LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[FairTgirl]

That's the million dollar question isn't it... whose idea is all of this tinkering with closing roads into DV spending the Tfl funds (tax payer money) that could be better spent with some decent public transport and cycling infrastructure work for the whole area.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Who is actually in leading this process within the

> council - is it the local councillors, Cllr Rose

> or someone else? Do we know?

[Rockets]

Kid - you are right - everyone acknowledges that things have to change but the more the council ignores the views of the majority of residents and tries to force these changes through the backdoor so people's feelings shift from a position of "let's discuss these changes and what can be done to improve them" to "tear the things out now". The council is seemingly trying to make any sort of opposition to this as difficult as possible and has fast lost control of the narrative and continually projects any opposition as a "small vocal minority" when most rational people realise it is anything but. Couple that with the "we don't care what anyone thinks we're doing it anyway" attitude and that galvanises even more opposition.

What the council are doing with their approach is making their lives a lot more difficult for everything moving forward as people are, quite rightly, saying what else are they doing this with.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Not everyone acknowledges that things have to change, and many people who acknowledge things have to change want those changes to happen by way of other people driving laws and no inconvenience to them. Ain't gonna happen, chief.

[Rockets]

I think School Streets would have been, by far, the most effective measure the council could have put in place to be a catalyst for modal shift but one that balanced addressing the problem in a way that didn't cause widespread negative impact on far more local residents than it benefits. Unfortunately the council seems to have been led down the garden path by a number of vocal residents (and these residents in Dulwich Village have very long garden paths leading to huge houses.....! ;-)) and lobby groups that convinced them shutting roads was the best way forward. Unfortunately, they worked the council into a frenzied excitement and no-one stopped to listen to what anyone else was saying about what was going to happen and the impact on areas away from the closed roads.

Now they have created a complete mess that I am not sure they have the first idea how to even start to address it - they are like the proverbial deer in the headlights. It will be interesting to see how they perform during the council meetings today as today is the first time they have had to actually face people beyond their own echo chamber!

[JohnL]

FairTgirl Wrote:

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

> That's the million dollar question isn't it...

> whose idea is all of this tinkering with closing

> roads into DV spending the Tfl funds (tax payer

> money) that could be better spent with some decent

> public transport and cycling infrastructure work

> for the whole area.

>

>

Guys and St Thomas's are funding some of it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/17/london-hospital-trust-to-pay-250k-to-install-ltn-for-public-health-benefits

And that links to further funding from Grant Shapps

"The UK government is to push ahead with a new wave of traffic reduction schemes to help more people walk and cycle, telling councils that while they must properly consult on new projects, they should also not be derailed by a minority of noisy opponents."

"Announcing the new ?175m tranche of money, part of wider plans to adapt travel to the impact of coronavirus, Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, pointed to polling which shows significant support for such measures across England."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/13/local-councils-advised-to-push-ahead-with-traffic-reduction-schemes

of course we host COP26 next year and want to show BREXIT as a success environmentally.

[legalalien]

Update: have had a response from Cllr Newens re TfL?s FoI response - she is unaware of any additional

proposed closures. Hopefully Cllr Rose will respond as well. Trying to read the response as though it might just mean additional signs on the A205/ Croxted to warn of the existing closures.. it just doesn?t read like that. But I wouldn?t rule out poor wording. Let?s see....

[Penguin68]

It appears everyone is pro reducing cars and pollution.

Around them. But if cars and pollution are offset elsewhere (even closely elsewhere)...?

Actually, can I say I am not in favour of 'reducing cars'. I am in favour of reducing polluting cars (which the ULEZ takes a first crack at) - but cars (particularly electric cars) offer conveniences and freedoms which I absolutely relish. Most traffic disruption is caused by authorities closing and narrowing roads, making them exclusive for some class of user or other - we probably have enough roads (if they could be used) for the cars we have. Proper provision of useful public transport might encourage less car use (as it does in the north of the borough where there are tubes and buses and trains aplenty) - but the council's way of working is like discouraging obesity by closing all shops selling food and all restaurants. Obesity will fall, certainly.

