LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[northernmonkey]

The 'even now' is confusing in this post like even now there are wands on that bit of cycle lane the cyclists still go to the ASL.

That tiny cycle lane is to allow access to the ASL. With a few exceptions (eg the one in Dulwich Village by the school) thats how ASLs are designed - there is a tiny cycle lane leading in. See ED Grove at Townley Road or Red Post Hill going south into Dulwich Village! Its not the case that cyclists would use one or the other!

Also Rockets:

"I am in favour of segregated cycle barriers where they make sense - and I talk as someone who is a cyclist and has done long commutes across London on a daily basis. It makes no sense having cycle barrier for that short section of road - unless, of course, they are purposefully designed to throttle traffic flow through the junction. I do wonder whether the council got wind that the cameras weren't going to go in at the DV roundabout so decided to create a bottleneck" assume this particular conspiracy theory has been dropped now? Maybe when the Dulwich Village restrictions go in the cycle lane wands on the north side won't be an issue then!

Metallic Wrote:

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

> redpost Wrote:

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

> -----

> > There was a cycle lane before the barriers were

> > put in, however being frequently blocked by

> > drivers selfishness so it was necessary to put

> a

> > barrier in.

> >

> >

> > n dulwich northerner Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > march46 Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > Interesting how you blame the council, when

> > > there

> > > > was always traffic there

> > >

> > > Of course, and because their attempts to

> > improve

> > > things have been misconceived. While the N

> > Dulwich

> > > traffic lights' new right filter may have

> > > mitigated the tailback the council caused by

> > the

> > > Calton/Court Lane closure, they coupled the

> > filter

> > > with limiting the left lane to cyclists (see

> > any

> > > in the photos?) which means that vehicles

> > heading

> > > for Village Way or Red Post Hill are stuck in

> > the

> > > tailback.

>

> There has always been a cyclist area at the front

> of the lights too. Most make their way to it,

> even now. I yesterday watched three do this while

> I was waiting to cross east Dulwich Grove.

[Rockets]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> The 'even now' is confusing in this post like

> even now there are wands on that bit of cycle lane

> the cyclists still go to the ASL.

>

> That tiny cycle lane is to allow access to the

> ASL. With a few exceptions (eg the one in Dulwich

> Village by the school) thats how ASLs are designed

> - there is a tiny cycle lane leading in. See ED

> Grove at Townley Road or Red Post Hill going south

> into Dulwich Village! Its not the case that

> cyclists would use one or the other!

>

> Also Rockets:

>

> "I am in favour of segregated cycle barriers where

> they make sense - and I talk as someone who is a

> cyclist and has done long commutes across London

> on a daily basis. It makes no sense having cycle

> barrier for that short section of road - unless,

> of course, they are purposefully designed to

> throttle traffic flow through the junction. I do

> wonder whether the council got wind that the

> cameras weren't going to go in at the DV

> roundabout so decided to create a bottleneck"

> assume this particular conspiracy theory has been

> dropped now? Maybe when the Dulwich Village

> restrictions go in the cycle lane wands on the

> north side won't be an issue then!

>

>

>

> Metallic Wrote:

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

> -----

> > redpost Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > There was a cycle lane before the barriers

> were

> > > put in, however being frequently blocked by

> > > drivers selfishness so it was necessary to

> put

> > a

> > > barrier in.

> > >

> > >

> > > n dulwich northerner Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > march46 Wrote:

> > > >

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > >

> > > > -----

> > > > > Interesting how you blame the council,

> when

> > > > there

> > > > > was always traffic there

> > > >

> > > > Of course, and because their attempts to

> > > improve

> > > > things have been misconceived. While the N

> > > Dulwich

> > > > traffic lights' new right filter may have

> > > > mitigated the tailback the council caused

> by

> > > the

> > > > Calton/Court Lane closure, they coupled the

> > > filter

> > > > with limiting the left lane to cyclists

> (see

> > > any

> > > > in the photos?) which means that vehicles

> > > heading

> > > > for Village Way or Red Post Hill are stuck

> in

> > > the

> > > > tailback.

> >

> > There has always been a cyclist area at the

> front

> > of the lights too. Most make their way to it,

> > even now. I yesterday watched three do this

> while

> > I was waiting to cross east Dulwich Grove.

But they are causing more congestion aren't they - go on admit it...we all know you want to!!!!! ;-) Just utter those three simple words..."yes I agree"....;-)

Yes, you are right they do become a bit of a moot point if the timed closures restrict traffic significantly during the hours of operation but, of course, the timed closures are not all day or at weekends. So maybe we can revisit this conversation once the timed closures come in and we will see what the congestion is like. Maybe we can have a little wager on it - I reckon it will be fine when the cameras are on but more congestion during the times when they are not on and they will actually create more pollution as a result.

