LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> @Rockets - TFL are not responsible for all London

> roads, or the costs of the damage cars cause. The

> amount of money spent on cars (and cleaning up

> after cars), is huge and far greater than

> infrastructure for walking or cycling. I can?t

> believe it?s even something you?d honestly

> challenge

Rahrahrah - I am merely challenging you on your hyperbole - you often quote things that have little grounding in fact. That's another thing that frustrates people about the way this is all managed by both the council and the pro-change lobby - they quote nonsense and massage the figures to their own advantage - and the most glaring example of this is the 47% increase in traffic that the council grounded their DV Healthy Streets propaganda on - a complete lie.

People dance in the streets and have street parties whilst around the corner life becomes worse for those impacted by the displacement.

The issue here is that these changes are causing utter chaos, increasing congestion and pollution and you, and the other lobbyists, won't acknowledge that. Instead you implore the council to put more blockades in to try and deal with the problems they have created.

[Wil72]

If it were a 5 minute diversion nobody would be complaining- it will add an extra 20-30 minutes at peak times. And how is polluting/congesting different parts of Dulwich/Herne Hill an improvement?!

Some people have to drive- they can't carry tools etc on a bike. Why are we being constantly penalised- particularly in the current climate when we should be helping business & trade not making it even harder

Get real people

[snowy]

I seem to see rahrah quoting government figures.

For context here?s what the government is directing local authorities to do:

The coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis has had a terrible impact on the lives and health of many UK citizens, as well as severe economic consequences. But it has also resulted in cleaner air and quieter streets, transforming the environment in many of our towns and cities.

And millions of people have discovered, or rediscovered, cycling and walking. In some places, there?s been a 70% rise in the number of people on bikes - for exercise, or for safe, socially distanced travel.

When the country gets back to work, we need them to carry on cycling, and to be joined by millions more. With public transport capacity reduced, the roads in our largest cities, in particular, may not be able to cope without it.

We also know that in the new world, pedestrians will need more space. Indications are that there is a significant link between COVID-19 recovery and fitness. Active travel can help us become more resilient.

That is why towns and cities in the UK and around the world are making or proposing radical changes to their roads to accommodate active travel.

We recognise this moment for what it is: a once in a generation opportunity to deliver a lasting transformative change in how we make short journeys in our towns and cities. According to the National Travel Survey, in 2017-18 over 40% of urban journeys were under 2 miles ? perfectly suited to walking and cycling.

Active travel is affordable, delivers significant health benefits, has been shown to improve wellbeing, mitigates congestion, improves air quality and has no carbon emissions at the point of use. Towns and cities based around active travel will have happier and healthier citizens as well as lasting local economic benefits.

The government therefore expects local authorities to make significant changes to their road layouts to give more space to cyclists and pedestrians. Such changes will help embed altered behaviours and demonstrate the positive effects of active travel. I?m pleased to see that many authorities have already begun to do this, and I urge you all to consider how you can begin to make use of the tools in this guidance, to make sure you do what is necessary to ensure transport networks support recovery from the COVID-19 emergency and provide a lasting legacy of greener, safer transport.

Grant Shapps

Secretary of State for Transport

[Abe_froeman]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> This is ridiculous. Now we?re suggesting the

> schools won?t be able to recruit teachers, because

> of a 5 min diversion.

At least you finally concede this won?t reduce car use and will simply push traffic elsewhere on a five minute diversion (generating additional pollution).

[exdulwicher]

I don?t understand how anyone can fervently support the current measures and yet still own a car and continue to drive when they feel like it.

There is a middle ground. You can be "mostly" or "broadly" in favour of the current measures (or if not actually "these current measures as put in last week", you can be generally in favour of the principle of fewer cars / less pollution on the road however that might be achieved).

You can also own a car but not use it to drive half a mile to Gails for your morning pastries or 1/2 mile to JAGS to drop your little child right at the school gate.

