LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Rockets]

Another interesting post from OneDulwich, timely given today's discussion:

Why was Dulwich chosen for an LTN?

29 Mar

We?ve been puzzling for some time over why Southwark chose Dulwich Village for its first ever Low Traffic Neighbourhood. If you look at the July 2020 report from Southwark?s Environment Scrutiny Commission, Dulwich doesn?t fit any of the criteria they recommend.

Ideally, the report says, Southwark should create LTNs ?as a priority? in areas of deprivation, with high levels of public transport, poor air quality, and lower levels of car ownership.

Dulwich Village ticks none of these boxes. It has very low levels of public transport, generally (before the LTN went in) better air quality than other parts of Southwark, high car ownership ? and is the least deprived area in the Borough.

Dulwich has the very lowest public transport (PTAL) ratings of 1 (purple & mauve) and 2 (blue)

Dulwich has the very lowest public transport (PTAL) ratings of 1 (purple & mauve) and 2 (blue)

So why choose Dulwich?

Cynics might say that Southwark picked a highly car-dependent area in order to make a lot of money from fines. A recent FOI (Freedom of Information) request has revealed that in just seven weeks, from January to February this year, four ANPR cameras in Dulwich Village (a fifth camera was out of action) resulted in 22,424 penalties ? which, if everyone paid ?65 (the early fine), will have netted the Council nearly ?1.5 million. This is an eye-watering amount.

Others might argue that the 2016 re-design of Dulwich Village junction ? which nearly 70% of locals voted against, and which arguably made cycling less safe than before ? was such a mess that the Council was anxious to close everything down in order to hide its mistake.

But maybe there?s another explanation. Could Southwark?s decision to place its first ever LTN in an inappropriate area have been influenced by the expectation of strong local support? Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are, after all, controversial: you wouldn?t push ahead with implementing one in an unsuitable area unless you were pretty sure you could overcome local opposition.

Dulwich has a high concentration of schools ? nursery, primary and secondary, both state and private. We know that a well-established lobby group, Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School (SRS), has supported the idea of road filters for many years. We have also established that the Council had regular meetings with a working group before, during and after Phase 3 of Our Healthy Streets Dulwich (January to April 2020) ? a group ?set up to help run the OHSD consultation process?, according to one of our local councillors. This working group included representatives from Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School, Living Streets (a charity that has worked closely with the London Cycling Campaign since 2018 on promoting LTNs), the Dulwich Society and, towards the end, Calton Avenue residents? association.

The working group?s role seems to have been informal and advisory ? offering comments, for example, on the presentation that Southwark eventually put forward at the public meetings in February and March. No minutes of what they discussed are available. But the group?s links with the Council were sufficiently strong for its members to be given advance sight of the interim Phase 3 consultation results ? results, both then and to this day, that have never been made public. Despite this lack of transparency, and the fact that the full results remain unpublished, Southwark still talks of this January to April 2020 consultation as evidence of community support, and a mandate for the current LTN measures.

It's not usual practice, as far as we know, for a council to hold private meetings with a small, select group of local lobbyists in the run-up to a public consultation ? or to share confidential data with them. Did Southwark somehow get the impression from these off-the-record briefings that the local community was in favour of 24/7 closures? Did conversations over many months with this hand-picked and unrepresentative group encourage the Council to push ahead with a scheme that was so obviously flawed and unjust?

We haven?t so far heard of a working group advising the Council on the forthcoming May 2021 review, but will let you know if anything comes to light.

[heartblock]

Why is the LCC planning our roads?

[Rockets]

And I really hope the council is ensuring they are doing everything they can to ensure all residents are informed of the review, it seems a bit haphazard at the moment and a lot of streets have not received the review leaflet.

Also, given the CPZ consultation eliminated the responses from anyone outside of the review area how will the views of, say a Southwark cyclist not from an SE22 postcode or a taxi or delivery driver doing their job be managed against someone living on one of the displacement roads?

Has the council shared any details or is it just a free-for-all?

