LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[sanda]

We don't live on a road with a closure, but we've found it so much easier to get to the park as Eynella and Court Lane are so much quieter. The kids can actually cycle now, and the whole family can travel by bike together. Before we used to take the car. The Melbourne Grove closure has made it so much easier to get around ED without driving on Lordship Lane, or walking alongside the ever present pollution on the narrow pavements. The trip to nursery has become much safer and less pollution. We haven't used our car locally all month, but before the changes we would have used it for 8-10 trips a week before. I don't think traffic on EDG is much different to recent years. I've seen good days and bad days in the last month, just as it always has been. There are so many cars everywhere in London now it is a relief to have a few roads in our neighbourhood that aren't full of angry drivers stuck in traffic jams.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Same here Sanda. And we take the kids to clubs at Dulwich Sport's Centre at weekends and now cycle, as do many others. There are definitely signs that the LTNs are encouraging some (who can) to ditch the car for certain journeys.

[Metallic]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Same here Sanda. And we take the kids to clubs at

> Dulwich Sport's Centre at weekends and now cycle,

> as do many others. There are definitely signs that

> the LTNs are encouraging some (who can) to ditch

> the car for certain journeys.

"who can".

[Rockets]

Metallic Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Same here Sanda. And we take the kids to clubs

> at

> > Dulwich Sport's Centre at weekends and now

> cycle,

> > as do many others. There are definitely signs

> that

> > the LTNs are encouraging some (who can) to

> ditch

> > the car for certain journeys.

>

> "who can".

Any person ditching a car for a bike or walking should be heralded and each one is to be welcomed but whilst we celebrate people cycling on a clear, dry sunny day let's be mindful that last Friday the weather was diabolical and there were noticeably fewer cyclists taking to the roads and a lot of congestion in the usual LTN induced hotspots.

Weather set bad for the middle of this week so it will be interesting to observe patterns then too and whether the "who wants to" gets added to the "who can" group. My over-riding fear is still that the numbers are not, and will not be, significant enough to dilute the displacement issues being caused in other parts of the area by the closures - I walked down Lordship Lane today and the Lane and Goose Green roundabout was, once again, struggling to handle the volume of traffic coming down EDG and further up Lordship Lane there was nose-to-tail stationary traffic heading to the Grove Tavern right turn.

[Abe_froeman]

Please can you explain this in more detail:

"The Melbourne Grove closure has made it so much easier to get around ED without driving on Lordship Lane, or walking alongside the ever present pollution on the narrow pavements. "

I can see that it would male the two or three minute journey between various points on Lordship Lane to East Dulwich Grove a bit easier but then what?

[heartblock]

I think it means - the road closures to cars has made my lovely street even more lovely and although your scruffy horrid street was already polluted, with poor paving, higher density housing and higher number of pedestrian/ cyclists, I don?t care because my road is ok.

An alternative (and apparently ?Stalinist?) take is - I would prefer less cars across the borough, more cycle lanes, more shared cycle/pedestrian paths, speed cameras and cycle to school/work schemes. If Southwark paid for Boris bikes this would be a start... but a couple of large flower pots and pitting neighbours against each other is the ?Southwark? way...

[mako]

there was a pressure group of court lane residents pushing for these changes. They gleefully boasted about it on twitter when the road closures occurred. I accept that it clearly isnt all the residents but my point stands that court lane wasnt really a problem and the argument that more people would now walk on it is ridiculous when it had wide pavements and little traffic apart from maybe a couple of hours a day. even then traffic was in one direction and plenty of room for cyclists.

[mako]

sanda Wrote:

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

> We don't live on a road with a closure, but we've

> found it so much easier to get to the park as

> Eynella and Court Lane are so much quieter. The

> kids can actually cycle now, and the whole family

> can travel by bike together. Before we used to

> take the car. The Melbourne Grove closure has

> made it so much easier to get around ED without

> driving on Lordship Lane, or walking alongside the

> ever present pollution on the narrow pavements.

> The trip to nursery has become much safer and less

> pollution. We haven't used our car locally all

> month, but before the changes we would have used

> it for 8-10 trips a week before. I don't think

> traffic on EDG is much different to recent years.

> I've seen good days and bad days in the last

> month, just as it always has been. There are so

> many cars everywhere in London now it is a relief

> to have a few roads in our neighbourhood that

> aren't full of angry drivers stuck in traffic

> jams.

