction rahrah.

[tiddles]

2pm south circular queuing from harvester lights back to ryecoates mead.

12 min wait at harvester lights to turn right into south circular - the turn right filter is so quick lots of red light jumping

Edited to add 3.30 and dulwich village from turney to easy dulwich grove stationary. I have not previously been here at that time so not sure if this is unusual. Nearly all the cars are turning right so a filter now needed.

[Rockets]

Looks like the council is preparing for the next round of road closures.

This, according to Cllr McAsh's latest newsletter....https://www.jamesmcash.com/blog/goose-green-newsletter-summer-2020.

Take a look but it looks like the council are now desperately chasing the displacement issues they have caused by the Melbourne Grove closure. All together now...."we told you so".....;-)

At the time of writing, the permeable filter on Melbourne Grove south has already been

installed (this had been considered initially as part of the Our Healthy Streets scheme so these

plans had already been developed).

2. We will request that further permeable filters are installed on Melbourne Grove north, Elsie

Road, Derwent Grove and Tintagel Crescent.

3. We will request that adequate monitoring is in place for these streets and those nearby,

including East Dulwich Grove, Matham Grove, and Zenoria/Oxonian Street.

4. We believe that Matham Grove and Zenoria/Oxonian Street should be considered for the next

round of measures.

5. We have formally requested that the junction of Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove be

considered for further measures, including potential traffic lights, when funding is available.

[Abe_froeman]

I know James is new to this and hasn't spent much time here so may not be aware of the historical issues, but surely Charlie Smith could have told him that tfl won't countenance traffic lights on that junction

[Abe_froeman]

I know James is new to this and hasn't spent much time here so may not be aware of the historical issues, but surely Charlie Smith could have told him that tfl won't countenance traffi2c lights on that junction

[Spartacus]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> I know James is new to this and hasn't spent much

> time here so may not be aware of the historical

> issues, but surely Charlie Smith could have told

> him that tfl won't countenance traffi2c lights on

> that junction

Maybe they are playing the long game waiting for tfl to go bust and then there will be no objections 😱

[Serena2012]

To say I?m disappointed is an understatement. I can see why logically Melbourne North and Tintagel Crescent could be designated school streets (indeed, Tintagel is already), but in circumstances where there is already more idling traffic along the Goose Green end of Lordship Lane than I?ve ever witnessed before, and there are already huge problems with idling traffic along East Dulwich Grove caused by the initial changes, closing 5 other roads is just going to make the problem a million times worse. It wouldn?t surprise me if EDG is gridlocked for its entire length by the time the schools return in September.

What a stupid thing to do to a road that has a nursery and 3 schools on it, particularly in circumstances where the pollution from idling traffic is double that from free-flowing traffic. It?s not as if closing a dog legged road like Matham Grove and Oxonian/ Zenoria or a short road like Elsie, Derwent and Melbourne North, all linking directly into what will be ridiculously over-congested A roads are going to promote anyone to engage in active travel. It?s simply going to create a number of exclusive enclaves surrounded by a sea of pollution, and cause the air quality at Goose Green Primary (which breached WHO guidance fairly recently), as well as EDG nursery to plummet even further. It will also make life a complete nightmare for everyone living on those roads should they, god forbid, ever want to drive anywhere.

This was an inevitable consequence of a self-serving survey by our Goose Green ward councillors, directed at the residents of the roads standing to benefit the most from these proposals, and worded in such a way that it was difficult to object. The irony is that as a result of this mess, all properties on the roads that stand to ?benefit? that aren?t 50 metres from the junction of those roads and the A road with which they intersect will probably experience worse air quality.

How in circumstances where the link between fine particulate air pollution (i.e. that predominantly caused by motor vehicles) and severe morbidity and mortality in the context of Covid-19 seems very strong, our local council seems hell bent on making changes that will invariably increase the air pollution in this part of the ward is beyond me. Given the life long consequences of air pollution on children, worsening the pollution on roads that house the majority of the area?s schools, to benefit the handful of people lucky enough to live on one of the new Labour-created exclusive enclaves seems negligent in the extreme.

There will invariably be a negative knock on impact on bus journey times. I also have genuine concerns about the ability of emergency service vehicles to navigate what will no doubt be lengthy tailbacks, particularly on the Northern section of EDG where it?s impossible for two sizeable vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass each other without one of them needing to stop.

It is inevitable that the junction of LL/ EDG which is already struggling to cope will become a death trap.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I drove from townley/ EDH up through the

> village

> > to join south circular at 5:30. It was a 5

> minute

> > diversion at most.

>

>

> 5 minutes more pollution each way - it all stacks

> up....we are presuming you were unable to cycle on

> this journey! ;-) And remember, if the council

> have their way you won't be able to use Townley

> either so how much more time would that add onto

> future journeys?

Going to sussex. If I had to go down lordship lane and then East Dulwich Grove, or South up Lordship Lane, it would still add little more than 5-6 minutes realistically, when compared to going via Calton road. It?s really not that big a deal imo.

