LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[alice]

Has anyone changed their mind about LTNs after engaging with/ reading this thread?

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> The 'social justice' argument, is being massively

> over played by those against low traffic

> neighbourhoods. The least affluent are much less

> likely to own a car and to rely on walking or

> cycling. The idea that the denizens of Dulwich

> should be able to drive their SUVs through every

> side street as a way of 'protecting' the less

> affluent, rings pretty hollow to me.

> I can't help feeling that in the majority of

> cases, those who are against creating some spaces

> where cars dominate a little less, are mainly

> concerned about the personal inconvenience of not

> being able to drive where they like.

But would you not agree that the implementation of the LTNs has been to the benefit of the most wealthy areas of Dulwich which is causing massive displacement to those areas less well-off? So whilst you chastise those people in SUVs it is, in fact, the people most likely to drive SUVs who are benefiting from these closures.

I am afraid the pro-closure cycling lobby are so blinkered in their view of the world that they don't realise that the majority of people have nowhere to store a bike. I laughed so loud today when I heard from someone that when they bought their electric cargo bike that it was recommended that they store it in a heated bike shed......I don't have room for a bike shed yet alone a heated one and yet all I hear is that the solution to all our woes is an e-cargo bike. These things are becoming a bit of an eco-accessory only for the super-rich. A bit like Teslas.

[Nigello]

You do exaggerate for effect (not achieved, IMHO). Nobody says "all I hear is that the solution to all our woes is an e-cargo bike". Change is achieved by give and take, not blanket hyperbole. I sense a certain level of zealotry in your posts - number and content - on this topic and it makes me less likely to be convinced by your arguments. It's a tough crowd!

[legalalien]

alice Wrote:

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

> Has anyone changed their mind about LTNs after

> engaging with/ reading this thread?

For myself, I came to the thread largely in a state of ignorance. Confession: I'd had a passing look at the Healthy Streets leaflets that came through the door and concluded it was something I didn't need to pay much attention to as I don't drive. At all, ever. However, once I started to notice the massive decrease in air quality on East Dulwich Grove I did some googling to find out how everything had come about. As a result, I don't have a doctrinal pro-or anti LTN stance. I honestly don't think most of the "objectors" on this thread do. Same with most of the people I know locally. They think that LTNs probably work in some places if properly designed. They also think it's important that the council engage properly with the community it serves. So my bugbears related to this SPECIFIC LTN, are (i) the council's processes, in particular the lack of transparency around the way it consults/ engages specific interest groups in its policy formation - and that's what making a large number of ordinarily "silent" people locally quite angry - they feel as though they have been hijacked; and (ii) what I personally perceive to be the impact of this specific LTN, in terms of social justice type points, the impact of some specific small businesses (those who rely on making deliveries, for example) and the unacceptable pockets of congestion/ pollution that are being created. I'd like to see more discussion on what "tweaks" could be made to make the local LTN a bit better.

But the whole argument seems to have become, as I've said before, entirely polarised. I'm not the "pro-LTN lobby", and it should be possible to make specific points without the constant "well, you don't really mean it, I believe you're an SUV driver who wants to drive everywhere all the time" response.

[Rockets]

Nigello - do you think that it is right and fair that the council has displaced traffic from Dulwich Village (one of the most affluent areas in the whole of London) onto roads through more densely populated areas and created congestion problems throughout East Dulwich that is leading to higher pollution for everyone in the area?

P.S. My exaggeration pales into insignificance when compared to the pro-closure lobby disinformation programmes - which seem to have gone into overdrive these last few days...;-)

[Rockets]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> alice Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Has anyone changed their mind about LTNs after

> > engaging with/ reading this thread?

>

>

> For myself, I came to the thread largely in a

> state of ignorance. Confession: I'd had a passing

> look at the Healthy Streets leaflets that came

> through the door and concluded it was something I

> didn't need to pay much attention to as I don't

> drive. At all, ever. However, once I started to

> notice the massive decrease in air quality on East

> Dulwich Grove I did some googling to find out how

> everything had come about. As a result, I don't

> have a doctrinal pro-or anti LTN stance. I

> honestly don't think most of the "objectors" on

> this thread do. Same with most of the people I

> know locally. They think that LTNs probably work

> in some places if properly designed. They also

> think it's important that the council engage

> properly with the community it serves. So my

> bugbears related to this SPECIFIC LTN, are (i) the

> council's processes, in particular the lack of

> transparency around the way it consults/ engages

> specific interest groups in its policy formation -

> and that's what making a large number of

> ordinarily "silent" people locally quite angry -

> they feel as though they have been hijacked; and

> (ii) what I personally perceive to be the impact

> of this specific LTN, in terms of social justice

> type points, the impact of some specific small

> businesses (those who rely on making deliveries,

> for example) and the unacceptable pockets of

> congestion/ pollution that are being created. I'd

> like to see more discussion on what "tweaks" could

> be made to make the local LTN a bit better.

