LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Nigello]

I, too, am sick of parents drivign kids to school, especially those who live near to the schools in question. But, there is no law against it, so selfish humans will do what selfish humans do, so that is why, despite wailing and whining, some measures have to be taken - just because humans CBA to get up half-an-hour earlier or take a bus, etc. LTNs are not necessarily bad, but when they are bunged in hurriedly, without notification, let alone consultation, bad feelings are bound to arise.

So, if you - yes YOU - are reading this and thinking "well, I am a good person because I don't do take my car out that much", think again and promise to get your arses into gear at least once a week so as not to have to make that journey you think is a must.

[Spartacus]

Nigelo

How do you know it's not a must or in the case of disabled and elderly, the only option

I agree school runners are part of the problem but there needs to be a consultation where the council actually pays attention to the residents and not just lip service.

The people have a long memory and next May isn't far away 🤔

[Siduhe]

Why not work towards a positive outcome rather than something half baked? What will London be like in 30 years time if we don't act now? Can someone provide me with an alternative plan to reduce car journeys?

I think most of us on here totally agree with you - very few people are asking for all LTNs to be removed or arguing there's no need for them. I'm certainly not one of them.

But what we have now is half-baked - it benefits few at the expense of others and (broadly) there's a social divide between the places that are benefiting (largely houses with gardens and sheds) and those that are taking the brunt of the current measures (far more flats and shared housing with less outside space and no space to store bikes).

But the Council simply won't engage on that at the moment or even commit to active monitoring of the impacts outside the core area of the LTNs - which is what is stirring up the strong feelings and frankly disincentivising people from making changes. I'll give you a personal example - I'm a commuting cyclist, and my journey home at peak times is now more traffic heavy and less safe than it used to because I live on roads that are taking the brunt of displacement from the Court Lane closure. That hasn't encouraged me to keep up the cycling at all, in fact if I have to come home at peak times, rather than after the evening rush, I actively avoid cycling.

So my idea is that we actually look at the impacts of the current schemes and make adjustments to help the places and people that are experiencing adverse effects - that could be more LTNs - it could be time-limited closures, it could be more cycle lanes, it could be cycle hangers reserved for people in flats, not people in houses with outside space. But it has to be based on facts, not supposition, and an actual, robust baseline that we can judge success against. Not figures that have been "managed" in the way that the Council has now accepted their initial figures were (not necessarily their fault but their baseline is based on a statistical rebasing of DoT data, not actual data).

[heartblock]

You are right Siduhe, the problem is that now the LTNs are on these wealthier streets, EDST Healthy Streets and Clean Air Dulwich...run by a handful of individuals living on Melbourne, Derwent, Calton etc have Village and Goose Green Councillors in their pockets and they will do or say anything to keep their gated roads, aided by the rather foolish councillors. LTNs not where there is need, but selfishness and greed.

[smooch]

I am sick to death of the LTN denyers ignoring the fact that there is ample footage of constant gridlock on manyalot of roads because some key artery roads have been shut off.

There is too much footage of ambulances and other emergency vehicles caught in gridlock

I have lived here for over 30 years, and since the LTN's went in, the traffic is appalling.

Midwives and other health care workers are reporting serious concerns

local long standing businesses are voicing serious concerns

some local businesses have had a dramatic negative impact on their day to day running

The fact that it is a few very wealthy streets with wide roads and front gardens who are 'benefiting' seems bizarre when most people are negatively impacted

as a cyclist, some of the main roads are now more dangerous

the levels of animosity/anger/division that these changes have caused in our community seems incredibly unhealthy let alone the raised pollution levels for the majority of residents

There seems to be a completely blinkered approach from the council - they only want to listen to people who are of their point of view. I have emailed the various councillors and it is very clear they have to toe the line.

It seems incredulous that we have all been through the most difficult year, part of which is an enourmous negative impact on local businesses hanging on by the skin of their teeth - only to have any sort of recovery dreadfully curtailed.

