LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[first mate]

So how can we incentivise schools to be more community minded? Should/can schools be forced to keep their intakes strictly local? Is there a conflict between parents wanting the very best education for their child but also collective responsibility for healthy streets?

[Pugwash]

is it the fact that we now have more schools in the Dulwich area? When my kids were young there was St. Anthony's, Goodrich, Heber, St. Johns and St Clements, Grove Vale, Dog Kennel Hill, Dulwich Village and Dulwich Hamlet. You then had the independent schools plus JAGS, Alleyns, Dulwich College and prep,I cannot remember whether the 2 other independent primaries were around in the period 1978= 1990). Charter School was initially William Penn in the 1960-70s, and eventually became another secondary school but half or quarter the size of Charter. There was Friern which became Waverley and amalgamated with Honor Oak and no other secondary school

[Romnarz]

So do agree - the proposals will push much more traffic onto the main roads . The school in the village will experience a big increase in traffic and children will be walking though much more pollution.There is a new school on Lordship Lane which also will be carrying all the displaced traffic. Is there evidence that there is a much higher incidence of respiratory problems in leafy Dulwich ? What is the evidence ? I have lived in east London and Catford - if you want to know what pollution feels like go there! The levels of pollution will go down when the ULEZ Is extended to the south circular and there is an increase in use of electric cars. The current proposals will just shift the problem elsewhere.

[Townleygreen]

where will they shift it to?

[ElsaH]

Interesting traffic data. Please can you let us know the source? Thanks!

[ElsaH]

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?

Slarti b - where did you get this traffic data? Thanks!

[Jenny1]

.

[Bicknell]

My feeling is the consultation should be paused - theres too much going on for anyone to be thinking about this right now. But someone told me Southwark is sticking to the March 29th deadline. Anyone know for a fact?

[Melihoople]

I agree. The work won't be done this summer so that time schedule seems moot.

[Serena2012]

Just a quick reminder that the deadline for submitting responses to this according to the Southwark website is still tomorrow (29 March).

Conscious that this is probably the last thing on people?s minds right now, (and I agree with the sentiment that this should be suspended), but in reality, this could be your last chance to have a say on the current phase.

[Serena2012]

Reposting the link: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/our-healthy-streets-dulwich-phase-3/

[first mate]

Area A

Melbourne Grove experiences high levels of motor vehicle traffic currently - this could increase if some of the above proposals are implemented. We want to explore options with residents for either:-

a northbound no entry restriction (south of the Tell Grove junction); or

a permeable closure (no motor vehicles) between Tell Grove and Ashbourne Grove.

Madness, absolute madness.

[slarti b]

> > 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

> > 2019 not yet published

> >

> > Overall it shows a slight decrease. Are they wrong?

>

> > Slarti b - where did you get this traffic data?

> Thanks!

Elsa, sorry for the delayed response. tbh I have been very tied up with Coronairus issues and local issues have taken a back seat.

The figures came from Soutwark Councils annual traffic count surveys published in their annual reports.

See https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/transport-policy

Southwark say the base data is available on their web site but the web page is no longer accessible and they have not replied to my requests for the latest info.

I suspect they are being selective and\or misleading in the figures they quoted at the public meetings, specicfically the 47% increase in traffic through the junction. Given the emphasis thery gave to that figure they need to explain where it came from and whether it reflects a true increase in traffic or diferences between the dates they compared (eg comparing term time with holidays)

[rch]

I'm really pleased to see this thread revived, as I've also had a lot of issues to deal with and haven't been able to post... but I'm also getting concerned at the amount of disinformation that's being circulated, so I think more of us will need to stick together.

Firstly, be aware that we had a very similar "Healthy Streets" consultation in around 2007/2008 when I was a DulVil ward councillor. The proposals to block off the streets were almost exactly the same as in this current "consultation", but council highways engineers had a much better plan, which was circumvented by political machinations (long story).

There are multiple layers of complexity here, but my memory of the above cited traffic movement was to do with traffic cutting through the Village from the South Circular to continue into downtown London. Therefore, the proposal to block off Dulwich Village on the College Road side of the roundabout will only displace a great deal of traffic over to the Lordship Lane exit of the South Circular, which seriously won't be able to cope with the volume.

Engineers did predict that the volume of through traffic in the Village would increase over the years, so they came up with an extremely productive strategy to increase the "fluidity" of traffic flow in the Village... some of their interactive proposals were brilliant, but later undermined, leading to the current deterioration of local traffic issues (for instance, the recent redesign of the Dulwich Village junction and also the EDG/Townley junction is seriously flawed).

Also, bear in mind that local residents fought off the proposal to block off Melbourne Grove (which was also not recommended by council highways engineers) just four years ago (I think there's an EDF thread on this subject), but it's already being "reconsidered".

Without going into a huge amount of detail in just one post, the main problem with these recent consultations is that no one understands the unusual dynamic of this area of geographical distances served by poor public transportation.

Aside from technically improving all the junctions, the main solution that I campaigned for years ago was a local digital "Green Bus" service that regularly ran from Goose Green Roundabout, through Dulwich Village, then round to Half Moon Lane and back again.

When I suggested this at one of the recent CPZ public meetings (which was also flawed), the officer was quite positive, noting that there was internal council funding for exactly this sort of solution... but then this idea disappeared off the radar, as I suspect that these funds will be directed to the north of the borough where the RV1 issues are quite contentious.

