What are peoples thoughts on proposals to close to traffic Turney rd, Court lane & Rosendale rd??

[Townleygreen]

What about the main argument, mako?

1 We are due to have 2 million more people in this city of ours in the next 10-15 years or so. That's a 25% increase. What's that going to do to your precious car driving experience then, if we do nothing, mako?

2 The pollution. more than 9,000 people die each year from breathing in the polluted air produced by your precious cars, dear mako.

Add those two together. Now do you fancy your future and that of your children.

Just try to face the facts, your current car based lifestyle is leading nowhere.

[wulfhound]

Goodness only knows what they are up to, but quite apart from the whole business of trying to force people out of cars a deeply cynical part of me wonders if they also want to place enough traffic pressure on residential roads that people start begging for CPZ

Or even - put enough pressure on the main roads that people beg for the South Circular Tunnel (2013 edition) to be brought back from the never-never? Now *there's* a nice little pay-day for the council's pet contractors.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/south-circular-goes-underground-and-brent-cross-to-get-flyunder-in-30bn-plan-8697628.html

(Although, in some ways, keeping the A205 surface roads for local traffic displaced from the back-streets, and putting everything long-distance in a dirty great big tunnel, does sound rather civilised. Unless, that is, one of the tunnel portals ends up on your doorstep or high street).

[spider69]

Townleygreen Wrote:

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

> What about the main argument, mako?

>

> 1 We are due to have 2 million more people in this

> city of ours in the next 10-15 years or so. That's

> a 25% increase. What's that going to do to your

> precious car driving experience then, if we do

> nothing, mako?

>

> 2 The pollution. more than 9,000 people die each

> year from breathing in the polluted air produced

> by your precious cars, dear mako.

>

> Add those two together. Now do you fancy your

> future and that of your children.

>

> Just try to face the facts, your current car basedj

> lifestyle is leading nowhere.

Posted by Townleygreen September 19, 08:19AM

I like Lidl but if I'm doing a largeish shop with a car, I can never get everything I want there! It's then a pain to go somewhere else for the last few bits

[Rockets]

Oh dear mako - it appears that your correction of some stated "facts" appears to have somewhat annoyed TG.....

And the statement that 9,000 people die from car pollution seems to somewhat overlook the fact that buses that the TG family no doubt uses are some of the main pollutants with diesel particles being particularly bad for you.

Let's be honest here - the efforts of various local councils to close local roads will zero impact on car ownership in the long run - people just adapt and adjust...and we use things like Waze which finds you a route in the most trying circumstances....

We will not be stopped from getting to where we need to go......;-)

[mako]

Townley. As I said you claim to speak for the wider picture but then make it personal. 'just try to face the facts, your current car based lifestyle is leading nowhere', The actual fact, though you dont seem interested in facts, is that I do not have a car, and will happily bet you ?1 per mile that i cycle further than you every week. If there were no cars the loss of revenue and resulting poverty and decline in living standards i believe would be a greater casualty than 9000 and 9000 people wouldnt be saved if no cars. the transport system isnt viable to have no cars and whilst we (the overall population) need them we should do the best to keep the traffic moving sensibly.

[mako]

As for you main argument it seems to be the roads are going to be overcrowded in 10 years so rather than spend time and effort improving trains buses etc it is acceptable to purposely make the roads worse now. What sort of logic is that. Is that not like saying pollution is going to get us so lets pollute evryone more now so they dont want to do it in future. Ridiculous thinking,

[Townleygreen]

No, miko, if we take action NOW and make the correct decisions, we can prevent meltdown in the future and make London more like Copenhagen rather than the polluted hell that kills 9,500 per year.

We can encourage people to do more cycling, walking then there needn't be pollution on the present scale.

You seem to want to increase the number of deaths per year - why?

I have never said there will be no cars - where did you get that from?

Copenhagen has plenty of cars but it is a safe place to live, walk and cycle unlike London.

The point is that in London you have to be brave to cycle, we need to make it easy and safe so that kids and older folks and all will feel able to take part.

