LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[first mate]

Ah, so you don't cycle everywhere then?😉

[legalalien]

Ex Dulwicher I agree with you. I?ve never suggested ripping all LTNs out I don?t think. But I think the Dulwich closures have been poorly thought through in the context of the local area, don?t meet the success factors you mention. I?d love this discussion to go in the direction of discussing changes that might make things work better and avoid it at least reduce the time periods of traffic chaos on boundary roads. Where we probably disagree is that I think we should reverse / amend the existing closures while we agree on the alternative, as it?s not OK for the boundary road residents to choke while we try and find a workable compromise.

The other problem is that I think an amended scheme would require removal of the hard / all day closure at Court Lane / Calton, and I?m not sure that?s open for discussion by some of those on here who support the existing scheme. I?d be pleased to be corrected on that.

[Otto2]

"Raenurn, SE22 at al - would you like all this traffic to sit in front of your homes? Would you then bo oh so philosophical about it? You are simply happy with sacrifising peoples' health (both physical and mental) in the name of a very dubious experiment - it is wrong."

ab29 - I live very very close to one of the roads that supposedly has an increase in traffic. I also work on Lordship Lane. I have severe asthma. I am also arthritic. In the very beginning, there was traffic mayhem. It has subsided to a level that is very close to the level it was at before (at least on these two roads) with most of the congestion occurring around school run times as it always has. I have seen a real shift - with more people walking and cycling locally. I have also chatted with many local people who have changed their habits. If everyone eliminates just one car trip a day, it makes a real difference.

I am not "philosophical". I have read the "gear change" report -- have a look here if you are not familiar -- (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/904146/gear-change-a-bold-vision-for-cycling-and-walking.pdf)

and I have also attended a meeting at City Hall a few years ago led by Will Norman that was focused on inclusivity around this topic. I was there as I worked for a charity that served a large percentage of BAME people and also people on limited incomes. Others in attendance included Wheels for Wellbeing as well as groups that worked with the elderly. The presentation had some shocking statistics re: how we cannot go on as we have.

I think a segregated cycle lane on East Dulwich Grove would be a real plus to helping everyone give a go at driving less. And, the LTN's have been instrumental at getting people to think and behave differently and consider roads as spaces for not just cars.

[Rockets]

Legal - I think something has to be done to relieve the throttling of east west routes across Dulwich so they have to look at the Court Lane DV junction and reopen some part of it (I had heard the council was exploring some one-way element). I think they will also have to remove the restrictions through Dulwich Village and Burbage.

Melbourne Grove and Townley will probably end up staying in place.

[devs]

Re the Court Lane/DV junction. I've observed some very dangerous cycling behaviour. It's not safe to cross as a pedestrian....even when the green man is showing, cyclists seem to race down and across the junction, not obeying the traffic lights and easily going more than 20mph. Plus they're silent.

[Rockets]

Does anyone know why a no through road (except cycles) sign has gone up on Goodrich as you head up just before you get to the school?

[alice]

It?s not time limited and confusing as seems to be saying 2 contradictory things.

[alice]

Time limited? That?s v clues to me never heard a thing.

[Nigello]

Council mistake, most likely - it reneged on the original LTN.

[legalalien]

Hmm, traffic orders used to be listed in the decision notices in the council and democracy section of the website but looks like that may have changed. Will read through the recent ones.

There?s a school street / timed closures relating to Heber School

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/38026/Schools-Spring-trial-notice-dated-22-April-21-.pdf

[legalalien]

Also looks as though they are doing some further tweaks to the experimental arrangement in the north of the borough and to one of the ones being sponsored by guys and st Thomas?.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/38728/GSTTC-Brunswick-Phase-2-notice-dated-29-April-2021-.pdf

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/38027/Southwark-Bridge-Road-phase-4-notice-dated-22-April-2021-.pdf

Basically making tweaks to address issues, as ex-Dulwicher suggests the process should work.

It just doesn?t seem to apply to the Dulwich schemes. Not sure whether that?s down to input (positive or negative) or lack of input by local councillors compared to other areas, or something else.

[johnhinton]

One of my major problems with the LTNs is that much of the traffic through Dulwich Village isn't local. Most of the traffic isn't made up of SUVs; what I see, outside my window almost all day long are long queues of people just trying to get to work or get back from work - outside the local area. It is iniquitous that a Labour Council should be trying to prevent working people from getting to and from their places of work.

Dulwich Village is just one of the few north-south routes towards central London. The penalty of working near central London is that you cannot always choose to live close to your workplace; changing both jobs and homes is horrifically expensive and stressful. I'm glad I don't live further away from the centre and can mostly telecommute anyway. That doesn't mean I want to live in a protective enclave and shut out everyone else and it doesn't mean other people should be prevented from passing through.

Not all journeys are cycle-friendly: if you're young and fit and fearless, you might enjoy cycling for three or four miles, in good weather, but not after a 12-hour day, in the dark or the wet (and I've lived that life). Not all journeys are feasible by public transport at all times of the day, either (again, I've done that too, fetching children from nurseries and schools, with pushchairs and baggage).

