LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[exdulwicher]

It's clear LTNs are not the answer, they were never the answer - they were a very blunt instrument experiment that has been an epic failure and the council and councillors don't have the guts to admit it - accountability has never been their strong point!

They're PART of the answer. There is no one answer, one silver bullet that solves everything.

Electric vehicles are part of the solution, more walking and cycling (enabled by things like LTNs, more cycle lanes etc) is part of it, increases in cost of motoring (congestion charging, ULEZ, CPZ, fuel duty, road tolls - any combination/permutation of that), better public transport (sort of ignoring the minor pandemic thing at the moment which has absolutely destroyed both P/T usage and confidence) and so on.

They're all PART of the solution but none of them are THE answer in themselves.

[DulwichCentral]

@Dulwichgirl - I have answered your questions so I'd be grateful if you don't accuse me of not answering your questions.

** FIRST you asked me this:-

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

Dulwich central: to echo another question you

> haven?t answered when was court lane a grid locked

> rat run?!

** To which I answered this:

Court lane had double the average amount of traffic for a residential street in Southwark, at times the same amount as lordship lane (an ?A? road). This was up until 8pm, so not just school traffic. All leading into the 5-arm junction with calton avenue, also at saturation point and gridlocked, and dulwich village - at near saturation. This is all in the evidence pack on the council website (google OHS evidence pack). Some here will say that's fake (which is a bit Trump like imo). I know someone who moved out it was so bad.

People in the shops and cafe at the village junction told me they saw near accidents all the time - with thousands of pedestrians / schoolchildren using the dangerous crossings. This is to get to state schools as well as private - so a mix of people.

The council said that the junction could not cope with what we now know to be a massive increase in traffic on residential roads due to Satnavs. I think there have been 3 consultations in 6 years. 2019 was a year long consultation with lots of public meetings.

I hope this is helpful because I think some people have come into this LTN debate without knowing why certain roads were filtered - and some just forget how bad it was. Not that I?m saying that?s yousmiling smiley but since you ask what court lane was like, it was very bad.

Also, I'm 100% sure that the people who support the closure of court lane would also support measures on all the main roads. If there was more unity and everyone pulled together to push the council for more (not less) then I think that would be more productive.

**To which you then answered this (sigh):-

But that?s not really answering my question, what would you say to those now living with the pollution from those roads. To those whose children?s lung are now exposed to worse quality air, possibly health complications. Saying people would ?support measures for main roads? while directing their traffic to other roads really isnt enough. And frankly what are you suggesting, closing lordship lane and east dulwich grove?

**To which I answered this:-

In answer to your other question and following on from what others have discussed here, I would support protected cycle lanes on main roads, reduced parking and 24/7 bus lanes (the parked cars on LLane block the buses and then cause congestion as the buses have to pull out) and road pricing and ULEZ ASAP. I think it would be more productive to push the council for those things urgently.

I don't think opening up residential roads to 'spread out' the traffic is a step in the right direction because it will just go back to how it was, I think it's better to move forwards not backwards if we genuinely want to reduce traffic overall (which I do) - I think its really important to push the council for *more* not less, because what has been proven is that by filtering residential roads people are more likely to switch to cycling or walking - which is an important part of reducing traffic overall.

**Now (see below) you've asked me the same question again (see above) and accuse me of not answering your question.

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> Dulwich central I don?t think you can accuse

> others of ignoring posts when you didn?t answer my

> question of what you would say to those who cannot

> use these closed streets, who instead now need to

> use the roads which have taken their traffic such

> as lordship lane east dulwich grove? My children

> now breathe in far more pollution since the

> introduction of the LTNs as do those going to the

> schools and nurseries on edg, those who play in

> the playground Near East dulwich road and many

> more. Can you really expect people who now

> experience more pollution to support this scheme?

>

>

> As an aside as mrs D points out, how many cycled

> before on this or a different route or who walked

> and now cycled? We don?t have pre data for car

> traffic which is the main aim, so perhaps in order

> to do a genuine comparison the LTNs should be

> removed and data gathered then a genuine

> consultation with accurate data can look at the

> best way to help everyone.

