LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Rockets]

For those of you who have managed to have been blocked by the EDSTN Healthy Street propaganda machine here is the text from the thread.....pictures attached of the various access roads on the estates they have photographed......if you look very, very carefully you can just about see a single bike on the top floor balcony of the flats in the picture of the WMAM2asp.jpeg....thereby very visually illustrating why a large percentage of the local population will struggle to switch to bikes.....

This EDSTN thread seems to be trying to make a rather spurious connection between access roads on our local estates and LTNs on Court Lane and Calton Avenue.....

Anyway, the award for the most tone-deaf twitter thread of 2020 goes to......read on....;-)

We love our new LTN, but did you know that Southwark has over 52 existing road filters already in place- one of the highest in London?

In Dulwich many of Southwark?s estates have had extensive filtering for many years.

Rather than LTNs being a new thing, it seems that our housing estates have long been trailblazers for safer & quieter streets.

These estates have quiet streets, green space, with some currently getting new playgrounds and pavements / ramp access.

So why is no one clamouring for the removal of these filters? Mainly it?s that they?ve been in place for years and the benefits are clear. They?re not even thought of as LTNs any more, though that?s how they were designed.

LTNs need time to bed in, they need improving where necessary but they have a long history of being successful in Southwark.

[Rockets]

On the subject of blocking has anyone else noticed that The Guardian seems to have turned off comments on LTN articles? Or was it that you could only ever leave comments on Opinion pieces?

[legalalien]

That Twitter thread...words fail me.

[exdulwicher]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> That Twitter thread...words fail me.

Would you prefer this one?

[tiddles]

Omg !! What lies

[legalalien]

Exdulwicher - obvs that?s entirely unacceptable behaviour (but rockets was making a slightly different point)?

Anyway - question - does anyone know whether, when they measure traffic data, they do it on a 24/7 basis rather than at fixed times of day? We seem to have developed a new rush hour through Dulwich Village from around 6:45 to 8am where all the (presumably) work related traffic tries to get through before the 8am cut off - that?s traffic that hasn?t evaporated but spread out over a longer time period - it sure how this is accounted for? I?m guessing the same is applying across the road network eg more traffic on EDG, Res Post Hill etc as that traffic must be going somewhere?

[Rockets]

Ex- I think what both those twitter threads demonstrate is that there are absolute numpties on both sides of the argument ;-)

Legal - the council are trying to move away from actual monitoring and are suggesting modelling is the way they are going to determine the success (or otherwise) - there are very limited monitoring stations in place and many of them went in after the closures went into place (the council originally only put monitoring in on the closed roads like Court Lane and Calton Avenue and nothing went in on the roads soaking up the displacement). It's why I was asking this question of Cllr McAsh; he was unable to provide any answers to where monitoring went and in and when - he had been asking the council but could not get an answer. It is very interesting that the Guy's charity running the 3 LTNs in Southwark has insisted to the council that ?50,000 of the money is invested in actual monitoring so they can properly assess the displacement.

To your other point I also noticed a lot of traffic queuing through Dulwich Village when I was on an early morning run - I think a lot of people are trying to get through by 8am. I also noticed on the run the point someone else made that the signage is not at all clear. I ran along Gallery Road from the A205 and there are no signs until you get to the roundabout and I suspect many drivers are seeing the timed road closed signs on the roundabout and then turning left down Burbage and are not seeing the closed sign on Burbage as it is obscured by that very tight left hand turn.

[Metallic]

A friend of mine is doing one of the unofficial counts. I asked her this morning and she said that 47 vehicles went through the camera in to Dulwich Village in 15 minutes. As I said the other day - kerching.

Another friend living on a displacement road told me last night she reckons traffic is just heavier earlier before the close times start.

Have to say getting out of our shut off roads is not an attractive proposition and I bet anything you like that Eynella Road will be closed off next.

