LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Metallic]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> JohnL Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Rockets Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > >

> > > You know things are bad when even The

> Guardian

> > > starts complaining about things that are

> > supposed

> > > to be improving the environment....;-)

> >

> >

> > You could say this Guardian writer will now

> > consider how to kill two birds with one stone

> when

> > taking thinks to the dump and perform other

> tasks

> > that include driving at the same time.

> >

> > This is the plan - the moan is exactly what the

> > response to the climate emergency is looking

> for

> > and it's "nudge" theory I think. If they've

> gone

> > to far they'll retract it a bit but it's

> exactly

> > the effect they are looking for.

>

>

> But when does the nudge go too far...this looks

> awfully familiar to what is happening around

> here...the law of unintended consequences....

>

>

> What the

> > council doesn?t appear to have banked on is the

> > law of unintended consequences. To make the

> scheme

> > even greener, the few arterial roads with two

> > lanes in each direction have now been cordoned

> off

> > into single lanes with the other serving as a

> > cycle route. The result is gridlock. Bus

> journeys,

> > that the council are trying to promote, that

> used

> > to take 10 minutes now take a minimum of 30

> > minutes. Worst of all, ambulances on sirens and

> > blue lights trying to get to the nearby St

> > George?s hospital also get stuck in traffic as

> > there is nowhere for cars and lorries to get

> out

> > of their way.

I think they are intended consequences!

[mr.chicken]

Dulres3 Wrote:

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

>

> Are you using protected characteristics as

> pejoratives?

Are you quoting me out of context in order to make me sound prejudiced when I'm clearly not? Do you support One Dulwich?

> > Ah yes a "holistic solution", one that doesn't

> involve you actually specifying what this magical

> solution is, just that it's out there somewhere.

> This is the thing, none of the people objecting

> actually have a solution which is better or even

> as good. And no, doing nothing is not as good.

>

> I haven?t seen any solution from the other side of

A simple "no I have no solution and I think a mild inconvenience in a local drive is far more disruptive than the disruption of 4000 people dead per year due to pollution" would have sufficed as an answer.

Why can't the pro pollution, pro traffic jam lobby come up with something more convincing than "nuh uh"?

[tiddles]

maybe because the pollution on all the other roads are going thru the roof? Feel sorry for the people who live on the main road in dulwich village and the knock on effect on the primary schools

[Serena2012]

mr.chicken Wrote:

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

> Dulres3 Wrote:

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

> -----

> >

> > Are you using protected characteristics as

> > pejoratives?

>

> Are you quoting me out of context in order to make

> me sound prejudiced when I'm clearly not? Do you

> support One Dulwich?

>

>

> > > Ah yes a "holistic solution", one that

> doesn't

> > involve you actually specifying what this

> magical

> > solution is, just that it's out there

> somewhere.

> > This is the thing, none of the people objecting

> > actually have a solution which is better or

> even

> > as good. And no, doing nothing is not as good.

> >

> > I haven?t seen any solution from the other side

> of

>

> A simple "no I have no solution and I think a mild

> inconvenience in a local drive is far more

> disruptive than the disruption of 4000 people dead

> per year due to pollution" would have sufficed as

> an answer.

>

>

> Why can't the pro pollution, pro traffic jam lobby

> come up with something more convincing than "nuh

> uh"?

Having looked at the census data for the roads in question, the reality is that what these proposals do is to push traffic onto main roads that have far greater population density (because they have more flats); far more social housing; and far more vulnerable people in the context of Covid-19 (as a result of their ethnicity). These also happen to be the roads that house the majority of the area?s schools.

Far from reducing air pollution, what these changes have done so far is to cause idling traffic in circumstances where it did not exist previously which significantly increases air pollution, as does sending those undertaking essential journeys on a wild goose chase to get from A to B. I am all for initiatives that improve air quality. However, they need to be carefully considered and balance the needs of the community as a whole. Simply closing a handful of roads and diverting all the traffic into lengthy tailbacks elsewhere cannot be hailed a victory in anyone?s book. It is far too blunt an instrument, and (if anything) risks increasing the annual death tally from air pollution.

[Rockets]

Serena2012 Wrote:

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

> mr.chicken Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Dulres3 Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > >

> > > Are you using protected characteristics as

> > > pejoratives?

