Consultation on ?improving? the junction of East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road and Green Dale

[Hawley]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> No recent comment yet on difficulties for coaches

> turning left into EDG. Is this still a problem or

> isn't it?

Based on what I witnessed at 8.25am this morning, I'm afraid it's a huge problem.

A dumper truck waiting at the lights on EDG, travelling in the direction of Lordship Lane, had to ignore the red signal and move 10 metres forwards to let a coach past. The coach was marooned in the middle of the road, unable to turn. Meanwhile, traffic behind it was also stuck.

What a mess.

[bawdy-nan]

and also interesting stats on households with access to cars - only 43% in Southwark so car owners absolutely the minority

nunhead_man Wrote:

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

> wulfhound Wrote:

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

> -----

> > So I'm afraid a lot of the people on this

> thread

> > need to take a look in the mirror, and think

> about

> > what their priorities really are. TfL want to

> > spend somewhere in the region of ?3 MILLION on

> the

> > Quietway.. the question is, do people want to

> > spend it on useless build-outs and fancy

> paving,

> > or on an actual, real step-change for cycling

> in

> > the area?

>

>

> Agreed - and those who drive using petrol and

> diesel should choke on this ............

>

> http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Healt

> h_Impact_of_Cars_in_London-Sept_2015_Final.pdf

[nunhead_man]

And can i raise you .....

http://road.cc/content/news/164375-boardman-air-pollution-deaths-should-be-treated-full-blown-crisis

[BrandNewGuy]

wulfhound Wrote:

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

> The problem is, most contributors on this thread

> don't want to radically improve things for

> cyclists.

>

> At least, not if it means compromising universal,

> unfettered and easy door-to-door car access and

> rat runs galore. Shutting those down is the only

> way it's going to happen.

Set up a straw man to knock him down. I don't recognise anyone on here having those views.

> The money was there, the political will to do

> something was there, but the Right-To-Turn-Right

> mob torpedoed any chance of a good outcome.

> Result? A watered-down scheme that p***ed a small

> fortune up the wall. You really think the council

> and their contractors weren't going to find a way

> to spend the money just because people didn't like

> their first design?

We ended up with a huge scheme designed for cycling even when the right turn was reinstated. You'll know that what we have now is nothing like the scheme as eventually agreed. And that has nothing to do with any 'mob'.

> I cycle everywhere & every day, but I'd much, much

> rather the QW didn't happen at all than that they

> spend ?3M on fancy paving because the public

> aren't prepared to countenance the cheap, proven

> interventions (road closures) that actually work.

> But as the money's already allocated, ?3M worth of

> fancy paving is most of what you're likely to get.

So which roads would you close here? Townley Road? East Dulwich Grove?

[wulfhound]

Are you hopeful about the broader quietway planning? I mean, do you think that looking at the bigger picture might help?

Not all that hopeful, tbh. If they built HS2 the way they seem to be building the Quietways, it'd stop six times before it got to the M25, then run non-stop at 160mph to the Cotswolds, where everyone would have to get off and board a vintage 2ft gauge steam line for twenty miles, before changing on to a National Express coach for the last leg in to Birmingham. But if you've ever ridden a Sustrans NCN route, this will be familiar territory.

If all they want to do is encourage a few more people resembling the present cycling demographic on to their bikes, money would be far better spent putting some new signs up on the existing LCN & spend the rest on bigger subsidies for cycle-to-work schemes, Santander bikes and suchlike.

[wulfhound]

So which roads would you close here? Townley Road? East Dulwich Grove?

I actually don't reckon the sky would fall in if they closed Townley, Calton, Court Lane & yes, Melbourne Grove - leaving the South Circular & EDG as the remaining E/W motor routes for the area. Would need some supporting measures, sure, but it's not that much bigger an area, north to south, as EDG to King's.

Almost certainly a poisoned chalice politically, but people are resilient, adaptable and flexible. If it happened for essential water works or some such, they'd grumble and get by. For cycling? Heavens no, we're not giving an inch for those red-light-jumping, Lycra-wearing, pedestrian-terrorising scofflaws.. ah.. I mean.. "I love cyclists. Some of my best friends" etc. etc.

[Zebedee Tring]

The chaos if they closed Townley, Calton, Court Lane and Melbourne Grove would be beyond belief. Wulfhund, you are clearly living in an unrealistic, idealistic dreamworld if this is your approach and you are doing a disservice to the main body of reasonable cyclists.

[bawdy-nan]

It would be a good experiment to do these closures all at the same time to see what the effect would be. One by one and they're likely to be opposed on the grounds that it pushes traffic elsewhere but if they are all restricted and traffic is pushed to main routes that might be worth it and worth a look, although it would likely have a detrimental knock on effect on public transport (bus routes).

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> The chaos if they closed Townley, Calton, Court

> Lane and Melbourne Grove would be beyond belief.

> Wulfhund, you are clearly living in an

> unrealistic, idealistic dreamworld if this is your

> approach and you are doing a disservice to the

> main body of reasonable cyclists.

[wulfhound]

The chaos if they closed Townley, Calton, Court Lane and Melbourne Grove would be beyond belief.

It would indeed be chaos beyond belief. For the first couple of weeks.

Then, for a few months after, orderly but insufferably long tailbacks in every direction.

Yet within a year, or two at the outside, the main roads wouldn't be significantly busier at peak times than they are now. Induced demand and its converse, traffic evaporation, are much more powerful forces than people recognise.

Human nature's a funny thing - people are, on the one hand, almost universally lazy when given the chance - yet incredibly smart, flexible, resilient and adaptable when they have to be.