These 'tweaks' are creating havoc - the were implemented for the best intentions but please wake up = they are having the most dreadful results and actually causing worse damage to the air quality to the majority.

edited to add that the businesses I know and residents are very concerned about the impact on their day.

businesses are reporting a real concern about lack of passing trade

residents feel "locked in"

[malumbu]

Orange owl Wrote:

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

> Not a new poster just sick of too many people

> driving their kids to school from Greenwich,or

> driving to the park to walk their dog because it?s

> raining

Not just when it is raining. Many I know drive out locally, or further a field, to exercise their hounds. Never understood that when there are plenty of walks around here. Good example of unnecessary journeys.

[LTN BooHoo]

I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed and accept that the current LTNs are not perfect. I have seen some of the rubbish on Twitter and have to say most of the aggressive behaviour comes from the anti LTN side. If not aggression than being economical with the truth. But never mind that if there are people who want to explore what is best for Dulwich and best for London in terms of making a meaningful contribution to the climate emergency then let?s do it.

However, discussions needs a facilitator who is impartial and has the expertise in transport and urban design to look at Dulwich and the wider area. Such an exercise will only be successful if there is broad agreement that something needs to be done to reduce cars, short journeys and encourage walking and cycling. I?ve not seen much that is positive coming from the One Dulwich group who seem to want the LTNs removed or for residents to have permits which is a proposal I don?t understand.

But I honestly don?t think any of the bone will happen even on World Earth Day so carry on with your discussions.

[heartblock]

From the OneDulwich site ?Fair Air for East Dulwich is a group of residents, parents and businesses who have been asking Southwark Council for months to monitor air pollution on these roads. Because this hasn?t happened, they are now having to find the money to do the monitoring themselves?

?We?ve been talking for a while about finding a way of linking the main railway hubs (West Dulwich, East Dulwich, North Dulwich, Herne Hill) with health centres, hospitals and schools ? a zero emissions bus service, perhaps, like the community-owned and run bus company ?The Big Lemon? operating in Brighton. This would benefit not only all the schoolchildren travelling around Dulwich, but also the elderly and less mobile, and the carers and health professionals who visit them.?

[slarti b]

@LTN

Welcome to the forum and congratulations on your first, and second, post. I hope you are not one of those who pop on the forum to disparage and abuse anyone who questions the local Councillor's botched traffic changes and their impacts, especially One Dulwich, but then refuses to answer any challenges and disappears. (eg @DulwichCentral ,how is your data analysis going? )

However, you have not made a good start, lets look at your comments so far:

"We have One Dulwich promoting the falsehood that ambulance services are being delayed, However, Darren Farmer gave evidence in March 2021 to Southwark's Environment Scrutiny Committee and stated that this was not the case. (Look it up)"

Are you referring to the same meeting I watched?

Darren stated that following the London wide Covid traffic schemes, travel time from scene to hospital had risen from 14 to 16.5 minutes (1:05:45. Darren then says (1:06:09) that the number of delayed responses due to infrastructure changes (ie LTN's) across London is 170 of which 51 are in Southwark!! Darren goes on to say how the Ambulance Service would prefer camera controlled access as in Islington rather than hard 24\7 closures as at Dulwich Village(1:06:29 By this stage C'llr Newens was looking pretty concerned as Darren confirmed what many people have been saying and she had been denying. Maybe YOU should look it up.

"We have long standing LTNs in the area that didn't raise any issues. What's the problem now? E.g. Gilkes Crescent and Milo Road, closed road due to rat running."

An interesting example. Neither are LTN's but both closures were eventually imposed many years ago following poorly thought through traffic measures implemented by Southwark Council despite warnings by local residents that traffic would be diverted along those roads. Southwark were warned about the implications of their scheme but carried on regardless and used rigged traffic count figures to mislead the public. Sounds familiar?

