LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Metallic]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> 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.

Know what? Everyone is concerned about the boundary roads as you call them. But all these schemes push traffic somewhere and think for a moment when you next need a carpenter, painter, doctor, post delivery, whatever. They all have to make longer journeys on "boundary roads"

[legalalien]

Closures during peak times, presumably, rather than the other way around ( so that the roads could act as a relief route during peak hours)? Closures during peak times doesn't seem to address the displacement traffic unless a large proportion of the displaced traffic is local residents driving the long way around? Or is the intent to facilitate walking /cycling to school during key windows, I wonder.

[Rockets]

Fascinating data included in the latest Travel in London report: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-13.pdf.

I have been concerned for some time that the council had not done proper analysis of the traffic types and have been too quick to throw in roadblocks when they don't know what is causing the issues.

The report is fascinating and really challenges some of the narratives around traffic in and cross London and goes a long way to validate many who think that vehicle journeys need to be analysed better to determine type before initiating measures.

For example:

Between 2010 and 2018 there has been a net increase in traffic of 0.5% - not good of course but you need to look into the supporting data (but it's not the doomsday many of the pro-closure lobbyists have been touting on social media in terms of traffic increases in recent years).

Car volumes have (comparing 2001/2018/19) declined 38.3% crossing the central London cordon, declined 14.9% crossing the inner cordon and increased 2.8% crossing the boundary cordon.

But, van traffic is up 9.7% crossing the inner cordon and up 29% crossing the boundary cordon.

HGV traffic is down 35.2% in central London, down 10.1% in the inner cordon and down 2.9% on the boundary cordon.

Licensed taxis are down 13% from their peak in 2013/2014.

Licensed private hire vehicles are up 100% from 2008/2009 and account for 29% of daily miles volume in central London, 19% in inner London and 8% in the boundary area. That's huge.

This data goes a long way to show that the problem in London is the increasing dependency of many on home deliveries and people using PHVs to get around the city - neither of which get resolved by the current LTN measures.

It is a huge report and the data within it is fascinating and gives a very clear picture on what is actually happening in terms of transportation in the city - it also shows the positive increases in cycling and walking over the years.

[redpost]

LTNs certainly stop rat-running by PHV on satnavs, so in this respect they are of great benefit

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Fascinating data included in the latest Travel in

> London report:

> http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-

> 13.pdf.

>

> I have been concerned for some time that the

> council had not done proper analysis of the

> traffic types and have been too quick to throw in

> roadblocks when they don't know what is causing

> the issues.

>

> The report is fascinating and really challenges

> some of the narratives around traffic in and cross

> London and goes a long way to validate many who

> think that vehicle journeys need to be analysed

> better to determine type before initiating

> measures.

>

> For example:

>

> Between 2010 and 2018 there has been a net

> increase in traffic of 0.5% - not good of course

> but you need to look into the supporting data (but

> it's not the doomsday many of the pro-closure

> lobbyists have been touting on social media in

> terms of traffic increases in recent years).

>

> Car volumes have (comparing 2001/2018/19) declined

> 38.3% crossing the central London cordon, declined

> 14.9% crossing the inner cordon and increased 2.8%

> crossing the boundary cordon.

>

> But, van traffic is up 9.7% crossing the inner

> cordon and up 29% crossing the boundary cordon.

>

> HGV traffic is down 35.2% in central London, down

> 10.1% in the inner cordon and down 2.9% on the

> boundary cordon.

>

> Licensed taxis are down 13% from their peak in

> 2013/2014.

>

> Licensed private hire vehicles are up 100% from

> 2008/2009 and account for 29% of daily miles

> volume in central London, 19% in inner London and

> 8% in the boundary area. That's huge.

>

> This data goes a long way to show that the problem

> in London is the increasing dependency of many on

> home deliveries and people using PHVs to get

> around the city - neither of which get resolved by

> the current LTN measures.

>

> It is a huge report and the data within it is

> fascinating and gives a very clear picture on what

> is actually happening in terms of transportation

> in the city - it also shows the positive increases

> in cycling and walking over the years.

[Rockets]

Redpost - that's if the intention is to displace elsewhere - the stated aim of these measures is to reduce traffic so by default if what you are advocating happens then it cannot be deemed to be a success.

[Metallic]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Closures during peak times, presumably, rather

> than the other way around ( so that the roads

> could act as a relief route during peak hours)?

