LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Siduhe]

Thanks @rahrahrah and @Dulwichgirl82 - your posts underline what I thought - for the vast majority of people on this thread, there's far more that we're aligned on than not. I can't help thinking it helps the extremes on either side (and/or Southwark Council) to keep us all sniping at each other as if the only solution was to reverse the closures entirely or keep them entirely. [Not suggesting either of you were sniping btw!]

So here's my starter for 10 - we keep the closures in place for six months but with a proper monitoring and assessment process that looks at the overall impact on our area and a firm commitment to consider outcomes for all roads fairly at the end of it. Do you think those strongly in favour of the closures would buy into that? If so, I'd much rather push for that than the immediate reversal of the closures, but the only way to get the Council to commit to that is for the majority of the pro and anti groups to get behind that sort of idea.

[Rockets]

Dulwichgirl82 I agree. In fact, I think there is far more justification for the Melbourne Grove closures as that would qualify as a rat run. By far the biggest impact on the wider area has been the closures of the DV junction (and now beyond DV). The blocking of east/west routes has created a displacement tsunami that is impacting many thousands of people - from those who choose to shop on Lordship Lane, to those who live on Lordship Lane and along any one of the routes being used by traffic to avoid the congestion caused by it. If I was a Melbourne Grove closure supporter I would be very worried that the council's mismanagement and blind stubbornness as they try to save face politically may result in everything having to be torn out and that benefits no-one.

[Rockets]

Siduhe Wrote:

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

> Thanks @rahrahrah and @Dulwichgirl82 - your posts

> underline what I thought - for the vast majority

> of people on this thread, there's far more that

> we're aligned on than not. I can't help thinking

> it helps the extremes on either side (and/or

> Southwark Council) to keep us all sniping at each

> other as if the only solution was to reverse the

> closures entirely or keep them entirely.

>

> So here's my starter for 10 - we keep the closures

> in place for six months but with a proper

> monitoring and assessment process that looks at

> the overall impact on our area and a firm

> commitment to consider outcomes for all roads

> fairly at the end of it. Do you think those

> strongly in favour of the closures would buy into

> that? If so, I'd much rather push for that than

> the immediate reversal of the closures, but the

> only way to get the Council to commit to that is

> for the majority of the pro and anti groups to get

> behind that sort of idea.

I think most people could get behind an approach that provides fair and granular data so an objective decision could be made on whether they are effective or not. The council should have been doing this from day 1 but remember they initially only put monitoring strips on the closed roads in the DV closures and were doing nothing to monitor traffic on the displacement roads. Many of us were, rightly, suspicious of why they were doing this.

If we all agreed on the monitoring approach there would have to be transparency from the council as to where they are monitoring. They put some in on the southern part of Lordship Lane some months after the DV closures went in - I am not sure if they are still in or not - but not sure where else they have gone. For example, have they been monitoring Underhill Road for example?

[Dulwichgirl82]

I think I echo rockets that a fair and transparent process would be good, though this should have been done before these measures went in not after.

I think there needs to be acknowledgement on both sides of the benefits and issues of these

Schemes. 6 months is only feb/March and so that would be a reasonable timescale but still enough for ?bedding in? as is often mentioned. I?m not sure the pro closure side would agree however, as many seem unwilling to consider the negative impacts of these changes.

I also think we need to consider what is classed as a ?main? road, as I don?t think sacrificing EDG/LL is acceptable or fair considering what is present on them and how many people use them.

Siduhe Wrote:

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

> Thanks @rahrahrah and @Dulwichgirl82 - your posts

> underline what I thought - for the vast majority

> of people on this thread, there's far more that

> we're aligned on than not. I can't help thinking

> it helps the extremes on either side (and/or

> Southwark Council) to keep us all sniping at each

> other as if the only solution was to reverse the

> closures entirely or keep them entirely.

>

> So here's my starter for 10 - we keep the closures

> in place for six months but with a proper

> monitoring and assessment process that looks at

> the overall impact on our area and a firm

> commitment to consider outcomes for all roads

> fairly at the end of it. Do you think those

> strongly in favour of the closures would buy into

> that? If so, I'd much rather push for that than

> the immediate reversal of the closures, but the

> only way to get the Council to commit to that is

> for the majority of the pro and anti groups to get

> behind that sort of idea.