[FairTgirl]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> For those of you who have managed to have been

> blocked by the EDSTN Healthy Street propaganda

> machine here is the text from the

> thread.....pictures attached of the various access

> roads on the estates they have

> photographed......if you look very, very carefully

> you can just about see a single bike on the top

> floor balcony of the flats in the picture of the

> WMAM2asp.jpeg....thereby very visually

> illustrating why a large percentage of the local

> population will struggle to switch to bikes.....

>

> This EDSTN thread seems to be trying to make a

> rather spurious connection between access roads on

> our local estates and LTNs on Court Lane and

> Calton Avenue.....

>

> Anyway, the award for the most tone-deaf twitter

> thread of 2020 goes to......read on....;-)

>

>

>

> We love our new LTN, but did you know that

> Southwark has over 52 existing road filters

> already in place- one of the highest in London?

>

>

> In Dulwich many of Southwark?s estates have had

> extensive filtering for many years.

>

>

> Rather than LTNs being a new thing, it seems that

> our housing estates have long been trailblazers

> for safer & quieter streets.

>

> These estates have quiet streets, green space,

> with some currently getting new playgrounds and

> pavements / ramp access.

>

> So why is no one clamouring for the removal of

> these filters? Mainly it?s that they?ve been in

> place for years and the benefits are clear.

> They?re not even thought of as LTNs any more,

> though that?s how they were designed.

>

>

> LTNs need time to bed in, they need improving

> where necessary but they have a long history of

> being successful in Southwark.

The reason no one is clamouring to have them removed is because they are not really LTNs, they are designed social housing estates that sit away from main roads, they have much fewer cars than residential side roads (see how few cars can be seen per flat) don't add to traffic, cause displacement.... etc etc

I wonder if this is an attmept to say LTNs don't just help the well off of Court Lane... but the difference couldn't be more stark...

[DulwichCentral]

FairTgirl Wrote:

>

> The reason no one is clamouring to have them

> removed is because they are not really LTNs, they

> are designed social housing estates that sit away

> from main roads, they have much fewer cars than

> residential side roads (see how few cars can be

> seen per flat) don't add to traffic, cause

> displacement.... etc etc

>

> I wonder if this is an attmept to say LTNs don't

> just help the well off of Court Lane... but the

> difference couldn't be more stark...

It's funny I didn't read it like that at all. To me its just an observation that the planning / design / architecture of the estates is a good example of housing for communities - quiet roads, playgrounds etc.

I've seen brand new affordable housing built in a similar way - cul-de-sacs, pedestrian areas, playgrounds, and away from main roads. Its really good this type of housing is protected by there being no through-roads. Rat-runs are designed out right from the beginning.

I don't think it's saying the closure of Court Lane helps these estates. Its saying these estates are protected already because of the way they're designed. As for the residents of Court Lane.. well that's another matter.

[sally buying]

What is not mentioned regarding these photos is that many of these estates were built 70 years ago and these estate roads went nowhere except round the estate.

Also when they were built people did not own motorcars in any number.

They have always been LTN's due to where they are.

Southwark made many of these estate roads one way many many years ago.

[malumbu]

I used a cut through in an estate that ran parallel to the Brixton Road. When they closed it to through traffic I ran a campaign, ram raided the barrier, started a petition etc to get it reopened. Similarly years ago I found a council estate in Lambeth where I could park free of charge and walk into work, on the odd occasion I drove in. Imagine my surprise when notices went up to say the car park was being monitored and those without permits would be clamped.

Things change. I didn't really protest.

[Rockets]

sally buying Wrote:

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

> What is not mentioned regarding these photos is

> that many of these estates were built 70 years ago

> and these estate roads went nowhere except round

> the estate.

>

> Also when they were built people did not own

> motorcars in any number.

>

> They have always been LTN's due to where they are.

>

>

> Southwark made many of these estate roads one way

> many many years ago.