> Closures during peak times doesn't seem to address

> the displacement traffic unless a large proportion

> of the displaced traffic is local residents

> driving the long way around? Or is the intent to

> facilitate walking /cycling to school during key

> windows, I wonder.

Everyone is hoping the closures will be decreased to an hour morning and an hour in the afternoon. I think so anyway.

[Bicknell]

Link to new petition. more than 200 signed.

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=500000057&RPID=774240192&HPID=774240192

[malumbu]

Latest from those 'eco nazis' Sustrans. Thought it was a good read:

https://sustrans-info.org.uk/6EB-76JPS-DD1B73C40B24C94FA1PZC872EDE79EEC3C0AA7/cr.aspx

[northbank]

it's so good we have so many experts in traffic management on this forum. just a shame none of them take the step to work somewhere they could make use of this expertise

[malumbu]

Thanks, I do in deed know a lot, and I use this in my profession. I've only spoken in generalities on this thread, others know far more about SE22. I'm just a road user and have changed my travel arrangements accordingly, generally appreciating the changes but occasionally being frustrated. Big picture for me.

PS good post.

[LEDphobic]

As we are now in the unfortunate position of having a many fold increase in the volume of traffic on our road since these measures have been introduced and my blind partner can no longer safely act independently and cross his own road the talk of occasional frustration is a little galling. For many of us these changes have been so much more - At the end of our road there is a residential complex for the visually impaired. They won?t have a voice on this forum and their lives will be negatively effected too, and what about the elderly residents in the nursing home further down which is situated close to the road. They don?t appear to have been considered in these decisions, and of course none of these people are contributing to the pollution or noise since they don?t drive. This is not an argument against reducing traffic, it?s an argument against measures which are unjust and discriminatory, and it shouldn?t be acceptable for some to benefit from this while others life?s are blighted. Surely the bigger picture has to include caring equally for all Southwark residents.

[malumbu]

Local authority should have taken such things into account - not a great borough but here's an example in Kensington and Chelsea https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/committees/Document.ashx?czJKcaeAi5tUFL1DTL2UE4zNRBcoShgo=Yf7zbQZ%2FvJl07MrTAgdHx9Y7o8%2Bc2SwE2R62J2xrNUfp6KR1FOnJOA%3D%3D&mCTIbCubSFfXsDGW9IXnlg%3D%3D=hFflUdN3100%3D&kCx1AnS9%2FpWZQ40DXFvdEw%3D%3D=hFflUdN3100%3D&uJovDxwdjMPoYv%2BAJvYtyA%3D%3D=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&FgPlIEJYlotS%2BYGoBi5olA%3D%3D=NHdURQburHA%3D&d9Qjj0ag1Pd993jsyOJqFvmyB7X0CSQK=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&WGewmoAfeNR9xqBux0r1Q8Za60lavYmz=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&WGewmoAfeNQ16B2MHuCpMRKZMwaG1PaO=ctNJFf55vVA%3D

I'm still very supportive of LTNs but there could be action taken to improve things for partially sighted and otehrs who may have similar needs

[northernmonkey]

So I?ve seen the new petition quoted upthread

Isn?t this back to ?dulwich roads for (as yet unspecified) dulwich people only?

All the comments here seemed to have been how terrible displacement onto other roads is. Then suddenly there?s a petition that suggests closing roads only at peak time (ie when the comments re displacement are relevant) and it?s a good idea?

Doesn?t this mean that basically any issues on boundary roads that are found to exist continue AMD the areas within the restriction has increased local traffic?

[Bicknell]

i dont read it like that at all @northernmonkey

if you close roads 24/7 and dont allow anyone through restrictions, all the traffic will be displaced all the time onto other roads. a binary solution, as everyone says these days. It is right that some drivers should be allowed through whatever restrictions there are - ambulances, carers, blue badge hodlers etc. The rest you sort out. The council wants roads to be clear when children go to school. So you have to clear them at those times - 8-9 and 3-4, whatever. Then you decide what else is fair.

but thats only a small part. if yu really want people to use cars less, for gods sake make sure theres public transportl Dulwich doenst have a tube, and there are no connections east-west. So if people cant drive, and cant walk, or cycle, what do they do?

There really are solutions to this, if only people could start talking.

its all this us-them, us-them thats getting in the way.

