LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Raeburn]

That?s exactly the right reason - to provide better infrastructure and enable people to walk, ride, scoot, skate. End the false construct that driving is the answer, and reduce reliance on vehicles for short-hop journeys?

[rupert james]

How about opening up Rye lane to the bus again. At least there will be transport available without having to walk miles to get to a bus stop.

Why do you refer to the younger generation who are fit and able. Many of us are not and need the car.

[Rockets]

Raeburn Wrote:

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

> That?s exactly the right reason - to provide

> better infrastructure and enable people to walk,

> ride, scoot, skate. End the false construct that

> driving is the answer, and reduce reliance on

> vehicles for short-hop journeys?

But Raeburn, to be fair, the council has said previously that you should not put these types of measures in places where PTAL scores are low and car ownership is high as they wont work i.e. Dulwich.

The council can't have it both ways and what we are seeing now are the consequences of them ignoring their own advice....

Also, let me correct you it appears the council wants to encourage walking and riding but not scooting or skating given the positioning of the new planters in Margy Square.....;-) I was at the cafe at the weekend and couple of children were bemoaning the fact they could not play there anymore....

[Raeburn]

@Rupert, I?ve not referred to a younger generation? I?ve been mindful not to, because of the potential of many new personal transport options emerging over the last 5-10 years.

There?s so many accessible modes for e-assist or battery-powered alternatives which open up more convenient ways of moving. E-bike, e-trike, mobility scooters, e-scooters, power-assist hand-cycles, cargo-bikes, family-carry bikes etc. All enable more people more freedom and better health. Loads of places you can book a test ride and see if it works for your lifestyle and movements.

Great to see so many people of all age and ability using battery-assist transport this morning.

- apologies if this wasn?t directed at me, but I can?t work out what else it was replying to

[Raeburn]

@Rockets take them to a skate park (Belair, The Grove, Peckham Rye) or see if Dulwich Park can get one put in?

[Rockets]

....let the children play...but not in our Square please...;-)

[Nigello]

I agree totally that the buses should be back on Rye Lane. The diversion is through a residential area and must cause disturbances. Also, Rye Lane looks less lively without them, given there are then no motor vehicles at all. It's a dump, anyway, even though the shops are useful and cheap. I avoid it because it is so depressing to see the litter, emptiness and scrawl.

[alice]

People stop using cars when the transport system improves. open up Court Lane to buses.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> Quoting a figure of 40% for a whole borough is

> misleading when it comes to local Dulwich issues.

Presumably people in Dulwich travel within the Borough more generally though? It's only around 11 miles square. Or perhaps they're just driving around Dulwich?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Dulwich car ownership is at over 60% in the

> Dulwich area - driven (no pun intended) by the

> larger percentage than other boroughs of those

> under-19 and those over 65 and the poor public

> transport links in the area.

>

> It's all in here:

> https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Du

> lwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf

>

>

> Which, when you read it, makes the decision to

> puts LTNs even more baffling.

This report you've linked to makes the case for LTNS IMO. 27% of trips starting and ending in Dulwich are made by car?! Some of those trips will be necessary. A lot won't be.

[Rockets]

Rahx3 - that's all in the report as well - although this is all journeys. Oh and look, at the end of the text below from the council's own report there's a reference to the elephant in the room - the lack of East/West public transport options which leads more people to use their car.....which, of course, they have strangled with these closures which is the root cause of the congestion problems we are seeing across the area as a result.. Again, you have to question the rationale and justification for the closures given the overwhelming data from the council's own reports - it was clear what was going to happen when the closures went in.....yet no-one from the council could see it.

Three origin/destination areas have been used in the analysis:

? Southwark: including trips originating outside the three wards but within the borough

? Neighbouring Boroughs: including trips originating in those boroughs that are adjacent to the study area

(Lambeth, Lewisham and Bromley)

? Non-neighbouring Boroughs: including all other areas of London

As shown in Figure 2.2, work-related trips are largely longer, starting/ending in non-neighbouring boroughs.

