Traffic chaos in Dulwich Village - does anyone know the cause?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Because that is what is meant by ?there are fewer roads for people to find their way around the closure?.

I for one am glad that the LTNs are in place to stop this from happening.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Because that is what is meant by ?there are fewer

> roads for people to find their way around the

> closure?.

>

> I for one am glad that the LTNs are in place to

> stop this from happening.

But don't you realise that by closing the junction of Dulwich Village that it amplifies the problems elsewhere in circumstances such as this? The A205 has been shut before but the gridlock has never been this bad and this is solely down to the fact certain roads have been closed.

What you're saying is keep cars to A-roads. Only the most hardened pro-closure lobbyist (such as yourself) would categorise Court Lane as a "side road".

[Earl Aelfheah]

Except I haven?t said that have I Rockets? I?ve suggested that it?s not a great argument against the small number of filters to say ?we should remove them so that when the south circular is shut, we can reroute traffic down side roads?.

No one has suggested that all cars should be kept to A roads.

Also, because Rockets loves a strawman:

No one is calling for a ban on cars

No roads have been closed to cars - people can still drive down every road and can still access every destination by car (they just have to, in some cases, take a more circuitous route)

There are only a handful of filtered roads, mainly along school routes

No one is saying that all journeys can be made on foot or by bike

[dulwichfolk]

Such a shame this didn?t happen a month from now when dulwich is totally closed due to the bus gates.

Then the traffic would be even worse and public transport so delay maybe tfl would put us all out of our misery and overturn the closures.

[Dulwichgirl82]

But it doesn?t, it does it for a few roads and makes it worse for the others. I think low traffic neighbourhoods is a confusing term as really it?s low traffic streets. Either end of Melbourne, Elsie and Derwent is traffic and pollution.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Because that is what is meant by ?there are fewer

> roads for people to find their way around the

> closure?.

>

> I for one am glad that the LTNs are in place to

> stop this from happening.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It a question of whether we allow cars to dominate every single street, or we try to create some routes which are a bit quieter / safer (only four streets in ED I think (?) where cars can still drive, but not used to cut through between main roads).

[Dulwichgirl82]

But those routes are only really for some, I imagine far more people use lordship lane and east dulwich grove than those 4 roads, bearing in mind what?s on them respectively. So a minority benefits and the majority suffers. rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> It a question of whether we allow cars to dominate

> every single street, or we try to create some

> routes which are a bit quieter / safer (only four

> streets in ED I think (?) where cars can still

> drive, but not used to cut through between main

> roads).

[Sparrowhawk]

It's hilariously obtuse to try to characterise Court Lane as a 'side road' - it's one of the straightest, widest roads in the area!

Today's mess quite obviously isn't primarily caused by the DV road closure...but by removing the most obvious diversion route (i.e. DV / Court Lane / Lordship Lane) it is absolutely making the impact far worse.

It simply highlights yet another reason why the DV closure is so flawed - i.e. deliberately pushing traffic onto an ever smaller number of roads reduces the resilience of the network to absorb external shocks by making temporary work-arounds unavailable.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

dulwichfolk Wrote:

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

> Such a shame this didn?t happen a month from now

> when dulwich is totally closed due to the bus

> gates.

>

> Then the traffic would be even worse and public

> transport so delay maybe tfl would put us all out

> of our misery and overturn the closures.

It isn't anything to do with TfL.

[ali2007]

sharing this link for anyone who may not have seen it already:

https://eastdulwichstreetspace.commonplace.is/

oh and brilliantly yesterday someone threatened me (& my daughter) and threw a glass bottle at me in my car as a direct response to their frustration regarding a traffic jam and un-moving traffic (which we were both caught in).

It was at the junction of Barry Road / Underhill. I had actually taken that route to avoid the backed-up traffic on LL. I avoided one traffic-jam only to be stuck in another :(

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Dulwichgirl82 If you agree with the principle of trying to create some routes which are quieter / safer - then the question is where do you put them? You can't realistically close main roads to traffic. I would love Lordship Lane to be pedestrianised, but seriously?

What has been done instead, is that those 'cut throughs' - short cuts linking main streets (or ?distributor? roads where buses, lorries, non-local traffic should be), have had measures put in place to make it easier for them to be used by those on foot / bike. At the same time, it removes the rat running traffic from narrow residential streets. This seems like a reasonable target for such measures to me.

I think James McAsh's post gives a good and balanced overview of the aims of the small number of filtered streets, as someone pointed out on another thread: https://www.jamesmcash.com/blog/faqs-on-goose-green-ltn-measures

The alternative to doing this, is to allow every street to be dominated by cars and to effectively give up on trying to create quieter routes for walking / cycling all together.

Yes, it also has the benefit of creating low traffic neighbourhoods for the people who actually reside on those streets. I get that those back streets often have wealthier residents on them (although not exclusively). Whilst people may not like the 'inequity' of some having more respite from traffic and pollution than others, the alternative (making sure every street is dominated by cars) is not really my idea of a good outcome. It's effectively levelling down. The answer has to be to find ways of reducing traffic on main roads, without filling up all roads with motor vehicles and reducing traffic overall (something else which filtered roads / LTNs will help with).

