LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[katgod]

Re street schools at Harris- totally different situation. Harris one affects about 10 houses on a quiet back street with a very obvious way round, numerous other options to avoid it. It is also in place approx 8.30-9.15 and 2.45 -3.45 ( that?s not exact, but it?s clearly tied to school drop off times). Big metal barriers on wheels rolled out to block the road then moved back out of the way.

Why they can?t wait til ULEZ in place??

[Earl Aelfheah]

It's hard to argue against road closures around schools at opening / closing time imo. Can't really understand why this isn't standard practice tbh.

[Abe_froeman]

Yes we should close East Dulwich Grove and Lordship lane to traffic too during pick up and drop off for the Harris schools. Dulwich College is on the south circular so we should shut that down too.

Maybe we could just build a wall around southwark and make everyone with a car pay for it?

[Spartacus]

Thanks Abe "Trump" Froeman,that will keep those pesky Mexican car drivers out of East Dulwich 🤔😂

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Yes we should close East Dulwich Grove and

> Lordship lane to traffic too during pick up and

> drop off for the Harris schools. Dulwich College

> is on the south circular so we should shut that

> down too.

>

> Maybe we could just build a wall around southwark

> and make everyone with a car pay for it?

[Serena2012]

There is a serious point here, which is that even though Southwark can argue that both Goose Green and Harris Primary schools have ?school street? closures on neighbouring streets aimed at dissuading drop offs by car, the reality is that both schools are located on roads that are likely to bear the brunt of these proposals. Whilst the concept is to be applauded, I have serious concerns that all the proposals do is to enhance air quality in Dulwich Village (which could potentially be beneficial to the Village schools, assuming the amount of idling traffic in their vicinity decreases), but could potentially worsen the air pollution around those schools on Grove Vale, Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove.

I would love to be proven wrong on this, but I feel that it?s imperative that we as residents are given complete transparency as to the likely knock on impacts on neighbouring roads before any proposals are implemented, and that Southwark are required to take these into account and consider how best to mitigate these.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Yes we should close East Dulwich Grove and

> Lordship lane to traffic too during pick up and

> drop off for the Harris schools. Dulwich College

> is on the south circular so we should shut that

> down too.

>

> Maybe we could just build a wall around southwark

> and make everyone with a car pay for it?

[slarti b]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> It's hard to argue against road closures around schools at opening / closing time imo. Can't

> really understand why this isn't standard practice tbh.

Are you suggesting that, as part of this "standard practise", Dulwich Village, East Dulwich Grove, Red Post Hill and Lordship Lane should all be closed during school opneing and closing hours?

[exdulwicher]

Romnarz Wrote:

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

> Did the Dulwich Society ask it?s 1000 plus

> members before responding ?

https://www.dulwichsociety.com/news/1853-our-healthy-streets-initiative

What they sent out was an initial "we're supportive of making Dulwich a better place" response, but they're inviting comments on their website at the above link and also publicising three meetings.

[Rockets]

Goodness me...these plans are as bad as the Loughborough Junction debacle initiated by Lambeth - will these councils ever learn?

And for those of you unfamiliar with the Loughborough Junction mess read this (it will all be such a familiar process for those who watched the ED CPZ unfold): https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/motors/crunch-day-looms-over-traffic-experiment-a3107976.html

Let's be honest, the problems experienced by Dulwich Village have been caused, in large part, by the improvement works the council carried out which have made the area more congested, more polluted and more dangerous for all road users and pedestrians. It seems that they plan to cut the area off from car access to completely rectify the problem that was of their making.

As Lambeth learnt with Loughborough Junction - just shutting off one area to vehicular access does not solve the problem - it just moves it somewhere else and Lambeth had to relent and remove the measures - but only after significant political pressure put on them by their own party HQ.

The same will happen here - the impact to the wider area will be huge.

But as we know from all of our experiences with the CPZ the council will power through with this initiative regardless of what the local people actually say or want. They will take testimony from a few of the local residents around Eynella, who will no doubt think this is a fabulous idea, ignore the views of the masses and come to the conclusion that they know what is best for us.

They will suggest that due to traffic displacement the scheme must be extended to Melbourne Grove, Burbage and Turney and they will create a no traffic island that will mean anyone living or going about their business either side of it will be massively impacted. Lordship Lane and the surrounding roads will become even more congested and gridlocked.

The fact such a thing is even being presented shows just how out of touch Southwark is and the disdain with which they hold anyone living in the area.

When are the next local council elections......?

[fbwick]

Has the question been answered as to where parents who currently use Calton Avenue and Townley Road to drop off their kids will do so in the future? I?m very concerned that the roads behind Alleyn?s (Glengarry, Trossachs etc.) will become the default drop off zone. These roads are often dangerous in the mornings for pedestrians and cyclists and these proposals could make that worse.

[Penguin68]

I am assuming that the few existing shops and restaurants in Dulwich will be able to continue to survive with only Dulwich resident custom, because the chance of visitors to Dulwich is being extinguished by these proposals.

[Rockets]

I like the way the council highlights Village Books at the epicentre of the new schematic - has anyone asked them for their opinion?!

