LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[geh]

sad that the proposals overlook the opportunity to improve east west public transport (ie the single bus to/from Brixton being the unreliable 37), and also it appears that the ???'s and disruption attributed to the Court Rd/Carlton Avenue/Dulwich Village junction "improvements" were in fact for nothing. No consideration to knock on/displacement ie Lordship Lane/Sth Circular at Grove Tavern, East Dulwich Grove/Melbourne Grove.

[creditwheredue]

Dulwich Village is going to cop it too. The right turn from the south circular into College Road is going to be terrible, only a few cars can turn here on green even at present. The south circular in general is going to awful. But I guess that?s what they want.

[geh]

Rather slanted survey, no opportunity to comment generally, presumably specifically designed to disallow.

Question 4 regarding potential hours for Townley Road closure is similar to the questions Southwark adopted in the East Dulwich CPZ survey and slanted towards the response they want.

No mention of public transport whatsoever.

[Monkey]

Excellent point from Goldilocks on the Alleyn?s expansion thread. The data shows that traffic outside term time is fine, which completely fits in with my observations. So we are having our daily lives disrupted because of a bunch of kids being driven from all over London to a couple of prestigious private schools. That?s the thank you we get for voting in Labour in this area. At the very least, Alleyn?s should not be allowed to expand further.

[goldilocks]

Not sure what I meant was that traffic is ?fine? at other times, more that it?s much worse when the schools are in.

In terms of Calton Ave though, it?s disproportionately busy year round. It?s supposed to be a quietway but its a ? hostile? cycling environment all the time. Too many parked cars meaning that traffic close passes too often meaning even when quiet it?s not an appropriate environment for my kids to cycle on. It?s a residential road that because of geography and apps such as google maps and waze has become busier than many main roads.

The other proposed changes in that area are timed closures so could be term time only.

[Earl Aelfheah]

rollflick Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah & Monkey

> The council does not have the staff capacity to

> consult and deliver on large parts of the borough

> all at once and is also busy doing lots elsewhere,

> e.g. around Rotherhithe. Separate plans are being

> brought forward for the Lordship Lane area in a

> few months:

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHo

> me.aspx?IId=50021892&Opt=0

>

> The main thing is to get strong support for this

> ambitious Dulwich scheme so that officers and

> councillors get used to proposing, supporting and

> delivering effective schemes - rather than just

> surveys and studies that lead simply to (cycle)

> symbols painted on rat runs. That sadly seems to

> be the situation still in the Bellenden area.

Thanks Rollflick, that's good to know. Like I say, I'm in favour of this scheme and would definitely support something similar in ED.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It would be good to see some more carrot at the same time as we disincentive car use. More buses to Brixton, improved train services and please Southwark, some bike hire schemes - Boris, Lime etc. (they're everywhere else in the Capital).

[yenkcah]

From the published map, it looks like the proposed closures etc would effectively funnel all southbound rush hour traffic directly along Dulwich Village itself with even more traffic idling at the lights directly outside Dulwich Village infants school , Dulwich Hamlet Junior School and JAGS prep. There's no mention of a 'school street' system on Dulwich Village itself.

Surely one of the major reasons for this whole proposal was to improve air quality for primary age children walking to school but it looks like the proposals will just create a massive traffic bottleneck directly outside these schools.

Unless I?m reading this wrong, it just looks like the proposal is removing traffic from some residential streets and dumping it all directly outside three primary schools.

Surely this can't be the point of the whole exercise?

[goldilocks]

It isn?t- there are some additional timed closures that can be supported to discourage through traffic and displacement in the wider docs

[cleanairdulwich]

yenkcah Wrote:

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

> From the published map, it looks like the

> proposed closures etc would effectively funnel all

> southbound rush hour traffic directly along

> Dulwich Village itself with even more traffic

> idling at the lights directly outside Dulwich

> Village infants school , Dulwich Hamlet Junior

> School and JAGS prep. There's no mention of a

> 'school street' system on Dulwich Village itself.

