LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[thebestnameshavegone]

spider69 Wrote:

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

> Perhaps at some point the penny will drop and

> people will say perhaps we should have left things

> as they were because it worked and newcomers who

> think they know it all have got it all wrong.

>

> Maybe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias

[Earl Aelfheah]

johnhinton Wrote:

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

> As someone who lives on Dulwich Village, I

> wouldn't characterise the road closures as

> creating a "gated community". What I see is that

> the main road through the village creates a

> highway from the South Circular to the north of

> the borough, and that when the weight of traffic

> eases, people speed along Dulwich Village. Do I

> have to be anti-car or anti-cycle to see this as a

> poor outcome?

Apologies, but I'm not sure I follow your point here. Are you suggesting that the new measures will decrease the weight of traffic and so you're worried that speeds will go up?

[Dulres3]

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

This statistic is misleading. Whilst air pollution does contribute to excess mortality, the effect it has is not as well understood as is widely believed, and the figures that appeared in the press a few years ago (which is where a lot of these alarming numbers originate from) resulted from a single paper that was questionable from both a statistical and epidemiological viewpoint. Sure, let's acknowledge that reducing pollution is a laudable goal, but let's also be realistic about the actual risk posed by it.

The measures introduced both locally and across London are causing absolute chaos and no doubt pushing pollution levels through the roof. For example, Park Lane and Euston Road, both major arterial routes through Central London, are now 1 lane roads. Lockdown hasn't really ended yet and they're already at a complete standstill for the majority of the day. Most of these vehicles aren't private cars either. They're commercial vehicles delivering the goods that you consume, and the services that you utilise. Even when you measure the results of these schemes by their own criteria for success (usually decreased motorised vehicle usage, increased cycling and reduced pollution), they are failures.

> Exactly this. One Dulwich and all the other leafletting groups of car drivers that have sprung up all profess to be mindful of environmental issues and

> air quality etc, just as long as nothing too inconvenient happens.

It has to be a balanced approach, but as is evidenced by other posts on this thread it looks like the restrictions are set to continue. Inconvenience has a real impact on peoples lives. Outside of the privileged white collar world that so many appear to inhabit, that extra 20 - 30 mins a day spent travelling to your minimum wage job where you then spend 10 hours a day on your feet has a real, quantifiable, negative effect on your quality of life.

> So if you had a choice to live on a closed off

> road or another with traffic you would not take

> it?

No. I'd prefer to recognise that the street on which I lived isn't just there for my own financial benefit and should be free to be used by everyone. Bicycle, car, motorcycle or other. If I wanted perfect solitude and bucolic splendour I wouldn't live in one of the largest cities in Europe with 9 million other people.

[redpost]

20% of new cars are electric or hybrid, these don't generate any pollution at all when stopped. Most fairly recent petrol or diesels kill the engine when stopped, also reducing pollution.

Park lane and Euston road don't look a complete stand still to me (https://www.tfljamcams.net/)

Peoples behaviour will take time to adjust when they realise the days of frivilous car use are over (e.g. driving for social appointments during the rush hour, and getting outraged when there is a delay).

[exdulwicher]

20% of new cars are electric or hybrid, these don't generate any pollution at all when stopped. Most fairly recent petrol or diesels kill the engine when stopped, also reducing pollution.

There was a report in October last year which is widely available (I've linked to an easy-to-read BBC article on it below) basically saying that the increased number of SUVs on the roads has cancelled out any gain made from some slight switch to EV.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50713616

This one comes up quite a bit in councils and Local Transport Authorities as a pro-roads weapon - they'll propose a road scheme, the complaints will come in about building more roads, congestion, pollution etc and the council / LTA says "oh it's OK, by the time it's built, many of the vehicles driving on it will be electric therefore it's all fine".

While it's sounds like a good argument to use, it's actually mostly wrong, certainly the way the current market is going. Increased use of ULEZ *might* have an impact in a few years time but as most cars on the road are leased / on finance, it's not always a case of just being able to go out and swap a car; people are often tied into 3 or 5 year "deals" - which is part of the reason that behavioural change takes so long because on a high-price item like a car, it's a major purchase decision.

Ironically, the rise in SUVs is because the roads are congested so they're sold on the high driving position to see over the traffic, the safety ("there are so many cars on the road that it's unsafe; here, have a bigger heavier car for protection against it all!") and before you know it, you're back at square one except everyone is in a car that's twice as big as it was before.

