LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[alice]

Was the Equalities Impact Assessment ever done? Isn?t it a legal requirement for such changes? I?d love to see it.

[legalalien]

Just looked up the decision notice for the original closure. See para 51 re Equalities etc.. but more interesting I was led to believe that this was done / funded by emergency COVID funding. This seems to indicate that the closure was dunded out of existing "Healthy Streets" funding and largely directed at school pedestrian traffic unrelated to COVID. Am I reading that right?

See here

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89205/Report%20-%20Covid-19%20Post%20lockdown%20highway%20schemes.pdf

And here http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89209/APPENDIX%203%20-%20DULWICH%20VILLAGE.pdf which basically disses the most recent iteration of the junction.

[legalalien]

Now reading a bit more about the original closure. There is some TfL funding I think. This doc is interesting

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89805/Appendix%20B%20Weekly%20streetspace%20plan%20update%20June%202020.pdf

Love this extract (Rockets i think this probably where your 50% figure derives from. Was Dulwich in the "too hard" box?)

"The works cuts across Highways and Transport policy, with part also being in the network management team - with support from Wardens. All the teams are linked up and working well and at pace. We?ve spilt the work into three main areas - though they are all joined up.

(1) Immediate lengths being taken for social distancing

(2) Bringing forward schemes that were happening to make them happen quicker

(3) Bringing forward schemes that were wanted but may been in the ?too hard? box for whatever reason.

To demonstrate Southwark?s intention to be transformative and bold, our intention is to use the London climate change joint statement providing a sense of purpose and demonstrate the wider cause. Six programmes that were agreed at TEC, with the focus here being ?halve petrol and diesel road journeys?. Therefore, if we use that as our premise/challenge what does that mean we have to do as a guiding principle. So, the concept is to encourage a modal shift by delivering three items of work, as follows:

 Changing key junctions on main roads with TfL (to reduce road space and driving),

 Improving main roads between key junctions with TfL to assist buses and bikes, and

 Use Commonplace comments to reduce traffic and improve walking and cycling on side / residential streets (i.e. Low Traffic Neighbourhoods)."

The main report that this is an Appendix to is at

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=7131

[first mate]

Point 3 is interesting; ?bringing forward schemes that were wanted but may been in the ?too hard box? for whatever reason.

What does ?too hard box? mean when it is set against the ?were wanted? element? Who wanted it, the majority of taxpayers or sections of the council and a few vocal groups?

It does seem to confirm that the council used Covid and social distancing to fast track all the stuff they ?wanted? to do.

[rch]

Also very interesting is the Investigative and Conclusions section of Appendix 3 which legalalien notes disses the most recent iteration of the junction.

The main problem with this dysfunctional junction design was the staggered crossing along Dulwich Village, which caused pedestrians (including me!) to regularly divert around the junction to cross along Court Lane and Calton, hence obstructing traffic flow. This is exactly what I pointed out would happen when I attended the public meetings, but was gagged.

After allowing the dysfunctional new junction to ?settle in? for a couple of years, the council launched a Streetspace style ?consultation?, which I took part in... and the largest number of logged complaints were about the staggered crossing which caused everyone to walk around Court Lane and Calton to circumvent it.

I also noticed that there were a number of requests to close the junction in order to address these concerns, which was worrying. But, my observation was that addressing the staggered crossing by making it a direct crossing had a higher number of supporters. Hence my comments that tweaking the junction would be a more simple option overall.

The reason why staggered crossings are popular with junction designers is that it increases the motor traffic flow through the junction (thereby reducing traffic queues) by breaking up the pedestrian light timings into two phases. But for an area with a high number of pedestrians, this is very unpopular.

The supreme irony with the Covid junction closure is that pedestrians are still crossing over the staggered junction as well as across Court Lane and Calton because the cyclists and e-scooters are riding directly through the junction now, which makes it feel unsafe to walk. I experience this so often now that I haven?t walked down to the Village for ages as it?s very unpleasant. It?s also difficult to walk on the pavement in front of the shops because of the cyclists.

So, this is why I stress that some kind of logic would need to be imposed if the closed junction was to be made permanent, but I don?t think the proposed layout that I?ve seen is very appealing.

Lastly, also be aware that the diagram on the Appendix 3 notes is incorrect... it?s actually the previous junction, not the recent dysfunctional junction, which is extremely misleading.