>

> Surely one of the major reasons for this whole

> proposal was to improve air quality for primary

> age children walking to school but it looks like

> the proposals will just create a massive traffic

> bottleneck directly outside these schools.

>

> Unless I?m reading this wrong, it just looks like

> the proposal is removing traffic from some

> residential streets and dumping it all directly

> outside three primary schools.

>

> Surely this can't be the point of the whole

> exercise?

We suggest you read all of the documents and go to one of the consultation meetings before making conclusions. There is a timed access restriction proposed on Dulwich Village itself to reduce northbound traffic at peak times.

The point of these changes is to get people out of their cars, which will result in less traffic overall. See https://londonlivingstreets.com/2019/07/11/evaporating-traffic-impact-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-on-main-roads/

[seenbeen]

when their own vehicles sit idling in OUR back streets then I consider this spending of the Road budget a complete joke. Today at 12.35ish, a Southwark Van in Cyrena Road idled whilst I very slowly walked the length of the road (round the corner from Heber School btw) registration EY18 YGE.

I have also seen them in Sainsbury's Car park....sitting there on the phone with the engines running.

[Serena2012]

As a young family with two preschoolers living at the north of East Dulwich Grove, we find these proposals incredibly concerning. Whilst the concept is laudable, and we agree that measures that ought to improve air quality in the area should be supported, the proposals will invariably result in a significant increase in the volume of traffic (and indeed the volume of queuing traffic) on East Dulwich Grove. In circumstances where the levels of NO2 emissions on East Dulwich Grove are already at a level that breaches the WHO limits and is dangerous, we struggle to see how this proposal takes into account the health and well-being of those families living on East Dulwich Grove, a largely residential street, which also houses three large schools, with pupil volumes far in excess of those attending the Village schools.

As anyone familiar with East Dulwich Grove will be aware, the pavements in the Northern section are narrow, and most of the properties either have fairly small front gardens or none at all, thereby offering limited protection from the road. Indeed, the road was not designed for the volume of traffic that it currently experiences, let alone the significantly increased volumes that the proposal will invariably result in. With that in mind, it is extremely disappointing that the proposals do not seek to address these issues. In particular, there is a real risk that the proposals will create a green and leafy oasis in the streets of North Dulwich, with significantly increased air quality for its residents, without addressing some of the fundamental infrastructure issues that cause people to jump in their cars to drive (i.e. getting from East to West is incredibly difficult), which will simply cause the A roads in the area to become dangerously over-congested and even more harmful to human health than they are already.

We also have significant concerns about the impact of the proposal on the junction between East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane, which is incredibly dangerous to pedestrians and had been the location of numerous accidents in recent years. Significantly increasing the volume of traffic using this junction cannot be prudent, and is a fatal accident waiting to happen. We also struggle to see how these proposals will improve air quality for pedestrians seeking to cross the road between JAGS and Alleyn?s or at the East Dulwich Grove/ Village Way/Red Post Hill Junctions as presumably these proposals will only increase the size of tailbacks and idling traffic on East Dulwich Grove.

Whilst we are conscious that the rationale of a scheme of this nature is to make driving along the roads that remain open so nightmarish that people stop doing it, we suggest that before implementing a scheme that will invariably cause significant daily tailbacks and large volumes of idling traffic on the road (and accordingly, have a hugely negative impact on air quality), that Southwark carries out a health impact assessment on East Dulwich Grove and ensures that all avenues of mitigating these impacts for residents (including free green screens etc) are carefully considered. We would also encourage interested stakeholders (including Clean Air Dulwich, assuming of course they are motivated by improving the air quality for all, and not just the privileged few who live on those streets that stand to benefit directly from these proposals) to give thought as to how best to mitigate the impacts of these proposals on those that live, study and work on the roads that will invariably become busier as a result.