[slarti b]

To TownleyGreen, Wulfhound and Bawdy Nan

Car use has been decreasing in London for many years now. This is despite the increase in journeys resulting from improvements to the economy and population growth. The main increase is in public transport; cycling is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

You talk about London's population increasing by 2 million over the next 10-15 years. If so, it is simplistic and wrong to claim this will be catered for by concentrating on road schemes to benefit cyclists. Even if number of cycle journeys doubled it will have a minor impact.

We need to improve and extend public transport and this includes buses, particularly in South East London where there are few tubes. The problem is that many of these pro-cyclist road schemes are poorly thought out (or maybe deliberate obstructive to cars) resulting in severe knock on effects and unintended (though predictable) consequences. So, the militant cyclist "anti-car" agenda ends up producing an anti-bus and pro congestion\pollution outcome.

So yes, lets improve cycling facilities but not by messing up the roads for other users and lets not pretend it will magically solve obesity, global warming, world peace etc.

[first mate]

TG, Copenhagen is having issues with cycle congestion, apparently because cycling numbers have increased too fast in the last few years. This is not to be wholly negative but again highlights that large scale meddling to force change can be problematic.

[Pevara]

The message quoted below shows exactly the wrong approach that zealots rush to adopt.

Do something, do something now, think of the children, it preaches!!!

I would rather think things through before doing something this drastic.

If you close an arterial road like Court Lane or Calton one way and leave traffic to move

through side streets, there is no materi body of evidence that this will reduce

traffic, just a hope and a prayer.

What it will certainly do is divert traffic down streets that weren't designed to take them,

thus increasing pollution and noise for residents along those side streets.

What's that I hear you say, you don't care? Thought so. Well I do, I love how quiet most

of our side streets are and am going to do everything in my power to oppose zealots

like yourself, who:

- don't know whether their solution will solve or eaxcerbate the problem

- don't care about other problems their solution will create

- keep pointing to a bad analogy (Copenhagen), which is nowhere near the size and scale of London

- assume future scenarios, such as all future immigrants to London will buy cars

- don't know whether the problem will sort itself out in 10 years due to different fuel mixes on vehicles

such as electric cars or increased pricing on fossil fuels

Townleygreen Wrote:

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

> No, miko, if we take action NOW and make the

> correct decisions, we can prevent meltdown in the

> future and make London more like Copenhagen rather

> than the polluted hell that kills 9,500 per year.

> We can encourage people to do more cycling,

> walking then there needn't be pollution on the

> present scale.

> You seem to want to increase the number of deaths

> per year - why?

> I have never said there will be no cars - where

> did you get that from?

> Copenhagen has plenty of cars but it is a safe

> place to live, walk and cycle unlike London.

> The point is that in London you have to be brave

> to cycle, we need to make it easy and safe so that

> kids and older folks and all will feel able to

> take part.

[Charles Notice]

Townleygreen Wrote:

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

> No, miko, if we take action NOW and make the

> correct decisions, we can prevent meltdown in the

> future and make London more like Copenhagen rather

> than the polluted hell that kills 9,500 per year.

You keep mentioning Copenhagen and Holland but have you actually lived in these counties and experienced what you preach first hand?

Official handouts and real experience are normally miles apart and bear no relation to the real world.

[Townleygreen]

Im not a zealot. Neither am I anti-car. I own one, after all. Just don't use it much except to drive away from London.

I just think it would be lovely if we were able to cycle as freely as in many European cities.

Children cycling to school. No Chelsea tractors belching out they poisonous diesel around the school streets, because parents see how safe it is for their kids to cycle.

I am looking forward to the new fully segregated cycling facilities they're building in the centre, Elephant to Farringdon for example. Vehicles totally separated from cycles and pedestrians.

It will be inspiring and encourage others to use their cars much less.

I fear these Quietways are going to be a bit of a mess in Dulwich, sadly, probably because of the way they've been handled, putting people's backs up. It needs some leadership, vision, persuasion from our mayor. A great pity and a wasted opportunity.

[Charles Notice]

Posts from townleygreen

Im not a zealot. Neither am I anti-car. I own one, after all. Just don't use it much except to drive away from London.

I like Lidl but if I'm doing a largeish shop with a car, I can never get everything I want there! It's then a pain to go somewhere else for the last few bits

[Townleygreen]

I agree about Lidl. Can never get all one wants there. Like the shop, but end up having to go to Sainsbos as well.

