LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[first mate]

There is a contradiction here. If one of the primary reasons for reducing cars/ CPZ/ etc.. is to protect the health of children then how can any parent in all conscience drive their child into school or worse, allow their child to drive themselves?

[first mate]

srisky Wrote:

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

> If we are talking about the need for cycle storage for children going to school why can't that be made on school premises?

posted too soon

>

> ...etc and the general reduction in traffic during

> school holdiays across the board shows it's not

> just restricted to the private schools.

> Either all parents and children are lazy or the

> majority are just trying to manage the school run

> and commute in the most efficient way possible,

> although not the most environmentally friendly.

> Some are just lazy.

> Of course, there is a large concentration of

> schools in under a square mile in Dulwich, which

> compounds the problem.

>

> There needs to be a lot of secure bike storage

> facilities at Herne Hill and North Dulwich to

> encourage public transport use,

> perhaps a "walking bus" to take pupils from

> schools to stations,

> better police/community officer visibility to

> encourage parents to allow children to walk

> without the fear of muggings.

> I don't know where the funding for all this will

> come from, though.

[Penguin68]

I'm afraid you have wholly misunderstood what 'Healthy Streets' means, to Tooley St. It means 'car free' (whether those cars be petrol, diesel or electric).

We are talking political health here, cars are the tools and signs of capitalist society, of individuals and individualism. Stamping out car ownership (save where it can be monetised with parking fees) is the stated aim and object of the party - under the spurious banner of health if necessary (electric cars are of course, as regards air quality, entirely healthy, but not as regards the body politic).

People in cars cannot be controlled, on public transport, even on cycles where they can be channelled into cycle lanes, they can be. Hence the council can happily ignore any claims that their moves will cause problems as regards transport and movement of peoples.

As long as car ownership can be punished (this thread shows that car owners are already considered to be inherently selfish and anti-social by many of those who elected these people) everything is OK. The only argument to be put against which might work with the apparat is that these moves will increase car ownership (but I can't see how that would be possible).

[DuncanW]

Are you okay, Penguin?

[exdulwicher]

first mate Wrote:

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

> There is a contradiction here. If one of the

> primary reasons for reducing cars/ CPZ/ etc.. is

> to protect the health of children then how can any

> parent in all conscience drive their child into

> school or worse, allow their child to drive

> themselves?

That's why we're in this mess in the first place.

As mentioned previously, there are a LOT of schools in and around ED area. Alleyns and JAGS are the two main ones getting the comments here because this Healthy Streets talk is mostly concerned with EDG / Townley Road and also Court Lane / DV junction (which impacts Dulwich Hamlet, Dulwich Village Infant School and JAPS on the Red Post / DV junction). And of course within that, there's the pupils and also the staff - teachers, admin and support workers - that can easily be 150 people in somewhere like Alleyn's/JAGS/Dulwich College in addition to the pupils

Some pupils travel by coach - they're usually the ones travelling from a fair way outside of Dulwich like Wandsworth, Blackheath, Beckenham etc.

Some will / can get the train (North Dulwich being the easiest option and that seems to be how most of the pupils for The Charter School (the old William Penn) come in, travelling from Peckham / Peckham Rye.

Some will cycle or get the bus - they're usually the ones from within 2-3 miles, the sort of Herne Hill, Forest Hill, West Norwood type of catchment.

Some will be driven - especially younger children. Here's the difficulty - some of those trips are at the start of a parent's drive to work ("I'll drop you off on the way..."), some of them are specific trips, often very short ones in the order of a mile at most. And some (the 6th formers) will drive themselves because it's new-found freedom, it's cool, it's independent etc.

The increase in driving / being driven to school is a direct result of more vehicles on the road. It's busy/congested so it's "too dangerous" to walk so I'll drive to protect my little cherub. This then leads to the massive congestion as they seek to drop the little darling RIGHT AT THE ENTRANCE to the relevant school. Not 200m away, oh no. So there's a collection of cars (often big 4x4s) all converging on the same spot, multiplied by several different schools. And ALL of them are thinking that there are so many vehicles on the road so it's far too dangerous for said little cherub to walk. Catch-22.