Edit: EV use and uptake is driven by infrastructure. The main concerns are obviously range and charging so to push for pure EV, you need a network of charge points (like at supermarkets, shopping centres, stations etc), otherwise the uptake will be incredibly low. Self-charging hybrids get around that but then you're back with a petrol engine again. Catch-22.

[JohnL]

I don't think the Government, The Mayor, TFL and Southwark are going to go back on these schemes which TFL calls "StreetSpace" and are very pro walking/cycling.

https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/streetspace-for-london

Rye Lane and Dulwich Village are two of the ones that TFL gave money towards - this would need to be re-allocated to another road I guess if changed ? Both are named in the article below along with the amount of money.

https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18533902.southwark-gets-1-3m-covid-19-transport-funding-tfl/

[Earl Aelfheah]

What I have noticed, is an increase in cars using Townley Road to turn on to Lordship Lane (presumably cutting through from East Dulwich Grove.

[tiddles]

yes fraid so RahRahRah - otherwise one has to go down to Lordship lane, turn left, go round roundabout and then head back up lordship lane. A massive loop instead of a straight forward journey.

[Rockets]

Remember, the council has aspirations to close Townley Road too in the not too distant future....

[tiddles]

This is getting more bonkers. I?m actually looking forward to the schools going back and looking at Southwark justifying the whole cock up

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Remember, the council has aspirations to close

> Townley Road too in the not too distant future....

That would make sense tbh.

[Jakido]

It would be great if this can be used as an opportunity to fix the junction between East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane, opposite the Bishop. It's unsafe to cross, and not that great to drive through either.

[James Barber]

I think that junction Lordship Lane with EDG needs a Zebra crossing for people walking along Lordship Lane. We wangled a number of tweaks past highways people over the years to try and sort this out but clearly it needs much more.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Remember, the council has aspirations to close

> > Townley Road too in the not too distant

> future....

>

>

> That would make sense tbh.

On what grounds?

Townley is one of the least residential roads in the area and if you close it off you funnel yet more traffic along Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove adding to the already huge increases in traffic along those roads.

This is where we have to put realism over idealism for these changes - something the council seems incapable of. It is obvious what impact all these changes would have on surrounding roads yet the anti-car lobby and their council friends are too blinkered to acknowledge it.

[cwjlawrence]

@Jakido - yes - this is a great idea - it has always been a very unsatisfactory place to cross the road.

Just in case you're not aware - here's the link to Southwark's StreetSpace platform:

https://southwarkstreetspace.commonplace.is/

You can submit new ideas for changes and also add your support for ideas that other people have made.

I have no idea whether anyone actually looks at these suggestions or not, but it does at least give the illusion of having one's voice heard!

[Rockets]

I think it is for the illusion that the council are listening. It also looked like a retrospective vehicle to help then justify the Melbourne Grove and DV closures. Cllr McAsh asked us to submit suggestions there during the early part of lockdown and many did for Lordship Lane yet only the Moxon's pavement widening appeared months into lockdown.

Then Cllr McAsh posted on the Covid thread here that the council had looked at Lordship Lane and could not find any issues to justify any pavement widening elsewhere and he asked for input on more specific places.

So the system is a little confusing. Perhaps Cllr McAsh could come on here and address whether anything can be done at that junction (it has got even worse since the DV closures) and what other plans the council may be considering/executing.

[exdulwicher]

Townley is one of the least residential roads in the area and if you close it off you funnel yet more traffic along Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove adding to the already huge increases in traffic along those roads.[/quot]e

The problems with Townley were largely at the Calton / EDG "triple junction" but with the closure of Calton at DV, that's now much less of an issue. However the Court Lane closure has lead to people cutting through from CL up Dekker / Desenfans / Druce / Dovercourt / Eynella, onto Woodwarde and then down Dovercourt or Beauval onto Townley.

One option, rather than closing Townley (and even the Healthy Streets plan only wanted to have timed restrictions along there, not close it altogether) would be to have "up" and "down" roads (so up Beauval / down Dovercourt and the same again with the streets the other side of Woodwarde. That would also help the current situation where double parking along all of those streets leads to queues as head-on traffic tries to reverse.

[JohnL]

cwjlawrence Wrote:

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

> @Jakido - yes - this is a great idea - it has

> always been a very unsatisfactory place to cross

> the road.

>

> Just in case you're not aware - here's the link to

> Southwark's StreetSpace platform:

>

> https://southwarkstreetspace.commonplace.is/

>

> You can submit new ideas for changes and also add

> your support for ideas that other people have

> made.