We can argue about the implementation of this one til the cows come home but the principle behind any such modal filter / pedestrianisation / closure is to actually force change because, as has been amply demonstrated dozens of times recently, people have no common sense and will continue to do what they've always done until such time as they physically can't do it anymore.

That was the main reason behind closing off Gilkes Crescent / Place years ago, it was being used as a rat run to avoid RPH / EDG junction and people were endlessly circling around the village end of it looking for parking spots.

[TheArtfulDogger]

I have a wild theory how all of this has happened.

After a council meeting, the leaders had a few beverages and held a secret cinema event where they watched a film similar to the movie poster below.

After a few more drinks they started to believe and devise plans to save us all and before we knew it the monstrous "Healthy Streets" baby was born screaming and kicking.

Of course it's just a wild theory with no basis in reality but looking at the statistics quoted by the council, reality obviously doesn't matter!

[Abe_froeman]

Haha that?s brilliant!

[thebestnameshavegone]

This is just a small aspect of the much bigger crisis coming down the line in terms of climate change - this is an emergency and these are emergency measures.

But yes, let's consult endlessly, plenty of time.

[redpost]

You spent your time photoshopping that? if so, that's really quite sad

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

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

> I have a wild theory how all of this has

> happened.

>

> After a council meeting, the leaders had a few

> beverages and held a secret cinema event where

> they watched a film similar to the movie poster

> below.

>

>

>

> After a few more drinks they started to believe

> and devise plans to save us all and before we knew

> it the monstrous "Healthy Streets" baby was born

> screaming and kicking.

>

> Of course it's just a wild theory with no basis in

> reality but looking at the statistics quoted by

> the council, reality obviously doesn't matter!

[KidKruger]

Au Contraire.

It?s creative, inventive, and humorous.

[TheArtfulDogger]

redpost Wrote:

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

> You spent your time photoshopping that? if so,

> that's really quite sad

>

I suspect no sadder than spending time posting on a forum to be honest but hey ho, how I spend my evenings creatively is my business but thank you for your concern about how happy I am (very by the way.)

[Metallic]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Most people don't need to drive to schools. Unless

> we want to see higher levels of breathing

> problems, road deaths and escalating obesity

> levels, we should be encouraging those who can, to

> walk and cycle. Closing a few junctions does not

> amount to banning cars. 80% or more of all public

> space is still given over to motor vehicles. We're

> just looking for a modest rebalancing in favour of

> people.

Cycling from Sevenoaks or Chiswick. Fun.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Again, not every journey can be done by foot or by bike. No one is looking to ban cars. But 35% of Car journeys in London are less than 2km.

[Earl Aelfheah]

... so there is a lot of opportunities to encourage fewer car journeys locally.

Also, if you?re driving from Sevenoaks to Chiswick, the changes at this junction are really not going to make much difference to your journey

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Rahrahrah - I am merely challenging you on your

> hyperbole - you often quote things that have

> little grounding in fact.

Example?

[Abe_froeman]

2km each way on foot is a long, time-consuming journey for most people.

Your only other answer to this is cycling which isn't satisfactory.

There has to be viable public transport alternatives to get people out of cars but none of the Close-The-Roads! zealots ever address this

[Earl Aelfheah]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > This is ridiculous. Now we?re suggesting the

> > schools won?t be able to recruit teachers,

> because

> > of a 5 min diversion.

>

> At least you finally concede this won?t reduce car

> use and will simply push traffic elsewhere on a

> five minute diversion (generating additional

> pollution).

I think it will discourage a lot of short local journeys which could easilly be done on foot / by bike. I don't think it will lead to teachers quitting their jobs, or recruitment problems.

[first mate]

In reply to the comment there is no move to ban cars...

Are we sure about that? When members of certain cycling pressure groups, with it would seem enormous influence with the council, start suggesting that people who cannot cycle to work should consider moving, you do wonder how far they are prepared to go.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> 2km each way on foot is a long, time-consuming

> journey for most people.