> >

> > Are you quoting me out of context in order to

> make

> > me sound prejudiced when I'm clearly not? Do

> you

> > support One Dulwich?

> >

> >

> > > > Ah yes a "holistic solution", one that

> > doesn't

> > > involve you actually specifying what this

> > magical

> > > solution is, just that it's out there

> > somewhere.

> > > This is the thing, none of the people

> objecting

> > > actually have a solution which is better or

> > even

> > > as good. And no, doing nothing is not as good.

>

> > >

> > > I haven?t seen any solution from the other

> side

> > of

> >

> > A simple "no I have no solution and I think a

> mild

> > inconvenience in a local drive is far more

> > disruptive than the disruption of 4000 people

> dead

> > per year due to pollution" would have sufficed

> as

> > an answer.

> >

> >

> > Why can't the pro pollution, pro traffic jam

> lobby

> > come up with something more convincing than

> "nuh

> > uh"?

>

> Having looked at the census data for the roads in

> question, the reality is that what these proposals

> do is to push traffic onto main roads that have

> far greater population density (because they have

> more flats); far more social housing; and far more

> vulnerable people in the context of Covid-19 (as a

> result of their ethnicity). These also happen to

> be the roads that house the majority of the area?s

> schools.

>

> Far from reducing air pollution, what these

> changes have done so far is to cause idling

> traffic in circumstances where it did not exist

> previously which significantly increases air

> pollution, as does sending those undertaking

> essential journeys on a wild goose chase to get

> from A to B. I am all for initiatives that improve

> air quality. However, they need to be carefully

> considered and balance the needs of the community

> as a whole. Simply closing a handful of roads and

> diverting all the traffic into lengthy tailbacks

> elsewhere cannot be hailed a victory in anyone?s

> book. It is far too blunt an instrument, and (if

> anything) risks increasing the annual death tally

> from air pollution.

Spot on Serena - unfortunately the pro-closure lobby is way too blinkered to open their eyes and see what is actually happening. These closures, at best, will likely deliver a 10% reduction in traffic which actually causes much bigger displacement problems elsewhere but the pollution NIMBYs won?t ever admit that.

Mr Chicken - take a walk down the roads that are being negatively impacted by these closures and then tell us you think it is worth it. If you still aren?t convinced take another walk when the schools go back and see if you re-assess and then another when WFH comes to an end. This increased congestion on these roads won?t go away.

[Metallic]

Sadly, it's the "I'm alright Jack" mentality that rules the roost. When these people are old and infirm, or disabled, and can't get anywhere, can't cycle or get a cab, they may think again.

[Abe_froeman]

They'll be gone by then though, living in the countryside and pootling about in cars.

[JohnL]

Metallic Wrote:

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

> Sadly, it's the "I'm alright Jack" mentality that

> rules the roost. When these people are old and

> infirm, or disabled, and can't get anywhere, can't

> cycle or get a cab, they may think again.

I'm only 15 years away but I hope we'll have a system of electric cars that pick you up and drop you with no driver. Obviously you don't get to choose the route.

https://www.wired.com/story/intersection-self-driving-cars-electric/

Am I hoping for a hoverboard here.

[Rockets]

I believe some schools have gone back today and as I ran through Dulwich Village this morning at around 7.30am there was stationary traffic from the Village roundabout going northbound all the way to the East Dulwich Grove junction. The folly of these closures is there for us all to see and we know the council is going to try and close the village northbound to chase the displacement away from the area but these closures are not working and are creating far worse problems than before.

[northbank]

Slarti_B's (and TfL's ) interpretation is correct, and you've misread the table on p111 of the TfL report, Mr Chicken.

The final column where it says '50:50 Male:female' is of the 'LTDS whole sample'. This demonstrates that the sample is not biased as it matches the distribution of the London population and can be used to see if the demographics of the cycling population is skewed in any way compared with the general London population

The column you should be looking at for cycling demographics is that sub-headed '2018/2019' which shows that those who have cycled in the last year are 62% male, 78% white and 64% employed; all proportions that are higher in the cycling population than the London population. In terms of age, those 45 and older are under-represented in cycling and those under 24 are over-represented. and for income, those with a household income less than ?20K are under-represented while those higher than ?75K over-represented

hence the correct interpretation "Most people who cycle in London.. tend to be mostly male, white, in employment, and with relatively higher household income"

mr.chicken Wrote:

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

> slarti b Wrote:

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

> -----

> > mr.chicken Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> >

> > > Says "actually" and makes a claim with zero

> > evidence. Are you a One Dulwich supporter by

> any

> > > change?

