LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[heartblock]

LTN pollution is no solution, just moves traffic onto already polluted roads.... love this video!

[Metallic]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> That is really interesting. Can someone tell us

> whether this is unusual, especially given one of

> the stated aims of Clean Air for Dulwich in their

> submission to the council for money was to

> campaign for LTNs (see below)?

>

> Isn't this a little incestuous, using tax-payers

> money to fund a group that you then use as a lobby

> group to help push through your own proposals?

>

> Makes me wonder, in the application of balance and

> fairness, whether the council would fund a group

> to investigate how they handled the implementation

> and consultation of the LTNs.....;-)

>

>

> Clean Air for Dulwich Council Funding Submission

>

> Work to improve air quality for all, encouraging

> active travel, directly addressing causes

> of air pollution via targeted campaigns and

> promotion of low traffic neighbourhood.

> Needed targeted campaign on air quality

> specifically rather than as part of a wider

> remit as air quality continues to worsen

> especially with independent school traffic.

> Our campaign is to work more directly on this

> targeted issue and with the community

> as a whole rather than just via the schools

> network. Those affected by pollution aren't

> limited to people in schools and therefore getting

> wider engagement will be critical to

> changing this quickly.

>

> We will also work to campaign for low traffic

> neighbourhoods, building awareness

> amongst local residents for the benefits that can

> be gained through this approach.

What makes me furious about this and other campaigners is that they do not recognise we don't want to live in a silent ghost town - that is what it feels like in Court Lane, Woodwarde and side roads. And to make it even more cut off.

[Rockets]

Indeed and what point is Cllr Newens trying to make here with her comment that "We want less traffic for the many not the few" when the polar opposite of her stated desire is what is actually happening. What I think she means to say is that she wants less traffic for her neighbours and doesn't care about the many further down the road!

[heartblock]

A sensible take is from the cofounder of the Ella foundation http://ellaroberta.org/ a mum who does actually campaign for more cycle lanes, less car use and more walking. Her daughter died of asthma. The family lived on a busy, polluted road. She is against LTNs as she recognises that LTNs push traffic from roads that have high car ownership onto roads with higher levels of deprivation. As someone said - making sideroads carparks for gated residents to drive their cars on roads less affluent than their own.

[legalalien]

I agree heartblock. I think she was involved in the push to amend the LTNs in Lewisham?

Anyway, I managed to watch the youtube of the 17 June Environment Scrutiny Commission meeting (Game of Thrones it wasn't).

Interesting bit to watch (really!): from 15:19 where Cllr Livingston explains that a decision on the first 19 schemes has gone up on the website, not just in response to the streetscape/ commonplace input but also to cover some preplanned work. Cllr Werner (who is chairing) asks how the decision to prioritise those schemes was made and whether the council is looking at eg levels of pollution or deprivation - in response he refers to the fact that they have been working on the Dulwich and Walworth projects for some time but doesn't answer the actual question... Cllr Burgess comes back at about 29 mins to clarify with Cllr Livingston that when decisions are being made the council is prioritising areas of deprivation, poor air quality etc and BAME population given COVID. Gets fobbed off a bit and then says that they are looking at prioritising issues where the commonplace site (then) indicated a high degree of consensus. Cllrs Werner and Burgess take issue with this given lots of people don't have internet access etc . Some of the facial expressions are priceless. You also get to see Cllr Leeming's dinner. And then Cllr Werner expressly asks that going forward, Cllrs be provided with info about the criteria being taken into account in making these decisions.

Takeaway points (my interpretation): Having Cllr Burgess more involved going forward is a good thing; some of the other Cllrs share the views of a number on this thread that some of the priorities given to date seem a bit suspect; those commonplace sites seem to be the main mechanism by which the council plans to assess how things are going.

Cllr Werner has just published a piece on the Labour Environmental Group (SERA) website https://www.sera.org.uk/scrutiny_has_a_critical_role, describing the findings of the Commission as follows:

"The commission?s findings show that it can no longer be acceptable for any transport schemes to be developed which cause increases in traffic volumes on other roads, particularly where there are vulnerable populations like schools and hospitals, and when we know those living in poverty, BAME populations and residents in areas of existing poor air quality are least able to cope with the effects of diseases like COVID-19.