[legalalien]

The problem with the ?bedding down? approach is that the pro-closure groups have already said that the scheme as currently constituted does not do enough to effect a modal shift (see link I posted earlier today). So if it doesn?t bed down there is an argument that this is because the closures did not go far enough, as well as an argument that the closures went too far. I?m not sure quite how that can be resolved even with the monitoring. But I do think that monitoring and hard evidence is key.

I still think that it makes sense to try closing off genuinely ?side? streets first ie unclassified streets, and not classified roads (eg Court Lane) which are implicitly already acknowledged

as important routes, even if for mostly local traffic. And once that?s settled down, see what happens next. It?s the same principle as advocated currently, but a broader range or roads included in the initial displacement and settling process.

[Abe_froeman]

Haven't some of the closures been in place for nearly six months already now?

[Rockets]

Yes Abe they have - the DV ones went in towards the end of June - BUT the council hasn't been monitoring. I think everyone, on both side of the argument, should be very concerned that the council wants to rely on modelling rather than actual data. If I was on the pro-closure side I would want to be able to see, definitively, that these closures are having the desired effect. Maybe some of the pro-closure folks on here could comment and support this?

I think the council realised after the first DV "improvement" works that if you spend all that money to try and reduce congestion and pollution and your own detailed monitoring shows an actual increase in pollution then you are creating a very public rod for your own back! I think they know the LTNs are causing an increase in pollution but are doing everything in their power to bury it.

[Abe_froeman]

I think the pro-closure people are really quite blinkered tbh and want to keep these closures whatever the data would say.

It's very odd because this was actually a great opportunity to put in a network of connected safe routes that would encourage "active travel" without increasing pollution. If they could have built a coalition around that they could have achieved so much.

What they've actually achieved is a few dead end streets that aren't even linked up, a massively antagonistic face off with any who isn't wearing lycra, and a total loss of faith and goodwill in the entire project and all they have left is to defend the existing flawed experiments at any costs.

Their greatest (jsutified) fear is that if they lose these closed roads now no one will ever trust them again to try an alternative

[Rockets]

I think we also have to ground some of the discussions going on locally with the fact that the Guys and St Thomas' Trust are insisting on investing ?50,000 in proper monitoring in the 3 Southwark LTNs they are sponsoring so they can properly assess displacement. If a charity is doing this to gather actual data you have to ask why the council is relying on modelling - one can only suspect the charity doesn't believe modelling gives an accurate picture of what is happening (good or bad).

[exdulwicher]

LTNs have been shown (as in the case of Wandsworth) to drive up pollution not down

Wandsworth didn't show anything conclusive - @DulwichCentral covered this point in his/her post above ^^ referencing the Telegraph article. The measures were in place about 3-4 weeks at most before the council pulled them out again based on nothing more than populist noise. Tellingly, the streets of Wandsworth are not now some free-flowing utopia of calm, they're still solid with crawling traffic and the pollution is no different.

Besides, as pointed out many pages ago, this is how it works. You get some short term disruption as people get used to it, changes are made etc and then it settles down.

How long that takes depends on all sorts of factors and most of the predictions have been shot to pieces by pandemic / lockdown / decline in public transport use. It's all very well saying the Dulwich needs better public transport but at the moment very few people are using it and there's not really a consistent baseline to go off.

[Rockets]

But Ex- even when transport is working few people use it in Dulwich because there isn't enough of it and it doesn't go to the places people need it to. You cannot expect wholesale modal shifts in areas without good PTAL scores - it's exactly why Southwarks own advice on closures said exactly that: it needs to go into areas with good PTAL scores and low car ownership levels - neither of which come close to applying in Dulwich.

Ex- is there any proof that the bedding in period is anything but people finding other routes to circumvent the closures? If you look at the Waltham Forest closure there are many other routes available to people to go around the block of closures and the council's own data shows that those roads did experience a permanent increase in traffic. I am starting to wonder whether traffic evaporation is very much a real thing but not in the sense that the pro-closure protagonists use it but in the sense that it evaporates from one street to rain on another one nearby and that Dulwich doesn't have the street layout or geography to allow the absorption and this is why we are seeing the north/south routes struggling as people try to get around the east/west closures.

[cwjlawrence]

Here?s some good news to cheer you all up on a cold Monday night!

