LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[first mate]

So we can take it that children, of a non-voting age have participated and been counted within the consultation process? Do you know more about this Wulfhound?

[wulfhound]

So we can take it that children, of a non-voting age have participated and been counted within the consultation process? Do you know more about this Wulfhound?

No, I don't know of it at all. Zero information one way or the other. You could presumably FoI it if you wanted.

But equally, I don't think we should dismiss the views of children. Rather, I think their perspective on the world is a valuable one, and that their day to day experiences matter. Do you?

[Serena2012]

And the verdict is in (or at least for the next 18 months). https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/our-healthy-streets/our-healthy-streets-dulwich

[Bicknell]

wulfhound Wrote:

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

I think turning consultations in to a popularity contest as seems to have happened in the last few years is a rather silly distraction from the actual aims of the consultation process (which is supposed to be, to discover and, if necessary mitigate, hardships and disbenefits caused by a scheme). "52:48 YOU LOST GET OVARR IT HA HA" doesn't really do anyone any favours.

Agree with you mate. But its what the council have done with this one. And if you're using a result, you've got to be able to back it up. Otherwise you're just spinning fairy tales.

[Earl Aelfheah]

How about creating a segregated bike lane along East Dulwich Grove to link with the good cycling infrastructure over the border in Lambeth (if Southwark aren't going to improve things here).

[Abe_froeman]

Not sure how that would have satisfied the residents of Melbourne Grove?

[Earl Aelfheah]

It doesn't, it's just that if we're not going to make room for people here, Southwark could at least give us a single route out of the borough where we can connect to an area where they have widened pavements, installed segregated bike lanes, installed hire bikes, created low traffic neighbourhoods and where there is a tube station.

[rupert james]

You could always move.

[first mate]

Wulfhound,

Okay, but just so we are clear about the level of local support for proposals we need to know exactly who is being consulted and how much weight is given to those views. If the consultation is open to children of any age to express their views then that needs to be clearly flagged, similarly if any old cyclist anywhere in the Borough has an equal voice within the process, that too should be flagged. By that logic anyone, of whatever age, anywhere in the Borough should perhaps also have a say? However, taking all that into consideration, how then can the council claim the majority of locals support something; it is a nonsense. Additionally, how then does the council rationalise their method of measuring support for CPZ on a street by street basis only?

My objection to all of this is around slippery practice and dishonesty by the council, not that I feel the views of all children should be dismissed. That said, whether they should be given equal weight and prominence with those of adult residents is moot.

wulfhound Wrote:

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

> > So we can take it that children, of a non-voting

> age have participated and been counted within the

> consultation process? Do you know more about this

> Wulfhound?

>

>

> No, I don't know of it at all. Zero information

> one way or the other. You could presumably FoI it

> if you wanted.

>

> But equally, I don't think we should dismiss the

> views of children. Rather, I think their

> perspective on the world is a valuable one, and

> that their day to day experiences matter. Do you?

[exdulwicher]

Okay, but just so we are clear about the level of local support for proposals we need to know exactly who is being consulted and how much weight is given to those views.

It's normally anonymised and collated by the time it gets to the council.

You can separate out residents from non-residents by postcode / address / cross reference with voting/council records relatively easily to ensure that people are who they say they are and (depending on how the survey was done - in person, online, postal), there's some clever data management stuff that can tie specific responses to specific people if required but generally, the stuff the council see and act on has already had the statistical analyses done on it.

Once residents / non-residents of any given road or postcode have been split out, you can weight accordingly so that residents get more weight given to their views than just some random person driving down the street once a day.

[Abe_froeman]

"You can separate out residents from non-residents by postcode / address / cross reference with voting/council records"

Did they actually do that though?

[Earl Aelfheah]

rupert james Wrote:

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

> You could always move.

Yeah, anyone who wants any change in the area, even a single bike lane, should probably move.

[first mate]

Although it was once implied by one of the cycling advocates on here that if you couldn?t cycle to your place of work that perhaps you should consider moving!

[Earl Aelfheah]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Although it was once implied by one of the cycling

> advocates on here that if you couldn?t cycle to

> your place of work that perhaps you should

> consider moving!

Well if someone who owns a bike said something once...

[exdulwicher]

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/may/15/large-areas-of-london-to-be-made-car-free-as-lockdown-eased

[dande]

I've just seen a heatmap of Dulwich House Prices (thanks to the mapping tools available on Zoopla). It brought a wry smile to my face, in the context of all the discussions about where the traffic displaced by the Dulwich Village road closures will end up. Unsurprisingly, the boundaries of the "Our Healthy Streets" initiative correspond - almost precisely - to the boundaries of the most expensive residential cluster in Dulwich. We're being encouraged by the Council to "reimagine" this expensive cluster of streets. Reimagine it how? As an even more privileged bubble than it is already (with all the traffic pushed to the less affluent areas outside the bubble)?