[legalalien]

I think the petition is quite carefully crafted. It doesn't specify proposed closure times or exactly who would benefit from permits. It just seeks to reopen the issues. I think that's sensible as it allows all of those who have issues with the current closures to get behind it - with a view to getting the council to take a fresh look at the whole scheme. I gather it's been set up by One Dulwich even though it doesn't say that? I guess that those running that group have a view on the best solution - which others with concerns about the current scheme (me) may or may not agree with, but that's something to be discussed once the primary aim of opening discussions has been achieved? So yes, northernmonkey I share your concern, but I think we need to get to a position of " something needs to change with the current scheme" first, and then work on what that change is.

Otherwise the risk is that there is a split between those who favour different solutions and we end up with the status quo.

[malumbu]

Measured post. Cheers.

Bicknell, suggest you go back in a time machine, and tell those who instigated our travel network of the need to get train lines, which also spawned the underground, and horse drawn buses, which with tram lines, spawned the bus network of today, to make better plans for the future. Whilst you are at it the land owners that would not allow rail network to go into central London, hence the ring of terminus stations. Oh and broad gauge too. Alternatively if you could go back in your time machine and change world history so that we became part of the soviet bloc, so we could plan our network properly (my fave is Budapest, joined up and trolley buses and trams too). Or that Hitler had successfully levelled London so we could rebuild like say Rotterdam. Or that Christopher Wren had not kept to the medieval street plan, so we could have wide boulevards like Paris.

As my local MP wrote when I complained years ago about Thameslink not stopping at London Bridge in the mornings, "if only our Victorian forefathers had realised the success of their networks" (Bottle neck at LB which has been sorted over 100 years later).

London's gone five steps forward, and one back, since my time in the metropolis in terms of public transport. I see that as glass 4/5 full.

[Spartacus]

Malumbu

Whilst you are at it in your time machine can you stop the folly of removing trams from London (of which East Dulwich had its fair share) as they would have evolved to provided the clean green electric solution we all want.

Sometimes I think our forefathers had things right, trams, electric delivery milk floats, recycling of milk bottles on the doorstep (home delivery), investment in green spaces (parks) and beer at 1'6 a pint.

[malumbu]

Beers still 1'6 a pint in the Ivy - they have an old price list up - but they fail to accept offers of 7 1/2 p. Go down to the London Transport Museum, or its depot at Acton when we are allowed again. Interesting the see that buses were superior to trams in terms of comfort, although modern versions are very different. Forest Hill was seen as a wonderful place for a night out as the trains, trams and buses met there. Rather than a congested people unfriendly junction it is now.

[Rockets]

Season's greetings all. Whether you celebrate or not have a good one and here's hoping 2021 is better cumulatively than 2020 - let's be honest the the bar is very low so let's keep our fingers crossed.

P.S. did anyone else hear that Santa is concerned by the LTNs as his sleigh might be too wide to get through the planters although I understand he may have commandeered a couple of cargo bikes to help?.....;-)

[alice]

There were some forbidden sounds reported from that junction

[malumbu]

What did it cost Santa to park his sleigh in East Dulwich (neatly sidestepping discussions on CPZs etc), nothing - it was on the house.

On that note flying cars are now on sale :

What do you reckon to that rocks? I bet those pesky cyclists, environmentalists and Southwark Council will come up with a local low traffic sky scheme.

[Bicknell]

@malumbu

happy boxing day andhope your Xmas was ok.

I said we need better public transport andwe do. doesnt have to be tubes, trams trains, so no time machine needed. Could be green buses.the point is that one reasons people have cars round here is becasuse getting around is hard if you cant walk or cycle. so the council should factor that in. if tfl too broke to do it, have to find another way.

[nxjen]

Agree public transport is not too good especially at the moment so getting around is difficult for those who can?t walk or cycle but can those who keep putting forward this as an argument give us some idea what kind of percentage this refers to?

[Spartacus]

Nxjen what percentage is acceptable to you ?

To someone who relies on their car because they can't walk or cycle then I expect 0% disadvantaged is the only acceptable figure yet to those who are young and fit the percentage will be higher as they won't see the struggles others will endure if the schemes stay as they are or expand.

Maybe part of the consultation that everyone wants the council to do should include questions on how able are you to walk more than 50 yards to see how much it will impact people.

[KidKruger]

Forget 50 yards, more like a short number of miles - as that?s what is quoted as basis for many car journeys ie. short and local.