[Earl Aelfheah]

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> But those routes are only really for some, I

> imagine far more people use lordship lane and east

> dulwich grove than those 4 roads, bearing in mind

> what?s on them respectively. So a minority

> benefits and the majority suffers. rahrahrah

> Wrote:

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

> -----

> > It a question of whether we allow cars to

> dominate

> > every single street, or we try to create some

> > routes which are a bit quieter / safer (only

> four

> > streets in ED I think (?) where cars can still

> > drive, but not used to cut through between main

> > roads).

They're not only for some. Anyone can walk or cycle along those streets and they used by many people travelling to ED Charter, ED Station and many other destinations.

[Sparrowhawk]

Once again, it's hilariously obtuse to try, with a straight face, to imply that Court Lane is a 'cut through' or 'narrow residential street'. I've lived in Dulwich since the 1970s and that road, while residential, has always been a critical part of the network for both local and through traffic. It is wide, straight, perfectly capable of carrying a sensible amount of traffic...but is currently sitting almost empty. While other roads sit in nose-to-tail traffic and pollution as a result.

[Dulwichgirl82]

We?ve been through this before and think we?ve talked it to death. I think something to reduce everyone?s traffic is fair not the lucky few at the expense of others.

I also agree re James post, I?m hopeful a middle ground can be found to help everyone. As I?ve mentioned restoring Melbourne grove and court lane May be a useful step and see if that relieves the excess congestion on ll and edg while allowing some streets to be closed.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> @Dulwichgirl82 If you agree with the principle of

> trying to create some routes which are quieter /

> safer - then the question is where do you put

> them? You can't realistically close main roads to

> traffic. I would love Lordship Lane to be

> pedestrianised, but seriously?

>

> What has been done instead, is that those 'cut

> throughs' - short cuts linking main streets (or

> ?distributor? roads where buses, lorries,

> non-local traffic should be), have had measures

> put in place to make it easier for them to be used

> by those on foot / bike. At the same time, it

> removes the rat running traffic from narrow

> residential streets. This seems like a reasonable

> target for such measures to me.

>

> I think James McAsh's post gives a good and

> balanced overview of the aims of the small number

> of filtered streets, as someone pointed out on

> another thread:

> https://www.jamesmcash.com/blog/faqs-on-goose-gree

> n-ltn-measures

>

> The alternative to doing this, is to allow every

> street to be dominated by cars and to effectively

> give up on trying to create quieter routes for

> walking / cycling all together.

>

> Yes, it also has the benefit of creating low

> traffic neighbourhoods for the people who actually

> reside on those streets. I get that those back

> streets often have wealthier residents on them

> (although not exclusively). Whilst people may not

> like the 'inequity' of some having more respite

> from traffic and pollution than others, the

> alternative (making sure every street is dominated

> by cars) is not really my idea of a good outcome.

> It's effectively levelling down. The answer has to

> be to find ways of reducing traffic on main roads,

> without filling up all roads with motor vehicles

> and reducing traffic overall (something else which

> filtered roads / LTNs will help with).

[dulwichfolk]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> dulwichfolk Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Such a shame this didn?t happen a month from

> now

> > when dulwich is totally closed due to the bus

> > gates.

> >

> > Then the traffic would be even worse and public

> > transport so delay maybe tfl would put us all

> out

> > of our misery and overturn the closures.

>

> It isn't anything to do with TfL.

Once the buses get delayed tfl will speak to the council/government and remove them.

It is why most of the big planning permissions consult with tfl and the impact to buses/transport. If it delays them it doesn?t get passed....at least that?s how it should work.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Sparrowhawk Wrote:

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

> Once again, it's hilariously obtuse to try, with a

> straight face, to imply that Court Lane is a 'cut

> through' or 'narrow residential street'. I've

> lived in Dulwich since the 1970s and that road,

> while residential, has always been a critical part

> of the network for both local and through traffic.

> It is wide, straight, perfectly capable of

> carrying a sensible amount of traffic...but is

> currently sitting almost empty. While other roads

> sit in nose-to-tail traffic and pollution as a

> result.

Court Lane is probably the exception, granted. It's a relatively wide road (or at least one with less on street parking than others).

[dulwichfolk]

The ULEZ and the government plan to potentially increase the congestion zone will do wonders for car numbers without having those with and those without road closures.

[Charles Notice]

And leave many people without any mode of transport and who are unable to fund a new vehicle.

I believe there are approx 2+ million cars that will be effected within the north and south circular roads when the Oct 2021 date comes into effect.

How do you expect people to sort things out now with all the covid and jobs situation.

None of these plans are thought out.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Sparrowhawk Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Once again, it's hilariously obtuse to try, with

> a

> > straight face, to imply that Court Lane is a

> 'cut

> > through' or 'narrow residential street'. I've

> > lived in Dulwich since the 1970s and that road,

> > while residential, has always been a critical

> part

> > of the network for both local and through

> traffic.

