LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Earl Aelfheah]

... so there is no practical alternative to the car? What any of the time, in any situation? But you are definitely supportive of healthy streets 🤔

[first mate]

Withering sarcasm is hardly a helpful response to valid questions. There are recent instances where emergency services were not properly consulted on road closures, with severe consequences. This may be of little concern to you, but for others it is different.

redpost Wrote:

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

> 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.

[Earl Aelfheah]

first mate Wrote:

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

> 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.

There is no move to ban cars. Car drivers (and I speak as one myself) are a massively indulged minority. Making a few streets no through roads is hardly some kind of purge.

[first mate]

If the main issue is local residents needlessly using cars then we should expect to see massive gains very soon. However, if the main issue is through traffic then things may get very much worse as traffic becomes concentrated along a few routes and, yes, I do then wonder what happens in emergency situations and to bus services?

Through traffic suggests journeys that are not local and are to some degree necessary.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> ... so there is no practical alternative to the

> car? What any of the time, in any situation? But

> you are definitely supportive of healthy streets

> 🤔

[Earl Aelfheah]

first mate Wrote:

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

> If the main issue is local residents needlessly

> using cars then we should expect to see massive

> gains very soon. However, if the main issue is

> through traffic then things may get very much

> worse as traffic becomes concentrated along a few

> routes and, yes, I do then wonder what happens in

> emergency situations and to bus services?

>

> Through traffic suggests journeys that are not

> local and are to some degree necessary.

>

>

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > ... so there is no practical alternative to the

> > car? What any of the time, in any situation?

> But

> > you are definitely supportive of healthy

> streets

> > 🤔

Fair enough. We will see pretty soon. I think traffic through the Village will remain fairly high, as it was before the changes. I expect there will be a drop in some local journeys and a significant reduction in traffic on some residential streets, with a greater number of people walking and cycling to Dulwich Hamlet school in particular (you can already witness this).

But like you say, we will be able to see. That's the point of this pilot as I understand it.

[Earl Aelfheah]

first mate Wrote:

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

> 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.

I assume this is aimed at me. I don't drive 'when I feel like it'. I drive when I need to. I'm in favour of measures which encourage people to use their cars less, this is not the same as suggesting all cars should be banned. So I do not see any contradiction, unless one is being completely binary in their thinking.

> It seems likely a lot of traffic is generated by

> school runs but we keep being told how vital it is

> to reduce pollution and make roads safe,

> especially for children and schools. What are

> school governors and parent groups doing to change

> this from inside the schools? Again, it is simply

> unbelievable that children are allowed to drive

> themselves to school, seemingly with the schools'

> and the parents? blessing.

I think one of the things they've been doing is campaigning for measures such as these to make it safe for children to walk and cycle to school. This is the whole point.

[intexasatthe moment]

redpost you do realise that carers visting lots of clients have priorities such as getting people up in the morning ,to bed in the evening ,toiletting ,prompting food and medecine intake ?Trying to superimpose an optimised geographical route misses the point of their work .IME few drive anyway .

[first mate]

Indeed, but they may need to use the bus. I cannot imagine many carers will be cycling or walking to their work?

My issue with all of this is it feels like let?s just try to force people out of their cars but not put too much real thought or planning into it. The impact on some will be to cause huge amounts of stress. As someone else said earlier, those who have been driving road closures have the luxury of setting their terms, for them walking or cycling everywhere is not going to cause much of a problem. Others who may not have driven closures but actively support them still wish to hold into a car because they know that realistically they cannot completely do without one. For them the situation is bearable and supportable because they presumably are able to walk and cycle most of the time. These groups are driving what suits them best and will enhance their lives, without much consideration for those who are not in the same privileged position and who really do need to drive in order to work or to support a loved one.

Anyway, time will tell. If it all works out for the best I will be the first to admit I got it all wrong, but I am far from convinced.

