LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[dande]

A couple of days ago we received an email from "One Dulwich" informing us that Southwark Council has now approved the temporary closure of Dulwich Village junction under an ?experimental traffic order?. Apparently, the order will come into effect next week, on 25th June 2020, and will be in place until 29th December 2021 i.e. for 18 months. The email also notes that the Council has stated that it does not need to listen to any of the concerns of residents because "the proposal is experimental" and "there is no requirement for advanced consultation and there is no power of objection?.

For more detail, see www.onedulwich.uk

As a family (living on Woodwarde Road) with young children that hardly ever use a car, my wife and I know that we personally will benefit from the road closure. Our family has also made a commitment to become fully carbon neutral by the end of this year (admittedly via a modern form of indulgences). But we can't just vote for road closures that benefit us personally. We are part of a wider community; and what hurts other members of our community detracts from our health and the health of our children.

In that context, we are deeply conscious of the extremely negative impact that the junction closure will have on the physical and psychological health of our elderly neighbours. These neighbours, up and down our street, are extremely distressed by the Council's decision to close the junction. And all the more so during a time when they are already stressed by the restrictions of Covid-19 and its aftermath.

It's for this reason that we are supporting the work of One Dulwich which aims to achieve healthier and cleaner streets in a fairer, more inclusive, fashion. Their suggestions (including timed restrictions to through traffic at peak hours rather than permanent closures) seem eminently sensible but have been completely ignored by the Council.

One Dulwich now has hundreds of supporters across areas A, B and C (i.e the areas most affected by the closure of Dulwich Village Junction) and their website contains a very helpful map showing the distribution of support across the area. However, as one of the organisers told me last night, they urgently need more people to sign up to support their campaign. The Council will, eventually, listen to the views of its constituents. But only if we channel these quickly and effectively.

To that end, can I urge you all to please read the One Dulwich mission statement and, if you agree with it, register your support at onedulwich.uk/get-involved

Thank you

[Lynnea]

Hi all, I am really concerned by the ONE dulwich campaign. I find their campaign letter has quite a threatening tone and the content is possibly purposefully misleading? Or uninformed? - I understand right now there is no funding by TfL to do full consultations or modelling and all we can hope for are desparately needed emergency measures - which are only on a trial basis. Let's start with these changes and then all get together and campaign for wider measures that solve all the problems that arise from these first changes.

But if we all want less traffic it requires action from everyone - across London something like 30% of all car trips are under 1km. That is walkable for most. So we all need to reconsider when we want to drive it is necessary ourselves too? Every less car means less pollution and less congestion,so those who must drive can drive more quickly?

And anyhting that puts drivers off driving within and through our area, will help, a bit, I hope? If not, let's ask for more?

[first mate]

Not if they are perceived to be the wrong measures. Measures that reduce traffic in one place and shunt them to another are not desirable. Unfortunately some traffic is necessary, not least because currently people need vehicles for work and others to access services to live. Many who want street closures also want to keep a car which is hardly leading by example. let those who are able to walk and cycle everywhere sell their car and show the way, but the wholesale forcing of everyone else into even more stressful situations with simplistic measures primarily designed to virtue signal and box tick are not the way to go.

[KatyKoo]

Hi there,

I'm a resident in Area B and I'm getting increasingly concerned by the misinformation One Dulwich are spreading.

As a group of residents who claim to want to bring the community together over a divisive issue - using untruths to fuel division surely goes against their entire 'mission' statement?

CLAIM: 'the Council has stated that it does not need to listen to any of the concerns of residents'

FACT: Southwark Council have been consulting on this amongst other measures for over 6 months. They held numerous public meetings, online and paper surveys, leaflets, and street stalls. They received over 2000 responses to the consultation 55% want the junction to be a permeable filter. 37% don't.

CLAIM: 'Their suggestions (including timed restrictions to through traffic at peak hours rather than permanent closures) seem eminently sensible but have been completely ignored by the Council.'