[bawdy-nan]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> To TownleyGreen, Wulfhound and Bawdy Nan

>

> Car use has been decreasing in London for many

> years now. This is despite the increase in

> journeys resulting from improvements to the

> economy and population growth. The main increase

> is in public transport; cycling is insignificant

> in the grand scheme of things.

>

> You talk about London's population increasing by 2

> million over the next 10-15 years. If so, it is

> simplistic and wrong to claim this will be catered

> for by concentrating on road schemes to benefit

> cyclists. Even if number of cycle journeys doubled

> it will have a minor impact.

>

> We need to improve and extend public transport and

> this includes buses, particularly in South East

> London where there are few tubes. The problem is

> that many of these pro-cyclist road schemes are

> poorly thought out (or maybe deliberate

> obstructive to cars) resulting in severe knock on

> effects and unintended (though predictable)

> consequences. So, the militant cyclist

> "anti-car" agenda ends up producing an anti-bus

> and pro congestion\pollution outcome.

>

> So yes, lets improve cycling facilities but not by

> messing up the roads for other users and lets not

> pretend it will magically solve obesity, global

> warming, world peace etc.

I do agree with you about the need to improve public transport, especially locally. There's a comment somewhere on this thread about the difficulties of hefting small children around these parts and I remember this distinctly from when my children were small. I didn't have a car then and, for the most part, that was absolutely fine: we used a taxi from the supermarket or ordered online, went on holiday by train, took buses and trains into town, walked and cycled. Actually, with kids all of those things were a much nicer way to travel. The real difficulty was when I had to get them to and from, say, a childrens party in a church hall in West Dulwich. The journey was around a couple of miles but too much for a 4 year old to walk there and back in the rain and getting there by bus meant we had to change at least twice. Miserable.

I do think also that the traffic situation in London is unsustainable. There are, of course, people that need or want to use cars for many or all of their journeys but the idea that you should be able to use your car as and when you please just isn't the case now: travelling a couple of miles in your car between 8 and 9 am would be unthinkable right now because it takes so long (much longer than walking). The fewer people that feel they have to use private cars for journeys in London the better able those that can't use other means of transport will be able to go about their business.

Bikes are already an important part of commuting and getting to school locally (especially for local secondary schools where the distances travelled are further - there's no reason at all that I can see for primary school children to be arriving at school in cars and, for the most part, I don't think they do) integrating bicycles into the transport infrastructure so that they can be used to their full potential (and by the full potential of people) is a sensible part of planning for a city's transport system. The private schools are another matter and it is absolutely clear that their contribution to traffic chaos, danger and standstill is immense. They know this. There's all kinds of things that they could do to address these problems and they do encourage use of coaches rather than door to door driving but, I think, don't go far enough.

The difficulty, of course, is that changes can inconvenience people. But that is already the case. The streets of East Dulwich weren't built to accommodate the hundreds of cars now parked on the roads but the increase in time in vehicle ownership means that all of the roads are "clogged" with parked cars inconveniencing all road users.

The problem and the solution isn't only a local one but the consultations and impacts are (both good and bad).

[bawdy-nan]

And, about the Copenhagen / Dutch comparison, Robert Goodwill, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport has just come back from a fact finding trip (with Chris Boardman) to see for himself and his attitude has been transformed:

Following the tour, Mr Goodwill said: ?It was rather a shock to see just how many people were cycling. When I say people, I mean just that - ordinary people in ordinary clothes; people of all ages, people with young children, and a lot of women.

?The other thing that struck me was that if all of those people on their bikes had been in cars, the place would have been completely jammed. So I think the motorists understand that having all these people on bikes actually gives them more space to get around. It?s all very impressive.?

Mr Goodwill said his visit to Copenhagen had opened his eyes to ?innovative? ways of working and, although he acknowledged that Britain has plenty of catching up to do, vowed to kick-start the process which would allow cyclists in Britain to benefit from increased investment and improved infrastructure.

He added: ?Here, we?ve seen vast numbers of people on bikes, very good provisions on the roads and a lot of innovative ideas that I?m sure we?ll be taking back with us.

