LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[intexasatthe moment]

"ensure it is the most transparent ,comprehensive and all encompassing consultation we have carried out."

No doubt I'm being overly critical but it's interesting to think that there is a scale of the above qualities in Southwark's consultations .

[first mate]

What this means is that all the borough and perhaps even london-wide, pro cycling groups and various clean air, anti- pollution and climate change groups will be called upon to respond in force, including their children. Perhaps even babies can have a proxy voice.

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> Amazing twist on the upcoming consultation (see

> the attached document)

>

> No minimum age for responding to the consultation

> and stakeholders both inside and outside of the

> Dulwich area scheme are able to respond.

>

> The cynic in me wonders if, for example, let's say

> a school teacher asks his pupils who are outside

> of the area to write a response to the scheme as

> part of their homework.

>

> I also have to question how easy it will be to

> verify that a person under 18 actually exists, as

> they aren't in the electoral register and we've

> all heard stories of families incorrectly claiming

> things like universal credit for non existent

> children.

>

> Of course I'm not saying anyone would deliberately

> manipulate responses but it is open to abuse if

> someone was so inclined.

[Rockets]

I honestly don't think the council have the first clue how this review will run. They have created a rod for their own back and I suspect are struggling to work out how they judge whether it stays, goes or gets massively adjusted (or are trying to work out how they spin the monitoring numbers).

On a walk today I noticed a lot more of the new green Clean Air For All posters in windows around Dulwich.

[legalalien]

I have had a new council newsletter. Will post on ?info? thread.

[johnhinton]

Great pictures, Karimdiatoubajie, thank you, and a very inspiring story. I am very much opposed to the LTNs and the way they were rolled out and continue to be supported by Southwark on very flimsy data. That doesn't mean I think unfettered driving is necessary or desirable or that no journeys should be made by bicycle, scooter or public transport.

Good for you and I hope things work out for you and your family.

[heartblock]

Dulwich has always had a high percentage of local active travel, so people walking and cycling, but it was never about that. Certain residents running certain campaigns were desperate to copy Gilkes Crescent and have a gated enclave, it was never about pollution, increasing active travel or reducing traffic, it was always about being jealous of the nice quiet street with the posh houses.

Of course the gate at Gilkes is only there because Southwark messed up the installation of speed humps...Gilkes was supposed to be temporary, maybe time to take the gates off......

[Abe_froeman]

How did they get away with keeping it there if it was only meant to be temporary? It must have been there for many years now?

[exdulwicher]

How did they get away with keeping it there if it was only meant to be temporary? It must have been there for many years now?

Because it works well. That junction, especially around the block that used to be the petrol station, was always solid with traffic and, because the junction is so close to the Carlton / Court Lane / DV junction, it exacerbated the problem. One queue of cars trying to turn in/out of GC with other queuing traffic at DV. Add in parked cars and a school bus trying to get through, it was routinely absolutely jammed around there.

It was put in sometime in the late 80's, maybe early 90's I think. The speed humps in Court Lane went in at roughly the same time. However I was just a kid at the time so I can't remember an exact date. Council archives might have it somewhere I suppose. As to "how did it stay", that's the whole point of Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders. Try it out, adjust if required and if it has the desired effect (or to put it in traffic terms, if the benefits outweigh the disbenefits*), put a permanent TRO in on the amendments.

*Yes, disbenefits is a word.

The Guardian did an article about historic LTNs the other day, there are thousands that were either retro-fitted (like Gilkes) decades ago or that were designed in more or less from the start (like housing estates) - the idea is nothing new.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/16/critics-of-uk-low-traffic-schemes-told-that-25000-filters-already-existed

[Rockets]

Come on Ex- you work in the industry and you know that when you read that Guardian article that it is both really clutching at straws and scraping the barrel at the same time isn't it.....25,000 thousand modal filters that include bollards, kerbs, planters and gates......since the 1960s.......