Coming back from my daughter's primary school last Friday, I counted 54 unique bicycles between leaving Dulwich Hamlets (not including she or I), cycling along Calton Ave and down EDG to Melbourne Grove. You?re not misreading that - it was 54 bikes in a 5 minute cycle ride. It was like being in Beijing in the 70s!

I've never seen anything like this in East Dulwich and certainly not in the dark on a foggy day in winter! 10 years ago, I wouldn't expect to see anyone cycling and even last year there maybe be only 1 or 2 people, and probably MAMILs at that. Contrast this with this scene of this number of cyclists (of which only 1 or 2 were MAMILS!) going to and from school/work.

In my son's class at school, there has been a real shift in how his classmates get to school with children now cycling from Clapham who used to get driven over in rush-hour traffic.

If this is what it?s like in winter, just imagine what it?s going to be like come the spring - an active travel paradise!

And some even more good news - just to put my money where my mouth is! I?m happy to give away our daughter?s really nice Pinnacle bike (that she?s just grown out of - would suit aged 6-8) to a good home that will use it to cycle to school. Please just PM me :-)

[malumbu]

Nice post. I cycled back from Tooting today in the cold and twilight after donating blood platelets and it was nice to see so many families cycling home from school. I was going to post something but thought (a) this must be a South West London thing (b)I'd get the howls of derision from many of the regular posters. But cwj you spurred me on. I of course booed at all the cars coming from Dulwich College and the like. I didn't really.

[malumbu]

Article on electric vehicles, greening our roads https://www.transporttimes.co.uk/news.php/Greening-the-EV-Transition-586/?utm_source=Transport+Times&utm_campaign=0a64e958c8-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_10_30_11_03_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c0cafa3f39-0a64e958c8-250793593

"This will include understanding how we rebalance road space between cars, buses, cycling and walking. It means not locking-in car dependence by assuming we just replace ICEs with (more) EVs. We should be reducing our carbon footprint by shifting to much more intensive use of a smaller fleet of vehicles and other e-micromobility solutions."

It's a transport academic, but I am sure that many of you know better.

[alice]

cwjlawrence Wrote:

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

> Here?s some good news to cheer you all up on a

> cold Monday night!

>

> Coming back from my daughter's primary school last

> Friday, I counted 54 unique bicycles between

> leaving Dulwich Hamlets (not including she or I),

> cycling along Calton Ave and down EDG to Melbourne

> Grove. You?re not misreading that - it was 54

> bikes in a 5 minute cycle ride. It was like being

> in Beijing in the 70s!

>

> I've never seen anything like this in East Dulwich

> and certainly not in the dark on a foggy day in

> winter! 10 years ago, I wouldn't expect to see

> anyone cycling and even last year there maybe be

> only 1 or 2 people, and probably MAMILs at that.

> Contrast this with this scene of this number of

> cyclists (of which only 1 or 2 were MAMILS!) going

> to and from school/work.

>

> In my son's class at school, there has been a real

> shift in how his classmates get to school with

> children now cycling from Clapham who used to get

> driven over in rush-hour traffic.

>

> If this is what it?s like in winter, just imagine

> what it?s going to be like come the spring - an

> active travel paradise!

When you live in the Golden Triangle of Dulwich - all manner of wonderful transformational sights can be seen.

But for the rest of us. Nah,

[Rockets]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> Article on electric vehicles, greening our roads

> https://www.transporttimes.co.uk/news.php/Greening

> -the-EV-Transition-586/?utm_source=Transport+Times

> &utm_campaign=0a64e958c8-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_10_30

> _11_03_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c0cafa3

> f39-0a64e958c8-250793593

>

> "This will include understanding how we rebalance

> road space between cars, buses, cycling and

> walking. It means not locking-in car dependence by

> assuming we just replace ICEs with (more) EVs. We

> should be reducing our carbon footprint by

> shifting to much more intensive use of a smaller

> fleet of vehicles and other e-micromobility

> solutions."

>

> It's a transport academic, but I am sure that many

> of you know better.

Malumbu - that article poses more questions than it answers (EVs for example not providing whole-life carbon benefits until beyond 2030) and it is clear that whilst we need to decrease our reliance on ICE vehicles there isn't a simple and straight-forward solution.

Electric infrastructure is a huge issue and a major challenge to try to overcome to encourage more EV usage (our council is struggling to put bike racks on streets yet alone providing electric charge points for every household). We all also have to be careful that we don't fall into the Dulwich Village Cycle Mentality which is so prevalent amongst those benefiting from the closures - the - "well I have room to store a bike/charge my Tesla, surely everyone else can" mindset.