Exactly. Trying to suggest that these are comparable to the closing of the DV junction or any other through routes by the person who wrote the EDSTN thread is beyond tenuous! Unless of course they are trying to suggest that people used to drive around the estates for the hell of it!!! ;-)

I do wonder if the author wanted to try and make a point that LTNs are not just a trapping for the super affluent but failed miserably in their attempt. That one picture with the bike on the top floor balcony really demonstrated how some of these pro-closure lobbyists really need to step out of their privileged lives in their huge houses in one of the most affluent parts of London and apply these closures from everybody else's purview......can you imagine trying to get a cargo bike up the stairs of those flats!

[DulwichCentral]

Rockets Wrote:

> Exactly. Trying to suggest that these are

> comparable to the closing of the DV junction or

> any other through routes by the person who wrote

> the EDSTN thread is beyond tenuous! Unless of

> course they are trying to suggest that people used

> to drive around the estates for the hell of it!!!

> ;-)

Surely you're not suggesting people drive around Dulwich just for the hell of it? ;)

[Abe_froeman]

These closed roads might end up like some of those estates - a bit desolate and occasionally really quite dangerous with no passing traffic

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Gosh yes - without a steady stream of Uber Priuses driving along Dulwich Village it might quite quickly turn into 1980s Beirut.

[Metallic]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> Gosh yes - without a steady stream of Uber Priuses

> driving along Dulwich Village it might quite

> quickly turn into 1980s Beirut.

Actually walking along Court Lane or Woodwarde Road in the dark is not very pleasant when there is no passing traffic. Too quiet and just the kind of place for a person to hang about and see what they can steal off a passer by. Hardly Beirut but that is not what Abe meant.

[alice]

Totally agreed my nighttime walks have been rerouted for that reason.

[Serena2012]

Southwark have scheduled a couple of community meetings next Friday (27 November) to discuss the East Dulwich LTN. All welcome, as long as you register by next Thursday. The registration details are found in the ?news bulletin? section of the East Dulwich Streetspace page. See link below. Questions can be fielded in advance by emailing [email protected]:

https://eastdulwichstreetspace.commonplace.is/news

[Metallic]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> FairTgirl Wrote:

> >

> > The reason no one is clamouring to have them

> > removed is because they are not really LTNs,

> they

> > are designed social housing estates that sit

> away

> > from main roads, they have much fewer cars than

> > residential side roads (see how few cars can be

> > seen per flat) don't add to traffic, cause

> > displacement.... etc etc

> >

> > I wonder if this is an attmept to say LTNs

> don't

> > just help the well off of Court Lane... but the

> > difference couldn't be more stark...

>

> It's funny I didn't read it like that at all. To

> me its just an observation that the planning /

> design / architecture of the estates is a good

> example of housing for communities - quiet roads,

> playgrounds etc.

>

> I've seen brand new affordable housing built in a

> similar way - cul-de-sacs, pedestrian areas,

> playgrounds, and away from main roads. Its really

> good this type of housing is protected by there

> being no through-roads. Rat-runs are designed out

> right from the beginning.

>

> I don't think it's saying the closure of Court

> Lane helps these estates. Its saying these estates

> are protected already because of the way they're

> designed. As for the residents of Court Lane..

> well that's another matter.

FairTgirl is correct.

[Bicknell]

10 formal objections to Calton Ave and Court Lane closure on One Dulwich website www.onedulwich.uk/objections:

1. The ETOs are not delivering the Council?s stated objectives.

2. The ETOs are socially unjust.

3. The ETOs discriminate against vulnerable groups in contravention of The Equality Act 2010.

4. The ETOs do not have the support of the local community.

5. The ETOs are not bringing about a modal shift.

6. The ETOs are damaging local businesses.

7. The Council has failed to introduce adequate, evidence-based, monitoring of its objectives.

8. The ETOs are making life less safe for local residents by blocking access for Emergency Services.

9. The ETOs have disrupted road networks, causing the Council to fail to fulfil its obligation under the Traffic Management Act 2004 to ensure they are managed effectively.