>

> But the whole argument seems to have become, as

> I've said before, entirely polarised. I'm not the

> "pro-LTN lobby", and it should be possible to make

> specific points without the constant "well, you

> don't really mean it, I believe you're an SUV

> driver who wants to drive everywhere all the time"

> response.

Legal - spot on!

And to answer Alice's question I am not sure anyone reading the thread will have swapped sides on the basis of what us lot carpet-bomb on here (from both sides!) but what cannot be denied is the closures are a talking point within the wider community (especially in East Dulwich where the displacement impact is being felt most). The challenge many of us have is that the way the council is handling this is turning more and more people against these interventions and their lack of proper communication is fuelling the anti-LTN sentiment and is doing long-term harm to the wider pollution discussion.

[DulwichCentral]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> But would you not agree that the implementation of

> the LTNs has been to the benefit of the most

> wealthy areas of Dulwich which is causing massive

> displacement to those areas less well-off?

The streets that have been closed have been closed (or restricted) because they were taking the majority of through traffic and hundreds of local kids use those routes to get to school. Is it 'socially just' that because kids have to walk past expensive houses to get to school they should breathe in high levels of pollution? Agree a lot more needs to be done to reduce traffic on main roads too.

[Dulwichgirl82]

I don?t understand this, at least in the east dulwich closures the roads closed mostly didn?t have any schools on, and the roads they divert to (lordship land and east dulwich grove) have multiple schools on them so surely those school

Children are getting much more pollution now.

And if they were taking the ?majority of the through traffic?, which I don?t think was proven, then that traffic is now on the roads with all the schools.

I don?t think the roads were closed for the reasons you describe but rather they have powerful lobbyists who wanted their roads closed, and sadly now the school roads are worse off.

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > But would you not agree that the implementation

> of

> > the LTNs has been to the benefit of the most

> > wealthy areas of Dulwich which is causing

> massive

> > displacement to those areas less well-off?

>

> The streets that have been closed have been closed

> (or restricted) because they were taking the

> majority of through traffic and hundreds of local

> kids use those routes to get to school. Is it

> 'socially just' that because kids have to walk

> past expensive houses to get to school they should

> breathe in high levels of pollution? Agree a lot

> more needs to be done to reduce traffic on main

> roads too.

[heartblock]

East Dulwich Grove - 3 schools. Calton Ave - zero schools. LTN in Calton, traffic diverted to EDG.

[DulwichCentral]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> East Dulwich Grove - 3 schools. Calton Ave - zero

> schools. LTN in Calton, traffic diverted to EDG.

Top of Calton Avenue junction with Townley Road & East Dulwich Grove - 2 schools (JAGS & Alleyns)

Bottom of Calton Avenue: 3 schools to the right (Hamlet, DVIS & JAPS) - and 2 to the left (Dulwich Prep, Dulwich College) or more if you count 2 schools turning right on the south circular (Oakfield & Rosemead).

Calton Avenue is a through route used by a lot of school children going back and forth to all these schools.

Charter North has dreadful traffic on Red Post Hill. Charter East is set far back from East Dulwich Road and now has a safe route in from Melbourne Grove - in an LTN.

East Dulwich Grove is of course a route for many and I agree it needs some measures to reduce traffic there - but at least lots of kids now have a safe alternative via Calton Avenue which was really bad before the filters went in.

[dulwichfolk]

So following the school trend doesn?t that imply that the closures should be limited to drop off and pick up times? E.g like the school streets. Term time only.

[Dulwichgirl82]

Dulwich central. Two points 1. As dulwich folk said surely school streets would be enough then if we are concerned re the children 2. You have listed a whole load of schools NEAR Carlton avenue not actually on it. Surely the roads that should be considered would be the roads with schools on. The roads such as dulwich village and east Dulwich grove which received the diversion traffic. Closing a road some children walking down it and sacrificing the roads the school is actually on seems nonsensical.

Re charter East, Melbourne grove being an ltn only really means a few yards of quiet road as anyone will have to go down the much busier edg or grove vale to get there. Also I have heard that that the entrance will be moved to edg and next year so will be even worse if true.

[northernmonkey]

Where did you hear that the ED Charter school entrance for all pupils will move to East Dulwich Grove? That directly contradicts what I'd heard so would be interesting to understand which is accurate.

[FairTgirl]

Also heard this - apparently there was a piece from Dulwich Society about this. Main entrance will be on EDG through old hospital building from Sept 2021 - as it is currently one 1, maybe 2 year groups use MB Grove N entrance.