Edited to stress that this council administration actually used free Quietway funding to create a dysfunctional junction that was so bad that they have now used free Covid funding to circumvent the poor design that they created.

[Pugwash]

Took over 10 minutes yesterday around 11.30 am to get from Friern Road/LL to Grove traffic lights due to solid traffic. Most of the tailbacks were vehicles trying to turn onto S. Circular.

[slarti b]

"this council administration actually used free Quietway funding to create a dysfunctional junction that was so bad that they have now used free Covid funding to circumvent the poor design that they created."

Robin, excellent summary.

ALso interesting to note that, during that Quietway consultation, a group of local residents ( now the core of One Dulwich) came up with the idea of an LTN to cover school periods. It was similar to the Council's OHS proposal for area B but was strictly time limited to minimise displacement and involved no road closures. The council refused to consider it. Oh well.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Farage (predictably) is jumping on the anti bike lane / anti low traffic neighbourhoods ticket.

[n dulwich northerner]

Even a stopped clock....

[first mate]

But so what? That was always predictable and I doubt there are very few, if any, Farage supporters on here. Just because someone jumps on an issue for their own ends does not invalidate the issue.

[legalalien]

I agree.

first mate Wrote:

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

> But so what? That was always predictable and I

> doubt there are very few, if any, Farage

> supporters on here. Just because someone jumps on

> an issue for their own ends does not invalidate

> the issue.

[ab29]

3xr: clutching at straws.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Farage (predictably) is jumping on the anti bike

> lane / anti low traffic neighbourhoods ticket.

[Spartacus]

The telegraph are running a story about how pollution was higher when LTNs were in place but plummeted when Wandsworth removed theirs. As it's a paid for content I've attached a screen shot for those who haven't subscribed.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/05/exclusive-pollution-rises-low-traffic-neighbourhoods/

[exdulwicher]

I?m told it is ?roadworks, when it?s lockdown I?m told it?s ?lockdown? when it?s Friday I?m told it?s because it?s a ?Friday?, when it?s Saturday, I?m told it?s because it?s a ?Saturday?, when it?s the school run I?m told it?s the ?school run?, or I?m told it will ?bed in? or that there are just ?too many cars on the road? so I will just have to put up with car users from Calton Ave, Melbourne etc driving on my road... but that?s ok because who cares about EDG residents, or the schools, or the nurseries. I?m sure residents on LL feel like they are also being constantly gaslighted.

Mix of factors but basically traffic everywhere (not just Dulwich, not just London and certainly not just in areas with LTNs) has jumped in the last week by up to 70% in some areas. Depends on what Tier the area has gone into and the rural / suburban / urban mix but after another month of lockdown (albeit far less restrictive than the first one), suddenly it's back on the roads. People are also making journeys they wouldn't normally make - extra shopping, buying the Christmas tree - all short distance ones that in almost all cases will be done by car. Partly because most people are still avoiding public transport.

[Rockets]

All,

This is interesting.....the Dulwich Village LTN discussion has been cancelled. The message below is very interesting - it looks like this was supposed to be a private meeting that someone accidentally posted as public?

Given the fact the DV closures went in well ahead of the ED ones it's perhaps telling that the council are still not engaging with the public on these closures.

A Message from Southwark Community Engagement Team:

Apologies to all who have signed up for this meeting. This had been set up on Eventbrite as a 'private' link and the meeting has not been publicised by us. However it appears that it has unintentionally been made visible to residents.

The meeting is not taking place on 15th December, and will be scheduled for a later date. Please look out for wide publicity on this in the near future. In the first instance, all subscribers at https://dulwichvillagestreetspace.commonplace.is/ will be notified of the meeting.

Apologies again for all confusion.

[Spartacus]

Thanks Rockets

Very interesting

Ex, in the good old days, before LTNs were a glint in the councils eye, on days when traffic volume increased be it due to a specific shopping day, accident or other, it could dissipate down other roads and clear fairly quickly thus clearing the congestion and not creating pollution from cars stuck in traffic.

With the introduction of LTNs, that ability to dissipate has been removed and the extra traffic has been bottlenecked into fewer streets causing even longer delays and more pollution.

Sadly this is doing more damage than good and whilst people don't like their particular side road being used when traffic volumes are high, it does act like a pressure valve for the road network.