The 'moral' (self-righteous) stance taken by people who live in areas well served by public transport against car ownership frankly sickens me. And I wonder if all the people now living in their gated communities would be keen on giving up their cars completely - as a requisite for getting other people's cars off their roads. I do know that some aren't car drivers, or owners, but how many I wonder (and having off street parking doesn't count). If you 'vote' against private cars you should be obliged yourself not to have or use one.

Amended to add - oh, and that means ever - you can't be a young fit mid-twenties cyclist now and vote against cars if you find you need one once you're an unfit pensioner. Because you're stopping unfit pensioners now from benefitting.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I'm pro reducing the number of cars, regardless of pollution (I'm very much in favour of reducing pollution too of course). I'm not sure why anyone would not be. Fewer cars means fewer casualties, more space for people to walk, play, shop, drink, eat, etc.

If you replaced all cars with eclectic, it would be an improvement. But at the same time, if you could reduce the number of cars (and preferably the exponential growth in their size) that would be even better.

[exdulwicher]

And I wonder if all the people now living in their gated communities would be keen on giving up their cars completely - as a requisite for getting other people's cars off their roads. I do know that some aren't car drivers, or owners, but how many I wonder (and having off street parking doesn't count). If you 'vote' against private cars you should be obliged yourself not to have or use one.

No one is voting against private cars, that's not what the issue is here. The issue is using said car for short journeys that could, for many people, be accomplished in a more sustainable manner.

And before you give me all the "what about the school run Mum dropping of 3 kids at 3 different schools then doing a big shop on the way home?", I said MANY people. Not all journeys, not all the time.

It's not a binary pro/anti car issue nor is it hypocritical to own a vehicle but be in favour of less traffic.

[Penguin68]

It's not a binary pro/anti car issue nor is it hypocritical to own a vehicle but be in favour of less traffic.

'Less traffic on my street - hang yours' - yes I do think that's hypocritical.

[Abe_froeman]

"No one is voting against private cars, that's not what the issue is here."

The council has explicitly stated that they intend to eliminate ownership of private cars and that the only two weapons they have against private car ownership are 1) road closures and 2) parking controls.

This is exactly what the issue is here

The only bit of your sentence that is correct is that no one is voting for this.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don't believe the council is talking about eliminating private cars. No one is sensibly suggesting this.

We probably do need fewer cars on our streets however and also fewer people driving short trips. I'm not sure how anyone could really think that would be a bad thing to achieve.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Metallic Wrote:

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

> 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.

So the (alledged) displaced traffic is making main roads safer now?

[exdulwicher]

The council has explicitly stated that they intend to eliminate ownership of private cars and that the only two weapons they have against private car ownership are 1) road closures and 2) parking controls.

Citation needed.

Where on Southwark's website does it say that they want to eliminate ownership of private cars? Where does it say those are the only two "weapons"? I suspect you mean the far less inflammatory word "measures" and they actually have another one, Car Clubs.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/car-clubs

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I don't believe the council is talking about

> eliminating private cars. No one is sensibly

> suggesting this.

>

> We probably do need fewer cars on our streets

> however and also fewer people driving short trips.

> I'm not sure how anyone could really think that

> would be a bad thing to achieve.

The council has stated its aim is to reduce car usage by 50%.

[Rockets]

The council meeting today was as depressing as it was predictable......the look on Cllr Rose's face when she tried to wrap the meeting up at 2pm and someone told her she had another 30 minutes before the event was due to end was a picture......

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I don't believe the council is talking about

> > eliminating private cars. No one is sensibly

> > suggesting this.

> >

> > We probably do need fewer cars on our streets

> > however and also fewer people driving short

> trips.

> > I'm not sure how anyone could really think that

> > would be a bad thing to achieve.

>

>

> The council has stated its aim is to reduce car

> usage by 50%.

So how is that 'eliminating private cars'?

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > I don't believe the council is talking about

> > > eliminating private cars. No one is sensibly

> > > suggesting this.

> > >

> > > We probably do need fewer cars on our streets

> > > however and also fewer people driving short

> > trips.

