LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[sillywoman]

We attended the meeting at Half Moon Lane. There we were informed by the council representative that no-one in area A (encompassed by EDG/ Townley rd/ north Lordship lane) will be entitled to a permit due to the fact that we are shortly getting a CPZ.

So that's us told then.

[slarti b]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

>given the huge the huge increases in traffic flowing through Dulwich

> Village in the last 5 years

Can you provide a source for that please? Soutwark Council's own traffic surveys do not support that.

Their figures for DV over the last few years show:

2014 = 15,414 movements

2015 = 15,055

2016 = 14,822

2017 = 10,007 low because of works to DV

2018 = 14,375 estimate because they changed the reporting basis

2019 not yet published

Overall it shows a slight decrease. Are they wrong?

[slarti b]

mockingbird Wrote:

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

> Deventer Crescent off Greendale. How will residents get in and out when Greendale becomes a

> school street?

Very good question. On the Southwark plans they do not appear at all!

Greeen Dale is their only exit, will they be allowed out during School Street times? And during the extended restricted access hours the only wat they may be able to access Greendale is, maybe, from Townley Road.

They do not appear to be part of area A or B even though they could be severly impacted. Have they been consulted on the proposed changes?

[goldilocks]

The council showed a Southwark wide map at the October workshops showing a 47% increase in the volumen of traffic in the Dulwich Village area overall. This data was based on Southwark Annual Monitoring Traffic Flow Changes October 2017 and October 2018

slarti b Wrote:

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

> goldilocks Wrote:

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

> -----

> >given the huge the huge increases in traffic

> flowing through Dulwich

> > Village in the last 5 years

>

> Can you provide a source for that please?

> Soutwark Council's own traffic surveys do not

> support that.

> Their figures for DV over the last few years

> show:

> 2014 = 15,414 movements

> 2015 = 15,055

> 2016 = 14,822

> 2017 = 10,007 low because of works to DV

> 2018 = 14,375 estimate because they changed the

> reporting basis

> 2019 not yet published

>

> Overall it shows a slight decrease. Are they

> wrong?

[Rockets]

It looks like the council are spinning things to their advantage.....looks like the 47% is the difference between 2017 and 2018 when traffic found another route due to the roadworks in DV for the improvement works but look it returned in 2018 which suggests it found another route during the roadworks...thereby making a very real demonstration that these plans will merely divert traffic elsewhere.

Goldilocks, were these stats presented at the same meeting where the council claimed their improvement works at DV had not increased pollution when their own data showed it had?

[goldilocks]

The council didn't 'claim that their improvement works hadn't increased pollution' - i said that their prsentation stated that the road was over capacity now and coulnd't be addressed via redesign.

In terms of the 50% stat - its not clear whether it was on specific roads or on an area wide basis - regardless of this just walking through Dulwich village at peak times and using your eyes makes it pretty clear that there is more traffic on the roads than the roads have capacity for, so unless your proposal is to build a flyover for Dulwich then something needs to change.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> It looks like the council are spinning things to

> their advantage.....looks like the 47% is the

> difference between 2017 and 2018 when traffic

> found another route due to the roadworks in DV for

> the improvement works but look it returned in 2018

> which suggests it found another route during the

> roadworks...thereby making a very real

> demonstration that these plans will merely divert

> traffic elsewhere.

>

> Goldilocks, were these stats presented at the same

> meeting where the council claimed their

> improvement works at DV had not increased

> pollution when their own data showed it had?

[Abe_froeman]

The grid lock is all caused by the phasing of the traffic lights (possibly by design). If there were round abouts instead traffic would flow much more freely.

[slarti b]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

>

> In terms of the 50% stat - its not clear whether it was on specific roads or on an area wide basis

Goldi, Did the council explain where the figures came from and the dates the the counts were taken? If not there is a possibility they are being selective to support their case, eg using a base figure such as during roadworks, half half term or holidays to claim that traffic has increase. There are a couple of other examples in the current PPT pack which look questionable

Sadly Southwark have done this in the past which undermines trust and, indeed, their own case.