Peter Walker's article is clearly manipulated to make the reader think that there are 25,000 LTN like filters in place across the country but the inclusion of kerbs would, no doubt, include any kerbs installed to facilitate a bike lane, or a drop kerb to allow buggies to be pushed across the road - which of course, don't have the same displacement tsunami effect of closing the DV/Court Lane junction......

I think we can safely file that one to the "Peter Walker Propaganda" file....at some point I am hoping even the Guardian editor must have turn to Peter and say...."Peter...really!!!???" ;-)

I also love how he drops the name of Laurence Fox in there....just to ram home the anti-LTN supporter trope....

[exdulwicher]

Well the article is written by Peter Walker because he's the journo for The Guardian that deals with issues like that. However it is reported on lots of sites:

https://cyclingindustry.news/bikeisbest-research-found-at-least-25000-modal-filters/

There was, a while ago now, a Twitter feed of historic LTNs (like the ones in the picture used in the report I've just linked to). Some you'd barely notice as they now have mature trees there indicating how long they've been in place. Others are more basic - perhaps a bollard or a built-out kerb allowing egress but preventing ingress to anything except bikes. Overhill Road junction with LL is basically a modal filter as is the next one along, Melford Road although that uses solely signage without bollards.

Milo Road (between Beauval Road and Lordship Lane) is another local example, again that has been in place for decades.

[northernmonkey]

Rockets - I'm pretty sure that the 'kerbs' referenced in the report aren't just dropped kerbs for road crossings (or the figure would be higher than 25,000 by a massive multiple), but instead where there is a raised pavement type thing across what was previously a road. The kerb segregation is probably more prevalent in 1980s housing estates I'd imagine though than on London streets.

[Rockets]

The article doesn't explain what the kerbs are and does say that the researchers think the number could be massively higher. Is it just me or do a lot of the Guardian's articles seem to be a little light on detail.....an attention grabbing headline but that's about it, as you read down the article so the headline becomes weaker and weaker.

Of course, the point the Guardian or the cycle group researchers who did the research miss is that all those modal filters weren't dropped in at once or caused the type of displacement chaos we are seeing in many areas that have these new ones (like Dulwich).

But these articles do little to try to establish what is actually happening and are written from a position of justifying why they shouldn't come out - and that is an important distinction and why they are just part of the pro-LTN propaganda machine.

I am still chuckling at the childish and pointed Laurence Fox reference.....;-)

[legalalien]

I had an email notification about the consultation this morning.

Southwark Council

Dear resident,

We are writing to you because you registered to be updated on the Dulwich Review consultation.

The consultation launched on 17 May and will run until 11 July 2021. You can view background information and respond to the consultation online at www.southwark.gov.uk/dulwichstreetspacereview

Everyone who pre-registered receives a ?unique identifier? code ? your code is: XXXX

Please enter this code where requested in the online form. We are using this system to help track the success of the registration system. If you live in the Dulwich area you may also receive a newsletter through the post with a different code on the envelope ? please use one or the other, and do not respond more than once.

If there is more than one person in your household, you may use the same code ? but it cannot be used outside your household.

If you have any queries about the consultation process, please write to: [email protected]

Kind regards,

Southwark Council Highways

Unsubscribe from any further emails from Southwark Council.

You may also choose to modify your subscriber preferences.

www.southwark.gov.uk

This email was sent to [email protected] using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: Southwark Council ? PO BOX 64529 ? London SE1P 5LX GovDelivery logo

[mr.chicken]

first mate Wrote:

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

> What this means is that all the borough and

> perhaps even london-wide, pro cycling groups and

> various clean air, anti- pollution and climate

> change groups will be called upon to respond in

> force, including their children. Perhaps even

> babies can have a proxy voice.

I don't think they should be allowed a say. They can't drive cars so they shoudln't have an opinion on how roads are used. All they can really do is cycle, and cyclists don't count because they wear lycra and are smug. I'm fairly sure that chap with the cargo bike is wearing lycra under his clothes and is judging me. Smugly. We should ensure that car voices for ROADS count and not others.