[Earl Aelfheah]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> I am assuming that the few existing shops and

> restaurants in Dulwich will be able to continue to

> survive with only Dulwich resident custom, because

> the chance of visitors to Dulwich is being

> extinguished by these proposals.

I suspect they do pretty much do now. Who drives to the Village to eat? There's nowhere to park anyway.

[apbremer]

The least we should have is a trial period, but I understand that our Lords and Masters will not countenance this, and insist that the bulldozers take over wholesale. Madness.

[Earl Aelfheah]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > It's hard to argue against road closures around

> schools at opening / closing time imo. Can't

> > really understand why this isn't standard

> practice tbh.

>

> Are you suggesting that, as part of this "standard

> practise", Dulwich Village, East Dulwich Grove,

> Red Post Hill and Lordship Lane should all be

> closed during school opneing and closing hours?

Some of those schools (Harris Primary for example) already do. Not Lordship Lane, but the road on the other side is closed to traffic as part of the School Streets programme. I don't know about the others, but certainly they could.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Reading above, it sounds as thought Goose Green has school street closures also. As I say, it seems like a bit of a no-brainer to me.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The reality of all of this, is that we give huge amounts of public space over to (often single occupancy) motor vehicles. It's totally disproportionate and needs rebalancing in favour of pedestrians and cyclists.

[Rockets]

Rahrahrah, is not the closing of the whole of one side of Dulwich Village to through traffic not ever-so slightly disproportionate...I know you are a big fan of cycling and walking everywhere but surely you must be able to realise that these proposals are nonsensical and will do nothing to solve the problem but make matters worse and create gridlock elsewhere? There is a reason why people use that intersection and it is not because they want to - it is because they have to.

Not every car journey is a pointless journey and many are by necessity because people cannot cycle or walk - unfortunately the cycle and pedestrian utopia many dream of will never exist because life has changed and people are living further and further away from the places that they work, educate and play in. By closing sections of a city to road users who happen to be in cars doesn't help the problem - it makes matters worse.

That traffic will go somewhere - it won't just magically disappear - nor will people stop using their cars on the basis of this - they will just find another route. That's what happened with Loughborough junction and it is what will happen here.

[Abe_froeman]

He does want a wall!

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> > That traffic will go somewhere - it won't just

> magically disappear

I predict that quite a lot of it will disappear actually. That's certainly what's been found when other, similar schemes have been introduced. I am a car driver by the way, but recognise that the current situation is unsustainable and that we need change.

[Abe_froeman]

And with the vehicles, the sports clubs, shops and restaurants may well also disappear.

I suspect the schools may struggle too tbh. It will be hard to attract prospective parents from outside the area to send their children there when they have to travel by the public transport that is actually available to get to those streets

[Earl Aelfheah]

We always hear these arguements whenever anyone suggests measures to tackle issues with motor traffic. Yet we have seen some massive successes in London. Around 70% of traffic going over Blackfriars bridge during rush hour is now people travelling on bikes, as a result of re-allocating a small amount of space for a segregated bike lane for example. It is equivalent to the number of people carried by 64 full double-decker buses. There isn't the capacity to shift this many people in single occupancy vehicles even if you wanted to. The point is that we have limited space and we give the vast majority (around 80%)of it over to a very inefficient and damaging (albeit occasionally necessary) form of transport. Every time we try to re-balance the use of this scarce resource, we're told that it'll lead to gridlock. But this is almost never the reality once these schemes are introduced. I think it's worth experimenting a little. Something has to change if we're going to tackle climate change, local air pollution and the scandal of thousands of road accidents every year in London. Most people in Southwark don't own a car and so might reasonably question why so much of the public realm is organised around a minority activity with such damaging impacts.

[Penguin68]

Sorry all, I'm being lazy, but have the costs of what is being proposed (actual cost to the council of the building works, I'm sure there is no attempt to cost the economic impact on the community of extended journey times and wear and tear on the roads carrying the diverted traffic, nor medical costs to those now to be breathing in more stationary traffic fumes in LL etc.) been included in this proposal - or indeed what the opportunity costs are - i.e. what other schemes now won't be funded to pay for this?

[Rockets]

Rahrahrah - I am not sure you can possibly equate people cycling over Blackfriars bridge to be the likely outcome in Dulwich Village. We have all seen the flocks of cyclists - many of them MAMIL's - bombing in and out of London during the rush hour and this is to be commended and welcomed but I would ask how many of those were driving that route previously or whether, as more likely, they were train and tube commuters who decided to get a bit of exercise to and from work?

[Abe_froeman]

The Blackfriars Bridge example also ignores the empty cycle lanes and long queues of lorries on Southwark Bridge.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Rahrahrah - I am not sure you can possibly equate

> people cycling over Blackfriars bridge to be the

> likely outcome in Dulwich Village. We have all

> seen the flocks of cyclists - many of them MAMIL's

> - bombing in and out of London during the rush

> hour and this is to be commended and welcomed but

> I would ask how many of those were driving that

> route previously or whether, as more likely, they

> were train and tube commuters who decided to get a

> bit of exercise to and from work?

I?m equating the reaction to numerous proposals to rebalance the use of public space with the one here. The fact that any scheme aimed at a more proportionate allocation of space away from motor vehicles is preceded by dire predications which are rarely born out in reality