[malumbu]

What on earth have you turned this thread into? A war between cyclists and drivers? Not really sure what is going on in your collective heads.

Reducing emissions means reducing the number of cars. If this benefits active travel, well that is great. If there are local environmental groups representing motorists please do bring them into the discussion. This means measures that discourage driving. Not building dual carriageways. Or building a maglev train system.

[PS cyclists are road users, and have the same rights when on the road as other users. On shared routes (all roads with vehicular access apart from motorways and the odd other road such as the Strand underpass) all legitimate modes/vehicles should be able to share road space.]

[alice]

I ride a bike. Wouldn?t define myself as a cyclist. Dulwich must open.

[Peckham Park]

Malambu your argument is logical fallacy. No one disagrees that roads are for all users. The only problem with the LTNs are that they are for one user i.e cyclists. No one on this forum is anti cyclist, cycle lanes, and other such improvements would be welcomed by everyone.

[Rockets]

Malumbu - reducing emissions is not entirely dependent on reducing the number of cars and your focus on this highlights the obsessive nature of many of those on the pro-LTN lobby that cars are the root of all evil. Of course, they have a part to play in reducing them but cutting car use to zero is not the panacea of the world's climate problems - there's a lot that needs to happen like the reduction on global trade and transportation by polluting cargo ships or the burning of fossil fuels in the form of gas or oil.

I would challenge that it is, in fact, the myopic war on cars being waged by the council that has got us into this mess. Cars are part of the problem not the only problem but the council has become so blinkered in their thinking that they have installed measures that create more problems than they solve. There has been zero common-sense applied to the process and the council seemingly only engaged with groups who also wanted to reduce/eliminate car use and ignored the input of those (emergency services) that rely on vehicles to do their job. The council hid behind Covid as the trojan horse to implement these measures and used it as a convenient excuse to prevent any consultation with residents.

Perhaps they should have listened more to the wider constituents who were calling out the folly of these draconian measures they were proposing (and lots were predicting exactly what has happened with congestion on the boundary roads) rather than the self interest-groups they were consulting, engaging and surrounding themselves with.

This whole sorry debacle is a salutary lesson on how not to do things and, as I have been saying since the beginning, the council is doing more short-term and long-term harm to the emissions and climate change fight.

[DulwichCentral]

So in One Dulwich's latest "news" flash, from the group who *claim* to support active travel, they attempt to malign every single established group who has ever campaigned for healthy streets locally and London-wide.

As ever: disingenuous, devious, desperate and deceitful.

[slarti b]

DulwichCentral,

You seem upset, which News flash is this and what does it contain that is disingenuous, devious and decitful? ( nice alliteration!!)

Is it as deceitful as the council's claimed increase of 47% in traffic through Dulwich Village that lobby groups still trot out?

[Trevor Moore]

Why has it taken FOIs to extract information from the Council that just happens not to fit with the story spun about what the community wanted? This map showing where the scant support came from for a 24/7 closures plan indicates why the Council wanted to keep the info secret - despite countless requests. Because it wasn't the community that decided. https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/who-closed-dulwich-village-junction

Those adjectives are a bit rich when the Council had a secret working group, made up of the lobbyists, that devised the plans. Residents didn't get a look in. Obviously the cycling lobby have only one agenda (you can't blame paid people for doing what they're asked) - that's why I won't join their groups, even though I'm a regular cyclist. But it's a mystery why the clean air gang and safe routes to school gang don't seem to care that (e.g.) East Dulwich Grove has become dangerous (both in pollution and road safety terms) for school kids going to the multiple schools on the road. With a health centre bang smack in the middle. All that seems to matter to some is Dulwich Village. That's not very empathetic.

The time for transparency is now...let's hope it happens on the new review. A bad start, with so many not having received the flyer inviting people to register.

[malumbu]

An online seminar a few weeks ago featuring a number of well known officials and academics discussing decarbonisation of road transport. This is not just about banning the internal combustion engine, but reducing car use. One talks about tackling single occupancy journeys - I find the reduced average occupancy of cars (pre-Covid) pretty awful. The seminar is high level, and has not gone into detail about local measures. Rachel Aldred from Westminster University is quite impressive, give it a go when the warm weather ends. It's good to be informed on both sides of the debate.