There's nothing wrong with owning a car and this isn't really anything to do with "punishing" car owners / users as Penguin68 says ^^. It's to do with preventing the insane super-short-distance car users who clog the roads up to avoid a 0.5 mile walk (or scooter/bike) while at the same time making it better (easier, nicer, safer) to walk, ride or scooter that 0.5 mile.

Whether you like cars or not, own one or not, consider it a luxury or a necessity, surely most people want fewer cars on the streets? Less traffic is good for everyone - the people who NEED to use the roads like delivery drivers etc get where they're going more quickly. Buses are more reliable as they're not stuck in traffic. Cycling and walking is safer and more pleasant. Neighbourhoods are nicer (less pollution, less noise). It's a win-win all round. And given that the schools don't provide much, if any, parking on site (as mentioned by others in this thread, Alleyn's has more or less removed all on-site parking), the problem spills over into local roads. And because there are so many schools in the area, that's a LOT of affected roads in a very small area.

Dulwich is a strange one because of the sheer number of schools, it does impact a lot on the type of traffic and the congestion points. But equally, it's obvious that the village was never designed to handle this volume of traffic and also that "doing nothing" is not an option.

[Rockets]

Penguin hits the nail on the head.....if you then also throw in the suggested root-cause of the congestion being private schools in the area then the powers-that-be in Tooley Street start salivating uncontrollably. Most of our local elected officials view the schools with utter contempt - here's Cllr McCash's view on the them from his personal blog: https://www.jamesmcash.com/blog/labour-can-abolish-boris-johnson-if-it-promises-to-abolish-the-private-schools-that-created-him

School congestion is not a private school problem - it is a school problem - we live close to a state school whose catchment area is supposed to be 800 metres yet every day the roads are blocked by people dropping the kids off from cars.

Exdulwicher - doing nothing is not an option but do you have faith the council's plans will yield the desired results without massive impact elsewhere?

A pragmatic review of the proposals alerts us all to some major flaws in the proposals and suggestions.

Doing nothing would have been the preferable route of action before the previous DV improvements the council embarked on - in hindsight that was an utter disaster and a waste of money that has caused more congestion, more pollution and made the junction more dangerous (for all road-users and pedestrians).

Creating a no car zone in the middle of Southwark may keep some local residents happy but makes life pretty awful for everyone else - those cars won't go away they will use a different route.

But, once again, this is another case of our elected officials pushing something they think is in our best interests when really it is in their best interests. This is not a consultation exercise it is a plan validation exercise similar to the one they went through for the CPZ.

Tooley Street won't be happy until they have squeezed everyone who lives in, and I quote Cllr McCash, "leafy" Dulwich for everything they possibly can. They view Dulwich, and its leafy surroundings, private schools and perceived wealth as an area to despise and attack.

[Abe_froeman]

Thanks for posting that article Good to know what James actually thinks o us lot: "As a teacher in a state primary school in Brixton and a Labour councillor in leafy Dulwich..."

[seenbeen]

I used to live in Eynella and my kids went to Dulwich Hamlet on foot in less than 20 minutes ...my next door neighbour used to drive her kids to the same school nearly every day!

[srisky]

To allow adults, children, parents, non-parents etc to cycle to/from the stations and catch the train.

To promote cycling & public transport use over car journeys.

first mate Wrote:

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

> srisky Wrote:

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

> -----

> > If we are talking about the need for cycle

> storage for children going to school why can't

> that be made on school premises?

>

> posted too soon

> >

> > ...etc and the general reduction in traffic

> during

> > school holdiays across the board shows it's not

> > just restricted to the private schools.

> > Either all parents and children are lazy or the

> > majority are just trying to manage the school

> run

> > and commute in the most efficient way possible,

> > although not the most environmentally friendly.