Less thank 2km. There are lot's of people who jump in their car just to get a coffee.

It comes down to whether you think we need to reduce the number of car journeys or not. Or perhaps you think all care journeys are essential.

[first mate]

Appreciate this was a typo but ?care? journeys are rather to the point. Those with caring duties do need to be able to move around and may well be unable to cycle or walk. I wonder what the impact of these closures will have on them?

It is also unclear what impact this will have on emergency services. James McAsh?s extremely vague answer to that question indicates this was possibly not addressed as it should be.

What hard data do we really have on what journeys are made by whom, for what reason and when, using a car? One minute we are told that the traffic issue is the result of those driving through, not residents. Now it all seems to be about residents jumping into their cars for a latte just down the road. It is odd how the emphasis has suddenly shifted.

[exdulwicher]

2km each way on foot is a long, time-consuming journey for most people.

Your only other answer to this is cycling which isn't satisfactory.

There has to be viable public transport alternatives to get people out of cars but none of the Close-The-Roads! zealots ever address this

Public transport, at the moment, is running at way below the capacity it had pre-Covid and certainly suffering a major collapse in public confidence.

From the centre of Dulwich Village, it's <2km to Herne Hill, West Dulwich and East Dulwich stations, and to the South Circular / LL junction. 15-20 min walk, maybe 8-10 min bike ride. The reason that many people don't do it is not because they can't (the vast majority of people CAN), it's a mix of laziness, ignorance (of distance, of any other means of transport) and ingrained habit of just jumping in the car.

Cycling from Sevenoaks or Chiswick. Fun.

Chiswick is a lovely ride. 12 miles, about an hour no matter what time of day or night. Either along the river and back over Vauxhall Bridge all on the CS or drop down to Richmond and back in that way (avoid the S.Circ by going round the back of Wandsworth, over Wandsworth and Clapham Commons, then cross Brixton Hill and through Brockwell Park). Actually a really "green" ride.

Not practical for all journeys all the time, no. But it's about finding the ones that can be done another way and using that in the right way. Unfortunately, people need to be directed towards that because leaving people to "work it out for themselves" or asking people to please not drive as much simply doesn't work.

[Abe_froeman]

I guess you live alone

[Earl Aelfheah]

The issue is to create healthy streets. To do that you have to reduce car journeys. I agree we need analysis and I have not been a massive fan of the councils general approach As I have said before. But the idea that all car journeys are essential and that you can reduce traffic whilst not inconveniencing any drivers, is for the birds. No one has at any point said that there are not journeys that need to be made by car. But neither can anyone seriously suggest that there aren?t journeys which are currently made by car which couldn?t be done in foot or bike instead. If you believe that all car journeys are essential, then say so.

[redpost]

yes, if only someone would invent a little black box that gave you directions to your destination. Or perhaps someone could write an app?

Someone could also write a special app for multi-drop/visits that care workers and delivery drivers use that optimises your route over a large number of stops.

And it would be a really good idea if emergency services had a 'special' black box reflecting recent and temporary road closures, they could also be fitted with sirens and flashing lights to expedite their path to an incident!

first mate Wrote:

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

> Appreciate this was a typo but ?care? journeys are

> rather to the point. Those with caring duties do

> need to be able to move around and may well be

> unable to cycle or walk. I wonder what the impact

> of these closures will have on them?

>

> It is also unclear what impact this will have on

> emergency services. James McAsh?s extremely vague

> answer to that question indicates this was

> possibly not addressed as it should be.

>

> What hard data do we really have on what journeys

> are made by whom, for what reason and when, using

> a car? One minute we are told that the traffic

> issue is the result of those driving through, not

> residents. Now it all seems to be about residents

> jumping into their cars for a latte just down the

> road. It is odd how the emphasis has suddenly

> shifted.

[Abe_froeman]

Again cycling is the only answer in your mind. It's utterly impractical for very large numbers of people and no one has an alternative