As I have noted previously, I am happy to accept that change has to start somewhere...and that "somewhere" usually means the more affluent and gentrified zones. But I do think it would lead to more equitable outcomes if we could all be a bit more honest about exactly who benefits (and who doesn't) from the Council's decisions. The Council can't be expected to please all the people all the time. But it can, at least, treat its constituents as adults; instead of infantilising us with the suggestion that the proposed road closures are socially progressive.

[slarti b]

Indeed, the question of diverted traffic resulting from OHS, or indeed the temporary closure of DV junction, has not been addressed at all by the Council. Croxted Road is in Lambeth but I am surprised that Councillors for the East Dulwich Wards have not considered the effect on Lordship Lane and EDG. I suspect Half Moon Lane will also see increases.

[Bicknell]

Agree with you @dande. Close Dulwich village junction, and all the traffic gets pushed on East Dulwich. Nice look for a Labour council.

[exdulwicher]

There's some recently released info, data, graphics etc here that do a good job of explaining the Low Traffic Neighbourhood plans.

This is Strategic Neighbourhood Analysis:

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lsp-app-six-b-strategic-neighbourhoods-analysis-v1.pdf

And here's the TfL guidance for Low Traffic Neighbourhoods:

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lsp-app-six-a-supplementary-guidance-ltns-v1.pdf

London-wide look, not just Southwark but all councils are legally obliged to be doing this now.

[heartblock]

East Dulwich Grove needs a bike lane, it will encourage bike use on this road. It makes more sense to ?close? the other side of Melbourne Grove, a very dangerous junction and overused as a short-cut. The side that is being closed is relatively quiet, is not over-used as a short cut and is full of high priced housing. I have lived here for 30 years and walk along all these roads regularly.

[Sally Eva]

It would be very difficult to fit a bike lane into EDG without removing parking. The traffic is too copious and too fast for an unprotected bike lane. In theory EDG has been traffic-calmed for bikes but in practice cyclists do not use it because it is unsafe.

When I need to go to JAGS (for the sports centre) I always take the bus. There are very few ways to get from Nunhead to Dulwich using backstreets (because of all the school playing fields) and the direct route along EDG is too dangerous.

[heartblock]

Protected bike lane and parking on one side after the corner. There are lots of empty parking spaces never used at the back of the estate. The private schools make room on site for coaches....there is room. Speed cameras to stop speeding and humps removed. Could be achieved if the will is there.

[Sally Eva]

Removing parking is very difficult as a glance around this forum will show you. If by the corner you mean on the approach to the Townley Road lights, then yes, there is room for protection there. However people have to get there and along the straight run of EDG a third of the road is parking.

I don't understand your remark about removing humps. The square cushions cause drivers to drive down the middle of the road at speed. Sinusoidal humps all the way across the road are more effective than cameras at reducing speed. EDG has got raised tables to help pedestrians cross and slow traffic.

Cushions are dangerous to cyclists because on-coming traffic in the middle of the road is dangerous. Sinusoidal humps are fine in themselves and slow traffic. Raised tables force cyclists into the middle of the road (see previous point) and cyclists need bypasses ie lowered curbs to allow them to avoid the pinch point. Bypasses will not work if the road is continuously parked (as EDG generally is) because cars park right up to the bypasses blocking them up. If the bypasses are protected with double yellow lines, residents complain about the reduction in parking spaces.

The dangerousness of EDG for cycling is a real problem. I don't know the solution. Traffic thins after the Red Post Hill junction and it makes sense that a lot of this traffic is cutting through Dulwich.

[Metallic]

In the perfect world for cyclists and pedestrians after the Calton Avenue/Court Lane junction is closed, cyclists can enjoy meeting all the cars on Calton Avenue that will funnel off up roads like Dekker road, Druce Road, and Dovercourt Road. Not closing the other end of Calton Avenue too, which it seems from the excuse of the closures already announced, would at least have done the job.

I am not a member of One Dulwich or any campaign group - I can just see the stupidity of this solo closure.

[first mate]

I don?t think Southwark Cyclists care. This is about their fanatical car free vision for ED. Once they have helped the council realise mass CPZ let?s see how much car parking suddenly becomes available again, once it?s a source of income for the Council.

If you require a car for work too bad, if you work too far to use a bike, again too bad, if you are not fit enough to negotiate the very steep hills either end of ED, too bad, if you feel to nervous to cycle at night, too bad. Let?s not forget that representatives of Southwark Cycling have also implied that people who do not live close enough to cycle to their workplace should move. It?s a very rigid way of thinking.