?This has happened over a long period of time. The problem we have in Britain is that we should have started 30 years ago. That means we need to re-double our efforts to ensure we get what the Prime Minister called a ?cycling revolution? in the UK, so we can come here without having to hang our heads in shame a little bit.

?I?ve been blown away by what I?ve seen in Copenhagen, and that?s given me an additional feeling of wanting to re-double our efforts back home to ensure that we can do more for cyclists.?

https://youtu.be/qFvw0_Znauc

[BrandNewGuy]

bawdy-nan Wrote:

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

> And, about the Copenhagen / Dutch comparison,

> Robert Goodwill, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary

> of State for Transport has just come back from a

> fact finding trip (with Chris Boardman) to see for

> himself and his attitude has been transformed:

>

> Following the tour, Mr Goodwill said: ?It was

> rather a shock to see just how many people were

> cycling. When I say people, I mean just that -

> ordinary people in ordinary clothes; people of all

> ages, people with young children, and a lot of

> women.

So why did he go with Chris Boardman? One of my beefs with the images promoting cycling is that too many cyclists are clad in racing gear. Imagine promoting everyday car driving and using Lewis Hamilton as your spokesperson? No-one needs a racing bike, loads of expensive lycra, top-of-the-range goggles etc etc. Just jump on a damn bike. When people do that, the cycling lobby's battle will be as good as won.

[bawdy-nan]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

>

> So why did he go with Chris Boardman? One of my

> beefs with the images promoting cycling is that

> too many cyclists are clad in racing gear. Imagine

> promoting everyday car driving and using Lewis

> Hamilton as your spokesperson? No-one needs a

> racing bike, loads of expensive lycra,

> top-of-the-range goggles etc etc. Just jump on a

> damn bike. When people do that, the cycling

> lobby's battle will be as good as won.

I think Chris Boardman and British Cycling invited him. CB has been doing a lot of work promoting "ordinary" cycling and that's what he was keen to emphasise to the minister.

[Pevara]

What a load of waffle followed by the (quoted) dimissive statement about "inconvenience", made so blithely.

Like I said, a zealot cares for none else.

How about we focus on the question here, rather than swinging wildly from ecological catastrophe to loving the ideal of community cycling as reasons to "inconvenience" everyone else.

The question in the thread is simply whether the new cycling schemes should result in the closure (one way or two ways or any way) of arterial roads such as Calton and Court Lane to motor traffic.

Stepping away from future "judgment day" style rants, it is clear that no cycle scheme should close arterial roads to motor traffic.

The cons are:

1. No assurance of reduction in motor traffic

2. Definite diversion of traffic down peaceful side streets, increasing localised air pollution (slower moving traffic down narrower streets) and creating noise pollution and blight in those streets (which is also not good for the health and stress levels of local residents on those streets) - might as well call the scheme cycle "noiseways".

The glorious aim of the cycle collective - fearless cycling on the motorways of Dulwich - will also be difficult to achieve since the young cyclists they want to encourage don't automatically arrive on main roads when they leave their houses. They need to first travel from their homes, a lot of which will be on those very side streets which will now see increased traffic if arterial roads are closed.

As for comparing the "inconvenience" from parked cars with the health and stress impacting air and noise pollution along side streets that will accompany arterial road closures and diverted traffic - what a risible analogy.

bawdy-nan Wrote:

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

>

> Snip

>

>

> The difficulty, of course, is that changes can

> inconvenience people. But that is already the

> case. The streets of East Dulwich weren't built to

> accommodate the hundreds of cars now parked on the

> roads but the increase in time in vehicle

> ownership means that all of the roads are

> "clogged" with parked cars inconveniencing all

> road users.

[BrandNewGuy]

bawdy-nan Wrote:

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

> BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> > So why did he go with Chris Boardman? One of my

> > beefs with the images promoting cycling is that

> > too many cyclists are clad in racing gear.

> Imagine

> > promoting everyday car driving and using Lewis

> > Hamilton as your spokesperson? No-one needs a

> > racing bike, loads of expensive lycra,

> > top-of-the-range goggles etc etc. Just jump on

> a

> > damn bike. When people do that, the cycling

> > lobby's battle will be as good as won.

>

> I think Chris Boardman and British Cycling invited

> him. CB has been doing a lot of work promoting

> "ordinary" cycling and that's what he was keen to

> emphasise to the minister.

