LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[heartblock]

When I walk to Herne Hill during the school run, many cyclists on EDG either use the pavement or cycle down the centre of the road past the idling, near-standstill traffic. Parents and school children on bikes use the pavement almost exclusively.

I do worry about a pedestrian being hit, although I can't blame parents using the pavement to cycle as a family as the idling traffic produces lots of horrible fumes and it is difficult to cycle past on the left had side.

The middle road cycling also worries me, I have seen a couple of U turns that could so easily hurt a cyclist and the buses stuck in a row, crawling down the grove are very difficult to see around.

I have walked this route for 5 years, with an occasional hop onto the 37 bus if running late or to get to Clapham and catch the tube.

Now, the 37 bus takes around 30 minutes to transit ED Grove. If LTNs are to remain, it might be a good idea to divert buses through LTNs so that they are a faster alternative to sitting in a car in standstill traffic. I haven't driven for 11 years, but if I did I would rather sit in an air-conditioned car with the radio on, than a full bus for 30 minutes (which is why LTNs don't always encourage people to use public transport).

[Nigello]

Yes, parents who use their children (either as passengers or as alongside-riders) mounting the pavement and thinking it IS OK BECAUSE I HAVE A CHILD are a pain. It's like a middle-class hall pass - I am nice and doing my bit so I should be allowed to barrel along the pavement and impede my fellow citizens who perhaps have no other choice but walk there to get to their destination in the least impactful way possible.

If you do it, please stop and allow pedestrians to be, to coin the current parlance, "happy in their own space".

[Rockets]

The Phase 3 consultation report also demonstrates that, without hiding behind the Covid pandemic to get the LTNs rolled out, the council would have struggled to get their closures in - the consultation results do not give them strong enough support to mandate the closures as they did. They did not have majority support. If you apply the same logic that they used for the CPZs then they would have failed to reach their own threshold.

Firstly, only 44% of those within the consultation zone believed the measures they were suggesting would achieve the objective.

If you apply the council's 50% threshold then they could have closed the DV junction (55% support) and Townley Road (53% support) but could not have done anything on Melbourne Grove or Burbage.

It's becoming clearer and clearer that they used Covid as the cover to get these in as they knew there was not broad support for the measures that they were suggesting - even within the areas likely to benefit the most. This is why they played the "social distancing" card when everyone knew it had nothing to do with that.

The fact 81% of people were in favour of the overall objective yet so few agreed with the specific measures demonstrates clearly that their measures were flawed and that they should have returned to the drawing board.

[northernmonkey]

East Dulwich Grove has always been horrific for cycling - its a definite no with kids and best avoided as an adult.

The section between JAGS and Charter ED used to be even worse when it was fully parked up with cars - at least now the CPZ is in, the congestion isn't quite so packed in, but still a horrible bit for cycling. I did see something in James McAsh's newsletter re a feasibility for a cycle lane so that would make a massive difference on there if it was possible. Further round Village Way just has speeding cars now its quite wide and empty and then it gets worse up to Herne Hill.

These days I tend to avoid the whole thing by going round the back of Trossachs / Hillsboro and then down Calton, through the village and up Burbage / Stradella. Its a less direct route but probably indicative of the levels of detours cyclists routinely make to try to stay safer because of the huge volume of vehicles on our roads and the poor driving that exists. That hasn't changed, but at least now there are some safer alternatives, whereas previously i could face head on traffic on either East Dulwich Grove or Calton Avenue! We need more of them to be properly joined up to create a safe network of routes though.

[Earl Aelfheah]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> East Dulwich Grove has always been horrific for

> cycling - its a definite no with kids and best

> avoided as an adult.

>

> The section between JAGS and Charter ED used to be

> even worse when it was fully parked up with cars -

> at least now the CPZ is in, the congestion isn't

> quite so packed in, but still a horrible bit for

> cycling. I did see something in James McAsh's

> newsletter re a feasibility for a cycle lane so

> that would make a massive difference on there if

> it was possible. Further round Village Way just

> has speeding cars now its quite wide and empty and

> then it gets worse up to Herne Hill.

>

> These days I tend to avoid the whole thing by

> going round the back of Trossachs / Hillsboro and

> then down Calton, through the village and up

> Burbage / Stradella. Its a less direct route but

> probably indicative of the levels of detours

> cyclists routinely make to try to stay safer

> because of the huge volume of vehicles on our

> roads and the poor driving that exists. That

> hasn't changed, but at least now there are some

> safer alternatives, whereas previously i could

> face head on traffic on either East Dulwich Grove

> or Calton Avenue! We need more of them to be

> properly joined up to create a safe network of

> routes though.

This is spot on. A cycle lane connecting ED to Herne Hill and then via Railton LTN to Brixton tube would be great.

