LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[heartblock]

When I bought a flat in East Dulwich Grove I was relatively poor as a newly qualified NHS worker at King's. After spending 30 years of my life working in the NHS and now teaching the next generation I still live in the same flat as it is not a very well salaried job. It would be lovely if I was paid enough to afford a house in Calton or Court. Apparently it is OK for me to breathe in more pollution because I was too poor to afford a house on a leafy rd and I had to buy one on an A rd. Thanks people who think LTNs are great, thank you for my increased risk of heart disease, lung disease and cancer. Thank you for deciding that the least well off can just put up with it. It is so lovely to walk down Calton and admire the two car families and their lovely unpolluted rd. Thank you neighbours.

[first mate]

Add to that that some of the most vociferous LTN and cycling supporters on here clearly have it both ways as they admit to owning and driving a car when they need to. Thus they have built a rationale that justifies their own need but that dismisses and negates that of others. It is breathtakingly arrogant and paternalistic.

[Raeburn]

Heartblock, I completely agree with you, and sorry to hear of your situation. We have somehow normalised(!) illegal levels of air pollution for a decade, and accepted excessive motor vehicle use as standard. On some days you can look out from Dawsons Hill and see a yellow-brown fug trapped over London. It's absolutely not fair that a relatively small minority are entitled to damage the wider populations health, often most detrimentally to those who can afford it least. This needs to be reversed, along with a net reduction in all road traffic - and make way for people/businesses/services who absolutely need access to motorised transport (the cleaner, the better!), along with public transport and active travel.

[Rockets]

Raeburn - as part of the plan to resolve the issue do you think it is fair to push more of that yellow brown fug from the areas within the LTN to outside people like Heartblock's home?

That's the crux of this issue - not that the yellow brown fug needs to go but the inequitable negative impact of the measures the council have put in place.

Also, you claim a minority of people - you know that over 60% of people in Dulwich own a car and the highest car ownership, and those with more than one car, live within the LTN area.

[Raeburn]

I'm not sure what your question is asking Rockets. Any pollution is unfair, especially if it's affecting non-contributers.

My point was that the entire city is polluted by activities undertaken by a few which affect everyone - we need to reduce reliance on motor vehicles, specifically ICE vehicles, wood-burning stoves, air travel etc etc etc.

Car ownership, I agree, it's extremely unfair, polluting at the expense of others. Most vehicles don't even fit on the driveways or in the garages that once took them off the streets, further clogging up valuable roadspace.

....hence all these initiatives to reduce reliance on vehicles, specifically short-hop journeys. The introduction of bike hangers, the extension of the ULEZ, free novice rides and training, all positive programs to reduce traffic and pollution. High car ownership = even more reason to establish healthier alternatives, more opportunity for positive change surely?

[dulwichfolk]

I think the point is how would anyone feel if one day someone/council decided to funnel all the traffic down your road and everyone was telling you it?s for the environment so keep quiet and back the system as in the end ?we hope? it will get better for all.

[SE22_2020er]

Well said Raeburn. As ever, I am sure that everyone on this chat wants the same thing which is a significant reduction in car usage. I?m thrilled to be living somewhere that has a council that is doing an awful lot to reach these aims. I don?t think anyone can deny that there has been a significant uptake in cycling over the last few months. Yes, I think we can all be critical of how we have all allowed the normalisation of travelling by cars over the last 20years but finally we seem to be waking up to the fact that there is a better way to live in a city. And I?m thrilled about that.

My personal view is that the LTNs are a step on this journey to reshape how we live and rebalance the prioritisation away from cars which has insidiously become the norm over the last 30years that I?ve lived here. From a micro planning perspective, I would love to see the removal of parking along EDG and a segregated cycle lane from lordship lane to Herne Hill to give a good E-W corridor for people to cycle rather than drive.

[Raeburn]

With this hypothetical situation (and Rocket's earlier q around the same theme) - you are asking if I think an A-road should be re-designated a residential road, and a residential road, into an A-road?

I have no idea, I'm not in town planning, but I guess it would be quite a hugely laborious process to re-route all the subterranean utilities along the new primary route. Besides, it doesn't really matter because cars are the problem. We need less cars. Not the current level we have, and certainly not more. I would target the unnecessary vehicle users (and direct cause of the pollution), rather than create a new A-road.

All this energy need to be directed toward reducing car dependancy, and support those who are actively reducing vehicle use, to the benefit of everyone.

dulwichfolk Wrote:

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

> I think the point is how would anyone feel if one

> day someone/council decided to funnel all the

> traffic down your road and everyone was telling

> you it?s for the environment so keep quiet and

> back the system as in the end ?we hope? it will

> get better for all.

[Rockets]

Whilst we can acknowledge the uptake in cycling are you prepared to acknowledge the huge increase in traffic and pollution on displacement routes across the area as well?

That's the point of my question. Is it acceptable, as part of our focus on reducing pollution, that large numbers of our community have to live with the increased pollution caused by the measures being put in by the council?

To me, that doesn't seem very fair. Are we not just robbing Peter to pay Paul?