Could you not have just walked to the park anyway? Now im not saying Im not pleased it is a little bit nicer for your journey when you fancy going to the park and cant be bothered to walk, but is that occasional 'a bit nicer' a fair price for the community to pay for the life threatening levels of pollution that residents/pedestrians, walkers cyclists on Court Lane now face for hours daily?

[sanda]

mako Wrote:

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

>

> Could you not have just walked to the park anyway?

> Now im not saying Im not pleased it is a little

> bit nicer for your journey when you fancy going to

> the park and cant be bothered to walk, but is that

> occasional 'a bit nicer' a fair price for the

> community to pay for the life threatening levels

> of pollution that residents/pedestrians, walkers

> cyclists on Court Lane now face for hours daily?

We could just walk. But it is a long walk, and cycling on the pavement isn't something we want to do as adults. So we'd just keep driving as that is the easiest and safest option. The closures have changed that.

I don't see the life threatening levels of pollution on Court Lane now, it is much easier and safer to cross, and travel along. The same with other roads in the area. Now that those are safer, we can cycle and leave the car. Other roads like Lordship Lane or the South Circular are still very busy and cycling on there isn't an option with children (except where there are sections of cycle lane off the road). At least now we have a safe option to cycle, which we didn't have before. And that means we've not used our car for any local journeys since before lockdown and saving a lot of local journeys and pollution.

[Abe_froeman]

Give over

[Rockets]

sanda Wrote:

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

> mako Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> >

> > Could you not have just walked to the park

> anyway?

> > Now im not saying Im not pleased it is a little

> > bit nicer for your journey when you fancy going

> to

> > the park and cant be bothered to walk, but is

> that

> > occasional 'a bit nicer' a fair price for the

> > community to pay for the life threatening

> levels

> > of pollution that residents/pedestrians,

> walkers

> > cyclists on Court Lane now face for hours

> daily?

>

> We could just walk. But it is a long walk, and

> cycling on the pavement isn't something we want to

> do as adults. So we'd just keep driving as that is

> the easiest and safest option. The closures have

> changed that.

>

> I don't see the life threatening levels of

> pollution on Court Lane now, it is much easier and

> safer to cross, and travel along. The same with

> other roads in the area. Now that those are safer,

> we can cycle and leave the car. Other roads like

> Lordship Lane or the South Circular are still very

> busy and cycling on there isn't an option with

> children (except where there are sections of cycle

> lane off the road). At least now we have a safe

> option to cycle, which we didn't have before. And

> that means we've not used our car for any local

> journeys since before lockdown and saving a lot of

> local journeys and pollution.

Are you at all concerned about the increase in traffic and pollution on Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove or the A205 being caused by the closure to roads such as Court Lane? Is it not the case that the pollution has now been funnelled down other roads rather than the ones you cycle down?

And out of interest, were you able to cycle your children to and from nursery on Friday during the awful weather?

Also you say your haven't used your car for local journeys - may I ask if your non-local car journeys have been distrupted by the road closures at all - increased congestion or additional time spent travelling to circumnavigate the closures?

[keano77]

Posted by sanda Today, 09:18PM

...I don't see the life threatening levels of pollution on Court Lane now...

I think we need to keep things in perspective.

[northernmonkey]

Rockets - i've seen you post this a lot - the 'ah but wait until the weather is worse' - isn't this precisely an argument FOR these kinds of measures? eg many people are capable of cycling or walking, but your (pretty accurate) assertion is that when it rains people will choose not to as its more convenient for them. Therefore just asking people to walk / cycle and providing nudge measures isn't enough and there need to be stronger interventions that make driving a less convenient default option.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> sanda Wrote:

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

> -----

> > mako Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> >

> > >

> > > Could you not have just walked to the park

> > anyway?

> > > Now im not saying Im not pleased it is a

> little

> > > bit nicer for your journey when you fancy

> going

> > to

> > > the park and cant be bothered to walk, but is

> > that

> > > occasional 'a bit nicer' a fair price for the

> > > community to pay for the life threatening

> > levels

> > > of pollution that residents/pedestrians,

> > walkers

> > > cyclists on Court Lane now face for hours

> > daily?

> >

> > We could just walk. But it is a long walk, and

> > cycling on the pavement isn't something we want

> to

> > do as adults. So we'd just keep driving as that

> is

> > the easiest and safest option. The closures

> have

> > changed that.

> >

> > I don't see the life threatening levels of

> > pollution on Court Lane now, it is much easier

> and

> > safer to cross, and travel along. The same with

> > other roads in the area. Now that those are

> safer,

> > we can cycle and leave the car. Other roads

> like

> > Lordship Lane or the South Circular are still

> very

> > busy and cycling on there isn't an option with

> > children (except where there are sections of

> cycle

> > lane off the road). At least now we have a safe

> > option to cycle, which we didn't have before.