**Now a new question! You ask 'how many cycled before on this' - the answer is half as many as do now as the study shows - cycling has doubled. As for data on cars (another new question) I think thats generally monitored by TfL on main roads and the council have done studies (see above) which people against LTNs will say are fake - I guess that's up to you to decide for yourself by looking at the data.

[DulwichCentral]

So would you rather those 391 cycle journeys were done in cars?

Rockets Wrote:

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

> So let's look at the numbers. The number of

> cyclists observed rose from 417 (in 2018) to 808

> (In November this year) - this is the doubling

> that members of the pro-closure lobby were

> heralding as significant - but it's only 391 more

> cycle journeys.

[Rockets]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> It's clear LTNs are not the answer, they were

> never the answer - they were a very blunt

> instrument experiment that has been an epic

> failure and the council and councillors don't have

> the guts to admit it - accountability has never

> been their strong point!

>

> They're PART of the answer. There is no one

> answer, one silver bullet that solves everything.

> Electric vehicles are part of the solution, more

> walking and cycling (enabled by things like LTNs,

> more cycle lanes etc) is part of it, increases in

> cost of motoring (congestion charging, ULEZ, CPZ,

> fuel duty, road tolls - any

> combination/permutation of that), better public

> transport (sort of ignoring the minor pandemic

> thing at the moment which has absolutely destroyed

> both P/T usage and confidence) and so on.

>

> They're all PART of the solution but none of them

> are THE answer in themselves.

But by default you cannot expect LTNs to work in isolation. The council has put all their money on the LTNs (remember they wanted to throw even more in). So you.must then agree that LTNs in isolation will not be effective? Which brings us back to the point that the LTN experiment has failed and it was doomed to failure as the council loaded all their chips onto that one tactic.

[Dulwichgirl82]

I actually still don?t think you have answered though you obviously think you have-! You have listed things you would do to improve other streets (but significantly less than closing them) but not what you would say to those suffering the negative effects of the LtNs. Or is it a case of tough luck, if you are lucky the council might do something but we still want our roads closed and yours to take the excess traffic? As I said saying ?people would support measure on other roads? really isn?t good enough to people who are being harmed by this. Who now breath even more pollution caused by LTN diversions.

And can you point me to the evidence that traffic has reduced, as I seem to have missed this? My suggestion is genuine data should be looked at to provide a solution to help everyone, not just some people living on and using certain roads.

I think legal alien has a good idea regarding court lane and Carlton. School streets allow safe routes for school

Children and making the other changes would hopefully mitigate some of the negative effects of the closures.

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> So would you rather those 391 cycle journeys were

> done in cars?

>

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > So let's look at the numbers. The number of

> > cyclists observed rose from 417 (in 2018) to

> 808

> > (In November this year) - this is the doubling

> > that members of the pro-closure lobby were

> > heralding as significant - but it's only 391

> more

> > cycle journeys.

Wholly predictable response: no I didn't say that, nor would I prefer that (also very unlikely they would equate to 391 car journeys) as I said that the increases aren't nearly enough to justify the negative impact. Which I then asked you if you felt that increase was worth it on the basis of the negative impact felt by many more people. What's your response to that?

[exdulwicher]

OK, well building on that, what increase of cycle journeys along one street (in the example quoted here) would be sufficient for YOU personally to think that it had worked?

Factor in the uncertainty of the whole situation at the moment and the steep decline in the use of P/T.

Some of it has been massively impacted by the idiocy of Wandsworth and Lewisham in removing them before they'd had any chance of taking effect - neither of those boroughs are miraculously free-flowing, low-pollution utopia now, they're still solid with traffic, it's just *everywhere* rather than on main roads. You're right, they don't work in isolation which is why the oft-quoted Loughborough Junction scheme wasn't a success but tied into other areas, they're a well-known, well-researched part of the solution.

There are exceptions to the isolation thing actually - Gilkes Crescent for example is an LTN that was put in place in the mid-90's and that was very successful right from implementation in removing a lot of the previous jams that used to occur on the Calton / Gilkes junction. Although obviously that's a very different model to Loughborough Junction, not directly comparable.