I agree with you that DV at term time, pareticulalry with the foundation schools, is overcrowded and needs looking at. However, this is the third major scheme in the last 6 years or so which the council promised would have major improvements to the overall traffic which has not happened. This scheme is being pushed through in a rush without the implications being thought through, eg increased rat running in Area B. Any changes will be affecting us local residents for the next 15-20 years and it is important that the council try to get it right.

Part of "getting it right" is proper traffic modelling, which has not yet been carried out, and a trial of the proposed closures and restictions. The council seem to be trying to avoid this but thier reasons are not convincing.

[goldilocks]

I walked through the village at about 5:30 last night. Traffic was queueing from the traffic lights outside the Hamlet all the way back up to past the Lake building for the Infants. None of that is related to the schools - I also make a point of looking in to see whether there are kids in the back - without fail yesterday all cars were single occupancy.

The source of the data is only what is noted above in terms of source, i'm afraid I dont' have any further details.

[exdulwicher]

goldilocks Wrote:

> In terms of the 50% stat - its not clear whether

> it was on specific roads or on an area wide basis

> - regardless of this just walking through Dulwich

> village at peak times and using your eyes makes it

> pretty clear that there is more traffic on the

> roads than the roads have capacity for, so unless

> your proposal is to build a flyover for Dulwich

> then something needs to change.

>

There's info on it in the appendices to the consultation here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/our-healthy-streets/our-healthy-streets-dulwich

Worth reading, although it does go into some detail - it's the kind of "sit down with a coffee and have a careful read" type stuff.

As an addition to that, @Rockets was asking about cyclists using the DV junction. It's part of Quietway 7 (ignoring the current rebranding exercise around Cycle Superhighways / Quietways) and as the name suggests it's supposed to direct cyclists along quieter roads / back roads etc with lower traffic volumes to make it safer and more appealing for cyclists. The route takes cyclists across DV from Turney Road, up Calton to the JAGS junction, across to Greendale.

Except that, from the council's own data on Calton Avenue, it is over-saturated, it's not "Quiet" at all. It's also quite narrow so it makes filtering very difficult for cyclists when it's jammed with vehicles. So cyclists don't use it - it's unpleasant and dangerous. The cycle traffic light sequences on DV junction are also out of sync - they've never been entirely right. Issues around one set going green and the next set red, cyclists getting green while pedestrians are still crossing, cycle lights going green but then dumping the rider in the middle of the junctions as the vehicle lights go green... Even the set at Townley / EDG (JAGS junction) only allow about 5 seconds head start although on the plus side the wands that got put in there do a good job and most traffic actually obeys the Advanced Stop Line markings.

Assuming the rider is coming through the village heading north, the best way to access Greendale is through Dulwich Park, thread through Court Lane / Woodwarde / Townley and straight onto Greendale. Cuts out the DV junction and the snarled-up mess of Calton.

[wulfhound]

I walked through the village at about 5:30 last night. Traffic was queueing from the traffic lights outside the Hamlet all the way back up to past the Lake building for the Infants. None of that is related to the schools - I also make a point of looking in to see whether there are kids in the back - without fail yesterday all cars were single occupancy.

All elderly people who can't walk far, or builders hauling van-loads of drywall and 2x4s, if some on here are to be believed.

(In all seriousness, probably quite a lot of school staff though.. who do have a certain amount of stuff to carry, but could probably manage with an ebike or moped if so inclined).

@mockingbird School Streets typically include a residents' access permit (free, unlike CPZ permits) for people who would be otherwise stranded, and are camera enforced - they are not normally physical barrier closures unless there's a practical way for affected residents to park outside the zone, which is not usually the case.

[slarti b]

exdulwicher Wrote:

>There's info on it in the appendices to the consultation here: [www.southwark.gov.uk]

I could find nothing to support the 47% inbincrease claimed by Goldi. PLease let me know if I have missed something.

> @Rockets was asking about cyclists using the DV junction. It's part of Quietway 7 (ignoring the current rebranding

> exercise around Cycle Superhighways / Quietways) and as the name suggests it's supposed to direct

> cyclists along quieter roads / back roads etc with lower traffic volumes to make it safer and more

> appealing for cyclists. The route takes cyclists across DV from Turney Road, up Calton to the JAGS

> junction, across to Greendale.