One hopes the council, ahem, brains have given this due consideration......

[redpost]

These wands are exactly where they are needed, by allowing cyclists to get safely to the advance start zone. I cycle this way very regularly and approx 60% of the time I couldn't get to the advance start zone as the cycle lane was blocked by cars.

From what I can see, approx 70/80% of the road width here is still allowed for cars.

[Rockets]

redpost Wrote:

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

> These wands are exactly where they are needed, by

> allowing cyclists to get safely to the advance

> start zone. I cycle this way very regularly and

> approx 60% of the time I couldn't get to the

> advance start zone as the cycle lane was blocked

> by cars.

>

> From what I can see, approx 70/80% of the road

> width here is still allowed for cars.

But they are causing increased congestion aren't they as no-one can proceed forward until the right filter has cleared?

Or is it that in your view that doesn't matter as long as you can get into the bike box more easily?

[n dulwich northerner]

70/80% of two lanes is one lane....

There was an earlier suggestion with photos showing how the lights could be moved to narrow the southbound road and provide enough space for the northbound filter lane, left/straight lane, and cycle space. Alternatively the pavement could be moved back a foot. Instead the council botched the job and all the traffic still tails back through the village. Genius.

[exdulwicher]

There was an earlier suggestion with photos showing how the lights could be moved to narrow the southbound road and provide enough space for the northbound filter lane, left/straight lane, and cycle space. Alternatively the pavement could be moved back a foot. Instead the council botched the job and all the traffic still tails back through the village. Genius.

Slightly off topic but moving traffic lights / removing the traffic island etc falls well outside of ETRO since it's not temporary and to do that sort of work means a lot of extra disruption in terms of roadworks, temporary lights and so on. It also requires the relevant legal stuff like planning, procurement, award of contract to be done and it would be expensive.

No idea of the status of the land at that crossroads but taking some of it up to widen the road is likely to fall foul of all sorts of planning and environmental protection laws. Dulwich Estate would know that one - I'm guessing it's protected though. I know the finger-post at that junction, while not "Listed" is certainly noted as "an item of positive contribution towards the character of the area" which I suspect makes moving it to widen the road very problematic.

The wands are temporary so fall within ETRO.

[Abe_froeman]

Is the right turn filter also 'temporary'?

[exdulwicher]

Hi ExDulwicher

Can you publish the modelling work you did or share it on here ? if you are going to talk about it let others see it.

The disruption work? It was many years ago as part of a behavioural psychology study (which linked into modelling since it looks at how people behave or change their behaviours when faced with "disruption"). Educational, not a published study.

The TfL London Travel Demand Survey you shared was for 2011 /12

2011 Census Data which then gets used for the next 10 years until the next Census.

There have been dozens of studies sometimes within a single city, sometimes off the back of Census data, sometimes as part of ongoing research. The National Travel Survey is the most up to date, that's done every 2 years.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-travel-survey-2019

The 2017 one is here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/729521/national-travel-survey-2017.pdf

Lots of what is done is never intended to be published to the public; it's for councils, Government, planners etc to see trends, anticipate future patterns. Mostly though, it's there to find if you look for it.

Interestingly, most urban areas show almost exactly the same percentages: 1/3rd under 2km, 1/3rd 2-5km and 1/3rd over 5km and that sort of matches what you'd expect. In an urban or suburban area, most people aren't more than about 5km from at least the majority of shops and services that they need on a day-to-day basis.

Rural areas, that changes dramatically due to the larger distance between population centres and the more dispersed nature of the population.

[northbank]

The London travel demand survey is done every year with 8000 households, not people. It is sampled to be representative of all Londoners in terms of demographics and geography. You don't need 5% of the population for it to be representative

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/planning-for-the-future/consultations-and-surveys#on-this-page-1

spartacus Wrote:

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

> Hi ExDulwicher

>

> Can you publish the modelling work you did or

> share it on here ? if you are going to talk about

> it let others see it.

>

> The TfL London Travel Demand Survey you shared was

> for 2011 /12 and is made up of 8,000 responders

> therefore it is 8 years out of date and only

> represents 8,000 (

> https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work

> /planning-for-the-future/consultations-and-surveys

> #on-this-page-1 ) out of 9,304 million Londoners

> (2020 figures) which means the survey represents

> approximately 0.086% of the total London

> population ? that?s worse than a Loreal advert

> that tells you 85% of 120 women prefer it?