It should be noted that due to the nature of the LTDS surveys some of the inbound and outbound trips are

likely to represent two legs of the same journey.

Figure 2.2: Inbound/Outbound surveyed trips by purpose and by origin/destination (5-year total)

Source: LTDS 2010-2015 (inbound trips sample n=263,403, outbound trips sample n=257,941)

The modal split of inbound (see Figure 2.3) and outbound (see Figure 2.4) trips shows a prevalence of

car/private vehicle, accounting for half of the total number of surveyed trips. Trips starting in nonneighbouring boroughs are more likely to be undertaken by public transport, with rail as the preferred

mode. On the other hand, the lower E-W public transport connectivity is reflected in higher numbers of

people travelling from/to neighbouring boroughs by car.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Dulwich car ownership is at over 60% in the

> > Dulwich area - driven (no pun intended) by the

> > larger percentage than other boroughs of those

> > under-19 and those over 65 and the poor public

> > transport links in the area.

> >

> > It's all in here:

> >

> https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Du

>

> > lwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf

> >

> >

> > Which, when you read it, makes the decision to

> > puts LTNs even more baffling.

>

> This report you've linked to makes the case for

> LTNS IMO. 27% of trips starting and ending in

> Dulwich are made by car?! Some of those trips will

> be necessary. A lot won't be.

But it doesn't make the case for LTNs quite the opposite in fact. The council doesn't like the existence of this report because it is a smoking gun demonstrating that they knew the closures would lead to one thing only - and that was massive congestion as there is not the public transport infrastructure to support East/West travel - so why go and throttle it further - it makes no sense at all.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Spartacus Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Quoting a figure of 40% for a whole borough is

> > misleading when it comes to local Dulwich

> issues.

>

> Presumably people in Dulwich travel within the

> Borough more generally though? It's only around 11

> miles square. Or perhaps they're just driving

> around Dulwich?

Nope. Appears most folks from Dulwich are walking around it...and this report was from 2018...

Trips starting and ending in Dulwich have been analysed separately. Figure 2.5 shows that shopping and

leisure trips account for a significant part of the total, while work-related internal trips are very limited

Almost 2/3 of all internal trips surveyed are undertaken on foot. It is also worth noting that the cycle mode

share is very limited, even for short distance trips. Similarly, the share of bus trips is very low. The low

attractiveness of bus for short trips could potentially be explained by localised congestion or the benefit

perceived in waiting and riding the bus compared to walking

[Earl Aelfheah]

If you think it's good to encourage people to regularly drive very short journey's locally, then it doesn't make the case, no.

[Rockets]

Rahrahrah - but no one is saying that short car journeys are a good thing and the report doesn't demonstrate that is happening. Quite the opposite in fact. The report is a ringing endorsement of the fact that the LTNs were a really, really bad idea. A bad idea that has been even more poorly implemented.

What the report does clearly show is that the LTNs were a sledge-hammer to crack a nut and the council didn't have the first clue what type of nut they were trying to crack. I am not sure they even had a nut to crack - they just wanted to hit something with a sledge-hammer.

[Earl Aelfheah]

If you think that nearly 30% of journeys starting and ending in Dulwich need to be undertaken by car..

[heartblock]

My rd..low car ownership..very few SUVs .... Carlton LTN ...high car ownership and many, many, SUVs. EDGrove traffic morning, evening private school run..SUVs with one child one parent. Local kids and parents walk. Maybe ED Grove should be a school street and closed 7:45 to 8:45 and Calton opened??? No 37 bus and 42 bus allowed, plus blue badge and residents of the Grove. I take 37 bus anyway or walk to Herne Hill

[slarti b]

Rahrah...

According to Southwark, 27% of internal trips within Dulwich are taken by car, compared with 24% in Soutwark overall, so not much of a difference which is to a large extent caused by the poor public quality of public transport as shown by the low PTAL scores.