In particular, given that all residential properties on Townley Road are significantly set back from the road, as are the more actively used parts of the Alleyn?s playing fields, arguably, the impact on health of keeping Townley Road fully open would be significantly less than for all the non-resident/ school bus traffic that currently uses Townley to have to be rerouted onto East Dulwich Grove. Indeed, it is suggested that rerouting all traffic onto the A roads is far too simplistic a solution and ignores some of the enormous practical and health challenges that this will bring.

[mikeb]

Serena - not sure there is any room on Townley Road for additional traffic. It's bumper to bumper during school rush hour

[alice]

Serena - an excellent post.

[johnie]

alice Wrote:

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

> Serena - an excellent post.

Seconded

[El Presidente]

This will do a fantastic job of pushing the problem somewhere else. Even better it pushes the problem away from an expensive fee paying school towards a free, state school used by local residents.

Makes perfect sense.

[Serena2012]

Johnie and Alice - Thank you.

My overwhelming concern is that the current proposal assumes that the A roads are well placed to take on any displaced traffic. This may well have been the case where similar schemes have been implemented in areas such as Walthamstow. However, this is simply not the case in the context of East Dulwich Grove. I am not sufficiently familiar with all stretches of Lordship Lane or Dulwich Common

to be able to comment specifically on these.

East Dulwich Grove is not a particularly wide road; it has a significant number of residential properties in close proximity to the road (particularly in its northern half), and already has a very hazardous junction with Lordship Lane at its most northern point (which if memory serves me correctly, Southwark have historically tried and failed to propose a solution for). I therefore implore Southwark and other interested stakeholders to take these factors into account, and ensure that the ultimate design does not simply remove the burden from one part of the neighbourhood and move it to another.

[geh]

Why has Southwark installed a row of electric car charging points in Townley Rd if they are now seeking to restrict traffic access to the road.

[exdulwicher]

@Serena2012

Some of what you're saying implies that the volume of cars currently using Calton Ave, Townley Road and ED Grove is going to remain the same and be shunted elsewhere which won't be the case.

Induced demand is a well-known phenomenen - build more roads, wider roads, free parking etc, make it easier to drive and more people drive (whcih is why new roads simply fill up to capacity within a couple of years). The reverse is also true - make it harder to drive, facilitate modal shift, charge for parking and people will drive less.

Some of those car journeys currently made now will change. Maybe to cycling or walking, maybe to car sharing or public transport or maybe they simply won't happen at all (ie they were not essential journeys). Not all of them of course and I'm quite happy to accept that some of those journeys will of course be essential and (for whatever reason) not practical by other means. However it will not be ALL the current vehicles shunted elsewhere - some of them will simply disappear. It's well-known and well-studied.

I've not seen the detailed modelling but I'd be interested to know how many cars from either the LL end or the DV end going along ED Grove actually turn left or right respectively into Townley and how many of them turn into Calton. Because if you can't do that (either due to timing restriction on the turn into Townley or because you can't get out the DV end of Calton), there's no reason to go along ED Grove in the first place. Obviously some traffic will be going straight on so that's unlikely to change but anything into Townely during restricted hours wont have that option. Unless of course everyone tries to turn into Greendale, drop kids etc off there and turn around and get out again which will be a nightmare!

Hopefully you've put your points down in the consultation though? There's definitely lots to discuss about the ED Grove corridor and this IS just an initial consultation; there's plenty of scope to amend things, revise the scheme etc at this stage.

[rollflick]

Serena2012

According to official traffic counts, 15 years ago motor traffic levels on ED Grove were a third higher than now and there were four times as many HGVs: https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/manualcountpoints/47606

Again and again people commentating on this thread are making the assumption this is the only thing that will happen in the area. That's perhaps understandable given years of inaction by Southwark and Lambeth, but both councils are finally stepping up in response to strong public pressure for radical change. These other schemes will also help reduce traffic levels over the wider area and improve the viability of alternatives, particularly by creating continental quality continuous cycling routes and enabling more people to walk. Better train services are also proposed and these schemes should help reverse the drop in usage of bus services.