"On balance I think the LTNs are a good thing but they will only be successful if the community works together as more must be done to encourage people out of their cars. Trump style scaremongering and falsehoods will serve no one."

Well,the Trump style scaremongering has come from our local Councillors and their favoured "vocal minority"activists. Do you remember those claims that urgent action was needed because traffic along Dulwich Village had increased by 47% ? It was the leading argument in the OHSD consultations and was constantly repeated by SRS and such like. And that there had been a massive increase in traffic along Calton Avenue. Neither of these claims are true, they have been totally discredited. However, they are still being promulgated by SRS etc amongst the naive and innocent.

"I?ve not seen much that is positive coming from the One Dulwich group who seem to want the LTNs removed or for residents to have permits which is a proposal I don?t understand. "

You are clearly just misrepresenting OneDulwich and haven't read their web site. OneDulwich have no problem with time limited restrictions but are against 24\7 hard closures. Indeed, many of the people behind OneDulwich proposed such a scheme during the QW7 consultations 5 years ago. however the council however decided to go ahead with the botched remodelling of the junction. It seems they are repeating their mistakes.

As for permits, well these were a key feature of the OHS scheme proposed by our local Councillors and Southwark Council during the OHS phase 3 consultations. These are also standard in other boroughs. If you don't understand them I suggest you ask C'llrs Newens and Leeming to help you understand why they who were championing them a year ago.

I really look forward to your reply.

Edited to remove a couple of flippant comments about C'llr Newen's reaction when Darren Farmer contradicted what she has been telling her constituents.

[heartblock]

I imagine the new poster is living in Melbourne, Derwent or Court, much like all 5 of the people who make up Clean Air Dulwich-EDSTN ..which is basically the same group, of course the silly councillors know all five in this group..isn?t one a town planner who designs for the Council?

A real campaign for clean air would be raising the terrible idea of plans to build on green spaces with mature trees in the Bells and Brenchley estates, campaigning for local transport, asking for pollution monitoring on all roads and asking why green spaces are being removed.

These are not real campaigns about clean air and places for children to play safely. They are campaigns for gated, exclusive traffic free areas for the wealthiest in Southwark. Desperate to dismiss residents on LL, EDG and Croxted, they troll on Twitter and block mothers, businesses and cyclists who disagree with them - calling them ?misinformed? and trying to indicate they are all against reducing pollution and want to be able to drive anytime, any place and denying the actual lived experience of people who live on these boundary roads.

[first mate]

@ LTN said: "We have One Dulwich promoting the falsehood that ambulance services are being delayed, However, Darren Farmer gave evidence in March 2021 to Southwark's Environment Scrutiny Committee and stated that this was not the case. (Look it up)"

@LTN, having "looked it up" Darren Farmer makes the point that LTNs in Southwark are impacting all blue light services as well as a raft of community health and care services. He is clear, the preference is for proper consultation (inferring that has not been the case) and cameras with timed closures, as in Islington, he says.

I agree with Slarti, at this point Cllr Newens looks uneasy as does Cllr Rose.

Heartblock, I also agree it is hard to align the council's OHS and cleaner, greener neighbourhoods stance with

simultaneous plans for infill developments on housing estates, thereby reducing green space.

[devs]

Exactly @heartblock. And they also ignore the poor pedestrians (at the bottom of the food chain) who live and have to walk on these main roads whilst drinking in fumes from the displaced traffic.

[DulwichCentral]

Hi @LTN BooHoo - alternatively in today's Guardian 'Opponents of LTNs claim they delay emergency services but look at the facts'

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2021/apr/23/opponents-of-ltns-claim-they-delay-emergency-services-but-look-at-the-facts

'There is, however, a fairly important point here: advocates of LTNs don?t tend to claim they are all without any fault, or at least as far as I?ve seen. In contrast, a fairly sizeable proportion of the opponents, or at least the shoutier elements who pile into debates on social media and local message boards, argue that LTNs necessarily slow up all traffic, and thus imperil lives due to delayed fire and ambulance crews.