[slarti b]

During the consultation period our Councillors claimed that the traffic "through the junction", had increased by 47% in recent years. This claim featured very prominently in the 2 public meetings I attended and was used as a justification for the urgent need to support the Councils' proposals.

I have been doing some research this weekend and learned from one of the Southwark traffic engineeers that the 47% increase came from Southwark's "Annual Report on delivery of the Transport Plan 2017\18" (page 12, Fig 6) The data is from Southwark's annual traffic surveys, ie the number I quoted in my original post.

So, the 47% increase "through the junction" is acually comparing traffic going North\South on Dulwich Village, not "through the junction" . And, most importantly, the base period is Sep 2017. when the council was carrying out the reconfiguration works to the DV junction. Can you remember the huge queues and disruption caused by the building works and the 4 way traffic lights. no wonder traffic volumes were lower in that period.

This is therefore a totally false comparison; if you compare 2018 with 2016, 2015 or 2014 you can see that the traffic has actually decreased and is part of a continuing downwards decrease.

This is quite frankly outrageous. Councillors have quoted highly misleading statistics to justify a scheme that will have a massive impact on residents in Dulwich. It is possible, though unlikely, that this was a genuine mistake but even so, it totally undermines the credibility of the phase 3 consultation process.

If our councillors or their supporters (Exdulwicher, TownleyGreen?) can explain the 47% increase as other than a temporary blip caused by massive disruption in the base period I would be interested to hear their reasons.

[Bicknell]

Interesting. I went to 2 of the meetings and remember all the talk about the big increase in traffic.

[mockingbird]

I have been asking for this data from the Council for some time, fobbed off with vague answers and no provision of the underlying data. This is serious in my view, ie that the Council has knowingly manipulated statistics to support the design proposed. Even more concerning if our elected Councillors are complicit in this.

[Rockets]

The council manipulating and fudging figures for their own benefit....surely not..;-).....they did it for the CPZ consultation and are doing it for the DV activities too. The 47% is a good headline figure for them to rally support for their proposals but scratch beneath the surface and you realise it's complete nonsense and nothing more than misleading propaganda. They shouldn't be allowed to do it but they always get away with it....zero accountability, it's why so many of us have lost all faith in politicians.

[Penguin68]

We should be pressing for all 'traffic' based changes to be put on hold now. We do not know what 'normal' is going to look like post Covid-19 - but I suspect that for some time, and perhaps for ever, issues of commuting and rush hours and where people work from will be changing. To make very costly changes to traffic issues right now makes no sense whatsoever.

[first mate]

I have copied your post onto the Councillor thread and asked for comment from Cllr McAsh.

slarti b Wrote:

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

> During the consultation period our Councillors

> claimed that the traffic "through the junction",

> had increased by 47% in recent years. This claim

> featured very prominently in the 2 public meetings

> I attended and was used as a justification for the

> urgent need to support the Councils' proposals.

>

> I have been doing some research this weekend and

> learned from one of the Southwark traffic

> engineeers that the 47% increase came from

> Southwark's "Annual Report on delivery of the

> Transport Plan 2017\18" (page 12, Fig 6) The data

> is from Southwark's annual traffic surveys, ie the

> number I quoted in my original post.

>

> So, the 47% increase "through the junction" is

> acually comparing traffic going North\South on

> Dulwich Village, not "through the junction" .

> And, most importantly, the base period is Sep

> 2017. when the council was carrying out the

> reconfiguration works to the DV junction. Can you

> remember the huge queues and disruption caused by

> the building works and the 4 way traffic lights.

> no wonder traffic volumes were lower in that

> period.

>

> This is therefore a totally false comparison; if

> you compare 2018 with 2016, 2015 or 2014 you can

> see that the traffic has actually decreased and is

> part of a continuing downwards decrease.

>

> This is quite frankly outrageous. Councillors

> have quoted highly misleading statistics to

> justify a scheme that will have a massive impact

> on residents in Dulwich. It is possible, though

> unlikely, that this was a genuine mistake but even

> so, it totally undermines the credibility of the

> phase 3 consultation process.

>

> If our councillors or their supporters

> (Exdulwicher, TownleyGreen?) can explain the 47%

> increase as other than a temporary blip caused by

> massive disruption in the base period I would be

> interested to hear their reasons.

[hopskip]

Does any one know the legal process that needs to be followed to close residential roads?

[Zig-Zag]

A big thank you to some of the posters here who have obviously gone to a lot of trouble to find the figures which appear to show show some very shady practices by the council. This sort of thing if true is outrageous, so I wonder if anybody legal knows how this can be taken to a higher level?

I also agree with the poster above who said that we really need to see what happens in the months after lockdown because it may well lead to significant changes in people's travel and commuting, with more working from home etc.

[sally buying]

hopskip Wrote:

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

> Does any one know the legal process that needs to

> be followed to close residential roads?

Why?

[ellaavery]

Hello!

Health is important for all please take care of your self.

[hopskip]

Before legal action we need the facts? The obvious way to obtain any information that is not forthcoming is an FOI request. This is costly on the Council's time and resources and so it's reckless of them to create a situation where people are forced to resort to this. There is an art to making an FOI request so that data (including associated emails, meeting notes (if Council is meeting informal groups they should make a record of such meetings) and even phone records)come to light.