[Rockets]

Ex- I am no expert so maybe I turn that question back on you as our resident expert. Is that type of increase sufficient to say this has been a success, and do note that most people are still working from home at the moment so it would be interesting to see whether this limited modal shift would be sustained when the pressures of getting to work return? My personal feeling is that the increase is not sufficient to justify the negative impact on the many more people across Dulwich.

Can I also get your opinion on whether these LTNs are implemented in isolation? You quote Loughborough Junction as an example of them not working but the Dulwich closures seem very similar to that: isolated, knee-jerk councillor vanity projects that the council steadfastedly refuses to admit are not working until they are forced to remove them because the emergency services tell them they are risking lives by the congestion they are causing on the surrounding streets. Has anyone not learned from Lambeth's mistakes? You also say they work in combination of other things but what other things have the council implemented to support them? We still have some of the worst PTAL scores in London - would that not be fundamental to assisting them?

Just out of interest when did you last visit Dulwich and what are your views on the congestion being seen on roads like EDG and Lordship Lane?

Here is some content from someone on twitter on the traffic on EDG today...is this acceptable and justified for those 391 cycle journeys?

I drove along the Chelsea Embankment today and along a huge length of it they have put protected cycle lanes in each direction - allowing cycling and driving to co-exist. Such measures will have a far more positive impact on modal shift than closing a bunch of roads in the failed LTN experiment we are are living through in Dulwich.

[malumbu]

Ah Chelsea Embankment. Not my favourite cycle superhighway as this encourages dangerous/fast riding. Funny that I would criticise a segregated cycle way. Similarly the embankment cycle path is too narrow, risking head on collisions and sometimes I prefer to be on the main road. And at quiet times it is taken over by joggers.

Interested in your reaction Rocks to my perverse posting.

[Abe_froeman]

They should have made Calton one way towards dulwich village and court lane one way towards lordship lane and then put a wide two way cycle in the spare lane on each road.

[LEDphobic]

Our lives in Underhill Road have become blighted by excess traffic as drivers try to escape the lights at the junction between the south circular and lordship lane following the closure of Court Lane. We have lived here for many years and have never experienced anything like this. We are not young and unfortunately my partner has significant disabilities, we don?t own a car and so we can?t be accused of being in the pro-cars lobby, and we physically cannot get on a bike, but we used to at least feel safe walking on our streets - it is now just a cacophony of noise, honking horns, aggressive drivers and pollution from early in the morning until late into the evening. So although I understand why people are pleased at being able to enjoy their bike rides and traffic free roads, it has come at a huge price for others. We are not all young and able bodied and the displacement of traffic onto our road is so much more than an inconvenience. This whole exercise is proving to be divisive, inequitable and discriminatory. Everyone wants the same outcome; fewer cars, a cleaner environment and a safer place to live and work, but it cannot be achieved in this manner which is socially unjust.

[Rockets]

LEDphobic Wrote:

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

> Our lives in Underhill Road have become blighted

> by excess traffic as drivers try to escape the

> lights at the junction between the south circular

> and lordship lane following the closure of Court

> Lane. We have lived here for many years and have

> never experienced anything like this. We are not

> young and unfortunately my partner has significant

> disabilities, we don?t own a car and so we can?t

> be accused of being in the pro-cars lobby, and we

> physically cannot get on a bike, but we used to at

> least feel safe walking on our streets - it is now

> just a cacophony of noise, honking horns,

> aggressive drivers and pollution from early in the

> morning until late into the evening. So although

> I understand why people are pleased at being able

> to enjoy their bike rides and traffic free roads,

> it has come at a huge price for others. We are not

> all young and able bodied and the displacement of

> traffic onto our road is so much more than an

> inconvenience. This whole exercise is proving to

> be divisive, inequitable and discriminatory.

> Everyone wants the same outcome; fewer cars, a

> cleaner environment and a safer place to live and

> work, but it cannot be achieved in this manner

> which is socially unjust.