This isn?t the case. No studies find it is the case. No emergency services say it is the case. There is no credible evidence of a systemic, routine problem. That is perhaps the one certainty in a debate which is considerably more complex and nuanced than the headlines would have you believe.'

- or the local message boards for that matter

@Slarti is that ambulance pictured in One Dulwich's latest flyer genuinely blocked - it seems to have just pulled in and stopped for some unknown reason? Or is this just another example of One Dulwich disingenuousness?

[Otto2]

Thanks for the link to the article @DulwichCentral. The sensationalism of the latest flyer by One Dulwich was irksome -- good to see the nuances and complications discussed in a more in-depth fashion.

Anti-LTN'ers - you know what to do - tear down the journalist - your favourite blood sport.

[legalalien]

Or maybe Gilkes Crescent given the preference for a professional expert arbiter and the enthusiasm for the Dulwich Square mock-up?

I don't think a third party expert is the solution here, given one of the big problems has been a lack of proper "before" data. The third party isn't going to have any more "real" data to work with than anyone else has. Plus the debate is now so polarised that I doubt either side of it will trust a single expert.

The (missed) solution was for Southwark to comply with its statutory / regulatory duty to properly consult TfL and Lambeth before implementing the Phase 2 closures. It didn't. If it had, perhaps the entirely foreseeable Croxted Road chaos might have been avoided.

I know someone who used to take the number 3 bus and is now driving (via an alternative route) because the bus can't get them where they need to be, on time.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> I imagine the new poster is living in Melbourne,

> Derwent or Court, much like all 5 of the people

> who make up Clean Air Dulwich-EDSTN ..which is

> basically the same group, of course the silly

> councillors know all five in this group..isn?t one

> a town planner who designs for the Council?

>

> A real campaign for clean air would be raising the

> terrible idea of plans to build on green spaces

> with mature trees in the Bells and Brenchley

> estates, campaigning for local transport, asking

> for pollution monitoring on all roads and asking

> why green spaces are being removed.

>

> These are not real campaigns about clean air and

> places for children to play safely. They are

> campaigns for gated, exclusive traffic free areas

> for the wealthiest in Southwark. Desperate to

> dismiss residents on LL, EDG and Croxted, they

> troll on Twitter and block mothers, businesses and

> cyclists who disagree with them - calling them

> ?misinformed? and trying to indicate they are all

> against reducing pollution and want to be able to

> drive anytime, any place and denying the actual

> lived experience of people who live on these

> boundary roads.

[Rockets]

DC - this is another case of the Guardian's usual "the headline doesn't quite tally with the info further down the article" bias and if you read the article with a clear mind you will see why. Also, you say there is no proof of emergency services citing LTNs as delays but there is and the DV junction closure has been called out in reports from LAS - but maybe we should put that down to salience.....I hope I don't urgently need emergency service assistance that gets delayed due to salience....here lies the body of Rockets - it was salience that did for him! ;-)

Let me break it down:

Headline: Opponents of LTNs claim they delay emergency services ? but look at the facts

Reality: LTNs aren't specifically called out by the emergency services but "traffic calming measures", which include LTNs were in a report and these rose by as much as 35% in areas with new LTNs.

Guardian's defence: Data obtained from LFB by The Times not "scientifically credible" and LFB reports of delays down to salience

Objective analysis: More desperate Guardian blah, blah, blah in defence of LTNs

Rewrite the Guardian headline from the other side: LFB see up to 35% rises in delays caused by new traffic calming measures, including LTNs but supporters claim this is due to salience

The proof:

There was, however, one interesting phenomenon: the proportion of the delays put down to ?traffic calming measures? ? the metric that covers LTNs ? rose, particularly when newer LTNs had been built.

The authors argue that this seemed largely down to the academic phenomenon known as ?salience?: the fact that some things are just more memorable than others. Hence, a crew having to detour round a new set of bollards are much more likely to note this in their report than, for example, being held up by traffic.