> > Some are just lazy.

> > Of course, there is a large concentration of

> > schools in under a square mile in Dulwich,

> which

> > compounds the problem.

> >

> > There needs to be a lot of secure bike storage

> > facilities at Herne Hill and North Dulwich to

> > encourage public transport use,

> > perhaps a "walking bus" to take pupils from

> > schools to stations,

> > better police/community officer visibility to

> > encourage parents to allow children to walk

> > without the fear of muggings.

> > I don't know where the funding for all this

> will

> > come from, though.

[Penguin68]

I used to live in Eynella and my kids went to Dulwich Hamlet on foot in less than 20 minutes ...my next door neighbour used to drive her kids to the same school nearly every day!

Often such journey's are dependent on what the next stage is - if you have to drive to your next appointment/ place of work (or to a station to get... etc.) then dropping the kid(s) off on the way may be the most time efficient way of doing this. To walk to school, (20 minutes), walk back home again (another 20 minutes) and then go on may be too much time wasted when morning times may be time critical...

[goldilocks]

I wanted to pick up on the quote below too as its an oft quoted point in the 'my driving is ok, its other driving that needs to stop' in that people feel that a switch to EV is the only change that is needed.

It is true that EVs eliminate 'tailpipe' pollution, but unfortunately that isn't the only pollution caused by cars. Researchers now are discovering that black carbon or particulate matter is a significantly more dangerous type, and that the damage it can do is huge as the tiny particles can penetrate all organs in the body, even passing through to the fetus in pregnant mothers. This black carbon is produced by brake pad erosion and also by tyre dust and for the new bigger heavier EVs it may even be a more significant source than the equivalent combustion engine if the car is heavier than its equivalend because of the battery required. This type of pollution is linked to many causes of mortaility.

In addition, in terms of lifetime carbon usage EVs can also be more carbon intensive.

Its clear that for journeys that have to be made by car then EVs will address some of the air pollution issues we have now, but its not to say that swapping out combustion engines will be wholly effective. EVs still cause congestion and have the same road safety issues for cyclists and pedestrians. Its critical for everyone's health that we reimagine daily journeys, reframe what is necessary and what is desirable and look to walk or cycle more.

This was all covered by the excellent talk at JAGS by Ian Mudway in terms of the effect of air pollution on children's health (though the talk was not limited to children) and once the audio is available, i'll come back and post a link for anyone who is interested as understanding the implications of the status quo is key to understanding why its so critical that we all make changes.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> I'm afraid you have wholly misunderstood what

> 'Healthy Streets' means, to Tooley St. It means

> 'car free' (whether those cars be petrol, diesel

> or electric).

>

> We are talking political health here, cars are the

> tools and signs of capitalist society, of

> individuals and individualism. Stamping out car

> ownership (save where it can be monetised with

> parking fees) is the stated aim and object of the

> party - under the spurious banner of health if

> necessary (electric cars are of course, as regards

> air quality, entirely healthy, but not as regards

> the body politic).

>

> People in cars cannot be controlled, on public

> transport, even on cycles where they can be

> channelled into cycle lanes, they can be. Hence

> the council can happily ignore any claims that

> their moves will cause problems as regards

> transport and movement of peoples.

>

> As long as car ownership can be punished (this

> thread shows that car owners are already

> considered to be inherently selfish and

> anti-social by many of those who elected these

> people) everything is OK. The only argument to be

> put against which might work with the apparat is

> that these moves will increase car ownership (but

> I can't see how that would be possible)

[slarti b]

EDBoy Wrote:

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

> No Slarti, I am not suggesting that JAGS & Alleyns annex Townley Road. But, you could kill two birds

> with one stone and reduce the rush hour through traffic that uses this road as a short cut, whilst

> making sure that all the coaches in one place.

So yes, you are suggesting that Jags and Alleyn annex Townley Road as a parking and disembarkation area.