We must be driven with a proper scheme design: modelling the likely impacts of traffic interventions, understanding the communities who benefit and those who benefit least. This would mean an expansion of air quality monitoring throughout the borough with clear-eyed analysis of the outcomes. We need a proper understanding of where traffic is generated, who generates it and how it can be reduced; an understanding of car ownership volumes and consumption of street space. In all cases we need to gather sex-disaggregated data.

This commission recommended that, in conjunction with TfL and the GLA, the council prioritises the dramatic reduction of traffic volumes in the borough, through a combination of incentives for those who do not own cars, disincentives for those with a car and improvements to neighbourhoods.

This commission recognised the significant harm done by traffic emissions, and that this is a social justice issue. Those on low incomes are the least able to cope with poor air quality. Our strategic priority is the significant reduction in traffic volumes across the borough.

Our principles of social justice and a strong dataset will guide our interventions in a systematic way.

We should:

prioritise those most in need and monitor all schemes for consequent harms, and where necessary, revise them.

reclaim the use of the kerbside from parking for the few and instead transform it into a public amenity for the many.

spend the next five years taking steps to making Southwark the cleanest and greenest borough in London."

[Metallic]

So Dulwich Safe Routes win an award from London Cycling. Big deal. Self congratulatory back slapping from all of them, Leeming and Newens as if this is all that matters. I reckon the two e petitions show what the majority think and we are sharpening our pencils ready for May 2022. The majority of residents do not like this enforced change to their life in a free country.

Life in the microcosm of home and school. Some of us have bigger lives than that or are older, more frail, or who have people they want to see and engage with outside this wretched perimeter of cameras.

[JohnL]

Metallic Wrote:

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

> if this is all that matters. I reckon the two e

> petitions show what the majority think and we are

> sharpening our pencils ready for May 2022. The

> majority of residents do not like this enforced

> change to their life in a free country.

>

I wouldn't place all your eggs in May 2022 as if you lose that election that's it.

The Cladding and Leasehold issues are going to be huge next year.

[Rockets]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> I agree heartblock. I think she was involved in

> the push to amend the LTNs in Lewisham?

>

> Anyway, I managed to watch the youtube of the 17

> June Environment Scrutiny Commission meeting (Game

> of Thrones it wasn't).

>

> LOUye1bJv3Ur2qLE3D5dYUyyl8t_77N4r&index=2&t=7s

>

> Interesting bit to watch (really!): from 15:19

> where Cllr Livingston explains that a decision on

> the first 19 schemes has gone up on the website,

> not just in response to the streetscape/

> commonplace input but also to cover some

> preplanned work. Cllr Werner (who is chairing)

> asks how the decision to prioritise those schemes

> was made and whether the council is looking at eg

> levels of pollution or deprivation - in response

> he refers to the fact that they have been working

> on the Dulwich and Walworth projects for some time

> but doesn't answer the actual question... Cllr

> Burgess comes back at about 29 mins to clarify

> with Cllr Livingston that when decisions are being

> made the council is prioritising areas of

> deprivation, poor air quality etc and BAME

> population given COVID. Gets fobbed off a bit and

> then says that they are looking at prioritising

> issues where the commonplace site (then) indicated

> a high degree of consensus. Cllrs Werner and

> Burgess take issue with this given lots of people

> don't have internet access etc . Some of the

> facial expressions are priceless. You also get to

> see Cllr Leeming's dinner. And then Cllr Werner

> expressly asks that going forward, Cllrs be

> provided with info about the criteria being taken

> into account in making these decisions.

>

> Takeaway points (my interpretation): Having Cllr

> Burgess more involved going forward is a good

> thing; some of the other Cllrs share the views of

> a number on this thread that some of the

> priorities given to date seem a bit suspect; those

> commonplace sites seem to be the main mechanism by

> which the council plans to assess how things are

> going.

>

> Cllr Werner has just published a piece on the

> Labour Environmental Group (SERA) website

> https://www.sera.org.uk/scrutiny_has_a_critical_ro

> le, describing the findings of the Commission as

> follows:

>

> "The commission?s findings show that it can no

> longer be acceptable for any transport schemes to

> be developed which cause increases in traffic

> volumes on other roads, particularly where there

> are vulnerable populations like schools and

> hospitals, and when we know those living in

> poverty, BAME populations and residents in areas

> of existing poor air quality are least able to

> cope with the effects of diseases like COVID-19.