Each person, however they choose to travel, is making a rational, purposeful decision based on their most immediate needs. I don't need to judge them or curtail their decisions. Should fewer people drive? Sure. Should they be prevented? Not without much more investment in alternatives.

[Monkey]

I agree that the solution is better public transport. But also cycling.

The vast majority of commuters can do it. Until last year I was too scared to cycle and thought I couldn?t do it. My cycling commute takes me from ED to North West London, 30km in all, 90 per cent of it on quiet roads or segregated cycling lanes.

It is pleasant, it makes me fitter, it is faster than any other means of transportation I?ve used to get to the office, it saves me money (my Decathlon road bike cost me ?250) and I regularly chat with great people along the way.

I?m kicking myself for not doing it sooner. A trip from London Bridge would sometimes take me over an hour (strikes, no driver, general incompetence?). On my bike: 20-25 mins door to door, reliably.

[heartblock]

Exactly John, one LTN at any cost person, told me it?s my fault for buying a flat on ED Grove and calling me basically stupid to complain about the additional traffic. ?You should have bought a house on a different road 30 yrs ago?. Unfortunately as a poor junior health professional coming out of a toxic relationship I could only afford this flat, as my life became better I invested and improved my flat and came to love ED Grove, up until now. Southwark should be reducing pollution on already bust rds, not increasing pollution. It?s just gated communities for the most privileged and we all know it.

[first mate]

We've had others suggesting unless you can cycle to and from work and live your life on bicycles, you should really consider moving. It is this sort of tone deaf approach, riddled with assumptions about needless, unnecessary journeys and innate car user laziness, that is so offensive and blocks constructive discussion.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Exactly John, one LTN at any cost person, told me

> it?s my fault for buying a flat on ED Grove and

> calling me basically stupid to complain about the

> additional traffic. ?You should have bought a

> house on a different road 30 yrs ago?.

> Unfortunately as a poor junior health professional

> coming out of a toxic relationship I could only

> afford this flat, as my life became better I

> invested and improved my flat and came to love ED

> Grove, up until now. Southwark should be reducing

> pollution on already bust rds, not increasing

> pollution. It?s just gated communities for the

> most privileged and we all know it.

[Bicknell]

zorya1995 Wrote:

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

> An expose on how Southwark manipulated reality.

> Well worth a read.

>

> https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/who-closed-dulwich-

> village-junction

2 questions (quote)

* has southwark council given the local community missleading infomation so far?

* Does Southwhark council have the necessary skills and resources to run a public consultation?

[Siduhe]

It's easy to get into a "they said, no they said" back and forth on this. Whomever said lies, damn lies and statistics had a point, and I'm sure both sides in the LTN debate can pick the statistics that best support their positions.

I've lived here long enough now to remember the campaign to get a more regular 363 bus service. When our then local MP finally pushed TFL to conduct a formal assessment survey on passenger numbers and journeys, the figures were really, surprisingly low and didn't support the increased service at all - then we found out TFL had done the survey from 3pm to 5pm on a Friday before a Bank Holiday Monday when all the schools were on holiday. Mystery solved! So this isn't anything new, and people just need to be alive to not spouting facts and figures as gospel, without having at least half a sense that might not be the whole story.

As I've said before, I think most people in the area recognise that something needs to be done about traffic volumes, unnecessary short journeys and making it easier to walk and cycle. I'm even ok with the idea that the LTNs were put in as an experiment, without a proper consultation as a short term measure. But now is the time to do the proper work to see if these measures are the right ones for our area, need to be adjusted, or removed and replaced with something better. And the more we talk at each other, the less we are holding the Council to account for this basic next step.

What I want to see is:

1) a proper consultation, promoted equally to those in and outside of the current LTN area, with a commitment to be transparent about the outcomes and the data - not cherry picking those answers that support a particular position;

2) some proper traffic/pollution monitoring, including on boundary roads and roads that are reporting adverse effects from the current LTNs. Ideally this would have been done before, but at least let's get a proper baseline from which to judge the effects of future efforts;

3) a policy statement from the Council, based on 1) and 2) including a definition of what "success" for these measures looks like and a time period over which to judge success. Recognising there are going to be winners and losers in the short term, and there is a potential long term gain for everyone, let's at least be up front about what is and isn't acceptable. I personally struggle with the idea that it's acceptable for those on main roads, who tend to live in flats, have less outside space and less opportunity to store cycles to take the brunt of the short term impact while the areas with houses, front and back gardens and lots of outside space get the majority of the short term benefits, but at least let's have that debate and agree the right position for our area;

4) active support for the group that are going to be worst affected based on 3). Maybe grants for cycles, cycle hoops reserved for people in those areas who live in flats, funded school bike trains, planting to minimise the pollution impact, pollution monitors, enforcement against people who leave their engines running, maybe even restricting deliveries to the LTN area or, requiring deliveries to be dropped off at central points for collection, or surcharging for them with the funding going back to support other areas. Support for the elderly and immobile in particular. I don't know what the right solutions are, but they need to be actively supporting the people who lose out short term and they need to be properly funded - maybe from all the fines that have been generated from road closures - so as to bring some element of fairness back into this debate.