[northernmonkey]

And some santander bikes for that route would be nice too - the idea of too hilly doesn't stack up - its a gentle slope along that way and being able to leave a bike at Brixton that you weren't worried about not being there for the return journey would be great.

[Otto2]

That would be amazing. Segregated lanes AND Santander. Sounds do-able. Pity Santander does not do child-carrying bikes -- that would be handy around here for so many but if the lanes were segregated, little people presumably could ride their own with no probs.

[SE22_2020er]

Agreed @Northernmonkey - the cycling routes in East Dulwich, whilst not perfect, have improved amazingly since the LTNs. My children can now cycle safely along Melbourne Grove (North and South) through to Oglander and then onto Rye Lane and along the old canal into Waterloo - it's a great quiet route in case anyone doesn't know it.

And going the other way, they can now cycle safely along Melbourne Grove Hillsborough, Townley, Calton, through the village, Turney, Burbage and then to Herne Hill.

Like Heartblock, I would love to see a proper cycle lane throughout the length of EDG from Lordship Lane to Herne Hill. It would mean taking out quite a chunk of space for car parking which I suspect could meet quite some opposition from those who live on EDG and nearby streets which would have to accommodate the displaced parking. But clearly there is the demand for this as per Heartblock's observations of people being forced to cycle on the pavements and middle of the road.

Does anyone know how to support the EDG Cycle lane proposal/investigation?

[exdulwicher]

The Phase 3 consultation report also demonstrates that, without hiding behind the Covid pandemic to get the LTNs rolled out, the council would have struggled to get their closures in - the consultation results do not give them strong enough support to mandate the closures as they did. They did not have majority support. If you apply the same logic that they used for the CPZs then they would have failed to reach their own threshold.

This is one of the dangers of consultations done before any interventions. I know that one of the major complaints is that the LTNs and a few other measures have been put in without consultation (this is a complaint repeated nationally, not unique to Dulwich in any way) although the point of the Experimental Traffic Order is that you run the intervention and the consultation simultaneously. You actually get much more valid data and responses because it's based on what is happening, not what the council have painted on a pretty website and told you they'd like to happen.

Which brings me to Rockets (very valid) point. You can consult on something, take it away and tweak it a bit, re-consult, obtain your 50+% rating... and then install something slightly different / what you originally wanted to install anyway. It can easily be hidden behind "costs" or "other factors not available at the time the consultation was done", it could just be incompetence or sometimes it's just that the benefits of the proposed scheme have been overstated or the disbenefits understated - it's why I'm far more in favour of Experimental Traffic Orders and trying things out real world, getting proper data and feedback live and then adjusting as necessary because it removes the option for the council to say "it'll all be wonderful, back us to get it done".

The major problem here is that people have lost all trust in the council to run consultations so it's reached the point that no matter what the answer is, there'll always be a subset of people who believe it was rigged. And when interventions are being adjusted based on proper data and monitoring, it does allow the negative comments of "they haven't got a clue what they're doing, they're just messing around" etc which you sometimes hear. It does need good engagement to work properly.

[DulwichCentral]

When it comes to 'rigging' personally I would have more faith in Southwark Council (even though not perfect) than One Dulwich / Dulwich Alliance who claim business is down by 75% *due to road closures* - and **ZERO** mention of Covid!

Thats just plain ridiculous - especially from a group who are consistently demanding data. Where is their data to back that claim?

[Rockets]

Ex - and the council have failed massively on engagement - they haven't taken the majority of the people with them on this journey and now they are reaping what they have sowed. Bottom-line is the majority of people want the council to do something but their ham-fisted attempts to do something, seemingly measures at the behest of a few pro-LTN lobby groups from outside the area, have backfired spectacularly.

In one fail swoop they have managed to make congestion and pollution worse, divide and set elements of the community against one another and create a toxic atmosphere of distrust. That's not what any of us voted for or gave them a mandate for. They have failed. Now let's see who is willing to take responsibility for those failings.

[heartblock]

As the schools, health centre and nurseries are on EDGrove it?s a bit difficult to avoid the road if cycling to these as a parent, worker or child. That is the issue on ED Grove, it is a road that has a lot of residents, pedestrians, children, parents who are actively travelling to this destination rd. The new ?playing fields? and entrance for Charter School are right next to the road.

[northernmonkey]

Cycling to and cycling along aren't the same thing though - in any event both support some proper infrastructure on this road. Melbourne Grove provides a safe route to the hospital, cycling round trossachs and hillsboro to Alleyns / JAGS, via the village for other options.

Going back to my earlier point, the road is no worse for cycling on now than it was pre road changes and actually given the changes to parking its marginally better - though the impact of the 1 or 2 cars parked there now is disproportionately effecting cycling as means that the option to travel up what was the parking spaces is removed.

