LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Serena2012]

Sillywoman - Sorry these changes have made you contemplate leaving the area. I can totally empathise. I have to confess that I?m of a similar mindset, not least as I have lost all confidence in the council, and their willingness to listen to the legitimate concerns of local residents and act upon those concerns on this or indeed any other issue.

The eagle eyed amongst you may have spotted this already, but the Dulwich Village Street Space page has now been updated to identify the traffic monitoring locations for the purpose of determining whether any further closures are necessary. Has anyone spotted the glaring omission?! I kid you not, there is seemingly no intention whatsoever to monitor the impact on traffic volumes on any of the area?s A roads. This is beyond appalling. I don?t understand how informed decisions can be made in circumstances where most of the roads bearing the brunt of these changes are eliminated from the data set. It?s as if the residents of these streets, the thousands of children educated on them and those who need (as opposed to choose) to drive along them simply don?t matter at all. I have never felt so disenfranchised: https://dulwichvillagestreetspace.commonplace.is/about

The reality is that if Townley Road is closed, the impact on East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane (both of which have far more idling traffic than hitherto as a result of the initial changes) will be catastrophic. I?m struggling to see why a road such as Townley, with relatively few residential properties on it; all of which are significantly set back from the road should be subject to a permeable closure. It?s a recipe for disaster for all sorts of reasons, including where on earth the school coaches would then park/ turn around.

[first mate]

Long time since I have been there but it always used to have a market at the weekend and I do not recall it being a busy street in terms of traffic.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Also, i am not sure what point people are trying

> to make here about the Northcote Road weekend

> closures as all the closures around Dulwich aren?t

> designed to create more space for shoppers

> visiting high streets - our councillors have done

> diddly squat to assist social distancing on

> Lordship Lane bar the token gesture outside

> Oddonos, which came far too late.

>

> Also, the Northcote Road closures are weekend only

> probably as the council realises closing key

> routes there would be disastrous for the

> surrounding roads.

>

> Once again, the pro-cycle, reclaim the streets

> lobby scream look, look, look at what they have

> done and when you scratch beneath the surface you

> realise it makes what is happening around here

> look even more non-sensical.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I am sorry that there are people thinking about leaving the area. But we are talking about the closure of Carlton Avenue to through traffic on a trial basis. I would encourage you to wait and see how it pans out. I would be very surprised if the impact of this change on your life is quite as severe as perhaps you imagine.

[northernmonkey]

Sillywoman - journeys such as yours in terms of attending births are exactly the types of journeys that will still be needed and that in the most part may need a car (there will be some exceptions where people know someone who manages on a bike, but on the whole they will be an exception rather than the norm).

However, without taking actions to actively encourage people away from car use more widely, the effects of telling people to avoid public transport will be a shift upwards in terms of car usage. Our roads were already very congested pre covid and the additional car usage could lead to even more gridlock which also won't help those who need to use cars for specific journeys.

I understand that changing road layouts is more inconvenient than it was before, but the fact remains that all roads continue to be accessible by car.

In terms of the CPZ, I'm not sure how much worse it will make your day to day life, so won't comment on that, but as a cost per year its not significant compared to the cost of car ownership - unless you're outside the zone and concerned about additional costs to your business of parking within it? - in which case surely as a private midwife, you add on the expenses separately as part of the fees you charge clients?

sillywoman Wrote:

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

> lbsmith73 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I think you are on to something there... Really

> I

> > am a car owner and to be honest all the traffic

> > made me change my behaviours. I now cycle the 9

> > miles to work and it is quicker than driving

> and

> > the train. It keeps me in shape, saves on gym

> > fees, good for the environment and you only need

> a

> > bit of wet weather gear from time to time. Not

> to

> > mention it has saved me a fortune in fuel and

> rail

> > fares. I know it?s difficult but change is hard

> > and sometimes you have to look beyond your own

> > needs.

>

> Marvellous. Good for you. Now how do I translate

> that into my working life?