> I thought the idea of Healthy Streets was to reduce traffic that uses Dulwich as a short cut?

That ignores all the traffic that is brought to the area by parents dropping their kids off at school

> their engines would be turned-off and timed closures supervised by the school.

Hasn't happened so far has it? And you are reinforcing your proposal about the schools annexing and supervising Townley Road.

> area safe for school children to walk.

More like making it easier for parents to drop their kids off at school by car

> I still don't understand the antipathy towards the God's Gift schools. ...If you moved into this area, you did so

> knowing there is a high density of public and private schools.

I moved in 30 years ago, partly for the local schools which, at that time, were smaller and had many local pupils. Since then they have have expanded massively and, in the case of the foundation schools vastly increased their catchment areas and the proportion of parents driving their kids to school. Even now Alleyns want to expand their lower school further.

At the same time as increasing pollution,congestion and stress on local streets, the foundation schools presume to lecture us on measures we locals residents should take. Total hypocrisy.

[slarti b]

@Goldilocks

>I wanted to pick up on the quote below too as its an oft quoted point in the 'my driving is ok, its other driving that

>needs to stop' in that people feel that a switch to EV is the only change that is needed.

>This was all covered by the excellent talk at JAGS by Ian Mudway in terms of the effect of air pollution on children's

>health (though the talk was not limited to children)

What proportion of staff and pupils at JAGS walk or cycle to school and how many come by car, taxi, car share, bus coach etc. All of which come under the category of "driving"?

[slarti b]

Metallic Wrote:

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

> I just wish all coaches offloaded at Dulwich College and then use Hunts Slip Road for a coach park...

An interesting idea which would considerably ease poolution and congestion through Dulwich Village. The other foundation schools could organise walking groups from there to Alleyns and JAGS.

[goldilocks]

Alleyns have produced a travel plan - pretty sure JAGS would have one too and you could ask them if you wanted this information. Lets imagine its similar to Alleyns though!

My reference here to JAGS was that they hosted the Ian Mudway talk but made it available to everyone in the community. I have no affiliation with JAGS so i'm afraid i can't answer your question.

slarti b Wrote:

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

> @Goldilocks

>

> >I wanted to pick up on the quote below too as its

> an oft quoted point in the 'my driving is ok, its

> other driving that

> >needs to stop' in that people feel that a switch

> to EV is the only change that is needed.

> >This was all covered by the excellent talk at

> JAGS by Ian Mudway in terms of the effect of air

> pollution on children's

> >health (though the talk was not limited to

> children)

>

> What proportion of staff and pupils at JAGS walk

> or cycle to school and how many come by car, taxi,

> car share, bus coach etc. All of which come

> under the category of "driving"?

[seenbeen]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> I used to live in Eynella and my kids went to

> Dulwich Hamlet on foot in less than 20 minutes

> ...my next door neighbour used to drive her kids

> to the same school nearly every day!

>

> Often such journey's are dependent on what the

> next stage is - if you have to drive to your next

> appointment/ place of work (or to a station to

> get... etc.) then dropping the kid(s) off on the

> way may be the most time efficient way of doing

> this. To walk to school, (20 minutes), walk back

> home again (another 20 minutes) and then go on may

> be too much time wasted when morning times may be

> time critical...

I would have said if that had been the case- but it wasn't. She did not work. She was back home before me every time.

This is a point though- maybe ALL those parents who drop their kids off at school have to then get on to work- the rush hour is what it is- if you go to other parts of London during the day it is like rush hour 24/7 even though there may be good transport links. At least it is fairly peaceful around here during the weekdays.

And anyway getting here there and everywhere in as shorter time as possible is the way we cram so much into our lives- most people are very reluctant to give that up...

[Metallic]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> EDBoy Wrote:

> > Metallic's idea of using

> > Hunts Slip Road as actually quite good and

> might

> > be worth investigating.