Oh yes, another one of Boris Johnson's bucolic visions upset by reality! The fact that Calton was totally unsuitable for a QuietWay was pointed out repeatedly by local residents when the council was consulting on it and several alternatives were suggested. The council, of course, ignored the feedback.

[geh]

just spent 50 minutes getting back from Brixton on the 37. Until there is viable effective and efficient public transport I cannot see anyone giving up their convenience! Sorry, but east west connections from ED are pitiful.

[kr988]

I went to the meeting yesterday to try and get my head around the proposals . They are very complicated especially in relation to permits and timed closures and there was a lot of people even within the village sceptical that it would work . The take home message that I felt was that the council want to push thus through , it probably will put many off driving through the village from outside and that the displacement on the surrounding main roads was to be expected and ok because this was their purpose being main roads. The P4 though the village should improve ( not completely convinced ) but didn?t talk about impact of buses including p13 and P4 on Dulwich Common Road and 37 and 42 on EDG which of course will be even slower . When I asked why more buses and routes couldn?t be put in first before doing the changes the answer I was given is that it would far be too expensive. I?m going to email councillors and TFL involved and ask them to take these buses now at peak time to see how slow they already are on roads that are only going to get even busier . I encourage others worried about the impact on bus routes to do the same .

[Serena2012]

KR988 - I cannot agree more. Rerouting all traffic onto the A roads (some of which are quite frankly, less capable than B roads of handling increased volumes of traffic) is far too simplistic a solution and ignores some of the enormous practical and health challenges that this will bring. To do so on a permanent basis without even undertaking a trial to assess the consequences beforehand feels incredibly reckless.

In contrast to vast swathes of Lordship Lane where parking is permitted on both sides of the road (as the road is sufficiently wide to accommodate parked cars and large vehicles), this is not the case on East Dulwich Grove, which has a parking prohibition on one side for the vast majority of its length. Anyone who has witnessed two sizeable vehicles attempting to pass each other when the road on the parking prohibition side is temporarily blocked (as happens multiple times a day) will be well aware that this is incredibly difficult and somewhat dangerous. Indeed, it strikes me as though the council are confusing a road no wider than most of the other residential streets in the area, and on which buses travelling in opposite directions frequently struggle to pass each other, with some sort of super highway that can handle vast swathes of traffic. This is simply not the case.

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. We?re all well aware of the debacle at the Court Lane/ Village Way/ Calton Avenue junction, and the fact that the council now insist that it was never designed to handle the current volume of traffic. Whilst these proposals may well resolve that issue, I would like to see some sound empirical evidence from Southwark evidencing that the A roads are capable of handling all the displaced traffic. My fear is that this, and the knock on consequences is not something that has been adequately considered, explored or understood.

The proposals also threaten to jeopardise what is already a very poor East to West transport infrastructure (thereby making the use of public transport an even less attractive alternative), not least as it is difficult to see how they will fail to increase travel time for the 37 and 42 buses that currently operate along East Dulwich Grove.

[slarti b]

Kr988 I completely agree. Even by the council's own figures, after evaporation of 11% there will be over 6,000 vehicles a day diverted onto A roads. These will be Croxted Rd and Lordship Lane North\South and EDG and Dulwich Common East\West. From a personal viewpoint I have concerns about 37 to Brixton (bad enough without extra traffic!) and 185\176 along Lordship.

Leaving aside any concerns about the details of the council's proposed scheme I also have a more philosophical concern about the concept of the diverting traffic from the Dulwich "cell" onto the surrounding roads. Isn't this relocating the problem rather than solving it? If I was a resident of Croxted Rd or one of the schools on those roads I would be concerned.

@Geh Getting back form Brixton last night I caught a 3 to Herne Hill and walked 20 mins from there becuase the 37 was so long in coming. We desperately need better public transport connections in Dulwich.

btw the 3 was a "Boris" bus, another example of Johnson's nostalgic but flawed vision let down by the details.

[ElsaH]

Does anyone know why East Dulwich residents North and East of Lordship Lane (all the way up to North Cross Road / Forest Hill Road, and all the way East to Underhill Road) were included in the Phase 1 consultation but then were omitted from Phases 2 and 3 . . . ?

[Penguin68]

Does anyone know why East Dulwich residents North and East of Lordship Lane (all the way up to North Cross Road / Forest Hill Road, and all the way East to Underhill Road) were included in the Phase 1 consultation but then were omitted from Phases 2 and 3 . . . ?