> > > I'm not sure how anyone could really think

> that

> > > would be a bad thing to achieve.

> >

> >

> > The council has stated its aim is to reduce car

> > usage by 50%.

>

> So how is that 'eliminating private cars'?

It is a very aggressive target that will need to involve reducing (significantly) car ownership in the areas with high car ownership - like Dulwich - but of course Dulwich has terrible PTAL scores so I think people are struggling to determine how they are supposed to get around (beyond their immediate locality) if the council is hellbent on cutting car usage by 50%.

[cwjlawrence]

Hi Folks,

If you've not read the Southwark Climate Strategy, then I'd recommend reading it. Legalalien kindly provided a link to it in a post on the Lounge:

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89802/Appendix%201%20Climate%20strategy.pdf

Below is the excerpt from the Borough and Regional Action section on Travel.

@Rockets - where is the aim to reduce car usage by 50% stated? I don't think it's in this strategy document but please do correct me if I'm wrong. I presume it's in another Council document - if you could post the link then that would be great.

Thanks,

Chris

Borough and Regional Actions

This strategy promotes action at a borough and city level to make Southwark and London a greener place to travel. Actions at this level include:

- Developing accessible, safe cycle ways and walking paths

- Creating traffic free zones and pedestrianised areas

- Building more electric charging points

- Providing accessible workplaces for cycling and walking

- Encouraging employers to increase flexible home working to reduce the need to commute

- Increase the use of hubs for home delivery of goods to reduce delivery traffic

- Introducing a borough wide controlled parking zone with higher charges for more

polluting vehicles and second vehicles.

- TFL to require all taxis to be EV's before 2030

- Greater use of cargo bike schemes by regional institutions.

- TFL and the council to make the temporary street adaptions (including pavement

widening) following COVID 19 permanent

- Develop a small business grant for those who use carbon neutral 'last mile'

distribution

- Implement a diesel surcharge of 50%

- Create 'diesel free zones' banning privately owned diesel vehicles from using key

routes during core hours

- Ban privately owned cars from using key routes during core hours

- Consolidate delivery sites to reduce daily journeys by 50%

- Incentivise companies to electrify their vehicle fleets

- Introduce a car parking levy on work placed car parking

- Decarbonise the council?s fleet

- Move to new developments and regenerated estates to being car free

- Continue reviewing tube stations to increase accessibility

- Prioritise the air quality improvement actions that also have a carbon reduction benefit.

[alex_b]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> It's not a binary pro/anti car issue nor is it

> hypocritical to own a vehicle but be in favour of

> less traffic.

>

> 'Less traffic on my street - hang yours' - yes I

> do think that's hypocritical.

If the traffic on my residential street was going to/from my residential street (or those nearby) then that might be hypocritical. But on many of these roads that are being closed they are drivers rat running across the area when they should be on the designated A-roads. The statistics show a massive rise in traffic on residential roads while traffic on other roads and total passenger miles has fallen or remained static. This is in large part to app and sat nav enabled rat running and it?s not hypocritical to want this to be stopped. If the marginal gains these drivers make from using residential roads as shortcuts makes them think twice about their journeys then so much the better.

I do think that rather than looking at individual streets the council should be looking at bigger area wide interventions to avoid shifting the problem to neighbouring residential roads (as i believe happened with the Oglander/Ondine restrictions). But that isn?t an excuse for doing nothing which seems to be the real aim of the anti-closure group on this thread.

[Rockets]

cwjlawrence Wrote:

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

> Hi Folks,

> If you've not read the Southwark Climate Strategy,

> then I'd recommend reading it. Legalalien kindly

> provided a link to it in a post on the Lounge:

>

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89802

> /Appendix%201%20Climate%20strategy.pdf

>

>

> Below is the excerpt from the Borough and Regional

> Action section on Travel.

>

> @Rockets - where is the aim to reduce car usage by

> 50% stated? I don't think it's in this strategy

> document but please do correct me if I'm wrong. I

> presume it's in another Council document - if you

> could post the link then that would be great.