[slarti b]

@Trevor Moore

Completely agree with you about this fixation on turning the lower end of Calton Avenue into a square, it was never mentioned as an objective on the OHS consultations but seems to have been an objective all along.

Also your comments about Safe Routes to School. For an organisation dominated by the local private schools they seem remarkably unaware about the impact of their support on the displacement roads, not just EDG and Lordship Lane but also Croxted and Half Moon, all of which have state schools on.

But I can see why Alleyns is keen on these measures. Calton Ave is (temporarily?) closed and Townley\EDG junction is closed for 5 hours a day which makes it a lot easier for parents to drop children off near the school. And less disruptive alternatives, such as cycle lane on Calton would stop staff and pupils parking there. Doesn't helpchildren walking to eg the Charter though does it.

[Nigello]

When the private schools are on holiday, the level of traffic around the area drops a fair amount (yes, hard to say what that is, but I'd say at least 20 percent). Levels also drop off more when both state and private holidays coincide.

[northernmonkey]

It is a good question as to why its taken FOIs to release information - this hasn't been acceptable - but its not just 'one side' of the debate who feels this. Better council communication would be helpful all round.

I'm all for the information being released - whereas now we are in a position where the data hasn't been released to anyone except seemingly 'One Dulwich' via FOI and they are still issuing 'trailers' for it like its some kind of gripping cliffhanger!

[DulwichCentral]

@slatib: "Completely agree with you about this fixation on turning the lower end of Calton Avenue into a square, it was never mentioned as an objective on the OHS consultations but seems to have been an objective all along."

What's this then?

https://images.app.goo.gl/PeaSwUvXh3r6Mwp9A

There's lots of pics on the OHS website of packed out meetings too - maybe you and Trevor can spot yourselves there ;)

[rch]

Here?s a link to the information that was publicly circulated for the Phase 3 Consultation:-

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/our-healthy-streets-dulwich-phase-3/

There are several useful links at the bottom, as well.

FYI, I actually attended the presentation listed at Alleyn?s on February 8th, which I found to be quite frustrating. But I haven?t seen any information on the outcome of this consultation, so I look forward to this being made public...

[Bicknell]

@DulwichCentral

shwere are those drawings from?

also about the packed meetings - the more infomration that comes out, the more you realize that all the stuff we were told was rubbish. like the 47% more traffic through the junction - thats just not true

[Metallic]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> An online seminar a few weeks ago featuring a

> number of well known officials and academics

> discussing decarbonisation of road transport.

> This is not just about banning the internal

> combustion engine, but reducing car use. One

> talks about tackling single occupancy journeys - I

> find the reduced average occupancy of cars

> (pre-Covid) pretty awful. The seminar is high

> level, and has not gone into detail about local

> measures. Rachel Aldred from Westminster

> University is quite impressive, give it a go when

> the warm weather ends. It's good to be informed on

> both sides of the debate.

>

>

Rachel Aldred. Oh dear. That the best you can do?

[slarti b]

Dulwich Central

But creating a square wasn't an an objective of OHS was it ?

Have a look at the OHS slide presentation where it sets out the guiding principles, including, for example "minimise inconvenience for local journeys". Where in those guiding principles does it say to create a "Dulwich square"?

And thanks for reminding me about the consultations. Those were the ones where our local councillors started by saying something had to be done because of the massive, 47% increase in traffic through the village, and the big increase in traffic along Calton? Neither of which were true. Oh well, I hope the forthcoming consultation is fully transparent, objective. and based on accurate data.

edited to add btw I am still waiting to hear from you about these "deceitful and devious" claims from OneDulwich

[alice]

Make court and gilkes complimentary one-way streets with clear bike lanes. Open Court with bus and bike lines minimal on street parking. Then everybody is happy.