[slarti b]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

Milo Road (between Beauval Road and Lordship Lane)is another local example, again that has been in place for decades.

Milo Road closure is nothing to do with LTN's. It was to stop traffic dispalced when Southwark made top-end of Woodwarde Road one way following the Council's botched intallation of road humps on Court Lane.

[alice]

Those pro-LTN are now resorting to poor efforts at humour. Weak.

[Rockets]

OMG - has anyone started to fill out the review documents - talk about lose the will to live!?

Firstly it re-stats the affirmation that these measures were brought about as part of the Covid response to aid social distancing and then asks a load of leading questions (all of which are linked to the success of such measures) - not one question addresses whether there have been any negative impacts associated with the closures. Astonishing. Of course you can leave comments but they don't measure comments.

I started filling it out, trying to be as balanced as possible and then found myself getting more and more annoyed by the blinkered questions as I could see how the council were going to try and manipulate the results. It appears the only way to voice any concern may be to strongly disagree with all the assumptions made in the review.

[Abe_froeman]

I thought the questions were a lot more balanced than they could have been.... e.g.

_________________________________

"If there was an LTN in the road next to yours, would you also want an LTN in your road?

*Yes, Very Strongly Agree [ ]

*Yes, Strongly Agree [ ]

*Yes, Agree [ ]

_________________________________

[PollyGlot]

Some local residents had the opportunity to discuss LTN matters with a Councillor today. This was none other than Margy Newens, who is Deputy Community Champion for the South Area.

One of the first questions presented to her was "What is the PRIME purpose of the LTN measures?".

Her emphatic and unequivocal response was "TO REDUCE TRAFFIC". No mention of pollution!!

She apparently failed to understand that pollution would be reduced if electric cars were exempted from the LTN penalties ( as is the case with taxis and buses) and that if they were exempt, then that would accelerate the adoption of electric cars and bring about rapid reduction in pollution.

She was unaware that the statistics provided by Southwark on their website are 20 months out of date!

What hope do we have when our community has representatives like this?

[redpost]

PollyGlot Wrote:

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

> Some local residents had the opportunity to

> discuss LTN matters with a Councillor today. This

> was none other than Margy Newens, who is Deputy

> Community Champion for the South Area.

>

> One of the first questions presented to her was

> "What is the PRIME purpose of the LTN measures?".

>

> Her emphatic and unequivocal response was "TO

> REDUCE TRAFFIC". No mention of pollution!!

>

> She apparently failed to understand that pollution

> would be reduced if electric cars were exempted

> from the LTN penalties ( as is the case with taxis

> and buses) and that if they were exempt, then that

> would accelerate the adoption of electric cars and

> bring about rapid reduction in pollution.

>

> She was unaware that the statistics provided by

> Southwark on their website are 20 months out of

> date!

>

> What hope do we have when our community has

> representatives like this?

Well duh, trafic equals pollution atm to a very high correlation

Even electric cars will pollute, road dust, brake dust etc

[Rockets]

PollyGlot Wrote:

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

> Some local residents had the opportunity to

> discuss LTN matters with a Councillor today. This

> was none other than Margy Newens, who is Deputy

> Community Champion for the South Area.

>

> One of the first questions presented to her was

> "What is the PRIME purpose of the LTN measures?".

>

> Her emphatic and unequivocal response was "TO

> REDUCE TRAFFIC". No mention of pollution!!

>

> She apparently failed to understand that pollution

> would be reduced if electric cars were exempted

> from the LTN penalties ( as is the case with taxis

> and buses) and that if they were exempt, then that

> would accelerate the adoption of electric cars and

> bring about rapid reduction in pollution.

>

> She was unaware that the statistics provided by

> Southwark on their website are 20 months out of

> date!

>

> What hope do we have when our community has

> representatives like this?