The corollary to the Waltham Forest report is a news story in the Times last month, which used the extensive LFB data to argue that LTNs did appear to be a problem, citing the fact that delays attributed to ?traffic calming measures? rose much more steeply in boroughs with new LTNs than those without ? by 35% as against 2.8%.

While superficially notable, the article is not academically credible, for several reasons. One is the impact of salience on the results. Another is that London boroughs are big and complex places, and there was no attempt made to account for the many other factors that could be involved ? not least the very different traffic patterns of lockdown.

[heartblock]

The research was in the ?mini Holland? scheme. A well planned scheme, with equality assessment and with much support from locals.

This scheme is always held up as equal to the sad, poorly planned, underfunded and poorly located LTNs in Southwark that were bought in solely as a result of NIMBY groups of wealthy residents. Sure...happy for Southwark to bring in a traffic reduction scheme that actually works. The hypocrisy of Southwark LTNs in wealthy areas, creating squares in an area with parks, huge gardens and a very high percentage ownership of SUVs (do visit Calton Rd) while building on green spaces and children?s play areas on high rise estates would be laughable if it wasn?t so tragic.

[first mate]

Removed

[Raeburn]

@Siduhue you mentioned request for more cycle-storage/hangers on streets where homes might not have space for secure cycle storage.

There's a big program to put these in soon, possibly covered in this thread, for exactly the reasons you highlight;

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-cyclists-to-get-160-new-hangars/

Good news for all.

[first mate]

LTN BooHoo Wrote:

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

> I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed

> and accept that the current LTNs are not perfect.

> I have seen some of the rubbish on Twitter and

> have to say most of the aggressive behaviour comes

> from the anti LTN side. If not aggression than

> being economical with the truth. But never mind

> that if there are people who want to explore what

> is best for Dulwich and best for London in terms

> of making a meaningful contribution to the climate

> emergency then let?s do it.

>

> However, discussions needs a facilitator who is

> impartial and has the expertise in transport and

> urban design to look at Dulwich and the wider

> area. Such an exercise will only be successful if

> there is broad agreement that something needs to

> be done to reduce cars, short journeys and

> encourage walking and cycling. I?ve not seen much

> that is positive coming from the One Dulwich group

> who seem to want the LTNs removed or for residents

> to have permits which is a proposal I don?t

> understand.

>

> But I honestly don?t think any of the bone will

> happen even on World Earth Day so carry on with

> your discussions.

Consistently accusing those who do not agree with you of "aggression" is, I can see, a useful tactic but the evidence is clear on here this is simply not true or least no more typifies one side of the LTN debate than it does the other.

To constantly accuse others of "aggression" is arguably passive aggressive.

There seems to be a pattern here to try to demonise LTN naysayers (Daily Mail readers, aggressive, climate deniers, liars). The pattern is echoed in a recent post by Cllr McAsh, where he asserted that in his private chats on a visit to Nx road market everyone was in favour of recent developments but that at least one person in favour was too scared to come into the forum because of the "toxic atmosphere". Nice bit of character framing there too and seems to echo a general approach to those in support of the council handling of LTNs.

[slarti b]

@DulwichCentral

Did you have a look at what Darren Farmer of the London Ambulance Service said about delays caused by LTNs, especially in Southwark? It seems not.

Do you agree with his assertion that the emergency services are not in favour of hard road closures?

And it seems you are still unable to justify your attempt to smear OneDulwich for their expos? of the Councillor's secret OHS working group. It would be nice if you could either justify your insults or apologise.

DulwichCentral - deceitful, disingenuous and, like our local Councillors, getting even more desperate as their lies and intrigues are exposed.

btw OneDulwich supporters now up to 1.900 and over 1,000 of those in the OHS consultation area. As you know, the council claimed 54 people in the same area provided "strong support" to close DV junction. What do you think 1,000 people means? https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters

[ED - NAGAIUTB]

As if further proof of how poorly Southwark communicate with the borough, this appeared in the Goodrich Primary School newsletter today:

"Yellow lines

Unbeknownst to the school, yellow zig-zag lines suddenly appeared along Goodrich road during the holiday. It remains to be seen if this will help the congestion along Dunstans Road or exacerbate it."