[tiddles]

have you been on the roads lately Rahrahrah - if the traffic was moving it would be no problem but the traffic is now stationary.

[Serena2012]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > I drove from townley/ EDH up through the

> > village

> > > to join south circular at 5:30. It was a 5

> > minute

> > > diversion at most.

> >

> >

> > 5 minutes more pollution each way - it all

> stacks

> > up....we are presuming you were unable to cycle

> on

> > this journey! ;-) And remember, if the council

> > have their way you won't be able to use Townley

> > either so how much more time would that add

> onto

> > future journeys?

>

> Going to sussex. If I had to go down lordship lane

> and then East Dulwich Grove, or South up Lordship

> Lane, it would still add little more than 5-6

> minutes realistically, when compared to going via

> Calton road. It?s really not that big a deal imo.

Whether it impacts your experience as a driver positively or negatively is not the point. The issue is that what is masquerading as a green initiative is actually causing tailbacks. Idling traffic = double the air pollution caused by free-flowing traffic. Therein lies the problem. Not only are these initiatives displacing traffic (i.e. shifting it from one road to another; but they?re also causing queues of traffic in circumstances where these didn?t exist previously so they?re actually making the whole area more polluted).

[intexasatthe moment]

Just back from our vets in Herne Hill and the traffic on East Dulwich Grove and through the village was dreadful ,stationary .

Hope it's not like that during school hours as the pollution for DVIS and JAGS will be terrible .

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > I drove from townley/ EDH up through the

> > village

> > > to join south circular at 5:30. It was a 5

> > minute

> > > diversion at most.

> >

> >

> > 5 minutes more pollution each way - it all

> stacks

> > up....we are presuming you were unable to cycle

> on

> > this journey! ;-) And remember, if the council

> > have their way you won't be able to use Townley

> > either so how much more time would that add

> onto

> > future journeys?

>

> Going to sussex. If I had to go down lordship lane

> and then East Dulwich Grove, or South up Lordship

> Lane, it would still add little more than 5-6

> minutes realistically, when compared to going via

> Calton road. It?s really not that big a deal imo.

But it is big deal isn't it? Because in the cesspit of statistics and percentages (which the council loves nothing more than to wallow in when it is lobbying people to support it's hair-brained closures) then that is a doubling (at least) of driving time for the start of your journey and, more importantly, a doubling of pollution (and that is presuming you don't hit traffic congestion). Times that by the number of other people who have to make a similar detour it soon adds up and aptly demonstrates how short-sighted these closures are because for every person who walks or cycles many more will be forced to make a detour - because as you more than aptly demonstrate by your trip to Sussex sometimes the car is the only viable option.

[thebestnameshavegone]

Transport for London's own analysis suggests that 41% of *all* trips in London are easily cycleable (less than 5 miles; no heavy load; traveler is under 64; traveler has no relevant disability).

If the traffic's bothering you, don't forget you *are* the traffic. Walk or cycle.

[Serena2012]

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> Transport for London's own analysis suggests that

> 41% of *all* trips in London are easily cycleable

> (less than 5 miles; no heavy load; traveler is

> under 64; traveler has no relevant disability).

>

> If the traffic's bothering you, don't forget you

> *are* the traffic. Walk or cycle.

But what if (like our family); you don?t own a car, yet your lives are being blighted by a series of short sighted road closures; that have not only caused idling traffic outside our home for the first time, but are also threatening to make our active journeys to school and nursery more hazardous and more polluted?

What about the health of the thousands of children educated along the area?s A roads? The reality is that it?s not that simplistic. Traffic can ?bother you?; and have a significant impact on lung development; mental health; likelihood of heart disease; severe morbidity and mortality from Covid-19 (the list goes on) even if YOU are not the problem.

[Rockets]

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> Transport for London's own analysis suggests that

> 41% of *all* trips in London are easily cycleable

> (less than 5 miles; no heavy load; traveler is

> under 64; traveler has no relevant disability).

>

> If the traffic's bothering you, don't forget you

> *are* the traffic. Walk or cycle.

As I was saying wallowing in the cesspit of stats rolled out by the powers that be to justify their own narrative....back in the real world people have families and things to carry so 41% of journeys of up to 5 miles are not easily done on a bike...10% maybe but not 41%

[Spartacus]

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> Transport for London's own analysis suggests that

> 41% of *all* trips in London are easily cycleable

> (less than 5 miles; no heavy load; traveler is

> under 64; traveler has no relevant disability).

>

> If the traffic's bothering you, don't forget you

> *are* the traffic. Walk or cycle.

I'll strap my false legs on then, didn't realise it was as simple as telling the lame "get up and cycle/walk you are cured of your ailments my child"

Sadly a vast majority of the people who rely on cars have them for very valid reasons.

[KidKruger]

Not everyone can manage their needs without a car.

Anyone speaking for car owners, as if they?re committing a misdemeanour by having a car, is obviously biased and clearly naive.