On the other hand, the proportion of active travel trips within Dulwich (mainly walking) is 68%, far higher that Soutwark overall (40%)

This completely contradicts the extreme pro-LTN view of Dulwich as being full of car loving petrol heads (cf ExDulwicher).

[Rockets]

Slarti - you hit the nail on the head - Southwark's own report completely undermines the decision to implement LTNs in Dulwich.

Dulwich was already way ahead of the borough norm for active travel so you have to ask whether there needed to be such a radical LTN intervention and then that naturally leads you to ask what the real motivation for doing so was and who they were pandering to.

Rahrahrah - 20% of car journeys started and finished in the area, there were an additional 7% where people were a passenger (that is an important distinction). Given the high proportion of people under 19 (25%) and over 65 (10%) in the area does 20% seem that high to you?

If the council had done proper analysis they would have concluded that the LTNs would have little beneficial impact on car usage in the area because I bet a large proportion of that 20% is "essential" or cannot be done in another way.

Pretty much everything in that report massively undermines the position taken by the council in relation to LTNs.

[malumbu]

Raeburn Wrote:

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

> @Rupert, I?ve not referred to a younger generation? I?ve been mindful not to, because of the potential of many new personal transport options emerging over the last 5-10 years.

>

> There?s so many accessible modes for e-assist or battery-powered alternatives which open up more convenient ways of moving. E-bike, e-trike, mobility scooters, e-scooters, power-assist hand-cycles, cargo-bikes, family-carry bikes etc.

> All enable more people more freedom and better health. Loads of places you can book a test ride and see if it works for your lifestyle and movements.

>

> Great to see so many people of all age and ability using battery-assist transport this morning.

>

Not just battery assisted personal transport, the revolution in mobility as a service will vastly reduce the dependency on cars as we know them. It would be good if we could look forward rather than backwards. In years to come the next generation will wonder what all the fuss was about. I'm being tiresome and repetitive in the hope that some of this will be taken on board. Whilst I know that most people posting are very environmentally aware, we are a nation of entitled car drivers.

As far as I can recall I only post about the big picture. I haven't got the time some of you have to spend hours analysing everything. I understand that this is a community web site where we can discuss the issues of the day. This is about Dulwich which surely applies to West Dulwich, North Dulwich, East Dulwich, the village and those areas adjoining.

(Journeys today, Underhill Road reasonably quiet at 8.30, the usual suspects doing 40mph, Peckham Rye as busy as usual, Lordship Lane from Goose Green mid afternoon very quiet, Herne Hill rush hour pretty busy back west to Brixton Hill (I cut legally through Brockwell Park), Lordship Lane rush hour going South to the Harvester relatively quiet - I don't plan to post my journeys every day)

[Penguin68]

Journeys today, Underhill Road reasonably quiet at 8.30, the usual suspects doing 40mph,

Funnily I was driving in Underhill then (I live on that road) - there was heavy traffic around the cemetery (where there are road works lights) and very heavy traffic turning into Underhill from Langton Rise (which has been single track because of Thames Water for the last 6 months and more). No one was doing 40 (it simply isn't possible) - most weren't achieving the legal 20. There was quite high levels of congestion through much of the road (some stretches were clear). Throughout my journey almost no cars were passing each other when they met (i.e. if cars were parked on both sides only one vehicle had room to continue)- one would have to hold back in a passing space so others could continue. And standing traffic outside my house (but particularly in the evening rush) is commonplace. Part of that at least is road works of course.

[ab29]

Agree with you Penguin - I live nearby and Underhill Rd has been my walking route for years - much busier ever since the road closures were put in place.

[first mate]

Very interesting. Completely contradictory views of traffic levels and car speeds on Underhill road yesterday morning. Both can't be right! I know which version I believe.

[Rockets]

Underhill has been awful since the closures went in as people try to find a way around the queuing traffic at the junction of Lordship Lane and the A205.

Has anyone seen any monitoring strips on Underhill? There seems to be two sets on each of roads like Woodwarde and Court Lane.

[first mate]

Rockets, I believe you, I also believe those who actually live on the road.