> >

>

> Hunt's Slip is too narrow because of the double

> parking (Dulwich College 6th formers...) and

> there's also a width restriction just before the

> railway bridge so it's a cul-de-sac for coaches.

> There's not enough room to 3-point turn them

> there. The pavements were widened a while ago - it

> used to be a right racetrack that road cos it was

> so wide and straight.

>

> Google Streetview

>

> a,75y,57.47h,75.16t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sj8NUdzF5Hw

> wJxMcSi-CL4A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpa

> noid%3Dj8NUdzF5HwwJxMcSi-CL4A%26output%3Dthumbnail

> %26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w

> %3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D142.0931%26pitch%3D0%26th

> umbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Hunts Slip Road is a private road owned by the Dulwich Estate. As most of Dulwich is likely to be closed off I reckon there could be a way of allowing coaches out at the railway bridge just like all the restrictions planned for Dulwich area. So allow coaches to get on from Alleyn Park and not cars - and then they could park all day. Stop all these people using it as a car park too.

[EDBoy]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> EDBoy Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > No Slarti, I am not suggesting that JAGS &

> Alleyns annex Townley Road. But, you could kill

> two birds

> > with one stone and reduce the rush hour through

> traffic that uses this road as a short cut,

> whilst

> > making sure that all the coaches in one place.

>

>

> So yes, you are suggesting that Jags and Alleyn

> annex Townley Road as a parking and disembarkation

> area.

>

> > I thought the idea of Healthy Streets was to

> reduce traffic that uses Dulwich as a short cut?

>

> That ignores all the traffic that is brought to

> the area by parents dropping their kids off at

> school

>

> > their engines would be turned-off and timed

> closures supervised by the school.

>

> Hasn't happened so far has it? And you are

> reinforcing your proposal about the schools

> annexing and supervising Townley Road.

>

> > area safe for school children to walk.

>

> More like making it easier for parents to drop

> their kids off at school by car

>

> > I still don't understand the antipathy towards

> the God's Gift schools. ...If you moved into this

> area, you did so

> > knowing there is a high density of public and

> private schools.

>

> I moved in 30 years ago, partly for the local

> schools which, at that time, were smaller and had

> many local pupils. Since then they have have

> expanded massively and, in the case of the

> foundation schools vastly increased their

> catchment areas and the proportion of parents

> driving their kids to school. Even now Alleyns

> want to expand their lower school further.

>

> At the same time as increasing

> pollution,congestion and stress on local streets,

> the foundation schools presume to lecture us on

> measures we locals residents should take. Total

> hypocrisy.

Slarti, you definitely seem to have a bee in your bonnet about the private schools around here. I thought Slartibartfast was quite a relaxed character in The Hitch Hiker's Guide...? I don't think the foundation schools are lecturing anyone. Both JAGS and Alleyns have hosted public meetings regarding Phase 3 with proposals that have come from local residents, backed by Southwark. I can understand your slightly negative language, especially if you live on Townley Road or Calton Ave, but the lecturing appears to be coming from other quarters and probably does include additional themes, as Penguin, Rockets and goldilocks mention.

[exdulwicher]

Hunts Slip Road is a private road owned by the Dulwich Estate. As most of Dulwich is likely to be closed off I reckon there could be a way of allowing coaches out at the railway bridge just like all the restrictions planned for Dulwich area. So allow coaches to get on from Alleyn Park and not cars - and then they could park all day. Stop all these people using it as a car park too.

The railway bridge has a 7.5T weight limit and two width restrictions on it, it's also had one side built out precisely to avoid heavy vehicles using it. It got severely damaged many years ago by a truck hitting the sides.

The coaches delivering to schools are 12T plus. Chances of coaches using / being allowed to use Hunts Slip Road is ZERO, it's not an idea that is even going to be entertained.

[alice]

Metallic - a similar idea is offloading coaches at the sainsbury end of greendale and having a walking bus to alleyns/jags. After a long early morning drive such s walk would be welcome.