[rch]

Bicknell and slarti... everything, including the drawings, are in the document that I?ve posted the link to above...

[rch]

Here?s another useful document... the Dulwich Area Traffic Study published in April 2018:-

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Dulwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf

[alice]

None of that means anything now. Things are starting to change.

[alice]

Lyndhurst one way has just completed this looks good.

[Rockets]

They are starting to change - the council is under pressure from residents across the area and people are asking questions and scrutinising their every move, helped by some great analysis and focus by groups like OneDulwich.....

Will the long-awaited review be fair and transparent?

28 Mar

Southwark has promised an eight-week public consultation on the road closures, starting in May.

You can register to have your say by going to www.southwark.gov.uk/dulwichreviewreg or by writing to Highways ? Dulwich Review, 3rd Floor, Hub 2, 160 Tooley Street, London SE1 2QH.

So how will the consultation work? Details are slowly emerging ? and seem to be contradictory. This doesn?t inspire confidence in a process that is supposed to be comprehensive and transparent.

There is also anxiety that those who are seriously affected by the road closures may be excluded ? not only because they?re not online, but also because they?re not members of an organised group (like the one below) encouraging them to take part.

2021-03-28 Leeming Tweet.png

Everything got off to a bad start earlier this week when a newsletter was delivered through local letterboxes. Explaining the consultation process, the newsletter said, ?We will write to every household in the LTN areas plus all addresses on both sides of boundary roads.?

However, the delivery missed out a large number of residents on Lordship Lane and Turney Road ? and all residents on the Lambeth side of Croxted Road. Despite a special section of the newsletter aimed at businesses (?If you run a local business??), no newsletters were delivered to any businesses in Dulwich Village, Melbourne Grove, Grove Vale or Lordship Lane.

Confidence drops further when we turn to the crucial issue of who will be eligible to take part in the May consultation, and how the Council will ensure that the process is trustworthy.

On 12 March, the Leader of the Council Kieron Williams emailed a local resident to say that a newsletter would direct people to a consultation hub, where there would be links to separate surveys for the three main LTNs (Dulwich Village, East Dulwich and Champion Hill). ?The newsletter will have a unique reference number which ideally will be entered on the survey questionnaire so we can distinguish between those inside the LTN and anyone else who completes and submits a survey.?

Cllr Williams went on to say that the survey would be open to all and that the newsletter would contain details on how residents could access hard copies of the survey if required.

On 25 March, in response to a different set of questions from a local RA, a Southwark employee provided information that seemed to contradict the Leader?s email of 12 March. We quote this below [our italics and underlining]:

All survey responses will be unique as they will require an address to be included. This is so we can distinguish between those inside the LTN areas and anyone else who completes and submits a survey. This was changed from the original proposal to have a unique reference number when it was decided not to send out the questionnaires until after 6th May.

The newsletter directs people to the consultation hub where there is further information and a link to register for the survey and associated separate questionnaires for the three main LTNs (Dulwich Village, East Dulwich and Champion Hill). However, you will be able to complete all three questionnaires if you wish.

If you access the registration form you will note the drop down menu for addresses which shows all the roads covered. This includes Melbourne Grove, Lordship Lane and Croxted Road. All residents, businesses, schools, surgeries and any other premises will have received a copy of the newsletter.

It?s hard to know what to make of all this. The number of roads on the drop-down menu has increased since the page first went live, but it?s still not a comprehensive list. What are the criteria for inclusion? Is there a map of the review area? It?s not clear either who is eligible to respond (how many responses per household, for example), or how the Council will ensure that all those it intends to contact ? including local businesses ? will actually receive a copy of the newsletter. How will responses be weighted and assessed? Will comments made by someone living in, say, the Dulwich Village LTN about the Champion Hill LTN carry less weight than those made by someone living in Champion Hill?

Finally, if the idea of a unique reference number has been abandoned, what will prevent multiple entries? As a One Dulwich supporter says, ?What?s to stop someone filling in a form on behalf of next door?s cat??

As more unsatisfactory details dribble out, we will let you know.