>

> We must be driven with a proper scheme design:

> modelling the likely impacts of traffic

> interventions, understanding the communities who

> benefit and those who benefit least. This would

> mean an expansion of air quality monitoring

> throughout the borough with clear-eyed analysis of

> the outcomes. We need a proper understanding of

> where traffic is generated, who generates it and

> how it can be reduced; an understanding of car

> ownership volumes and consumption of street space.

> In all cases we need to gather sex-disaggregated

> data.

>

> This commission recommended that, in conjunction

> with TfL and the GLA, the council prioritises the

> dramatic reduction of traffic volumes in the

> borough, through a combination of incentives for

> those who do not own cars, disincentives for those

> with a car and improvements to neighbourhoods.

>

> This commission recognised the significant harm

> done by traffic emissions, and that this is a

> social justice issue. Those on low incomes are the

> least able to cope with poor air quality. Our

> strategic priority is the significant reduction in

> traffic volumes across the borough.

>

> Our principles of social justice and a strong

> dataset will guide our interventions in a

> systematic way.

>

> We should:

>

> prioritise those most in need and monitor all

> schemes for consequent harms, and where necessary,

> revise them.

> reclaim the use of the kerbside from parking

> for the few and instead transform it into a public

> amenity for the many.

> spend the next five years taking steps to

> making Southwark the cleanest and greenest borough

> in London."

Legal - that video is a fantastic find. I agree with you that it seems there may be some discussion within the council about why they are prioritising areas like Dulwich Village for these measures and Cllr Livingstone did not have an answer other than they are responding to Commonspace feedback - what he meant to say, I suspect, is that they are going to places to do this where they have been able to drum up enough support amongst upper-middle class residents who don't want cars on their streets!

He did seem particularly bereft of answers - he also agreed (somewhat misleadingly) that the measures were being implemented based on 1) consultation with the public 2) levels of pollution and 3) levels of depravation - which we know they are not.

The council has been clear from the outset that it is the areas in most need that should get these and those have been identified as those with good PTAL scores, low car ownership and social depravation - things that no-one ever considers Dulwich to have. It looks more and more like these LTNs are local councillor vanity projects to appease their neighbours which are having hugely detrimental impacts on other residents in the area.

Also a couple of other things came up which I thought were fascinating:

- the acknowledgement that the council wants to pro-actively remove parking spaces

- that the Healthy Streets team had been furloughed (this was recorded in June so it make you wonder when they return to their jobs) - which seems a little odd given there was so much focus on the need for modal change etc during lockdown why on earth weren't they working. It might go some way to explain why widening of the pavements in East Dulwich did not happen for two months into lockdown.

Oh and Cllr Leeming having his evening meal delivered to him and chomping away during the call is hilarious. His study looks like an old record shop with his vinyl collection!

[Earl Aelfheah]

This is worth a listen... what is a city for? https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000nv3z

[heartblock]

Oh Rob is great. Love this, thanks Rahrahrah

[heartblock]

https://twitter.com/cleanairdulwich/status/1321404894675423233?s=21

[tiddles]

Hmm love the fact that east dulwich is bearing the brunt of pollution whilst dulwich is apparently fume free - would love to hear what the schools and businesses think of the gridlock that is the main road thru actually feel about it.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Give and take

[legalalien]

There are workmen working on the traffic lights at DV /EDG this morning.

[slarti b]

They have been working on them on and off for over a week. Putting in the right filter. Wonder when they will be finished

[rch]

Just a quick attempt to see if my new log in is working, as I haven?t been able to post on the forum for months and I?ve been truly appreciative of some of the intriguing discussions that I?ve been following.

As some of you know, I have a substantial amount of personal experience in the Dulwich Village Junction closure logistics, which the council Highway engineers talked me out of implementing back in 2006/07 when I was a Dulwich Village Ward councillor and also when I coached local ED residents on how to object to the Melbourne Grove South closure back in 2016 (which I have a copy of the Feasibility Study which advised against it).

It?s been fascinating to watch how both of the schemes have evolved as I actually live on Melbourne Grove South and haven?t owned a car since the late 1990s...