> > It is wide, straight, perfectly capable of

> > carrying a sensible amount of traffic...but is

> > currently sitting almost empty. While other

> roads

> > sit in nose-to-tail traffic and pollution as a

> > result.

>

> Court Lane is probably the exception, granted.

> It's a relatively wide road (or at least one with

> less on street parking than others).

So then, by default, you must recognise that the closure (do stop using filtered - it's not coffee and it makes you look a bit blinkered!!) of the DV junction is having a major effect on other roads due to the closure of the A205?

I had lunch on Lordship Lane today and the traffic northbound was queuing all the way back to Mr Lui's from the Goose Green roundabout.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Reopening Melbourne Grove to traffic cutting between Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove / Grove Vale would do little to help congestion imo. The road is narrow and the junctions quickly become a problem. The cars and vans unable to pass each other on the north section used to cause chaos. It would also be a disaster right outside Charter East Dulwich.

Court Lane might relieve the main stretch of Lordship Lane, but would not relieve the southern section where most of the congestion occurs (from the library to the south circular), or the northern section of Dulwich Village (leading to junction with EDG).

I hope they?ll be some proper analysis of it all and the council will make sensible changes where they?ll make a difference, but generally, it?s great having a few streets / routes where one can avoid traffic when walking / cycling locally.

The reality of the main roads is that they?re always going to be busy, but hopefully less so once the ULEZ comes in. The idea that it?s ?unfair? if some streets are filtered and others aren?t doesn?t wash with me. The corollary of that argument is you either have no quiet routes at all, or you filter every street (which is plainly ridiculous)

[Dulwichgirl82]

Disagree re Melbourne grove north, I?d say it?s as wide as the part of edg down to Ll, and did used to be a bus route I believe. Possibly one way would be helpful to prevent the cars trying to pass each other. Also think it?s the cause of a lot of traffic going down edg then goose green.

I also don?t understand why when you comment it?s always either all or nothing, either these specific measures or cars packing every road. There are lots of options which have been discussed previously that are more equitable. I don?t think anyone is suggesting let?s pack cars down every road but it seems to be what you come back to each time.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Reopening Melbourne Grove to traffic cutting

> between Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove /

> Grove Vale would do little to help congestion imo.

> The road is narrow and the junctions quickly

> become a problem. The cars and vans unable to pass

> each other on the north section used to cause

> chaos. It would also be a disaster right outside

> Charter East Dulwich.

>

> Court Lane might relieve the main stretch of

> Lordship Lane, but would not relieve the southern

> section where most of the congestion occurs (from

> the library to the south circular), or the

> northern section of Dulwich Village (leading to

> junction with EDG).

>

> I hope they?ll be some proper analysis of it all

> and the council will make sensible changes where

> they?ll make a difference, but generally, it?s

> great having a few streets / routes where one can

> avoid traffic when walking / cycling locally.

>

> The reality of the main roads is that they?re

> always going to be busy, but hopefully less so

> once the ULEZ comes in. The idea that it?s

> ?unfair? if some streets are filtered and others

> aren?t doesn?t wash with me. The corollary of that

> argument is you either have no quiet routes at

> all, or you filter every street (which is plainly

> ridiculous)

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets Wrote:

-----------

> So then, by default, you must recognise that the

> closure (do stop using filtered - it's not coffee

> and it makes you look a bit blinkered!!) of the DV

> junction is having a major effect on other roads

> due to the closure of the A205?

The roads aren't closed though, they are filtered. Every street can be driven on and to. Residents can also use their cars, get deliveries etc., it?s just not possible to drive straight through from one main road to the next. There is no journey which cannot be done by car as a result of the LTNs (although routes may be less direct), so in no sense are roads 'closed'. Some roads do get closed / pedestrianised - but that's not what we're talking about here.

> I had lunch on Lordship Lane today and the traffic

> northbound was queuing all the way back to Mr

> Lui's from the Goose Green roundabout.

So how what's the point you're making? This would be helped by diverting traffic down court Lane, through the village, down EDG to Lordship Lane and then the Goose Green roundabout? Because I think most people would probably just go straight down Lordship Lane.

[Dulwichgirl82]

Also you comment that it would be a ?disaster for charter north? but it?s ok for a nursery to have cars packed outside it, which it didn?t before the closures?

[Abe_froeman]

They are closed though.

They have signs on them that say "Road Closed". Suggest you drive along Grove Vale or Dulwich Village and have a look.

Before they were closed they had other signs warning of the dates on which the closures would take place.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> Also you comment that it would be a ?disaster for

> charter north? but it?s ok for a nursery to have

> cars packed outside it, which it didn?t before the

> closures?

Well, it depends whether you think the nursery traffic is a result of Melbourne Grove no longer being used as a cut through between two main roads. I suspect we might disagree. I also wonder how many kids are walked to the nursery (forgive me i don't know which one you're referring to) along Melbourne Grove - I don't know.

What I do know is that the north end of Melbourne Grove used to be regularly blocked. I also saw more than one road rage incident on that stretch because people couldn't pass. It also used to cause problems at the junction with EDG. There are many, many kids milling about on that stretch now that the school has opened. So yes, I do suspect there would be problems.