[heartblock]

"Are we not just robbing Peter to pay Paul" It's worse than that, it is increasing pollution and ill health on those who are least able to move house, have higher levels of inequality and less access to open spaces. Rosamund Kissi Debrah, clean air campaigner, Green Party candidate and lives close to an A road, is actively campaigning against LTNs as they increase pollution on roads that were never designed as 'motorways'.

East Dulwich Grove housing was built in the 1860-80's, the first cars in the UK were built from the 1890's, so no...this road was not built for cars, it was built for people to live and breathe in.

[Raeburn]

I still don't understand your question here Rockets. I pointed out that all the roads that were mentioned in the videos, and are being highlighted, are A-roads - Croxted, EDG, Norwood, LL - primary through routes designed to move traffic from one point to another vs surrounding residential roads. No amount of discussion will change the status of these routes I'm afraid, and as such, it'd be futile to have an opinion (either way).

But I am in agreement; the pollution is totally unacceptable, and I'm completely sympathetic to Heartblock. Why not focus on the reducing the drivers/milage thats causing the most pollution outside front doors, and allow roadspace to essential road users, instead of enabling more driving and pollution?

I empathise that some drivers are inconvenienced, but this is only because they have have been driving (polluting!) unchallenged for so long.

[Rockets]

But you do realise, don?t you, that the traffic on these roads has increased massively since the closures went in as a direct consequence of them? Simple question??do you think that is acceptable as part of the bigger goal? From your refusal to answer the question I may suspect the answer is yes?;-)

[alice]

?A? road designation was made early in the last century-things have changed and so should that designation.

[Raeburn]

But Rockets, you haven't been clear about what you're actually asking - I haven't been avoiding it, just didn't understand what you wanted.

ATM, honestly, I have no idea - I occasionally used those routes over the years, but would actively avoid EDG if I could due to the fast and unpleasant traffic. I've not been down them over the last year at rush hours, so honestly can't say? Same goes for LL - no idea. It's always seemed jammed/congested - or traffic speeding when it is clear at night - so has been unattractive for years. would prefer to take the residential streets and avoid where I could between Goose Green and Forest Hill. No idea if this is up/down/same, honest answer.

I can say for a fact that traffic and pollution has been bad for years, and that average vehicle size is notably bigger.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> But you do realise, don?t you, that the traffic on

> these roads has increased massively since the

> closures went in as a direct consequence of them?

> Simple question??do you think that is acceptable

> as part of the bigger goal? From your refusal to

> answer the question I may suspect the answer is

> yes?;-)

[legalalien]

We all keep going around the houses but I think it inevitably comes back to the question of collateral damage: do the ends justify the means? The lack of proper data quantifying the damage is making the debate more complicated to have, as those supporting the experimental scheme claim that it's minimal, and those opposing it claim that it's not. So perhaps we should argue on the basis of some assumptions :

Q for those opposing the current scheme: if hard data showed that the impact on traffic levels on the boundary roads were minimal/ there is no significant increase in harmful pollution on boundary roads/ public transport can still run effectively/ emergency services can get to people on time - would you then accept that the current scheme is OK?

Q for those in favour of the current scheme: if hard data showed that the impact on traffic levels on the boundary roads is significant/ there is a significant increase in harmful pollution on boundary roads/ there are delays to bus routes and emergency services - would you then accept that the current scheme is OK?

From the debate on here, I think most answers to the first question would be yes (because contrary to assertions, the opponents aren't a bunch of local SUV drivers who object to a 5 minute detour), and also most answers to the second question would be yes. I have yet to see a single supporter of the Dulwich LTN say that if, in fact, boundary roads are massively adversely affected, then something has to change. Instead it is all "well, less cars needed". I understand the idea but fails to take account of the reality/ victims on the ground, and I think that's why the two sides will continue to differ - unless the evaporation actually happens sometime soon.

[legalalien]

And here you have it. Repeat after me: EDG and LL are residential streets.

Raeburn Wrote:

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

> But Rockets, you haven't been clear about what

> you're actually asking - I haven't been avoiding

> it, just didn't understand what you wanted.

>

> ATM, honestly, I have no idea - I occasionally

> used those routes over the years, but would

> actively avoid EDG if I could due to the fast and

> unpleasant traffic. I've not been down them over

> the last year at rush hours, so honestly can't

> say? Same goes for LL - no idea. It's always

> seemed jammed/congested - or traffic speeding when

> it is clear at night - so has been unattractive

> for years. would prefer to take the residential

> streets and avoid where I could between Goose

> Green and Forest Hill. No idea if this is

> up/down/same, honest answer.

>

> I can say for a fact that traffic and pollution

> has been bad for years, and that average vehicle

> size is notably bigger.

>

>

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > But you do realise, don?t you, that the traffic

> on

> > these roads has increased massively since the

> > closures went in as a direct consequence of

> them?

> > Simple question??do you think that is

> acceptable

> > as part of the bigger goal? From your refusal

> to

> > answer the question I may suspect the answer is

> > yes?;-)

[heartblock]

LTNs increase idling traffic - idling traffic increases pollution.