10. 24/7 closures are disproportionate; timed closures, as in Phase 2 ETOs, would be sufficient.

[first mate]

Please be aware Southwark Cyclists are getting members to support measures, they have templates and are asking their supporters to email councillors to indicate support https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/streets-for-distancing-2/

While they have every right to this it is hoped that the overwhelming number of voices against are also going into councillor inboxes. My point being that SC, like other favoured lobby groups, probably know the best way to be heard and that meets with Council process.

[legalalien]

It is important though that formal objections get sent to the right place, which I think is [email protected], copying in [email protected], and stating it?s a formal objection to the scheme. By all means copy in councillors, but just emailing councillors risks not being counted as a formal objection, I think?

[Metallic]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Please be aware Southwark Cyclists are getting

> members to support measures, they have templates

> and are asking their supporters to email

> councillors to indicate support

> https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/streets-for-dista

> ncing-2/

>

> While they have every right to this it is hoped

> that the overwhelming number of voices against are

> also going into councillor inboxes. My point being

> that SC, like other favoured lobby groups,

> probably know the best way to be heard and that

> meets with Council process.

I bet many of these cyclists do not live in the Ward - or even in Southwark!

[malumbu]

Wow lots of food for thought.

Firstly thanks First Mate for the link to Southwark Cyclists. I was planning to send a letter of support for LTN and this gives some additional material to support me.

Metallic, your post is precious and I'm afraid I have to break my vow of silence with regards to debating this issue. All a bit throwing insults in the play ground - my dad is bigger than yours and cyclists don't pay road tax and aren't insured (we've been there before so please don't debate). For the first time I mouthed the words Nimby Yes Nimby. For the hard of hearing Nimby.

This is a place to debate the healthy streets initiative so should be for and against, and in the middle too.

For the hard of hearing if we want to address climate change we can no longer drive where we want, when we want, what we want, how we want. If we can be in agreement on the basics that we need to reduce road transport we can have an adult conversation. Here's an argument against this - "what is the point if China, US, developing countries etc don't do similar'". The counterargument is will our kids and grandkids thank us for not even trying? Heaven knows they will be poorer than us, wont be able to afford to own their own homes and will be paying for Covid and the government's magic money tree for decades.

So if we agree about cutting road traffic then how do we do it? We are too wedded to our cars for simple behaviour change to work. Do you want to save the planet? "of course". Do you want to cut road pollution? "obviously". Will you drive less? "how very dare you". Where there is a will there is a way but sadly there doesn't appear to be the will.

So what are your alternatives? LTNs and the ULEZ are very clumsy measures. Road charging is a win win. But last time this was proposed there was a massive backlash, and this was within recent memory of the fuel protests. What a shame that Labour handled the latter so poorly, and didn't keep their nerve on road charging. But it's back (on revenue rather than environmental grounds, but hey ho). ULEZ was a Tory Mayor's initiative so at least you will see cleaner air in a year of so's time when most of the more polluting vehicles are off the road around here.

Sad that consecutive governments do not want to be see as the enemy of the motorist, I'd prefer them to be thought as saviours of the planet. And it's wonderful that there is commitment to the green agenda, albeit a scattergun approach of throwing money at everything, and no doubt driven in part by Brexit with the agenda of going alone (military spend another example). This free spending interventionist government is just bizarre, but still worried about being unpopular with the Telegraph and Mail, which sadly resulted in some watering of the message on public transport and active travel in the ten point plan https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-outlines-his-ten-point-plan-for-a-green-industrial-revolution-for-250000-jobs. But with that bloke in charge being pro cycling, with Gilligan at his side I hope that he wont to a 180 degree on this one a la Brexit.

OK, hope this generates some good discussion on alternatives, including which roads you WOULD close and how you would do this. This is in my back yard.