But, more importantly, in all cases the engineers suggested positive alternative schemes, which I personally think would be extremely useful to discuss on the forum in an attempt to identify a useful way forward.

[Spartacus]

Thanks for the input Robin and welcome back

Can you post or point to the alternative suggestions so they can be discussed ?

[Serena2012]

Welcome back Robin! I?m also very interested to understand what the recommendations were, particularly as the current status quo is failing the community so badly.

I?m also interested to know whether you have visibility on any previous analysis of what could be done to improve safety at the Lordship Lane/ EDG junction. I have a vague recollection that many moons ago it was looked at with the conclusion that it was too complex to resolve, not least as TFL would not sanction traffic lights on this junction. James Barber has suggested a zebra crossing more recently, but I genuinely don?t think motorists turning onto EDG have sufficient visibility of the crossing beforehand to make this safe. The upshot however is that if, as James McAsh has foreshadowed, the ED Station LTN is expanded to include Matham Grove, all motorists on this section of EDG wanting to travel up Lordship Lane towards Northcross Road will have no option other than to undertake the 100m detour around the Goose Green roundabout (which incidentally, as predicted, is now completely saturated, causing tailbacks in every direction).

[legalalien]

Just saw this post on our local next door forum thing. Is it true? They have been doing some sort of road works along the side of DV. (I think the poster means Dulwich Way/ EDG rather than Half Moon Lane)

? 12 hr ago

Dulwich Village and Half Moon Lane Junction. They?ve put in a right filter at last from Dulwich Village onto Half Moon Lane BUT they have put in a cycle lane on Dulwich Village so through traffic can?t go up Red Post Hill.

One assumes buses and ambulances can go that way? It?s a fairly main route to the hospital so not sure why they?d close it?

[ed_pete]

It?s not quite right. The right filter is for those turning right from Dulwich Village onto East Dulwich Grove, not HML. They have also put in a cycle lane on the left using some of the width, which means it?s not possible for one car to head straight on to Red Post Hill whilst another turns right onto EDG.

[legalalien]

I thought that might be it. It?s something the Safe Routes people were asking for a while ago I think. Does it not need a TMO? Anyway, let?s see what happens in practice - I imagine the timing is going to be key, and I expect many cyclists will continue to do what they do currently, ie come up the right hand side of cars to get to the front of the queue.

How does the conflict between left turning traffic and the cycle lane get resolved? Is there a left turn arrow?

[Rockets]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> I thought that might be it. It?s something the

> Safe Routes people were asking for a while ago I

> think. Does it not need a TMO? Anyway, let?s see

> what happens in practice - I imagine the timing is

> going to be key, and I expect many cyclists will

> continue to do what they do currently, ie come up

> the right hand side of cars to get to the front of

> the queue.

> How does the conflict between left turning

> traffic and the cycle lane get resolved? Is there

> a left turn arrow?

If it is as some are suggesting that the lane is now too narrow for cars to pass those waiting to make the right filter then the right filter will create more problems than it solves. It will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow morning. This might explain why Cllr Newens was so keen to see the timed closures in DV go in last week.

If the road now becomes impossible to use until the right filter moves then the emergency services will probably have something to say about it.

[legalalien]

The Lane has bollards so straight ahead traffic does have to wait behind any right indicating traffic that is yet to move out into the middle of the junction. That includes the P4.

[legalalien]

Another pic

[Rockets]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Another pic

My goodness. This is either utter incompetence on the part of our council or another deliberate attempt to throttle traffic.

This is absolutely why Cllr Newens was pushing so hard to get the timed closures in place last week as she knew the tailbacks through the village will be far worse now.

Let's see how it is for the next three days as schools go back and before the lockdown hits. I am not a betting man but I would hazard a guess that the council will use this next lockdown as an excuse to roll out more closures - if any of them are working of course!

This goes to demonstrate clearly that moving forward there needs to be more consultation on such projects. Without any form of consultation Southwark have utterly mismanaged this process. Any trust and respect they had left with their constituents is likely to have completely evaporated now (bar the usual pro-closure suspects). Our council and councillors are an utter shambles and I suspect people will want to scrutinise everything they do more closely now.

Legal - your work uncovering so many of the items the council has been keen to bury and deliberately overlook during this has been brilliant. Thank you.