The Ultra Low Emission Zone extension will cover this area from next October. Even if it doesn't reduce motor traffic levels by quite the same extent as it has done in central London (about 3-9%), it will still reduce NO2 levels quickly by as much as a third: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/ulez-reduces-polluting-cars-by-13500-every-day

While no one wants more traffic on their street, giving any residents an effective veto will mean we are stuck with congestion, pollution and streets unsafe for a wider range of people to walk and cycle. Yes Lordship Lane needs rebalancing away from the car too, but some improvements are due soon (see my earlier post). There's more chance of getting them if this scheme goes ahead and creates momentum for change.

[mikeb]

I'm reminded of the time they closed Loughborough Junction. That was a disaster.

[goldilocks]

This is the important point - vetoing any change for fear of effects isn't going to be a way forward. I do fully understand concerns, I also live in an area where there may be knock on effects, but i think that the way to approach it is to mitigate as much as is possible upfront and then to monitor once in. We know from other schemes that initially traffic will increase but that over a few weeks or so it should then scale back. if it doesn't then its time to look at other measures. Importantly though, that fear that things might not work isnt' a reason to scale them back to ineffective tinkering at the edges.

This isn't like the Loughborogh Junction closure which was a single closure in isolation, its part of a wider scheme that neighbours other schemes. The disappointment we feel that the area from East Dulwich grove towards Lordship Lane isnt' included is a reason to push for more change, not less.

Traffic is not like water - it doesn't always just find another way - some of it is sufficiently inconvenienced that it stops - people find another way - trains, walking or cycling for example. Look up the traffic evaporation section on the Liveable Streets website - there is lots of information out there.

rollflick Wrote:

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

> Serena2012

> According to official traffic counts, 15 years ago

> motor traffic levels on ED Grove were a third

> higher than now and there were four times as many

> HGVs:

> https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/manualcountpoints/4

> 7606

>

> Again and again people commentating on this thread

> are making the assumption this is the only thing

> that will happen in the area. That's perhaps

> understandable given years of inaction by

> Southwark and Lambeth, but both councils are

> finally stepping up in response to strong public

> pressure for radical change. These other schemes

> will also help reduce traffic levels over the

> wider area and improve the viability of

> alternatives, particularly by creating continental

> quality continuous cycling routes and enabling

> more people to walk. Better train services are

> also proposed and these schemes should help

> reverse the drop in usage of bus services.

>

> The Ultra Low Emission Zone extension will cover

> this area from next October. Even if it doesn't

> reduce motor traffic levels by quite the same

> extent as it has done in central London (about

> 3-9%), it will still reduce NO2 levels quickly by

> as much as a third:

> https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/u

> lez-reduces-polluting-cars-by-13500-every-day

>

> While no one wants more traffic on their street,

> giving any residents an effective veto will mean

> we are stuck with congestion, pollution and

> streets unsafe for a wider range of people to walk

> and cycle. Yes Lordship Lane needs rebalancing

> away from the car too, but some improvements are

> due soon (see my earlier post). There's more

> chance of getting them if this scheme goes ahead

> and creates momentum for change.

[mikeb]

Rather than leaping straight to closing roads (and wasting all that money spent on Calton Ave / Dulwich Village junction), we should at first try making it impossible for pupils to drive to school (this is definitely a thing). And then stop parents driving to drop off, possibly via timed and policed red routes or parking restrictions to stop parents dropping off.

[goldilocks]

Ok- so how do we make it impossible for pupils to drive to school or have restrictions on parents dropping off?

[rupert james]

Perhaps a comment posted earlier sums the whole fiasco up[:

Spider69

"If I am honest I have more faith in a condom with the top cut off than Southwark and joined up thoughts. Lets see"

Southwark have a plan, we do not know what it is but can guess. They want cars to disappear.

God help us all