FACT: Rejected is not the same as 'completely ignored'. Their suggestions have not been ignored by the council - they have been responded to in detail and yes - rejected - both at the workshops and since then in ongoing correspondence for the following what could be seen as 'eminently sensible' reasons:-

a) there is no budget for ANPR cameras throughout the area to enforce timed restrictions - using just signage only is not effective / enforceable (think 20mph speed signs)

b) the surveys One Dulwich have conducted do not meet basic criteria to be considered - the council have considered other surveys from the community because they did meet the criteria.

c) their proposal has no mention of how to make cycling and walking easier - although they 'claim' this to be one of their objectives.

Re budget - as a result of the Covid crisis council budgets are limited as you are probably aware. To demand Southwark implements the most expensive option of all (which they could not afford even PRE-covid) seems rather 'entitled of Dulwich' don't you think? Especially when car ownership in Dulwich is 20% higher than the rest of Southwark? So affluent Dulwich residents want the council to spend lots of money on us so that we can have a scheme that means we can all carry on driving short journeys - as long as we keep the riff raff out... How does this 'achieve healthier and cleaner streets in a fairer, more inclusive, fashion'? Fairer and more inclusive - for who?

So why the urgency to make the first step towards a low traffic neighbourhood by creating a permeable filter - on the cheap - at Dulwich Village Junction? No doubt, as a resident aiming to become fully carbon neutral you're aware of the harm air pollution causes - and yet you cite the Covid crisis as a reason NOT to take bold measures to reduce traffic - particularly because you care so much about the elderly? The latest WHO guidance is as follows:

'we know if you are exposed to air pollution you are increasing your chances of being more severely affected. We are starting to give messages to countries and regions saying, if you are starting to have cases, in those cities where you have a high level of pollution, reinforce your level of preparedness, because you might have a higher mortality.?

I sympathise with elderly residents in the area - and am very concerned for their health particularly in that air pollution affects them, and children, the worst. But just to put this in perspective at the last census only 12% in Dulwich are over 65.

Maybe if One Dulwich were less alarmist - misinforming people that they won't be able to drive anywhere - their elderly members would be less distressed? Instead try reassuring your elderly Woodwarde neighbours that in fact they will still be able to drive 100m to the shops in the village and park before the closure, and their access to Lordship Lane is unaffected. Access to Herne Hill via Townley and East Dulwich Grove is same journey time as going through the village. Hopefully that will ease their distress.

Maybe the traffic on Woodwarde isn't too bad? Good for you. But it is elsewhere in Dulwich. If One Dulwich really cared about our community as a whole - they would accept that Southwark Council have limited resources to reduce traffic. A permeable filter at the junction is a positive start and will be reviewed throughout the trial period. There are traffic count tubes all over Dulwich - monitoring the impact ready to implement further measures in Phase 2.

If anyone out there is thinking of joining One Dulwich - before you do please ask them specifically: How will the alternative scheme meet the objectives to 'reduce traffic volumes, improve air quality making cycling and walking easier and safer'?

Thank you

[tiddles]

All I know is that the shops in dulwich village are very worried about the impact on their businesses - added onto the recent challenging shutdown.

[goldilocks]

Re the shops, I wonder why that is though? Do they think that people passing jump out for an emergency book or haircut? Or is it just the idea that if people have to drive an extra few 100 m (for those who won't just walk) that they'd carry on driving and drive somewhere else?

Interested to understand what the specific concern is? There is no parking reduction as part of this arrangement and there is no area where you won't be able to drive to if required. I hear a lot from people saying ' the shops are concerned' but what is that concern based on?

[Earl Aelfheah]

If you make the area more welcoming for those who are on foot or bike, it is good for business. There is so much evidence to back this up. Very few people drive to Dulwich Village to shop.

[first mate]

Katykoo,

Thanks but many of us feel the council and its supporters have also been pretty adept at spreading misinformation and using slippery statistics. It is quite remarkable that the long-term aims of the council/HSC and (allegedly) short-term solutions to Covid are exactly the same. How convenient.

It is nice that you sympathise with people, mostly the elderly, who may not be able to walk or cycle but noticeable you underline they are only 12 percent of the population after all...meaning what? You assume that pollution must be the number one priority for all. Well not necessarily, there may be even more pressing, considerations. Being able to travel when necessary is a big consideration.