Unfortunately the expected evaporation of cars owned isn't going to happen and whilst LTNs are in place we will see a continuation of heavy traffic and pollution thus negating the desired goals of introducing them !

[legalalien]

I really wish the focus would shift from "commonplace" subscribers to "residents / businesses /workers", given there are almost certainly loads of the former who aren't residents and loads of the latter who don't know about commonplace and / or aren't digitally engaged - hopefully there will also be emails to those with My Southwark accounts and a mail drop of some sort. The background info to the original closure suggests that using commonplace as the main consultation vehicle is intended to extend past lockdown. I think too much reliance on that as a mechanism requires some careful thought - its open to manipulation ( by any organised group) so that it doesn't reflect the thoughts of the Southwark community.

(I know it says "in the first instance", but all the underlying decision documents put a very heavy emphasis on commonplace).

[Metallic]

So we are all hearing today by email that the eventbrite thing for Dulwich has been cancelled.

As they say in Dad's Army, they don't like it up 'em. And up 'em it would have been.

So just shut the door on that as obviously the East Dulwich one was too difficult for them and they know more would have come their way with this event.

[exdulwicher]

Written by the MD of Stagecoach so obviously very bus-focussed but this is a good read:

https://www.transporttimes.co.uk/news.php/Covid-19-needs-to-be-a-defining-moment-to-deliver-fundamental-change-585

Ex, in the good old days, before LTNs were a glint in the councils eye, on days when traffic volume increased be it due to a specific shopping day, accident or other, it could dissipate down other roads and clear fairly quickly thus clearing the congestion and not creating pollution from cars stuck in traffic.

No, it just clogs up residential roads that were never designed for that volume of traffic, knackers the junctions at each end of them and gets absolutely stuck solid every time there's a bin lorry or delivery van along them and nothing else can pass.

[Earl Aelfheah]

first mate Wrote:

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

> But so what? That was always predictable and I

> doubt there are very few, if any, Farage

> supporters on here. Just because someone jumps on

> an issue for their own ends does not invalidate

> the issue.

Wasn't suggesting it does necessarily. Just pointing out that he is now on the bandwagon. Will certainly amplify anti-LTN campaign though.

[Spartacus]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> Ex, in the good old days, before LTNs were a glint

> in the councils eye, on days when traffic volume

> increased be it due to a specific shopping day,

> accident or other, it could dissipate down other

> roads and clear fairly quickly thus clearing the

> congestion and not creating pollution from cars

> stuck in traffic.

>

> No, it just clogs up residential roads that were

> never designed for that volume of traffic,

> knackers the junctions at each end of them and

> gets absolutely stuck solid every time there's a

> bin lorry or delivery van along them and nothing

> else can pass.

Ex so are you denying that the LTNs are causing increased delays and pollution when they are installed ?

[Earl Aelfheah]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> 3xr: clutching at straws.

>

>

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Farage (predictably) is jumping on the anti

> bike

> > lane / anti low traffic neighbourhoods ticket.

Just stating a fact. He is vowing to stand candidates against any local politician supporting LTNs and bike lanes:

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/nigel-farage-vows-reform-party-oppose-government-green-transport-schemes-grant-shappsboris-johnson-784845

[Earl Aelfheah]

Does anyone on here arguing against LTNs also agree that we need to reduce the number of short car journeys? If so, can you explain how allowing cars to use side streets as cut throughs will achieve this?

[Dulwichgirl82]

I?m fairly sure we?ve been through this before rahrah. Yes traffic needs to be reduced, short journeys are good to target for this. However can you show that closing the roads does this rather than just divert those journeys elsewhere, ironically probably travelling further in more congestion increasing pollution. I think the onus is on the pro closure lobby to prove this works rather than the other way, as this is an experimental order after all. Those living and using the diversion streets report much worse traffic and congestion and yet this seems to be entirely ignored by the pro closure lobby.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Does anyone on here arguing against LTNs also

> agree that we need to reduce the number of short

> car journeys? If so, can you explain how allowing

> cars to use side streets as cut throughs will

> achieve this?

[zerkalo]

It is not the LTNs that are causing increased delays and pollution when they are installed. That is a convenient fallacy in support of a certain narrative. It is the drivers who choose to use their cars who do so, particularly when other means are available.