[wulfhound]

An interesting idea which would considerably ease poolution and congestion through Dulwich Village. The other foundation schools could organise walking groups from there to Alleyns and JAGS.

It's rather a long way on foot for kids who already have a very early start (no, mine don't go to any of those schools). I'm all in favour of active travel especially for children! But adding 30+ minutes walk each way for schools with an 8:30 start, bearing in mind some of them will be on the coach for 45+ minutes before that, is a bit harsh.

It might make more sense for coaches to drop off on Gallery Road near the roundabout, turn around and go back to the South Circular via College Road. That's equidistant from DC and JAGS, more or less, and a more reasonable distance to expect kids with school bags to walk at 8:15am on a dark January morning.

[slarti b]

wulfhound Wrote:

> It's rather a long way on foot for kids who already have a very early start...

> It might make more sense for coaches to drop off on Gallery Road near the roundabout, turn around

> and go back to the South Circular via College Road.

Fair point about distance from Hunt's slip Road, somewhere near centre of DV would be walkable from most foundatiuon schools. But not sure how practical your suggestion would be, there would be a lot of coaches clogging up College and Gallery Roads especially at pick up time, Gallery in particular is narrow at roundabout. Also, would Coaches be able to do 300 degree turn on roundabout?

In the Alleyns planning application was was there a suggestion of using the Dog Kennel Hill Sainburys as a coach drop off\pickup spot? That woudl certainly be more convenient for Alleyns and Jags

[alice]

Yes I walked it myself about 12 mins from back of Sainsbury?s to top of greendale.

[alice]

This would reduce coaches needed to enter Townley rd allowing parking off road in front of the school.

[exdulwicher]

The coaches are run by a sort of arm's length foundation service (essentially contracted out), you can see the maps here:

https://www.dulwich.org.uk/uploaded/documents/Coach_Service/Foundation_Schools_Coach_Service_map.pdf

Some coaches do one or two schools, some will combine to serve all of them. They're not going to start doing "remote" drop-offs - plenty of kids will have instruments, heavy bags (sports kit etc) and it would add significantly more time onto the journey. Add in issues around child protection, health & safety, plus the inevitable parental outrage (they're paying ?500 for this!) and, like it or not, that's just not going to happen.

In the Alleyns planning application was was there a suggestion of using the Dog Kennel Hill Sainburys as a coach drop off\pickup spot? That woudl certainly be more convenient for Alleyns and Jags

It would not be the first time that Alleyn's had pledged to "do something" about the traffic that it generates and then bury their head in the sand...

JAGS and Alleyns can have a "combined" drop off point easily, DC obviously needs its own. Coaches can't access College Road or Hunts Slip Road because they can't turn round and they can't get out the Kingsdale end of Hunts Slip because of the bridge so that route is not an option - it's no good discussing what-if's and maybe's, it's simply not an option.

Personally I think that building out that EDG / Townley Road junction on the southern corner was a huge mistake, it severely restricted the turning circle of the coaches which impacts on everything else going through that junction. About the only thing they did get right there was the extra timing on the cycle sequence (turning the light green for bikes 5-8 seconds in advance of the cars) although even that one needed revisiting and they had to put the wands in on the Townley Road approach to stop drivers infringing the cycle lane by trying to form two lines of queuing traffic.

What proportion of staff and pupils at JAGS walk or cycle to school and how many come by car, taxi, car share, bus coach etc. All of which come under the category of "driving"?

In traffic modelling, thy do not all come under "driving" at all, that's an overly simnplistic way of looking at it. The schools should have that basic info though - worth asking. However the data is unlikely to be much use - it may say that (eg) 35% of pupils arrive at school by coach but that doesn't tell you how many coaches or the routes they're on are serving that 35%.

Anyway - so long as people put their concerns into that consultation - that's the only thing that counts, not a few dozen people on the ED Forum debating it. The thread has sort of gone a little off-topic, concentrating on the coaches issue rather than the wider traffic controls proposals.