>

> Thanks,

> Chris

>

>

> Borough and Regional Actions

> This strategy promotes action at a borough and

> city level to make Southwark and London a greener

> place to travel. Actions at this level include:

> - Developing accessible, safe cycle ways and

> walking paths

> - Creating traffic free zones and pedestrianised

> areas

> - Building more electric charging points

> - Providing accessible workplaces for cycling and

> walking

> - Encouraging employers to increase flexible home

> working to reduce the need to commute

> - Increase the use of hubs for home delivery of

> goods to reduce delivery traffic

> - Introducing a borough wide controlled parking

> zone with higher charges for more

> polluting vehicles and second vehicles.

> - TFL to require all taxis to be EV's before 2030

> - Greater use of cargo bike schemes by regional

> institutions.

> - TFL and the council to make the temporary street

> adaptions (including pavement

> widening) following COVID 19 permanent

> - Develop a small business grant for those who use

> carbon neutral 'last mile'

> distribution

> - Implement a diesel surcharge of 50%

> - Create 'diesel free zones' banning privately

> owned diesel vehicles from using key

> routes during core hours

> - Ban privately owned cars from using key routes

> during core hours

> - Consolidate delivery sites to reduce daily

> journeys by 50%

> - Incentivise companies to electrify their vehicle

> fleets

> - Introduce a car parking levy on work placed car

> parking

> - Decarbonise the council?s fleet

> - Move to new developments and regenerated estates

> to being car free

> - Continue reviewing tube stations to increase

> accessibility

> - Prioritise the air quality improvement actions

> that also have a carbon reduction benefit.

Chris I have read that 50% at least twice in two separate council documents but it's one of those I wished I had bookmarked. Cllr Livingstone quoted it on twitter and then I read it documents relating to their long-term plans. I think it was a 50% reduction by 2025 but I have read it twice so it definitely exists! ;-)

[malumbu]

Not going to go into the fine detail but bringing up the big picture, again (and again and again...).

Ban is a dirty word and no government for the time being is going to ban personal car ownership. However there has to be some redress of the balance as we've had pro-car policies for most of the last 65 years (the early Blair government was changing things until they caved into the unholy alliance of hauliers and farmers).

Affordable cars from the late 50s onward changed the whole landscape. Cars were no longer a luxury for the rich. Personal mobility was revolutionised. You were no longer limited to where you took the family for a holiday - we'd all be going down to Margate and the South Coast otherwise (you can make the same argument with the advent of package foreign holidays and then budget airlines - but I'll park the challenge of aviation and climate change).

But reducing car ownership could/should be a good thing, not because we hate car owners, and want everyone to be lycra clad ecowarriors, rather that there are smarter ways of getting around both in terms of personal mobility, costs and the impact on the environment. With connected and autonomous vehicles our world is going to change like it or not. On a smaller scale Whilst most of us feel that e scooters are a pain they will be no doubt part of that solution. Ideally we will grasp these new intermodal technologies, but until they are more of a reality, without some pain many will not change their habits and their attachment to the tin box.

Not sure what the tipping point is when many will realise that with smarter alternatives and/or the cost and inconvenience of driving (delete either as appropriate), then there is no point any more in owning your own car.

I've been to talks, not by sandal wearing crusties but scientists, engineers and transport experts where they project images of the future. Perhaps California will show us all the way.

Alleluia brothers and sisters. I expect some reality checks now but what is wrong with wanting to change the world for the benefit of all (oh apart from Jeremy C, but I expect much of what he says is for effect).

[Rockets]

Leave Jeremy Corbyn out of this - what has he done?!!! ;-)

[JohnL]

I think the Southwark plan is the below - note petrol and diesel not all.

"Adopt a local target to halve petrol and diesel road journeys by 2025, and by 90% by 2030"

Recommendation 8

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s91690/Cabinet%20response%202nd%20Review%20of%20the%20Climate%20Emergency%20Strategy.pdf

So some (or much) of that gets replaced by Electric

[JohnL]

And this is the movement plan page that does state an aim of reducing car ownership but not by how much (unless I can't find it)

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/transport-policy/policy-and-guidance-documents/movement-plan