LED this is the new reality. Those supporting the closures will no doubt tell you it's because of Christmas tree sellers somewhere on the A205 or will say that it was always like this or that you are being selective with your photos. Then they, and the council, will tell you it will take time to bed in and we need to give it time. What you won't ever hear is anyone in the council asking you for your opinion or see anyone from the council actually going and looking for themselves or trying to measure the displacement impact.

The experiment has failed and responsibility for what is happening across Dulwich lies at the feet of those responsible for sanctioning it and stedfastedly refusing to do proper analysis of the impact.

This is a way too high a price to pay for those extra 391 cycle journeys, which when you look at the way the analysis was done is probably only about 50 or so families.

[Raeburn]

Last night the traffic was backed up from Forest Hill along South Circ/LL due to the gas main works at the main junction in Forest Hill.

[Rockets]

There we go..right on cue...at least it's not the Xmas tree sellers this time! ;-)

Anyone fancy a game of LTN congestion excuse bingo? ;-)

[LEDphobic]

The photo was taken earlier in the week so presumably not related to gas works at the main junction of Forest Hill. This is our new daily normal and it isn?t justifiable.

[kiera]

Unfortunately, complaints to the council about the displaced congestion on Underhill & other roads may be just the kind of response the council are hoping for so they can argue that the LTN area needs to be extended further into East Dulwich. They are also likely to use it as an excuse to say that Controlled Parking Zones should be extended into the area.

[Metallic]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> They should have made Calton one way towards

> dulwich village and court lane one way towards

> lordship lane and then put a wide two way cycle in

> the spare lane on each road.

Exactly what quite a few said!!

[legalalien]

That seems quite sensible to me as well.

Metallic Wrote:

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

> Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> -----

> > They should have made Calton one way towards

> > dulwich village and court lane one way towards

> > lordship lane and then put a wide two way cycle

> in

> > the spare lane on each road.

>

> Exactly what quite a few said!!

[Wil72]

Has anyone seen the new petition on the Southwark website- calling to remove the road closures but suggesting camera controlled permit schemes instead...

Not sure why we would want this- obviously the reopening of the roads is good but why would we want to have to pay for the privilege of using the same roads that we could use before for free?!

I am sure Southwark would love it though- lets be honest, this was always just a way of fining people for mistakenly driving into the new camera controlled zones

Don't fall for it

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=500000057&RPID=774218585&HPID=774218585

[malumbu]

Yes paying to drive. Good.

[slarti b]

This does not imply payment for the permits wich could be granted to local residennts free of charge. For example Hammersmith & Fulham have a scheme which allows residents free access to LTNs without payment.

[dulwichfolk]

Isn?t half the point of these closures (apart from social distancing and active travel) to prevent local car journeys...can?t see how a permit system would prevent those.

[DulwichCentral]

dulwichfolk Wrote:

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

> Isn?t half the point of these closures (apart from

> social distancing and active travel) to prevent

> local car journeys...can?t see how a permit system

> would prevent those.

And that, in a nutshell, is exactly why One Dulwich wants one.

[legalalien]

It doesn't actually say residents permits though - does anyone know if this is what is meant? Could be permits for say disabled people, emergency vehicles, people who work in the area, delivery drivers - all of which would take traffic off the roads that currently take the displaced traffic? I thought One Dulwich were asking for timed closures?

[DulwichCentral]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> It doesn't actually say residents permits though -

> does anyone know if this is what is meant? Could

> be permits for say disabled people, emergency

> vehicles, people who work in the area, delivery

> drivers - all of which would take traffic off the

> roads that currently take the displaced traffic? I

> thought One Dulwich were asking for timed

> closures?

They are asking for 'Timed closures to through traffic' which means access for all residents to continue making short car journeys.

Seeing as wealth and 'selfishness' gets mentioned a lot here - it's worth noting that some of the wealthiest streets in Dulwich support the One Dulwich idea - to carry on driving around at their convenience while proposing that all through traffic gets pushed onto boundary roads. Lots of these residents own more than one car.