I'm not sure why this simple equation is not understood. Remove the LTNs and come up with a proper strategy that includes regular, low emission local public transport, school cycle routes, school buses with drop off points so children walk down school roads, etc.

Tinkering around with half-hearted poorly planned, poorly monitored and 'green washing' policy really is not reducing pollution. It is awful for residents and people on buses, cycles and walking to work, school on EDG, LL and Croxted.

[Raeburn]

But they are both A-roads - A2216 and A2214?

I'm just highlighting the difference between the way these routes are treated by the council, discussed, and why comparison between an A-road and a residential street aren't equal.

I didn't make up this designation, and I'm not campaigning for traffic on either btw - I want less traffic everywhere, and do everything I can to avoid contributing to it.

.....I'm also not going to get into an argument about tarmac.......

[AlexandHelenC]

Absolutely infuriating responses, Raeburn. Let?s consider the possibility that the LTNs do not result in a substantial reduction in overall traffic (which seems to be the case after nearly a year of the measures being imposed) - would you find it acceptable that the residents on those A Roads suffer the consequences of the displaced traffic indefinitely, while others enjoy the benefits of their roads being closed? It?s a simple question but one that the LTN supporters consistently avoid.

[first mate]

Slippery answer and does you no favours at all.

Raeburn Wrote:

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

> But Rockets, you haven't been clear about what

> you're actually asking - I haven't been avoiding

> it, just didn't understand what you wanted.

>

> ATM, honestly, I have no idea - I occasionally

> used those routes over the years, but would

> actively avoid EDG if I could due to the fast and

> unpleasant traffic. I've not been down them over

> the last year at rush hours, so honestly can't

> say? Same goes for LL - no idea. It's always

> seemed jammed/congested - or traffic speeding when

> it is clear at night - so has been unattractive

> for years. would prefer to take the residential

> streets and avoid where I could between Goose

> Green and Forest Hill. No idea if this is

> up/down/same, honest answer.

>

> I can say for a fact that traffic and pollution

> has been bad for years, and that average vehicle

> size is notably bigger.

>

>

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > But you do realise, don?t you, that the traffic

> on

> > these roads has increased massively since the

> > closures went in as a direct consequence of

> them?

> > Simple question??do you think that is

> acceptable

> > as part of the bigger goal? From your refusal

> to

> > answer the question I may suspect the answer is

> > yes?;-)

[heartblock]

I think maybe people do not want to consider the whole picture, they are very likely to have a home in an LTN and are considering their environment, their house price and are not really interested in reducing pollution at all.

That is why LTNs are the easy sell to people who benefit. They do not have to do anything, they can still drive two petrol cars, still drive their kids to school and they can carry on with no detriment to their lives. It was a clever Tory policy, which stupidly was taken up by Labour Councils. It isn?t a real solution but allows councillors to pretend they care, getting strong support from people inside LTNs, total greenwash. Meanwhile Southwark is selling green spaces in estates to private contractors to build private homes. Losing playgrounds, gardens and areas where people can get air and light. It?s really a bit sh*t!

[intexasatthe moment]

It seems pointless to highlight the division of roads in ED into A roads and residential roads .

I'm intrigued by the thought that Croxted, EDG, Norwood, LL are "primary through routes designed to move traffic from one point to another vs surrounding residential roads.".

I wonder who designed them and when .

And what criteria was used to distinguish them from "residential" roads . Did it factor in the number of residents on A roads vs "residential "roads ?

Wikipedia gives a definition

"The next category is the A roads, which form the primary route network. A primary route is defined as:[16]

...a route, not being a route comprising any part of a motorway, in respect of which the Secretary of State ?

(a) in the case of a trunk road is of the opinion, and

(b) in any other case after consultation with the traffic authority for the road comprised in the route is of the opinion,

that it provides the most satisfactory route for through traffic between places of traffic importance

but it seems rather vague and open to subjectivity . I think most ,if not all ,of Court Lane could easily be designated an A road under those terms .

[AlexandHelenC]

Completely agree, heartblock. Some people are of the view that ?something is better than nothing?, irrespective of whether that something is actually making things much worse for at least some of the local population.

[heartblock]

You know..I think they don?t really believe is is even ?something?, it isn?t really about ?healthy streets? and they all know it. What?s even funnier is they know that we know they don?t believe it.

[Raeburn]

No, I don?t think it?s acceptable - I keep agreeing with this - so we need to reduce the traffic on all these roads too. Would love to have more incentives/penalties to drive this change, so it?s not indefinite.

Do I think it?s unfair? Yes, no one should be breathing someone else?s fumes, that?s why this is unfair.

AlexandHelenC Wrote:

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

> Absolutely infuriating responses, Raeburn. Let?s

> consider the possibility that the LTNs do not

> result in a substantial reduction in overall

> traffic (which seems to be the case after nearly a

> year of the measures being imposed) - would you

> find it acceptable that the residents on those A

> Roads suffer the consequences of the displaced

> traffic indefinitely, while others enjoy the

> benefits of their roads being closed? It?s a

> simple question but one that the LTN supporters

> consistently avoid.