Part of the problem here was a priority put in on the junction of Goodrich and Dunstans that allows traffic priority that is entering the pinch point rather than leaving. Typically backward Southwark logic but it is what it is. But we can only hope that this step will maybe help.

As has been said before, there are an amazing amount of cars every morning considering the size of Goodrich's catchment area. I know some families have to do drop offs at different schools but it still amazes me every morning how many cars there are.

[LTN BooHoo]

Darren then says (1:06:09) that the number of delayed responses due to infrastructure changes (ie LTN's) across London is 170 of which 51 are in Southwark!! (C'llr Newens "death stare" look is conjecture and questions the professionalism of Darren Farmer so I won?t respond to that. You are correct that the Ambulance Service would prefer camera controlled access rather than hard 24\7 closures. The proposal put forward by the Coalition4Dulwich group suggests a shared cycle/emergency route through the square. I only support it because this is the first tangible suggestion I have seen. We have all witnessed cars disregarding the timed restrictions on Dulwich Village, a similar situation within the square would create a safety hazard and no local authority in their right mind would sign up to that because ultimately Councils have to take responsibility for safety.

Your ?Dr Evil impression? comment is not worthy of a response.

You are right Gilkes Crescent and Milo Road are not LTNs but they are closed roads. They were closed due to rat running and not because of ?poorly thought through traffic measures implemented by Southwark Council despite warnings by local residents that traffic would be diverted along those roads.? If you have evidence then let?s see it. Traffic use to cut down Gilkes Crescent and then travel along Woodward, Carlton or Court Lane. Speed bumps were introduced to try and control speeds and then the first gate on Gilkes was introduced. Some traffic was diverted onto the main roads as a result but die heart rat runners used Gilkes Place until it too was closed. Gilkes definitely displaces traffic back onto the main roads but maybe motorists should not have used it as a cut through in the first place?

Traffic has increased in London and this includes Dulwich. (I believe the One Dulwich web site disagrees) Traffic in the last decade has decreased on main roads and increased on residential roads. LTNs encourage people to change their travel behaviour but this takes time and has to be supported by other measures. In many respects traffic counts/before data and so on miss the point because if as a society we are to address the climate emergency we have to introduce radical interventions. Wealthy areas, parks, gardens (as suggested by ?heartblock? is irrelevant this is bigger than Dulwich. ( Hard to believe I know).

An arbitration exercise is not what I?m suggesting. What I?m suggesting is a team of professional experts who can look at an area and make recommendations on how to make things better for everyone. Eg where the blockages are occurring and how to make adjustments to ease them.

Traffic - too many people in cars/ on line shopping etc often making short journeys is what creates congestion for people who need to drive and can delay our emergency services.

[Nigello]

The priority to vehicles coming from Dunstan's has been there for many years - at least fifteen, probably more - so it is not a new thing. That said, not everyone knows (= CBA to look out for signage) so you get jams. Also, since there is no sign on teh street near teh new DYL/zigzags, does it actually hold any weight? The man who put them in said not, but, not being a driver IDNK. (He also said the road really ought to be retarmacked but noted - with a smile - that then they'd have to paint the lines all over again...)

[legalalien]

I thought Gilkes Place was closed (the second closure) for the purposes of the ex SG Smith construction site? No idea if / when construction is going to happen but I do wonder how the construction traffic is going to access it- I think the original plan was via the now- closed junction?

I'd be in favour of a tax regime that hit delivery vehicles, in particular non- food deliveries. The whole business of ordering clothes online / trying on/ sending back in particular strikes me as a complete waste of resources. Call me old fashioned :)