>

> If the survey was done with a realistic sample

> then it would represent the views of Londoners,

> however with such a small survey there is a chance

> that (for example) 1,000 parents questioned on

> their way to take little Johnny to football could

> easily bias the results.

>

> The data is a) out of date and b) not a large

> enough sample to produce the full conclusion of

> 35% of all car journeys are less than a mile (2km)

>

>

> To use this survey in a meaningful way in this

> debate you would need to ensure it covers at least

> (modelling finger in the air) 5% of all Londoners

> (465,200 Londoners or half a million for ease of

> counting) which would provide better objectivity

> and a more reliable outcome.

>

> I agree, for some people the creature comfort of

> driving rather than waiting in the cold and wet is

> better than using busses / trains but a lot of the

> journeys undertaken would involve multiple changes

> or long awkward journeys (when I was younger I

> used to commute, not by choice, to Kent on a daily

> basis which was only practical by driving as an

> example.)

>

> Remember this area is a through route to other

> places (Kings College Hospital, the South Circular

> and so on) so a lot of drivers in this area (not

> SE22 resident's) are possibly doing more than

> local short journeys.

>

> God I would love to own an Aston Martin as I

> suspect 99.99% of all drivers would, but two

> points to mention here, there are not that many

> Aston Martins in Dulwich and as much as I would

> love to say ?Bond, James Bond? sadly motability

> cars don?t offer an Aston Martin as an option

> 😆

>

> To follow up on your comment, you need to think

> that a lot of cars in the area are owned by

> families with kids who need to carry them and

> other things in the safest and quickest way from A

> to B (cycling, walking and Public transport often

> doesn?t offer an option.)

>

> The concept that people still drive company cars

> is also a bit out of date, over the past 20 years

> tax advantages of doing so have been eroded so now

> the number of company car drivers is very low

> compared to 2000 or 2011.)

>

> The issues with the scheme needing to bed in over

> months (as you point out) would be true if there

> was a limited number of LTNs but that?s not the

> case as they are virtually everywhere in London

> now so traffic can?t evaporate to other roads as

> they are also blocked hence demand is forced into

> ever decreasing bottlenecks pushing pollution in

> certain areas even higher.

>

> I will accept that some journeys are unnecessary

> but until you provide the following I can?t put

> any faith in your stock answers as a lot of people

> actually do need to drive but the pro-active

> travel lobby are making life hard for them and

> increasing (not reducing) pollution as a result..

>

> 1. A copy of the modelling work / or link to

> it with the base date behind it.

>

> 2. A current 2019/20 London Travel Survey

> (preferably with a good respondent group to ensure

> that small deviations can?t skew the data.)

>

> 3. Local data on drivers in and around East

> Dulwich including those who pass through.

>

> 4. A pre implementation traffic and

> pollution survey for all roads in the area to show

> either the overall improvement or the displacement

> to non LTN roads.

[northbank]

https://www.surveygizmo.com/resources/blog/representative-sample/

This explains sampling frames and representative samples

[malumbu]

A recent survey that I am privileged to see, including workshops/round tables confirmed the obvious, most drivers/users prefer the convenience of the car. It would be probably no different to ten years ago, if anything even stronger attachment, particularly those with families (the reason SUVs are more available/marketed). Environmental factors and cost generally don't have an impact. I'm waiting for this to be made public, but it's not rocket science echoing other surveys. That is why you need to inconvenience drivers; you may not be happy with the LTNs (hopefully Southwark have more balls than Wandsworth) but rather than saying "yes we want to save the ice caps, breathe clean air, but don't want this" do you have any better suggestions? The obvious one is road pricing but successive governments have not had the balls to put this in place.

Here's a nice link to a Green Party AM on road pricing, and a relevant question posed to the GLA. Read and educate yourselves, and yes I know I am being patronising

https://www.onlondon.co.uk/caroline-russell-london-needs-smart-road-pricing-now/

https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/assembly/caroline-russell/mayor-keeps-road-pricing-plans-under-wraps

[KidKruger]

No you don?t need to make it less convenient for drivers, you need to create more options for drivers.

Why does every approach with motorists have to be confrontational.

Give them public transport options that are viable and reliable.

You think that wouldn?t make a difference ? Seriously ?

[first mate]

Malumbu is a cycling trainer, so probably not even-handed on any of this.

[Monkey]

Public transport is a big part of the answer. How many times have we asked for a bus service from ED to Honor Oak for example?

[BrandNewGuy]

I fear TfL's financial meltdown means no improvement in public transport for years to come. Possibly the opposite... Yet again, the sorts of public investments that should have happened during the 'good times' didn't happen.