By the way - I'm not suggesting that this set of closures is desirable, never mind politically possible - merely that even something that most people view as extreme would not, in fact, cause the sky to fall in. The capacity to grumble-and-get-on-with-it is almost without limit.

[first mate]

Wonderful if you are fit, healthy and able to cycle in all weathers; for those people life would be much better, but for everyone else? What if you cannot cycle or if for it simply is not practical to do this on a regular basis? Is it reasonable or equable to suggest your life is made a misery for two years in order to fulfil an experimental vision that may or may not work for only one sector of the population?

[Zebedee Tring]

I would love to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony. It would be lovely if everyone sat down on great bean bags in the middle of the Townley Road/EDG junction in the rush hour and gave each other a big hug, rather trying to get to work. However, I think that I live in the real world rather than some fantasy existence.

[James Barber]

Hi ZT,

You've poo poo'd wulfhound.

So what do you think the answer it sot rising obesity and the associated ill health epidemic, global warming and need to reduce CO2 emissions by 90%?

Hi first mate,

We've heard that 43% of residents have access to a car. So 57% don't.

[Zebedee Tring]

Hi, JB.

One of the answers is for a political party not to join in coalition with another party that in government over five years has contributed to the increase in all the ills that you mention. I think that you know which party I mean.

I think that you are making your pro cycling inclinations a bit too obvious, which would account for the stance that you have been taking on many local issues.

I should add that although we have a car I am now driving less than in nearly 50 years of driving and use public transport most of the time. I have also flown only twice in the last 15 years. My carbon footprint is therefore lower than virtually anyone than I know. So I think that I'm doing my bit.

[James Barber]

Nicely dodged.

I don't think you really believe obesity and global warming is all due to Lib Dems helping to form a coalition gov't for 5 years.

Come on you must have ideas to solve these massive problems?

you clearly care.

[Charles Notice]

Put barriers on every street and make people walk

[wulfhound]

I would love to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony. It would be lovely if everyone sat down on great bean bags in the middle of the Townley Road/EDG junction in the rush hour and gave each other a big hug, rather trying to get to work. However, I think that I live in the real world rather than some fantasy existence.

Long ago, I knew a fellow who could make that happen exactly as described. However, it'd get us all sent to jail for rather a long time, so maybe best not to ;)

[Zebedee Tring]

James, I've amended my post and have answered your question. Satisfied?.

I think that I'm doing more to save the world than the trendies who boast about how much they recycle their rubbish and ride their bikes but who then fly off on holiday annually to the USA or Kenya and kid themselves about how wonderful they are.

You seem to have forgotten that it is we, the general public, who hold you politicians to account and not vice versa.

[bawdy-nan]

There's already lots of inconvenience in the current system and situation so making changes just shifts who is inconvenienced. 57% of Southwark households don't have access to a car (an even higher percentage don't drive - once you factor in the under 17's). So why should the main focus for travelling be on people trying to travel by car?

In any case getting people out of cars for shorter journeys wherever possible benefits those people who need to use their cars or other vehicles for whatever reason.

I'd point especially to "rush hour" when the traffic is absolutely awful. If you look at the same pressure points out of school term they're much better - which would suggest that a good deal of the traffic is caused by people driving their children to school. It would be much better for the drivers that have no other option, for the children, for public transport users and everyone else if better (more healthy) ways of travelling were found so that parents and children felt confident about eschewing cars and bicyles for shorter journeys are ideal.

[bawdy-nan]

But "we" the "general public" are not, in the main, drivers of cars

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> James, I've amended my post and have answered

> your question. Satisfied?.

>

> I think that I'm doing more to save the world than

> the trendies who boast about how much they recycle

> their rubbish and ride their bikes but who then

> fly off on holiday annually to the USA or Kenya

> and kid themselves about how wonderful they are.

>

> You seem to have forgotten that it is we, the

> general public, who hold you politicians to

> account and not vice versa.

[spider69]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi ZT,

> You've poo poo'd wulfhound.

> So what do you think the answer it sot rising

> obesity and the associated ill health epidemic,

> global warming and need to reduce CO2 emissions by

> 90%?

>

> Hi first mate,

> We've heard that 43% of residents have access to a

> car. So 57% don't.

How do they get these figures?

Do they ask people?

If there is 1 car per family but all use it how does that work.

Politicos will alway skew figures for the result that want

[Abe_froeman]

Charles ... if I lived on a street I would want a barrier...

[bawdy-nan]

The stats are from the report linked to in one of the posts above:

http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Health_Impact_of_Cars_in_London-Sept_2015_Final.pdf

and are set out more fully here:

https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/technical-note-12-how-many-cars-are-there-in-london.pdf

43% of HOUSEHOLDS in Southwark have access to a car.

Or, there's always the census data from 2011

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/rft-table-ks404ew.xls

if you go to the percentages tab and search for Southwark you will see that, according to that data, 58.4% of households in Southwark do not have access to a car or van. So, yes, I suppose they do ask people.

[spider69]

2011 census. Worthless. Who tells the truth.

[spider69]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Charles ... if I lived on a street I would want a

> barrier...

The way things are going many a true word spoken in jest

[bawdy-nan]

That's an odd observation to make. Do you lie on your census form as an illegal act of civil disobedience? Yet another way to get at those pesky planners of public services...?

The tfl data also draws on vehicle registration data from DVLA to calculate quantities of vehicles registered in the borough.

spider69 Wrote:

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

> 2011 census. Worthless. Who tells the truth.