> And

> > that means we've not used our car for any local

> > journeys since before lockdown and saving a lot

> of

> > local journeys and pollution.

>

> Are you at all concerned about the increase in

> traffic and pollution on Lordship Lane, East

> Dulwich Grove or the A205 being caused by the

> closure to roads such as Court Lane? Is it not the

> case that the pollution has now been funnelled

> down other roads rather than the ones you cycle

> down?

>

> And out of interest, were you able to cycle your

> children to and from nursery on Friday during the

> awful weather?

>

> Also you say your haven't used your car for local

> journeys - may I ask if your non-local car

> journeys have been distrupted by the road closures

> at all - increased congestion or additional time

> spent travelling to circumnavigate the closures?

[mikeb]

I've only dipped into this every so often because the thread goes round in circles.

It seems to be polarised between two groups who just aren't going to agree.

1. those who want a return to pre-closure state, who can't see anything wrong with the traffic as it was before, including when it involves passing and queueing at many many primary and secondary schools

2. those for whom the current changes are only the start of a new paradigm whereby pretty much no-one ever drives

Does anyone have any real ideas how to reconcile these two groups, both of which seem to me to be unrealistic?

[Dulwichgirl82]

I think there should be a middle ground, though with you first point I would argue there is more traffic queueing past schools than before due to the locations of the closures (east dulwich grove has 3 schools and a nursery and has taken a significant amount of the excess traffic from the other streets)

I totally agree measures need to be put in place to reduce traffic but disagree with what has been done which is to close a few (notably affluent) streets and divert the traffic onto the less affluent ones. It feels like a shotgun measure put in place on the basis of some specific streets wanting theirs closed rather than a sensible connected plan to reduce traffic and improve the lives of everyone in the area.

I?m not a road planner ( I don?t think anyone commenting on these forums is as far as I am aware) but something more significant is probably needed which causes enough inconvenience than alternative Transport really is better, possibly a closure of part of edg or lordship lane (which would help to make LL a more pleasant place to shop) but I don?t know how feasible it is.

I think the dichotomy of opinions is also split between those that live on the closed streets and therefore benefit and those that have had their environment worsened by the closures.

mikeb Wrote:

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

> I've only dipped into this every so often because

> the thread goes round in circles.

>

> It seems to be polarised between two groups who

> just aren't going to agree.

> 1. those who want a return to pre-closure state,

> who can't see anything wrong with the traffic as

> it was before, including when it involves passing

> and queueing at many many primary and secondary

> schools

> 2. those for whom the current changes are only the

> start of a new paradigm whereby pretty much no-one

> ever drives

>

> Does anyone have any real ideas how to reconcile

> these two groups, both of which seem to me to be

> unrealistic?

[Rockets]

What really annoys me is when I see things like this from Cllr Newens (

) trying to convince people that the changes are working, or when I read how lovely someone says their cycle now is along one of the closed roads when in reality yards down the road people are being negatively impacted by the closures.

I went for a run this morning and took a route back via Dulwich Village to see the modal shift in full effect on a wet morning and what I saw demonstrated anything other than a modal shift. What I saw was congestion northbound through Dulwich Village that never used to exist prior to the road closures. This is why the council is refusing to monitor pollution because they know what is happening on the roads being impacted by the displacement.

The traffic was queuing from the roundabout. Of course, the solution the council is suggesting is to close access from the roundabout from 8 -10am and then 3pm to 6pm everyday but this is then goig to have a kncok-on effect on other local roads.

[Rockets]

The next picture (and sorry I have to post as individual pics because of file size limits) show the gridlock up to the EDG junction as traffic tries to turn right onto EDG.

[Rockets]

And finally a pic demonstrating how Court Lane is now being used by some as a drop-off point for the school. Calton Avenue was full of cars parking to drop children at the school.

It was a very wet and damp and yes I saw some cyclists but nowhere near as many as I have seen on sunny days and I do wonder how much modal shift is dictated by weather and season and as we head into winter the thought of driving becomes more and more appealing.

[Nigello]

Energy spent here could be better spent speaking (not emailing) the heads of all local schools to ask just what they do to support non-private vehicular transport to schools, pupils and staff. I?ve no irons in the fire (no car, no kids) other than living very close to a school, and I?ve done exactly this already. The least heads can do is keep pushing home the need to lower the number of car journeys associated with their school. Give it a try!