This is not to say air pollution is not an urgent issue but it must be weighed in the balance against other important factors. Why not direct your campaign to persuading anyone who is young, or older fit and healthy to immediately sell their car and travel only by bike or foot? A better way surely than forcing everyone into a solution that is limited and potentially limiting to some, arguably causing a lot os stress, even if they are only 12% of the population.

[Rockets]

Many people in the area are fed-up with the council and our local councillors refusing to listen to the majority of residents.

Time and time again it has happened (CPZ, Healthy Streets etc) and I think people see One Dulwich as a way of making resident's voices heard when many feel they are ignored.

Support for One Dulwich is spreading across the whole area and is gaining momentum - soon the council and councillors will have to take note that people in the area want a more pragmatic and inclusive approach to traffic planning and that they cannot continue to railroad their plans through without any accountability.

Remember, there is no opposition in Southwark at the council level - the opposition is having to come from the constituents.

KatyKoo - I am not sure your quote of car ownership being 20% higher in Dulwich than in other parts of Southwark and references to the "entitled of Dulwich" really does your argument any good. There is a feeling amongst many residents in Dulwich that the council overlooks the area as it is...as Cllr McAsh has referred to it as before... "leafy Dulwich"...and many of these programmes are motivated by political ideology.

It's also about the bigger picture. You live in Area B and are obviously quite happy with the changes being mooted - I have no doubt your road will probably reap the benefits but that traffic will be displaced elsewhere - what happens to the people living there? The point everyone is trying to make is that just throwing a load of bollards into roads around East Duwlich won't fix the challenges with traffic in the area - it just moves it somewhere else. If you want a great example of what happens look up what happened at Loughborough Junction when Lambeth followed a similar path - congestion became so bad elsewhere lives were put a risk.

[Penguin68]

Nothing wrong with Healthy streets, that's why the Mayor brought in and then massively extended the ULEZ - the impact of which hasn't yet started to be felt locally - as we are all now in the new extended zone.

Any guesses that any positive ULEZ impact will be claimed by our duplicitous councillors and council officials as being a result of their tinkerings?

Of course it will. But nobody will actually know. Because they are rushing the adjustments in to coincide with the ULEZ extension being implemented.

Because they can.

[Earl Aelfheah]

If you prioritise people over cars, it massively improves quality of life, the environment, the economy - it's been shown time and time again to be a really positive thing to do in most city settings. But it takes bold action and leadership.

Most people, if asked about changes which will make driving more difficult, will they support it in principle, but don't want to make changes themselves

The reality is that we have to tackle the general carnage caused by turning over the public realm to motor cars at the expense of people, community and environment.

The Council should be bold and if people don't like the result, they can vote them out. The phoney consultations help no one, increase frustration and in the end, just create more opposition.

[slarti b]

Katy,

The current proposed Covid measure is a temporary closure of the DV junction. In the interest of transparency can you tell us what the Councillors plans under the Covid measures are for Eynella Road, Townley Rd, Dulwich Village and Burbage Rd? It appears they are trying to implement pretty much the entire OHS scheme without scrutiny or further consultation.

I am tied up at work and will respond to your other points tonight.

[Metallic]

The problem with all these comments is that we don't know who is making them - and this is an important issue not just a thread about the best butcher or something similar.

[goldilocks]

Metallic - you have just summarised one of the main issues with the EDF for any kind of discussion really. ?Next door? has tried to counter this by real names and it does change the tone of discussions.

A lot of what is being discussed here is purely conjecture (unless Katykoo) is a local councillor or council official in disguise in which case they can maybe answer the questions as to what is planned for the roads mentioned above, otherwise no one knows!

Asking again though because I am genuinely interested as a local resident who uses the shops in Dulwich village, does anyone know what specifically is concerning these shops about the current closure plan in particular?

[eastdulwichlocal99]

.

[sim1]

I have been following these threads for ages and it?s just got to the stage where I have to get things off my chest.