[Metallic]

What an ugly, over-signaged, yellow lines and so on area Dulwich Village has become. Some hope of any of this stuff being overturned. Dark nights try walking through Court Lane, College Road, it is not pleasant.

[KidKruger]

Neither is EDG this last few weeks..

[malumbu]

Mulumbu is a walker, cyclist, hitcher, public transport user, motor cyclist and driver she/he has a better perspective than most. She/he knows lots about this issue and can reflect back over the years on how her/his behaviour has changed due to a mixture of wanting to improve the environment and health, and some of the hard measures in particularly parking charges. This makes her/him a little like a reformed alcoholic or born again Christian when it comes to this discussion. She/he would love others to have a more informed debate rather than just blather on about Southwark, TfL and the Mayor.

Here's a nice piece of work about making it easier for commuters to Heathrow not to drive by the nudge unit. This shows sadly that many people are so wedded to their car dispelling the myth that people would readily switch and emphasising the need for hard interventions. Read it and discuss. I'm sure you all can't be pretend experts on stats and the like.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/586376/sustainable-travel-evaluation-of-low-cost-workplace-interventions.pdf

[Abe_froeman]

That report isn't that helpful to your campaign Malumbu. Their preferred alternative of car sharing (to get everyone involved in the survey to the same workplace) isn't relevant in Dulwich because bare few of the cars have the same (or close) start and end points. Their second best option (increasing public transport) isn't even on the table here. And finally their third (and your first) choice - encourage cycling, was rejected outright, under any circumstance, by 82% of respondents.

[heartblock]

I love walking, cycling, running. I love trees and clean air. I love working with students, teaching cardio respiratory health. I don?t like my road becoming the dustbin of other people?s cars. If everyone in an LTN was banned from driving down EDG I?m sure they would soon think about a more effective, less divisive and rational plan to reduce pollution across the WHOLE borough.

[first mate]

I think that reference to being like a reformed alcoholic or born again christian is telling. There is a danger in being so zealous in your desire to reform or convert others you lose perspective.

malumbu Wrote:

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

> Mulumbu is a walker, cyclist, hitcher, public

> transport user, motor cyclist and driver she/he

> has a better perspective than most. She/he knows

> lots about this issue and can reflect back over

> the years on how her/his behaviour has changed due

> to a mixture of wanting to improve the environment

> and health, and some of the hard measures in

> particularly parking charges. This makes her/him

> a little like a reformed alcoholic or born again

> Christian when it comes to this discussion.

> She/he would love others to have a more informed

> debate rather than just blather on about

> Southwark, TfL and the Mayor.

>

> Here's a nice piece of work about making it easier

> for commuters to Heathrow not to drive by the

> nudge unit. This shows sadly that many people are

> so wedded to their car dispelling the myth that

> people would readily switch and emphasising the

> need for hard interventions. Read it and discuss.

> I'm sure you all can't be pretend experts on

> stats and the like.

>

> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen

> t/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5863

> 76/sustainable-travel-evaluation-of-low-cost-workp

> lace-interventions.pdf

[Rockets]

Anyone noticed the new red sign that has appeared on Lordship Lane southbound near the junction of Court Lane. It is covered with plastic but what I could see refers to No Through Route on Mon to Fri 8 until and the rest is obscured. Does anyone know what this is for or are the planters coming out at the Court Lane/DV junction and cameras going in? I wondered if it was for Eynella but the sign is facing the wrong way for that.

[legalalien]

maybe it's linked to the Townley Road thing in some way...eg no through route to East Dulwich Grove?

(to stop lots of traffic going to the end of woodwarde/ calton and then realising it can't get through?)

ps and now I have "Road to Nowhere" on repeat in my brain.... Talking Heads, takes me back to the mid 80s...

[Rockets]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> maybe it's linked to the Townley Road thing in

> some way...eg no through route to East Dulwich

> Grove?

>

> (to stop lots of traffic going to the end of

> woodwarde/ calton and then realising it can't get

> through?)

>

> ps and now I have "Road to Nowhere" on repeat in

> my brain.... Talking Heads, takes me back to the

> mid 80s...

It's facing towards Grove Tavern so well past Townley and communicating to traffic heading out of Dulwich towards the A205. Unless it is telling people the A205 has no through route to Dulwich Village during those hours. It's brand new as still covered in plastic before the great unveiling!

[legalalien]

that's possible but I'm not sure what that traffic would do when it saw the sign (and in any case why would they be doing that - wouldn't they be going the other way towards EDG?) If heading to DV then they'd have to do what? Turn left and try and loop around and go back up LL and EDG? That doesn't bear thinking about...