[Rockets]

mikeb Wrote:

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

> I've only dipped into this every so often because

> the thread goes round in circles.

>

> It seems to be polarised between two groups who

> just aren't going to agree.

> 1. those who want a return to pre-closure state,

> who can't see anything wrong with the traffic as

> it was before, including when it involves passing

> and queueing at many many primary and secondary

> schools

> 2. those for whom the current changes are only the

> start of a new paradigm whereby pretty much no-one

> ever drives

>

> Does anyone have any real ideas how to reconcile

> these two groups, both of which seem to me to be

> unrealistic?

There definitely needs to be a middle-ground but it requires a more sophisticated approach than the one the council is taking. Everyone recognises that encouraging people out of the car is urgently needed but carpet bombing road closures has never been the solution - that has been obvious to anyone with a small amount of common-sense who could see what was going to happen. The council also needs to be open about their own analysis on displacement as they would have known what was going to happen when they modelled the closures.

Additionally:

1. There needs to be proper analysis that starts by weighting all transportation modes equally and is not biased against one form or another (the council starts with an anti-car sentiment and skews everything to their advantage and if you want a true picture of what is happening you have to start neutral).

2. That analysis needs to drill down very specifically what the biggest problem is (we all know this is going to be car use but the council needs to identify exactly where these cars are going and what they are doing)

3. Is the problem commuters? Is the problem school traffic? Is the problem shoppers? Is the problem delivery vehicles or Ubers? Why do people choose cars over public transport. The council does not ever try to ascertain this so has no idea what they are trying to fix. The solution needs to know the problem.

5. The council then needs to implement measures that a) encourages other use beyond the car b) invoke solutions that don't create more problems than they solve c) properly monitor the congestion and pollution impact (good and bad) so there can be transparency during the review d) implement measures that are timed for when they are needed most.

4. Can the council work more closely with schools in the creation of school bus services for all schools? Perhaps the council could divert funds from doing bizarre end of year projects like re-paving streets around East Dulwich to working on a school bus service for each school. I know the US is very different but they have a very effective school bus service.

5. Bottom-line is the council and councillors need to listen to everyone not just the vocal few in their own echo-chamber

[Abe_froeman]

Not sure what's more depressing about those pictures, Rockets, the terrible traffic or the fact despite the closed roads and the hundreds of thousands spent on 'improving' the junction for cyclists, the second picture shows an adult cycling along the footpath.

[Earl Aelfheah]

mikeb Wrote:

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

> I've only dipped into this every so often because

> the thread goes round in circles.

>

> It seems to be polarised between two groups who

> just aren't going to agree.

> 1. those who want a return to pre-closure state,

> who can't see anything wrong with the traffic as

> it was before, including when it involves passing

> and queueing at many many primary and secondary

> schools

> 2. those for whom the current changes are only the

> start of a new paradigm whereby pretty much no-one

> ever drives

>

> Does anyone have any real ideas how to reconcile

> these two groups, both of which seem to me to be

> unrealistic?

I don't recognise the second group you describe, except in the caricatures of those against LTNs. No one is arguing that no one should ever drive. They are suggesting that we need to reduce the number of car journeys and make it safer and easier for people to also use other modes of transport when they can.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The two views seem to be:

1. Those who really want to be able to drive without hindrance

2. Those who want to make it easier to walk and cycle and more difficult to use ones car.

The main disagreement is whether attempts to achieve this with filtering traffic on certain roads, leads to better or worse outcomes in general, when it comes to health, the environment, quality of life etc. Reasonable people may take different views on this, as clearly there are knock on impacts. But if you agree with aim 2. , but not the approach to trying to attain it, then it would be interesting to hear alternatives suggestions.

I haven't really heard however, anyone explaining how the first approach (sticking with the status quo) can possibly make anything better.

[Penguin68]

I haven't really heard however, anyone explaining how the first approach (sticking with the status quo) can possibly make anything better.

But its fairly clear with the changing work-patterns - and the likely move even after Covid 19 is over to much more working from home, at least part-time - that we will never return to the status quo ante bellum. It would be far better to make changes once we know what the new normal in terms of traffic timing, densities and patterns is going to be. And what impact e.g. ULEZ will have to pollution levels.

For instance through commuting to town is likely to be much reduced - although commuting to work in Dulwich may be maintained - but then, that's people working to our benefit.

[Earl Aelfheah]

But if commuting into town / traffic is much reduced as a result of changes in working patterns, then these changes make even more sense don't they?