> >

> > I was quoting the TFL "Travel in London" report

> 12

> > from 2019. The precise quote is "Most people

> who

> > cycle in London.. tend to be mostly male,

> white,

> > in employment, and with relatively higher

> > household income". Happy with that?

>

> Glad you provided a source for your evidence, yes.

> It allows me to verify your claims. Somehow that

> quote doesn't appear to match the data. On P111,

> it gives a 50/50 split male/female. It does skew

> white (slightly less then car ownership), and as

> for higher household income, the large 20k-70k

> band is the highest, with the 0-20 and 70+ bands

> showing equal representation. There's a slight

> skew towards the employed, at 55/45.

>

> Basically you've overinterpreted the data in your

> favour.

>

>

> > I would much

> > prefer to see a holistic solution that does not

> > split East and West Dulwich and that achieves

> the

> > objectives of the OHS scheme. What does that

> have

> > to do with your comment?

>

> Ah yes a "holistic solution", one that doesn't

> involve you actually specifying what this magical

> solution is, just that it's out there somewhere.

> This is the thing, none of the people objecting

> actually have a solution which is better or even

> as good. And no, doing nothing is not as good.

>

>

>

> Metallic Wrote:

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

> -----

> >

> > Oh. Ever actually thought that if there was

> > better public transport in certain areas, that

> > people wouldn't NEED a car? The reason many

> > people don't need a car is because they live

> near

> > multiple bus routes, can walk or cycle, or have

> a

> > tube line.

>

> I bet if we block off a load of roads we'll fine

> that fewer people NEED a car than claim and on

> closer examination merely WANT a car. And what

> better way to improve public transport than to get

> lots of cars off the road?

[Abe_froeman]

It's been fairly obvious from the start that these proposals have a (no doubt unintended?) racial bias.

[Metallic]

Now the buses have started a new routine of kids being on one as priority, next one along for anyone. At least not the 37 and 185 thank goodness, we would never get anywhere.

[slarti b]

mr.chicken Wrote:

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

By "evidence" you mean a 1 line quote buried somewhere in a 276 page document for me to find. I

on the other hand pointed to the specific page and specific numbers. I'm sorry if that disappoints you.

The quote by TFL, which I slightly paraphrased originally, is a summary of the section on cycling demographics using TFL's own data. As such it is not a buried quote.

I trust my interpretation of the data, that's why I read the numbers.

The figures you quote are for the complete sample of the LTSD survey, not the cyclists. So, you are reading the wrong numbers and your interpretation is therefore also wrong !! Are you prepared to acknowledge your mistake ??

[slarti b]

mr.chicken Wrote:

> Why can't the pro pollution, pro traffic jam lobby come up with something more convincing than "nuh

> uh"?

Who are these people? Are you referring to the supporters of the Margy Plaza, (aka "Dulwich Square") who want to divert through traffic onto "main roads" such as Lordship Lane, EDG, Croxted Road, Half Moon Lane etc so they can organise weekend concerts in the middle of the street while less privileged areas suffer the displaced traffic, associated jams and pollution?

edited to add - are you a friend of Margy Plaza ?

[slarti b]

mr.chicken Wrote:

Drivers skew rich, white, male and middle aged

You may well be right but can you point me to your evidence for this statement for London drivers so we can compare withe the profile for commuter cyclists?

btw are you a support of Margy Plaza ?

[Abe_froeman]

Do you know who else is white wealthy and middle aged?

Most of the people who live on the roads that have been gifted these closures.

The councillors promoting them don't seem particularly diverse either

[Serena2012]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> It's been fairly obvious from the start that these

> proposals have a (no doubt unintended?) racial

> bias.

Absolutely. I cannot claim to be a statistical expert, but the census data I?ve reviewed paints a stark picture. If you compare, for example, Byron Court on the Lordship Lane Estate, postcode SE228PB (Nomis output area E00019869) (which I selected as it sits very close to both Lordship Lane and Dulwich Common, two of the roads most negatively impacted by these changes), in the last census this postcode?s population was 51% BAME, 49% white. 64.8% of those living in this location did not have access to a car or van. 26% of homes in this location were owner occupied, of which 12% were owned outright, with 59% being socially rented.