>

> I'm a community midwife. I travel 500 miles a

> month from Fulham in the north to Epsom and

> Banstead in the south and to Bexley in the East. I

> have to carry my emergency equipment with me at

> all times - 4 large and heavy bags and boxes that

> fill my car boot. Includes resuscitation equipment

> for adults and newborns. Impossible to do my job

> without a car (I know, I tried to do it on a

> scooter for a year). I live just off East Dulwich

> Grove and the combination of these utterly selfish

> and purposeless road closures - reducing the

> routes to my home form the south from 5 to 2 -

> and the soon to be CPZ means that my day-to-day

> working life has changed significantly for the

> worse. This means that after 25 years of living in

> our home, and raising our children here, creating

> a community, we are feeling forced to seriously

> consider moving elsewhere. We don't want to, but

> we might have to.

>

> Sometimes you have to look beyond your own smug,

> self-satisfaction to see needs of others, and hear

> the distress being caused to them.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I do think there are legitimate questions about how Southwark are prioritising certain schemes over others. It seems that with Melbourne Grove and Carlton Avenue + the school street closures, they're mainly targeting walking routes to schools. I'm supportive of this, but would also like to see them look at doing something to improve Lordship Lane and to create a safer cycle route for those travelling into central London, or connecting to the tube at Brixton.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I am sorry that there are people thinking about

> leaving the area. But we are talking about the

> closure of Carlton Avenue to through traffic on a

> trial basis. I would encourage you to wait and see

> how it pans out. I would be very surprised if the

> impact of this change on your life is quite as

> severe as perhaps you imagine.

Rahrahrah - would you agree then that at this point it isn't panning out too well given the huge amount of gridlock being caused on all the surrounding roads - the A205 is a nightmare, as is East Dulwich Grove and Dulwich Village now seems to have become a busy A-road with speeds increasing? I remind you that all of these roads have schools located on them.

Do you really think the council is targeting walking routes? It wasn't that long ago that they were beating the drum about commuter parking to justify the CPZ. Does anyone have any faith that, beyond their well-publicised narrative that cars are bad, the council has the first clue what they are trying to do or target?

And to Serena2012's point - the fact the council are not monitoring traffic on the roads where we are already seeing huge impacts from these closures is laughable - but, given the propaganda machine they roll out to suggest everything is great it doesn't surprise me one bit. Every time I read something from the council my mind takes me back to Comical Ali!

[Abe_froeman]

The council can;t possibly care about walking to schools because a significant number of their schools have on site car parking.

[Metallic]

It's CALTON Avenue, for heavens sake spell it properly everyone.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> The council can;t possibly care about walking to

> schools because a significant number of their

> schools have on site car parking.

Presumably for staff?

[Abe_froeman]

who cares who they are for, it's gross hypocrisy

[exdulwicher]

who cares who they are for, it's gross hypocrisy

Depends on when the school was built and the planning that went into it.

Back in the 70's and 80's it would have been unthinkable to build offices or a school or a new residential development without a load of car parking.

The general requirement now is to remove on-site (staff) car parking as they expand - but that of course assumes that the school wants or needs to expand.

Schools are required to produce Transport Plans showing how they're committed to reducing vehicle use. If you can be bothered to go trawling through the Governance webpages of JAGS, Alleyn's, College, Hamlet and so on, they're usually buried in there somewhere. Department for Education produces statutory guidance on the subject:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/575323/Home_to_school_travel_and_transport_guidance.pdf

The challenge is that you don't just "remove" car parking; the school needs to plan what goes in its place in terms of buildings, sports pitches etc, get permission and funding for it, and then implement it.

Just for info, in terms of transport modelling it's counted separately - a journey travelling to school for the purposes of working or studying there vs a journey to drop a child off there (either en route to another destination or to return home afterwards). Sometimes confuses the figures a bit until you really delve into the details.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> who cares who they are for, it's gross hypocrisy

Not necessarily. There is a difference between providing some limited parking for staff and encouraging parents to drive their children to school.

[Earl Aelfheah]

This thread seems to contain a lot of very binary thinking - you must either be 'pro car', or 'pro bikes' (or 'anti car' or 'anti bikes') or whatever. In reality most people walk, cycle, drive, get the bus... They do all these things.