We have to frame her response in terms of what the underlying objective for Margy Newens was: To reduce traffic......for her constituents.....

It's been clear from day one that that was the only objective and that this was to be achieved by any means necessary - even if that meant that other councillors' constituents had to absorb the displacement.

I am glad she has put that out there as if the council cannot prove that this has happened area wide to a significant degree then the scheme will have been a complete failure. One wonders then whether any councillors will admit they were wrong and take actually responsibility for their mistakes - I very much doubt it. The amount of money the council has wasted on this is absurd.

[legalalien]

Actually, not all traffic is equal when it comes to pollution. (types of vehicles, start/stop nature of traffic, idling).

Similarly, there is a big difference between reducing number of trips vs reducing mileage. Something that gets lost a lot in the official statements.

Did anyone ask "to reduce traffic where?"

[PollyGlot]

redpost Wrote:

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

> Well duh, trafic equals pollution atm to a very

> high correlation

>

> Even electric cars will pollute, road dust, brake

> dust etc

It seems you share Newens' lack of understanding of facts, priorities and forecasts. Allow me to highlight a few key points further.

1. Trafic (sic) does not equal pollution and the proportion of electric vehicles is increasing rapidly. In 2020 over 10% of new cars were electric https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry-news-sales-figures/analysis-2020-uk-car-sales-hit-28-year-low-ev-market-grows. The percentage in London was even higher.

see attached

2. The Govt. has ruled that ALL petrol car sales will cease in 2030.

3. With 2400 electric/hybrid buses, London has the highest percentage in Europe and all diesel types will be phased out by 2026. Buses used to be big polluters, not now.

4. Most of the "rush hour" traffic in Dulwich is parents on the school run some of which may have kids at 2 or more of the local public schools. This group are best able to afford electric vehicles and should incentivised to use EVs by allowing them through the "bus/taxi" gates free of penalty. These mums would buy EV's in a flash.

I will add more later but the the facts show that "traffic equates to pollution" is no longer valid.

Southwark is clearly spending millions on a problem that receding fast. It also illustrates the lack of understanding and vision that some Councillors have.

Added later...

5. The LTNs actually add to the pollution because drivers have to do extra miles to find a way round the closures.

[mr.chicken]

PollyGlot Wrote:

> 4. Most of the "rush hour" traffic in Dulwich is

> parents on the school run some of which may have

> kids at 2 or more of the local public schools.

> This group are best able to afford electric

> vehicles and should incentivised to use EVs.

I agree with Polly, it is important we provide financial incentives for people to switch over their SUVs to electric. Partly I think it will provide aspiration for those less able to afford the switch and encourage them to get electric SUVs as well, in the mean time it will ensure that we move towards a community where only the local SUVs get to use the roads which I think this is the best solution to traffic jams while maintaining accessibility for those who deserve it. I don't think it's remotely reasonable to expect people to walk to schools or take the bus, it's deeply unfair to ask people to do such a thing when they've spent so much money already on motor vehicles.

[PollyGlot]

The LTN measures were obviously not thought through adequately by the council.

Apart from the lack awareness of the rapid adoption of EVs, there has been naivety on unintended consequences. Some of these are:-

1. Traffic displacement rather than reduction.

2. Displaced traffic causing unacceptable increases in pollution.

3. Impact on local businesses. Take the case of Callow the locksmith who are quitting Dulwich as they are now located on a dead end street (Melbourne Grove). Others will follow- most likely some in Dulwich Village where they are suffering from the LTN measures.

4. Emergency vehicles are being delayed because their fastest routes are now blocked by the "permeable barriers". They have to find an alternative by hit or miss.

5. Increase in crime (as stated by Cressida Dick) because Police cannot gain access because of the barriers.

6. Increased danger to pedestrians crossing the road. I often see this near traffic lights where cars are stationary in a tail back whilst the other side is empty. When the lights change the tail back is still stationary but the other side becomes active immediately.

I appreciate some of this may have been said before it is none the less valid.