Because they (we) weren't giving the answers wanted. It's what Southwark democracy is all about - restrict your questions to the (few) people who think the way you do, then claim the authority of a plebiscite. Hence the way that areas where chipped down so that they could find stretches of road that were in favour of a CPZ (even just a few houses) then institute there knowing what the knock-on would be.

[seenbeen]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Does anyone know why East Dulwich residents North

> and East of Lordship Lane (all the way up to North

> Cross Road / Forest Hill Road, and all the way

> East to Underhill Road) were included in the Phase

> 1 consultation but then were omitted from Phases 2

> and 3 . . . ?

>

> Because they (we) weren't giving the answers

> wanted. It's what Southwark democracy is all about

> - restrict your questions to the (few) people who

> think the way you do, then claim the authority of

> a plebiscite. Hence the way that areas where

> chipped down so that they could find stretches of

> road that were in favour of a CPZ (even just a few

> houses) then institute there knowing what the

> knock-on would be.

If Local Democracy is not being upheld should we not approach the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government- Robert Jenrick MP?

[Rockets]

That's a lot of extra traffic for the roads around the impacted area!

The council is approaching this like they approach most things: we know best and we will do what we want because you can't do a thing about it!

This project appears to be following their usual modus operandi for such schemes: mislead and heavily spin information, consultations rigged to get the answers they want; engage with a few cherry-picked residents and use their voices supporting their plans to drown out anyone who opposes them, roll-out whatever you want as no-one will ever hold you accountable.

See how Cllr McAsh has mobilised to "engage" with people living on Melbourne Grove, it'll all be part of the plan to gather as much data as they can to make a stronger case - they even have leaflets printed.

https://twitter.com/mcash/status/1231554193275736065

We all know how those discussions go:

Cllr: "Did you know someone (not us of course we wouldn't do this to you) is closing a huge part of the village to traffic and we think your road will be used as the cut through"

Resident: "Wow, really, that's bad"

Cllr: "Would you like me to try to get your road closed to through traffic?"

Resident: "Errr, yes please"

Cllr: "Great, bye"

Resident: "Hang on, who is doing this - the council, but that's you"

Cllr: "Bye, got to dash. Healthy Streets and all that....power to the people comrade!!!"

Or something along those lines anyway ;-)

I do hope Cllr McAsh responds to the other thread on the subject as I will be intrigued as to what his position on it is as it will be his constituents who bear the brunt of the increases in traffic and, unlike the CPZ, I am not sure he can rely on local resident support for such a hair-brained scheme.

[Abe_froeman]

how much money have the council spaffed up the wall consulting on whether or not Melbourne Grove should become a gated community?

It's odd that James McAsh would support that proposal given his wider stance on property ownership.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The Melbourne Grove thing is a bit iffy. I actually think there may be a good case for closure as part of an area wide plan, but that's not really what's happened. Pressure was put on the council by a small number of people to close 'their' street, which disgracefully, the council responded to with their usual knee jerk approach. After a bit of consultation and some fairly strong opposition locally, they decided to pause it. They've now tagged it on to the Dulwich Village scheme in a way that feels a bit opportunistic, again with no reference to a wider East Dulwich area strategy. As such, I suspect there will be unintended consequences.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> how much money have the council spaffed up the

> wall consulting on whether or not Melbourne Grove

> should become a gated community?

A good question!

[Earl Aelfheah]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah

> Following up on the public transport issue I have

> been looking at the TFL web site. They use a

> measure called Public Transport Access Level or

> PTAL,to assess areas access to public transport

> rating them on a scale of 1(worst) to 6(best).

> Most of the streets in central Dulwich, the areas

> affected by this proposal, are rated 2, which

> confirms my view about the poor access to public

> transport.

That's interesting. I'm not particularly surprised that we rank poorly on public transport.

[Abe_froeman]

I suppose, as Rockets points out, they can say that the changes caused by them building a wall around the private schools means that feasiblity study they commissioned that advised against closing Melbourne Grove, is no longer valid.

An absurd amount of time and money was squandered on it and achieved absolutely nothing

a reminder here: https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1536718,page=27