The only question is how best to design our environment and allocate public space, to accommodate these activities in a way that maximises the benefits for the greatest number of people.

There is nothing hypocritical with accepting a role for the car and yet still think that the dominance we give it in most public spaces is unbalanced, or even damaging. This is not an argument for 'banning' all cars. something which is so obvious, it shouldn't need constantly repeating really.

[Mrs D]

I would love some more focus on public transport in order to reduce car usage.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Mrs D Wrote:

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

> I would love some more focus on public transport

> in order to reduce car usage.

I agree with this. The problem I guess is that it doesn't feel that there is much the council can really do (it's more of a TFL thing?). Pulic transport in SE London generally is pretty underwhelming compared to the rest of the Capital.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Does anyone know if there are any plans to reduce traffic / pollution in ED (other than Melbourne Grove being closed to through traffic). Anything to improve Lordship Lane?

[Metallic]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Does anyone know if there are any plans to reduce

> traffic / pollution in ED (other than Melbourne

> Grove being closed to through traffic). Anything

> to improve Lordship Lane?

I saw a twitter photo of pavement widening up near the cinema.

[thebestnameshavegone]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Does anyone know if there are any plans to reduce

> traffic / pollution in ED (other than Melbourne

> Grove being closed to through traffic). Anything

> to improve Lordship Lane?

This should hopefully be on the cards. These initiatives don't work in isolation, and unfortunately making the area better for active transport holistically is a chain of deeply-unsexy measures like kerb dropping, better pedestrian & cycle lane provision and overall traffic reduction.

Unfortunately you have a huge status quo bias from drivers, who want everything to be exactly the same, with nothing to inconvenience them. Ideally following a lovely long, circular consultation.

CPZ? No. Close a couple of streets to stop rat running? Absolutely not. Cue local NIMBYs in SUVs shouting themselves hoarse and getting leaflets printed, for essentially what is their right to drive 2km to the shops, for the modal part.

There's over 36,000 deaths from air pollution a year in London, I'm not sure endlessly consulting on these things is working. Hopefully we'll see more action from the council soon to keep up momentum.

This is pertinent: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/15/english-councils-backpedal-on-cycling-schemes-after-tory-backlash

" Too many politicians are effectively mirrors for what their residents say, but there is a particular skew among people that respond to a consultation.

?Who has time to put pins in an online map? Who has time to read through 200 pages of documents? If you live in a wealthy area, you are used to raising your voice and having it heard.?

Privilege wins out : /

[James Barber]

I made a point of checking Effra's concerns about East Dulwich Grove traffic backing up for myself.

7.50 Dulwich Village junction of EDG - virtually no traffic or queueing on three arms. The arm going north from the village had circa 15 cars just before going green which all passed through on green.

8.20 EDG/Townley Road. Just before the lights go green 5 cars queuing going west and 4 cars + 1 bus queuing going East. All passed through on green.

Private schools are on summer holidays which will reduce traffic levels. But carmegeddon East Dulwich Grove is not.

[tiddles]

Yes close lordship lane and further damage the businesses who have already had a tough time.

[Rockets]

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Does anyone know if there are any plans to

> reduce

> > traffic / pollution in ED (other than Melbourne

> > Grove being closed to through traffic).

> Anything

> > to improve Lordship Lane?

>

> This should hopefully be on the cards. These

> initiatives don't work in isolation, and

> unfortunately making the area better for active

> transport holistically is a chain of deeply-unsexy

> measures like kerb dropping, better pedestrian &

> cycle lane provision and overall traffic

> reduction.

>

> Unfortunately you have a huge status quo bias from

> drivers, who want everything to be exactly the

> same, with nothing to inconvenience them. Ideally

> following a lovely long, circular consultation.

>

> CPZ? No. Close a couple of streets to stop rat

> running? Absolutely not. Cue local NIMBYs in SUVs

> shouting themselves hoarse and getting leaflets

> printed, for essentially what is their right to

> drive 2km to the shops, for the modal part.

>

> There's over 36,000 deaths from air pollution a

> year in London, I'm not sure endlessly consulting

> on these things is working. Hopefully we'll see

> more action from the council soon to keep up

> momentum.