>

> I have no idea whether anyone actually looks at

> these suggestions or not, but it does at least

> give the illusion of having one's voice heard!

Comments look nice on the map - fair dos :)

[Rockets]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> Townley is one of the least residential roads in

> the area and if you close it off you funnel yet

> more traffic along Lordship Lane and East Dulwich

> Grove adding to the already huge increases in

> traffic along those roads.e

>

> The problems with Townley were largely at the

> Calton / EDG "triple junction" but with the

> closure of Calton at DV, that's now much less of

> an issue. However the Court Lane closure has lead

> to people cutting through from CL up Dekker /

> Desenfans / Druce / Dovercourt / Eynella, onto

> Woodwarde and then down Dovercourt or Beauval onto

> Townley.

>

> One option, rather than closing Townley (and even

> the Healthy Streets plan only wanted to have timed

> restrictions along there, not close it altogether)

> would be to have "up" and "down" roads (so up

> Beauval / down Dovercourt and the same again with

> the streets the other side of Woodwarde. That

> would also help the current situation where double

> parking along all of those streets leads to queues

> as head-on traffic tries to reverse.

Exdulwicher - you're a planner - shouldn't the council's experts have been able to predict these issues - or is it all part of their cunning plan....

[exdulwicher]

Exdulwicher - you're a planner - shouldn't the council's experts have been able to predict these issues - or is it all part of their cunning plan....

Some of it is down to time - it takes a few months for behavioural change to kick in properly so there has to be a period of "getting used to it". Basically, the temporary disruption is modelled in.

Some of it will be planned phasing of a scheme that's already been decided and approved but for various reasons (resourcing, costs, too much initial disruption etc), they can't put in all at once.

[Spartacus]

Isn't the danger of introducing one way streets, by the simple act of removing oncoming traffic it will encourage faster driving as they won't need to slow down for other cars ?

Every silver lining has a cloud !

[Earl Aelfheah]

There is evidence that with the introduction of LTNs, it takes between 3 and 6 months for traffic on main roads to adjust, usually returning to previous levels quite quickly.

Most of the traffic using Townley to cut through from EDG would have previously done the same, but come via calton I guess? Does seem a little heavier right now though.

Overall, I haven't noticed a big increase in traffic along EDG or Lordship Lane, or through the Village. But this is of course just my subjective observations. Like I said, i did drive that way during rush hour the other week and it seemed OK.

I hope that Southwark are actually monitoring this stuff, so they can publish some proper data on the impacts, both positive and negative.

[exdulwicher]

Isn't the danger of introducing one way streets, by the simple act of removing oncoming traffic it will encourage faster driving as they won't need to slow down for other cars ?

Every silver lining has a cloud !

Absolutely correct on both counts. Can help with traffic flow but with a corresponding increase in speeds - and the vast majority of drivers on all those roads I mentioned already exceed the notional 20mph limit.

[Spartacus]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> Isn't the danger of introducing one way streets,

> by the simple act of removing oncoming traffic it

> will encourage faster driving as they won't need

> to slow down for other cars ?

>

> Every silver lining has a cloud !

>

> Absolutely correct on both counts. Can help with

> traffic flow but with a corresponding increase in

> speeds - and the vast majority of drivers on all

> those roads I mentioned already exceed the

> notional 20mph limit.

And the 2021 Grand Prix will include the streets of East Dulwich !

I do wonder that if the council actually removed all the measures implemented over the past decade plus that were added to restrict traffic, if it would flow better thus reducing pollution as there would be less idling and cars would traverse through quicker

It's a bit like the experiment where all the traffic lights were switched off.

Are we over engineering to make the situation worse not better and adding layers on to try and fix initial mistakes rather than reversing and starting again?

[Penguin68]

Almost certainly traffic flow through suburban streets which include multiple connecting routes is a Chaotic System - where a quite small butterfly flapping its wings (road closure due to an accident or road works) can lead to a hurricane of stationary traffic and delays. The arrogant belief in such a system that planners can make changes the effects of which they can accurately forecast over time is arrant nonsense.

Southwark's road planners however are not interested in smooth traffic flows, or congestion, or for that matter pollution. They have a political desire (which is stated) to remove cars from their roads (as part of their belief system, which we can see echoed here, that private vehicles are the purview of the wealthy few and not the deserving many) - they may hide behind the purity of the cyclist (or even the moral worth of public transport, though that one, where public transport is so bad, is a difficult one to validate) but this is simple class war, and one they are winning.