I live in Goose Green Ward and have to cross Dulwich Village by cargo bike with my two kids sometimes up to six times a day. Used to do a half a kilometre detour through Dulwich Park until lockdown because the DV junction felt too treacherous. Since lockdown, I have tried to avoid using the Dulwich Park route and use DV junction instead as the main path is very busy due to people taking their exercise (rightly so I must add). In the early days of lockdown my 5 year old daughter was also able to ride on the roads around Dulwich, which was a joy to see. She was so proud and happy. Unfortunately, that already came abruptly to an end by around week 5 of lockdown, by which point roads felt too dangerous again. At the same time we try avoiding her using the pavement to cycle as people on foot understandably have their concerns about that.

Anyway, I am back to having to do my detour and avoid the DV junction because it?s become so busy with impatient motorists. A few days ago I got very badly verbally abused and cut off from trying to get to the safe space in front of the traffic lights that left me very shaken (also not nice in front of my kids). Now, I have cycled all my life and I am used to getting close passed, cut off and overtaken at speed pretty much on a daily basis (more often than not on Turney Road, that famous cycle Quietway), but the situation is starting to really get my down. A few months ago, a motorist in a parked car opened the door in front of us when I was cycling with my toddler, which meant I came off my bike. Luckily there was no car coming in either direction or it could have ended very badly. It just left us very shaken. Now, every morning before I get on my bike I get a knot in my stomach and try to push away worrying thoughts about something bad will happen on the road today. Now I get it, when I am in a car I also feel slightly disconnected to what?s going on outside as I am in a safe bubble, so it?s hard to understand how terrifying it is if you are walking or cycling and someone refs an engine or close passes you at speed. Trust me, I get it, but I just find it very depressing that every attempt of infrastructure improvements gets voted down.

I cycle all year round come rain and shine, but the handful of times I decided to take the car I instantly regretted it. For example, one time I had a late school pick-up in December. I decided to take the car, but not because of the bad weather, but because of fear from speeding close passing motorists in the dark and the fact that the park was closed and I would have had to use the DV junction. Anyway, it took me 45 minutes to do a 2 mile journey, compared to the 15 minutes it would have taken me on the bike!

Both my mum and my mother-in-law have been pondering about getting a bike, but they are not going to cycle until they feel safe. My 80 year old granddad back on the Continent gave up his driving license voluntarily due to health reasons and now happily cycles around in his electric assisted pedal bike. I think change is possible if we imagine it. A number of times I have been against Southwark?s Healthy street proposals because I did not like their disjointed approach (and would have preferred an area-wide approach like Lambeth), but I have now come to realise that actually, I am part of the problem by blocking any improvements. We really need to start somewhere so the current plans get my full support.

Also, in terms of Dulwich Village shops being concerned - I would love to stop off and do my shopping there if I wasn?t too scared to use the junction! For example, I was so excited about seeing the Railton Road Low Traffic Neighbourhood scheme as it will mean I will actually be able to get to Brixton, which has many useful shops. On the other hand, I like the shops on Bellenden Road, but it's so unpleasant cycling around there and has limited bike parking. If the Council manages over time to connect the dots and connect communities by making the roads safer for people no matter what mode of transport they might use, I think we will all be much happier. It will necessitate change in behaviour, yes, but I think it will be worth it. Apologies for the long message, I will stop now!

[Rockets]

Sim1 - as someone who used to cycle from East Dulwich to Hammersmith for work I feel your pain - some points on any cycle journey can be treacherous.

What your point about DV also highlights is whether we can actually trust the council to get this right. The council has already spent a lot of money "improving" the DV junction and (speaking as someone who cycles, walks and drives through there often) they have made it more congested, more polluted and more dangerous for all road users and pedestrians - it has been an absolute disaster and is an accident waiting to happen and they were told this at the time but forged ahead regardless and have done nothing at all to address it since.

They view everything in isolation and don't take a broader area-wide approach which is why One Dulwich is getting so much traction - Healthy Streets requires an area wide, co-ordinated approach - this council is not delivering that. It is obvious their plan amounts to no more than creating road blockades in the north (Melbourne Grove), west (DV) and east (Goodrich) to try and stop through traffic - it is a sledge-hammer approach to traffic management that will create huge problems.