I am not sure you will find anyone on this forum calling for what you claim from the driver's perspective - in fact, the only bias demonstrated throughout this and other posts on the subject is invariably from the anti-car brigade - more often than not myopic and prejudicial (yourself included as I am not sure there are 1,000 SUVs in Dulwich!).

What people want is something more balanced - something that considers all road users whilst managing the pollution crisis not a sledgehammer approach that actually causes more congestion and pollution (as is happening now on Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove and the A205 and happened after the first DV works). Surely you can see that the DV and Melbourne Grove closures are creating far worse problems across the area?

Those 1,000+ people who have signed up for One Dulwich are not petrol-heads or NIMBYs in SUVs they are real people with real lives who are being impacted by, and can see through, the council's ham-fisted attempt to manage the crisis.

What you are seeing is democracy in action - all I, and I am sure many others on here, ever wanted was for a fair and balanced approach that is inclusive of all the needs of the community. If the One Dulwich community action project helps delivers balance then I, and a lot of others, will be happy. For too long only one voice in the debate has been heard and that needs to change.

[Rockets]

tiddles Wrote:

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

> Yes close lordship lane and further damage the

> businesses who have already had a tough time.

You might to be onto something here - close Lordship Lane, make it pedestrian only and then make Melbourne Grove the by-pass for it. Remove all parking along Melbourne Grove and then that will keep the activist residents happy as it will remove the commuter parking they were citing as the reason for the CPZ. ;-)

P.S. for all of those without a sense of humour this is a joke

[Dulwichgirl82]

Hi James,

Can I ask if you looked at the EDG/LL junction as this certainly has had long queues of traffic for those waiting to turn left onto LL, and matham grove seems to have increased traffic avoiding that junction also. I was sat opposite the junction on lordship lane yesterday and it was unpleasant with the volume of traffic passing through, at times you could actually see the fumes in the air. People were asking to sit inside due to it. I?m still confused why two relatively affluent roads, where houses largely have gardens and are set back were closed to divert traffic onto those less affluent and with multiple schools/ a nursery/a health centre on?

James Barber Wrote:

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

> I made a point of checking Effra's concerns about

> East Dulwich Grove traffic backing up for myself.

>

> 7.50 Dulwich Village junction of EDG - virtually

> no traffic or queueing on three arms. The arm

> going north from the village had circa 15 cars

> just before going green which all passed through

> on green.

> 8.20 EDG/Townley Road. Just before the lights go

> green 5 cars queuing going west and 4 cars + 1 bus

> queuing going East. All passed through on green.

> Private schools are on summer holidays which will

> reduce traffic levels. But carmegeddon East

> Dulwich Grove is not.

[James Barber]

Hi Dulwichgirl82,

Not today. Will make a point looking pm rush hour today and am tomorrow.

[Spartacus]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> I made a point of checking Effra's concerns about

> East Dulwich Grove traffic backing up for myself.

>

> 7.50 Dulwich Village junction of EDG - virtually

> no traffic or queueing on three arms. The arm

> going north from the village had circa 15 cars

> just before going green which all passed through

> on green.

> 8.20 EDG/Townley Road. Just before the lights go

> green 5 cars queuing going west and 4 cars + 1 bus

> queuing going East. All passed through on green.

> Private schools are on summer holidays which will

> reduce traffic levels. But carmegeddon East

> Dulwich Grove is not.

Hardly an official traffic census on all roads in and around the changes James

It's a bit like the pro cpz brigade saying on Tuesday last week my road was so full of cars you couldn't get a piece of paper between them we demand a CPZ

But on the Anti CPZ brigade say on Thursday there were loads of spaces I don't see your problem

Without a recognised before, and after survey over a sustained period (not just a snap shot as used ) then there is no evidence that it is or isn't working

Casual observation and hearsay isn't evidence !

The real issue here is lack of proper supporting evidence or consultation by the council and without it people are rightly going to complain. If you want to do something to help then try campaigning to get the council to actually engage and listen to the full population and not just the vocal locals who shout the loudest.