Contrast this with Calton Avenue (postcode SE217DE, Nomis output area: E00020522). In the last census, this was 92% white, 8% BAME. Only 9.4% in this postcode did not have access to a car or van. 88% of homes in this area were owner occupied, of which 50% were owned outright. Just 3% were socially rented.

In a similar vein, using postcode SE217EF, I looked at the middle section of Court Lane (Nomis area output: E00020528), 88% white; 12% BAME. Only 6.5% did not have access to a car or van. Even more eye-wateringly, 48.2% of households had 2 or more cars or vans. 95% of properties were owned occupied, of which 55% were owned outright. Just 1% of homes were socially rented.

This is particularly concerning given:

1. The growing body of research suggesting that even a very small increase in fine particulate air pollution (of 1 microgram per cubic metre of PM2.5), significantly increases the severe morbidity and mortality in the context of Covid-19

2. The fact that idling traffic (which is what these changes have caused), is far more polluting than free flowing traffic.

3. The research published by Public Health England, (see for example, ?Beyond the Data: Understanding the impact of COVID-19 on BAME Groups? which concludes that COVID-19 impacts those from BAME backgrounds disproportionately.

[Earl Aelfheah]

What if you look at Rye Lane?

[Earl Aelfheah]

...also, what is the evidence that Lordship Lane and Dulwich Common have seen increases in traffic as a result of Calton Avenue being made a no through road?

[Earl Aelfheah]

If Southwark were to suggest closing Lordship Lane and Dulwich Common / South Circular, I suspect people wouldn't be applauding the fact that it improved the lives of BAME residents.

[Serena2012]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> What if you look at Rye Lane?

This is a discussion about the closures in Dulwich Village specifically so in this context, Rye Lane is irrelevant.

[Serena2012]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> ...also, what is the evidence that Lordship Lane

> and Dulwich Common have seen increases in traffic

> as a result of Calton Avenue being made a no

> through road?

Living in the area, and walking around, my own perception is that all of the ?main? roads in the area have become significantly busier, with a lot more queuing traffic since the first tranche of closures were implemented. This is something that many of the other posters on this thread have commented on.

[northbank]

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-14-who-travels-by-car-in-london.pdf

slarti b Wrote:

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

> mr.chicken Wrote:

> Drivers skew rich, white, male and middle aged

>

> You may well be right but can you point me to your

> evidence for this statement for London drivers so

> we can compare withe the profile for commuter

> cyclists?

>

> btw are you a support of Margy Plaza ?

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> ...also, what is the evidence that Lordship Lane

> and Dulwich Common have seen increases in traffic

> as a result of Calton Avenue being made a no

> through road?

Have you taken a walk (or cycle) around any of the impacted areas recently - if not, go and take a look for yourself - it's quite shocking how much heavier the traffic is on those roads. As I said yesterday, there was a huge tailback northbound through the village at 7.30am yesterday morning.

The council have now agreed to put monitoring along all the main roads surrounding the closures to determine whether there has been an increase in traffic along those road - but of course not sure what conclusions they will be able to draw as they have no base as they weren't monitoring before the closures. Which is all a bit odd as they had been lobbying for the DV closures for a long-time before Covid and they knew what they wanted to do. It will be interesting to know whether they manage to get the monitoring in place before the second road of closures they are suggesting - if I was a betting man I'd suggest they won't.

They are not, however, doing any pollution monitoring on the impacted roads. I believe that is due to the cost but the cynics might say that it is because they know what the outcome will be. Remember, their last meddling with the DV junction lead to a "moderate" increase pollution so the current closes will undoubtedly have led to a significant increase in pollution but if they are not monitoring we won't ever know.

All in all the council are rushing these plans through and have not given proper thought to the longer-term impacts and are now desperately chasing the displacement.

[JohnL]

northbank Wrote:

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

> http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-14-who-tr

> avels-by-car-in-london.pdf

>

There's room for a lot of reduction in those journeys. That's what the city designers see.

The reduction will happen it's only the methods under discussion.