But don't you think having a racing cyclist presents the wrong image?

[Penguin68]

Just to clarify - Copenhagen has a population of 1.2m (1.9m across its 'metropolitan' area) with a population density of 1,850 per sq km. Greater London's population density of 5,490 is 4 times more dense - over an area of 1,572 sq km - compared with Copenhagen's of 711 sq km. What will work for a small, comparatively less densely populated area will not (necessarily) work for a much larger one - as regards suitable transport solutions. When distances which one has to travel to 'get places' are generally much smaller, then choosing self-powered transport (including walking) makes far more sense.

[wulfhound]

The journey was around a couple of miles but too much for a 4 year old to walk there and back in the rain and getting there by bus meant we had to change at least twice. Miserable.

Very much in the same boat. Typically cargobike if it's dry, or find a bus/train route that's scootable at either end & brings the total walk down below a mile (TfL Journey Planner & the bus countdown app make working that out much easier than it was a few years ago). The cargobike's way quicker for two miles though, timing-wise it's not that much different to driving for anything up to 3 miles. If it's pouring with rain? Hailo or as a last resort Uber. Only have to resort to those once every couple of months, but it's nice to know it's there if it's needed.

[bawdy-nan]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> bawdy-nan Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> But don't you think having a racing cyclist

> presents the wrong image?

Probably not ideal, I agree, but he's doing a pretty good job (from my perspective)

[BrandNewGuy]

But you don't need convincing about bike use. Millions do and if they see Chris Boardman, they'll think it's not for them. Show Jo Brand cycling and I'll back your campaign ;-)

[bawdy-nan]

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that travelling by car in London isn't "convenient" mostly because there are so many cars on the road and that addressing the transport issues is important. I'm not a "zealot", though, I agree, I'm probably an enthusiast for cycling: I love doing it, especially for shorter distances and would like others to have that same experience and I'd like to see streets improved for walking and cycling.

Households with access to a car are in the minority in Southwark so, yes, I think it is also fair to prioritise the needs of the under-served and I do think that enabling more people to eschew cars for journeys is a "good thing".

I do take your point about side streets potentially becoming through routes and I think it is important to have proper modelling and trials.

Pevara Wrote:

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

> What a load of waffle followed by the (quoted)

> dimissive statement about "inconvenience", made so

> blithely.

>

> Like I said, a zealot cares for none else.

>

> How about we focus on the question here, rather

> than swinging wildly from ecological catastrophe

> to loving the ideal of community cycling as

> reasons to "inconvenience" everyone else.

>

> The question in the thread is simply whether the

> new cycling schemes should result in the closure

> (one way or two ways or any way) of arterial roads

> such as Calton and Court Lane to motor traffic.

>

>

> Stepping away from future "judgment day" style

> rants, it is clear that no cycle scheme should

> close arterial roads to motor traffic.

>

> The cons are:

>

> 1. No assurance of reduction in motor traffic

> 2. Definite diversion of traffic down peaceful

> side streets, increasing localised air pollution

> (slower moving traffic down narrower streets) and

> creating noise pollution and blight in those

> streets (which is also not good for the health and

> stress levels of local residents on those streets)

> - might as well call the scheme cycle

> "noiseways".

>

> The glorious aim of the cycle collective -

> fearless cycling on the motorways of Dulwich -

> will also be difficult to achieve since the young

> cyclists they want to encourage don't

> automatically arrive on main roads when they leave

> their houses. They need to first travel from their

> homes, a lot of which will be on those very side

> streets which will now see increased traffic if

> arterial roads are closed.

>

> As for comparing the "inconvenience" from parked

> cars with the health and stress impacting air and

> noise pollution along side streets that will

> accompany arterial road closures and diverted

> traffic - what a risible analogy.

>

> bawdy-nan Wrote:

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

> -----

> >

> > Snip

> >

> >

> > The difficulty, of course, is that changes can

> > inconvenience people. But that is already the

> > case. The streets of East Dulwich weren't built

> to

> > accommodate the hundreds of cars now parked on

> the

> > roads but the increase in time in vehicle

> > ownership means that all of the roads are

> > "clogged" with parked cars inconveniencing all

> > road users.