Despite many on here trying to convince people that car journeys will be replaced by cycling or walking - that isn't the reality - through traffic goes elsewhere.

Let's remind ourselves of what happened when DV was effectively blockaded by the last round of improvement works when roadworks made it impassable:

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

After the roadworks were removed the traffic returned (and gave the council the 40% increase in traffic figure they have been erroneously touting as the catalyst for the current DV consultation).

In just over a week there is going to be a lot of traffic going different routes to find their way through Dulwich due to the blockades dropping across the area and I suspect, much like the errors of the last improvements at DV, it is the residents of Dulwich who will have to bear the brunt of the issues created by it as the council will never admit mistakes and fix problems of their creation.

[slarti b]

eastdulwichlocal99 Wrote:

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

> The One Dulwich campaign may like to churn out various research on the limitations of the proposals but I imagine >it?s principally formed by a group that live in Dulwich Village who don?t want extra traffic flow on their respective

> streets and the potential negative effect on house prices. Simple as that.

Have you looked at the COuncils proposals for their own OHS scheme? Based on the numbers in their slide deck over 6,000 cars a day will be diverted from the centre of Dulwich Village onto "Major roads". This will be Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove, Crosted Road, Half Moon Lane and Dulwich Common. The council has refused to address this issue in the consultation.

So One Dulwich get cricised on one hand becuase it is not stopping all traffic at the Juntion and by yourself ecause it is going to stop some existing traffic. Oh well. Can I ask what you would prefer to see ?

[sim1]

Hi Rockets,

Thanks for your message. I do understand what you mean, and sometimes I dare to dream of cycling through the streets without being chased down the road like a fox on a fox hunt, however, I have just come to realise we need to start somewhere and that especially the closure of the DV junction is a good starting point as even a little bit of safe stretch of road is better than none. And from what I understand this is only the first set of announcements and that moree measures are to follow.

Just to give an example, Lambeth has installed a tiny section of segregated cycle path and save crossing on the Rosendale Road / Norwood Road junction recently. It's only a few metres long, but it allows cyclists to cross the road safely to get to the park. That tiny section has made such a difference to me and my family and I make a quite substantial detour just to use that junction. It is such a shame that just because we are on a bike we always have to take really indirect routes.

Personally, I would love a segregated cycleway network connecting West Dulwich, Herne Hill, Dulwich Village, Brixton, Camberwell and Peckham, however, that would mean a lot of on road parking would be lost, which would no doubt create a lot of resistance. The trouble is, something has got to give.

[Abe_froeman]

Why does the answer always have to be bicycles?

[march46]

It's great to see support for the aims of Healthy Streets from the onedulwich group. I'm interested to know specifically how the group proposes to achieve the stated aims of 'reducing traffic volumes, improving air quality and making cycling and walking easier and safer'?

[Abe_froeman]

They specifically say they would ban traffic on certain roads at peak times.

This would allow timid cyclists and pedestrians exclusive use of those roads at those times

[march46]

Thanks Abe_ do you know physically how they would ban traffic? On which roads? At what times?

thanks

[slarti b]

march46 Wrote:

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

> It's great to see support for the aims of Healthy Streets from the onedulwich group. I'm interested

> to know specifically how the group proposes to achieve the stated aims of 'reducing traffic

> volumes, improving air quality and making cycling and walking easier and safer'?

If you take the time to look at the proposals it is not massively different to the OHS scheme apart from the replacement of teh DV full closures with timed closures. In conjunction with the changes proposed in areas A & C the One Dulwich scheme will remove 7,000 through traffic movements a day, based on the councils own figures. Is that good enough for a start?

If it were instituted as a stand alone measure for area B, not ideal becuase you need a holistic view

[march46]

Removing 7000 traffic movements a day would be great! Thanks for the info slarti b - I've looked at the website but struggling to find the detailed alternative plan. Are you proposing the same permeable filters for Area A & C as OHS proposed, so Melbourne Grove / Turney & Burbage?

How physically would you ban traffic in Area B at certain times only? Are you proposing all the same roads as were mentioned in OHS, Eynella, Townley Rd, Dulwich Village etc....? thanks