I was slightly heartened to see James McAsh say today he agrees that the current LTNs may need to be adjusted, but I'm also pretty sceptical - as some of you know - a group of my neighbours including Bradbury Oak House have been trying to engage with our local councillors for a while now, and while they make all the right noises, we're still in a position where the Council has said our views will count for less than others in the LTN area in the consultation, and other councillors still feel comfortable describing anyone who wants to see changes as a "vocal minority" and worse on Twitter.

And if you do support the current LTN measures, but read the above and think - actually, that's pretty fair - do the rest of us a favour and tell your councillor that? It's too easy for the Council to adopt a divide and conquer approach where you're either 100% in favour or 100% against the current measures. Let's hold our elected representatives to account in the middle ground where the difficult decisions are, but it's going to take people from both sides to do that.

*end rant - with apologies to those on here who've heard this from me before*

[intexasatthe moment]

Thank you Bicknell ,what an interesting read

) Dulwich Village junction: ?The option of a permeable closure at this junction was clearly

very popular?

This statement is true only if you look at those in favour. If you include all respondents, the

statement is manifestly incorrect. This is visually represented in the graph below, by

comparing those who wanted to close the junction (173) with those who preferred other

measures (210).

(2) Calton Avenue: ?A permeable closure was clearly also a popular option here?

Again, this statement is not borne out by the data. In the graph below, we compare those

who wanted to close Calton Avenue (164) with those who preferred other measures (193):

[alice]

Very interesting intexas.. Do you know how the 'respondents' were chosen?

[Rockets]

Siduhe - a great post - I think a lot of people feel the same way.

I also thought it was interesting what Cllr McAsh said - it would be interesting if he shared more on where he thinks the measures may need improving - but it is an interesting change in tone - from an agnostic position/very much supportive to one of admitting that it need amending.

I wonder if the council are seeing the monitoring data starting to come through and it is, indeed, showing what many of us have been saying about displacement for a long time.

I very much suspect that the review will focus the council's mind on the need for changes and action - as I sense that a lot of people are going to use the review to finally be heard (or at least try to be heard through the official channel now given by the council).

[Sparrowhawk]

On the statistics side - i.e. the ?feedback? that Southwark used to justify the DV junction closure - the data has been so alarmingly misrepresented that we?re forced to conclude either (a) Southwark simply can?t grasp basic (i.e. GCSE level) statistical analysis; or (b) they?re happy to deliberately play fast-and-loose with statistics to achieve their policies. And it?s certainly far from the first time - i.e. the famous ?47% increase in traffic through the junction? that Southwark tried to get us to believe, when the baseline for that figure was a period in 2017 when the junction was partially close for roadworks! Honestly, for many of us, this whole episode has shattered any presumption we might have had in good governance, ethics and/or basic competency by our council.

And Siduhue, agree, very good post. Sadly such good sense doesn?t seem to resonate with Southwark, but I suppose we can all live in hope.

[Abe_froeman]

I'm afraid I don't trust Cllr McAsh on this at all any more. He wrote something similarly conciliatory on here in October (that gave victims of the road closures hope) and yet nothing has changed.

And then when I see his twitter posts and likes on this subject I come away with the distinct impression he has no intention of changing these measures.

Didn't he also promise some interim report or something from the council in February?

[Abe_froeman]

these are the relevant posts:

________________________________________

Re: Goose Green councillors - how can we help?

Posted by jamesmcash January 25, 08:21PM

Evaluation of LTNs

We are due an announcement on the evaluation process in the next few weeks. The good news is that it looks like it will match up with the commitments I made to you back in October.

________________________________________

Nothing was forthcoming.

This was what he said in October:

________________________________________

Posted by jamesmcash 14 October, 2020 16:38

-----------

WHAT DOES SUCCESS LOOK LIKE?

In my view, we need to look at the effects across the whole area but also on individual streets.

The two key criteria are air pollution and traffic volume. Put simply, if these two measures are not reduced across the whole area then the scheme has failed. It is not enough to displace the traffic - we want to reduce it overall.

But even if air pollution and traffic volume decrease across the board, it matters how it is distributed. I want to see a social justice approach to the analysis. No matter what we do there will inevitably be some pollution and traffic. I want this to be shared equitably: protecting schools, nurseries and hospitals above all else; and not allowing the negative effects of air pollution to fall on those least able to bear them.

...

________________________________________

[SE22_2020er]

@sidhu - great post! Thank you for taking the time to articulate your views so clearly. Big thumbs up from me

[Bicknell]

fyi - statistics on twitter

croxted getting all the traffic

quote from tfl in march

hope this is teh kind of data southwark will take notice of