[redpost]

Well that's a coordination issue then and nothing to do with safer streets. Roads close temporarily all the time.

first mate Wrote:

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

> Withering sarcasm is hardly a helpful response to

> valid questions. There are recent instances where

> emergency services were not properly consulted on

> road closures, with severe consequences. This may

> be of little concern to you, but for others it is

> different.

>

> redpost Wrote:

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

> -----

> > 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.

[katgod]

The planning point is important. Hate to break the DV bubble but lots of ED residents get the bus to Peckham to get on the train. Thru is isn?t all car v bike. Most people use a mixtures if modes of transport. And now Rye Lane is closed and there?s no bus stop near the station. This is not joined up planning. Rye Lane has minimal car traffic anyway. It did have lots of buses. Southwark needs to plan better.

[tiddles]

spot on Katgod

[dande]

I find this thread fascinating because of its dialectical dynamics i.e. it's hard for all of us (no matter how emotionally self-aware we are) to argue and debate without "taking sides". We love supporting "our side" against the "other side" even on something as parochial as road closures.

That's why I have been studying the growth of One Dulwich with some interest. They now have nearly 900 supporters. See onedulwich.uk/supporters

Their latest bulletin includes an appeal to all residents to avoid binary ("for it" or "against it") thinking. They point out that the vast majority of us "support safe cycling and walking, clean air and reducing traffic" and are "open to any traffic plans that focus on these objectives" provided they are "logical, fair and reasonable".

Easier said than done, of course. But surely it can't be that difficult for the Council to (properly) listen to the views of its residents; go back to the drawing board; and come up with something that's less irrational and less inequitable.

[Siduhe]

I've just read back the last several pages of this thread, and really we're all mostly agreeing with each other on key issues like:

1. The need to reduce car use, particularly for short journeys;

2. The need to promote other forms of transport like cycling and walking for those who can in our area;

3. The importance of clean, healthy, unpolluted streets for all;

4. The need to have a joined up plan to achieve all of this.

Where people disagree is whether the current measures are a considered step in the right direction to get things moving or a random set of measures that benefit a select few while disadvantaging many others. I don't think anyone is suggesting that care workers, tradespeople, people with physical issues and others don't need to drive. However, most of us aren't in that group and probably could do more, which would free up vehicle space for those who truly need it. I include myself in that. Five years ago I would have used a car to drive less than 3 miles to pick a few items from the shop. I used the bus to commute to work. Now, I'm cycling 8 miles to work and then the same back again - and that's with a knee that needs to be replaced soon (electric bike, is a godsend). I only really use the car for long journeys or big weekly shops. What is working for me won't work for everyone, but most of us are going to need to make these sorts of changes to our lives, now and in the future, to avoid a climate emergency.

Also, most of us aren't "only" a driver/cyclist/public transport user - so it feels unhelpful to me to set it up as either/or. It's great if those who are benefiting from the current restrictions can acknowledge the negative impact those benefits are having on others and maybe help press for more changes to benefit everyone. Imagine if we could channel all the energy being expended on this thread into pressing for meaningful change in Southwark's approach to our area specifically. In fact, I can't help thinking it helps our elected officials to keep the debate at the "them vs me" level as it avoids them being held to account for the, frankly, piecemeal and general way that decisions about our area seem to get taken.

[Siduhe]

dande, in the time I spent writing my post, you put up yours! Ditto on the need to avoid ?either/or? (as they say).

[alice]

except that, D and S, OneDulwich is fake. It wants the best for Dulwich Village [area b] Not all of Dulwich.

[first mate]

Onedulwich is a start. What we really need is a council and councillors that properly listen and engage in an even handed way instead of the slippery and divisive methods they seem to prefer. The way they have approached all this has been far from helpful and I think a lot of trust and hope has been lost in the middle ground- the ordinary resident who just wants an infrastructure that is stable and works. Instead, we have utterly loaded and opaque processes and one ?experimental? intervention after another, with zero accountability.

[Abe_froeman]

They should listen to One Dulwich. 900 votes would be more than enough to oust all of the councillors in Dulwich Village and Goose Green combined.