And to that end this line from that article is so telling....

There are real risks that the less well-off car-dependent groups and the 25% of households who do not own cars will be disadvantaged.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Thought this was interesting and pretty reflective of my direct experience of the reality on Lordship Lane (I?m sure plenty will dispute it is real):

https://twitter.com/cleanairdulwich/status/1336318085985267714?s=21

[Dulwichgirl82]

Actually what I would say is looking at the videos traffic around GG is fairly heavy on those videos, the area I have been most concerned about. I would also add the the afternoons seem much worse3 -6.30 are horribly busy. I guess at 9 am the school

Run is done whereas in the afternoon there will be cross over of both.

However I think an independent source would be more believable, neither pro or against the closures.

Ironically traffic was fairly bad at 2.30 today around gg/edg whcih you would imagine to be a quieter time!

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Thought this was interesting and pretty reflective

> of my direct experience of the reality on Lordship

> Lane (I?m sure plenty will dispute it is real):

> https://twitter.com/cleanairdulwich/status/1336318

> 085985267714?s=21

[alice]

Sorry rah but that twitter account blocks anyone who even mildly disagrees. Invisibly convincing?

[DulwichCentral]

Rockets Wrote:

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

- "well I have room to store a

> bike/charge my Tesla, surely everyone else can"

> mindset.

>

To equate storing / charging a Tesla with storing a bike is pushing it isn't it?

[legalalien]

Bridget?s comment on that thread is correct - the bad traffic in and around DV is now much earlier since the timed closures went in, as people try and get through the roundabout at Burbage before the restrictions hit - peaks at around 7:30- 8:00 am and traffic takes a while to clear out of the stretch of DV between the roundabout and EDG. And then a second queue to get through when it reopens at 10 am - here?s a pic at 10:10am last thursday...

[Metallic]

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> Actually what I would say is looking at the videos

> traffic around GG is fairly heavy on those videos,

> the area I have been most concerned about. I would

> also add the the afternoons seem much worse3 -6.30

> are horribly busy. I guess at 9 am the school

> Run is done whereas in the afternoon there will be

> cross over of both.

> However I think an independent source would be

> more believable, neither pro or against the

> closures.

> Ironically traffic was fairly bad at 2.30 today

> around gg/edg whcih you would imagine to be a

> quieter time!

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Thought this was interesting and pretty

> reflective

> > of my direct experience of the reality on

> Lordship

> > Lane (I?m sure plenty will dispute it is real):

> >

> https://twitter.com/cleanairdulwich/status/1336318

>

> > 085985267714?s=21

Exactly. All these Pro people choose their time to illustrate their view. Sadly if you live on one of the main roads the traffic is heavier than it was, and although it may be patchy, it still is appalling and never used to be for some of those residents.

Melbourne Grove and Court Lane, Calton Avenue and Woodwarde well, they may be quiet, even silent, but everywhere else is carrying our/their load

[exdulwicher]

Article on electric vehicles, greening our roads [www.transporttimes.co.uk]

Decarbon8 have done a lot of good work so far, sadly the politicians got to the bit about "electric vehicles" and "technology" and went "yay, EVs are the answer to everything, we can build a load more roads!"

As described in that article though, a queue of EVs is still a queue of cars, it's still the same congestion and while it removes the location-specific pollution issue, it doesn't answer the other problems of congestion, parking space, storage when not in use (almost invariably kerb-side) and the obvious one of social inclusion - as mentioned in that article and also in a recent RAC report, EVs are very expensive and not everyone can afford them, you still end up with the wealth inequality problem.

[Rockets]

My experience of LL northbound has been that every Saturday it is nose-to-tail to the GG roundabout. Driving habits are definitely changing and the rush-hour is no longer predictable.

For example, this is a picture I took at 4.30pm today - nose-to-tail to Grove Tavern along Lordship southbound from the Library. Every day feels like a Friday now where the rush-hour starts earlier as people try to get ahead of the traffic.

[Nigello]

Rockets, I see that and I also see empty stretches of LL, so neither shows a typical situation. It shows a snapshot, that's all. Every day feels like a Friday because you maybe want it to because it reinforces your viewpoint? (You also have a car, so are, ipso facto, part of the problem even though you may not want to believe that.)