Cllr Rose - who is Transport cabinet member and an ED Charter governor - seemed to be aware of this as well.

[Dulwichgirl82]

https://www.southwarkccg.nhs.uk/our-plans/improving-services-in-dulwich-and-the-surrounding-areas/developing-our-plans/Documents/East%20Dulwich%20Hospital%20Site%20-%20Public%20Consultation%20Boards%20combined%20160607%20low%20res.pdf

So the Southwark planning indicates the main entrance is on edg, I think I saw this at the time of the original consultation. However this may have changed but I couldn?t find anything updated, and I don?t have children attending so may not be up to date.

[malumbu]

A bit left field but wonder how the increased number of electric scooters is going to affect things. In one respect could replace buses and cars in some kids getting to school reducing traffic. But suspect it will work the other way with some kids who used to walk to school switching to a e scooter. I also have a two out of three rule - cyclist on the wrong side of the road, no lights, but on phone (it was a quiet street) - I would have been relaxed with two out of the three. Similarly lad on a scooter, on the pavement, but also carrying a passenger.

I digress!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/nov/17/transport-for-london-gives-go-ahead-for-e-scooters-on-capitals-streets

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2020/november/tfl-and-london-councils-look-for-e-scooter-operators-to-take-part-in-year-long-rental-trial

[Abe_froeman]

The other point about these not being school streets is that the displaced traffic queues outside the schools all day long while the pupils are sat there in the middle of the pollution.

What's the point of making a clean corridor for them to walk / cycle along to spend all day in a school that is surrounded by stationary traffic?

It's illogical and doesn't explain the motivation behind these particular schemes at all.

That motivation was divulged more obviously in the recent transport plan where the council admitted they want to eliminate private car ownership in southwark and the only tools they have to achieve that are road closures and CPZs.

[northernmonkey]

I don't think thats still accurate - its very old. Was my understanding that Jarvis Road will still be used even once the main entrance is more 'open'

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> https://www.southwarkccg.nhs.uk/our-plans/improvin

> g-services-in-dulwich-and-the-surrounding-areas/de

> veloping-our-plans/Documents/East%20Dulwich%20Hosp

> ital%20Site%20-%20Public%20Consultation%20Boards%2

> 0combined%20160607%20low%20res.pdf

>

> So the Southwark planning indicates the main

> entrance is on edg, I think I saw this at the time

> of the original consultation. However this may

> have changed but I couldn?t find anything updated,

> and I don?t have children attending so may not be

> up to date.

[Dulwichgirl82]

Can I ask where you got that from? I couldn?t find anything and the dulwich society seems to indicate EDG will be the main entrance though Jarvis road remain open.

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> I don't think thats still accurate - its very old.

> Was my understanding that Jarvis Road will still

> be used even once the main entrance is more

> 'open'

>

>

> Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> -----

> >

> https://www.southwarkccg.nhs.uk/our-plans/improvin

>

> >

> g-services-in-dulwich-and-the-surrounding-areas/de

>

> >

> veloping-our-plans/Documents/East%20Dulwich%20Hosp

>

> >

> ital%20Site%20-%20Public%20Consultation%20Boards%2

>

> > 0combined%20160607%20low%20res.pdf

> >

> > So the Southwark planning indicates the main

> > entrance is on edg, I think I saw this at the

> time

> > of the original consultation. However this may

> > have changed but I couldn?t find anything

> updated,

> > and I don?t have children attending so may not

> be

> > up to date.

[spider69]

I have just used the P12 from Peckham to Nunhead Lane and noticed that before the bus turns left into Nunhead Lane they have erected small blocks on the road and planted wands out from the pavement onto the road. This means only one car/bus can pass at a time. Why? There was never a problem on this bit of road.

Have Southwark got a special benefit fund for Conways they pass out for pointless jobs. This is happening all round the area.

I am starting to accept now that whatever is pointless Southwark will do it no matter what people say.

[malumbu]

I'm trying to limit myself to factual posts. Here's the London Streetspace Plan ? Interim Guidance to Boroughs, published in May, that should govern what boroughs do. Can't comment on its effectiveness nor whether it has already been discussed on this forum. I may cut and paste some relevant sections later.

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lsp-interim-borough-guidance-main-doc.pdf

[Rockets]

This EDSTN Healthy Streets twitter thread........;-)

[alice]

Hmm seems to be blocking me

[DulwichCentral]

alice Wrote:

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

> Hmm seems to be blocking me

Yes its weird - I've been blocked from a few anti-closure twitter accounts. Seems to cut both ways.

[legalalien]

Well, it?s presumably designed so that birds of a feather can flock together.