[Rockets]

alice Wrote:

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

> except that, D and S, OneDulwich is fake. It wants

> the best for Dulwich Village Not all of Dulwich.

Not entirely accurate. They certainly started as a group based around the streets in Area B but saw that these changes impact people across the area and are representing the area as a whole - they have asked supporters to help them consolidate any such measures being implemented by the council into a single concerted effort). The reason they are gaining so much support is that the council doesn't view the area as a whole (as demonstrated by the 68% of people who voted for no CPZ and the council tweaking things to ensure they got to put a CPZ in place).

The constituents are responding to the need for an area-wide consultation and approach to these issues and a far more balanced and pragmatic approach - and given the attacks on One Dulwich by the pro-closure lobby they are definitely doing the right thing!

The council needs to take note and change the habit of a lifetime and actually listen to the majority!

[Townleygreen]

ebikes are increasingly popular. They travel at up to 15 mph which is faster than many car journeys in London. Closures like this one in DV make cycling a more viable possibility for many.

[handh]

All very interesting! I'm broadly supportive of the move as something needed to be done to deal with the appalling pollution. But I think most of us can agree further refinements are needed to make it work well.

Do we stick with the simple closure at Calton or refine to something like the Onedulwich proposal of timed closure and local resident access? To me - just outside what would be the permit zone - it doesn't make a huge difference to the traffic as resident journeys are only a small part of the problem, but it just doesn't feel right and fair to exempt residents from the inconvenience when they are the main beneficiaries of the quieter streets.

Much more important is how to deal with the increased peak time traffic turning right into East Dulwich Grove and backing up into the Village, exactly where our kids walk to school. We should be moving forward as fast as possible with the northbound timed closure of the Village from Our Healthy Streets - buses and cycles only.

[bels123]

Except looking at where they?re based, quite a few are in Lambeth and even some in Lewisham...

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> They should listen to One Dulwich. 900 votes would

> be more than enough to oust all of the

> councillors in Dulwich Village and Goose Green

> combined.

[Rockets]

bels123 Wrote:

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

> Except looking at where they?re based, quite a few

> are in Lambeth and even some in Lewisham...

>

>

> Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> -----

> > They should listen to One Dulwich. 900 votes

> would

> > be more than enough to oust all of the

> > councillors in Dulwich Village and Goose Green

> > combined.

A handful appear to be based in Lambeth and Lewisham but, let?s be fair, there is far more transparency on the One Dulwich supporters page than there has ever been on any council consultation document!

[Metallic]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> ... 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

I'm talking about Foundation coaches bringing pupils in to the area, don't be ridiculous.

[Metallic]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> 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 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.

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.

My comment was clearly linked to the post about children coming to school from outside Dulwich. But tell you what, it shows how pro-cycling lobbies can skew an argument when you post that.

[Metallic]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> first mate Wrote:

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

> -----

> > If the main issue is local residents needlessly

> > using cars then we should expect to see massive

> > gains very soon. However, if the main issue is

> > through traffic then things may get very much

> > worse as traffic becomes concentrated along a

> few

> > routes and, yes, I do then wonder what happens

> in

> > emergency situations and to bus services?

> >

> > Through traffic suggests journeys that are not

> > local and are to some degree necessary.

> >

> >

> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > ... so there is no practical alternative to

> the

> > > car? What any of the time, in any situation?

> > But

> > > you are definitely supportive of healthy

> > streets

> > > 🤔

>

> Fair enough. We will see pretty soon. I think

> traffic through the Village will remain fairly

> high, as it was before the changes. I expect there

> will be a drop in some local journeys and a

> significant reduction in traffic on some

> residential streets, with a greater number of

> people walking and cycling to Dulwich Hamlet

> school in particular (you can already witness

> this).

>

> But like you say, we will be able to see. That's

> the point of this pilot as I understand it.

School holidays now, please don't use the downturn in traffic numbers to say the closure was successful.