[heartblock]

Really. ED Grove traffic is much worse during the school run..and always parking at that time as parents drive up and park to let kids out, but what would I know, have only lived here for 30 years.

[Peckham Park]

As reported in the Financial Times today, TfL are considering using the uLEZ for raising revenue. It was pretty obvious from when this was first mooted that this would happen eventually. This will really reduce traffic in the area, but the South Circular will become horrendous?..

TfL officials have set out several options including a new Greater London Boundary charge for cars driving into London. Other possible measures involve a big expansion of the capital?s congestion charge zone, extending it out to the two inner London ring roads, known as the north and south circular.

[alice]

Anyone know % of journeys inside circulars that begin outside?

[ab29]

South Circular has always been an awful road and got much worst after the so-called LTNs were introduced. Can't imagine what will happen after ULEZ..

scrawford Wrote:

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

> As reported in the Financial Times today, TfL are

> considering using the uLEZ for raising revenue. It

> was pretty obvious from when this was first mooted

> that this would happen eventually. This will

> really reduce traffic in the area, but the South

> Circular will become horrendous?..

>

> TfL officials have set out several options

> including a new Greater London Boundary charge for

> cars driving into London. Other possible measures

> involve a big expansion of the capital?s

> congestion charge zone, extending it out to the

> two inner London ring roads, known as the north

> and south circular.

[DulvilleRes]

There needs to be a bit of context and balance on reporting on anti-social behaviour by people arguing for and against LTN's.

I've seen no mention on this thread of a couple of troubling incidents at the end of the week before last. In the first one, a deeply unpleasant and personal notice was posted on the front and side doors of an elderly lady with a pro LTN point of view. In the second similar one, a woman living nearby, with a pro LTN viewpoint, had an equally unpleasant and personal notice put up in the street in which she lives. This is beyond the level of any kind of reasoned debate amongst neighbours about local issues, and tips I would think into criminal law. @legalalien made a very good point about keeping it civil - I think the sometimes antagonistic tone on this thread doesn't help.

[Droid]

Thoroughly agree.

[eastdulwichlocal99]

I really don?t know what all the fuss is about - the roads are only busy at rush hour like they have always been. Go down from 9:30am onwards and it?s really quiet. Removing the LTNs won?t change the rush hour jam one bit.

Meanwhile it was great to see people socialising outside the coffee shop on Melbourne Grove which doubles as a wine bar in the evening. Similarly the new Dulwich Square with the seated area is a great idea.

Encouraging less car use is a step in the right direction, all the council need to do now is install some proper cycling lanes to make it safer for the cyclists which I suspect will come at some point. I think those against need to come to terms that the LTNs are here to stay which will be further backed up by the consultation.

[alice]

Southwark council created this divisive policy. Shouldn?t be surprised it?s caused division.

[heartblock]

The road isn?t just busy during school run, it is full of idling traffic, while children walk to school and adults walk, cycle or sit on the 37 bus trying to get to work. I?m not sure everyone understands the impact of spikes in pollution on the health of children and vulnerable adults. These pollution spikes can trigger a lethal asthma attack and can also cause cardiovascular and respiratory damage over the long term. The exposure is every school day for two hours in the morning and two in the evening.

One cannot have it both ways, if Mums for Lungs and other low traffic and low pollution campaigniners believe as I do that car pollution needs to be reduced, I cannot understand their support for LTNs when as eastdulwiclocal99 admits there is an increase in both on these, on residential school roads outside of the LTNs.

As residents we are gaslighted by being told ?the traffic hasn?t increased, you don?t know what you are talking about? to ?all you care about is that you have to drive a longer way? and ?the traffic has increased, but as it is only 4 hours a day, it doesn?t matter? also...on Twitter, ?just move house? ?don?t walk on your road? ?you are too stupid to understand how LTNs work? and best of all ?the traffic will disappear?

[ab29]

One Dulwich leaflet sums it up really well (capitalization mine).

10 REASONS TO END ROAD CLOSURES

Dulwich road closures don't work because they

1 PUSH TRAFFIC AND POLLUTION ON TO NEIGHBOURING residential STREETS where thousands of children also go to school

2 MAKE JOURNEYS LONGER, increasing our COLLECTIVE carbon emissions and contribution to climate change

3 stop emergency vehicles getting through, ENDANGERING LIVES

4 AREN'T BASED ON ANY CONSISTENT TRAFFIC & POLLUTION MONITORING DATA, area-wide plan or or equality impact assessment

5 SLOW DONW BUSES, making Dulwich's poor public transport even worst

6 DISCRIMINATE against elderly, vulnerable, disabled and mobility-impaired residents

7 THREATEN THE LIVELIHOODS of local shops, businesses, sports clubs and community groups

8 delay GPs on home visits, midwives reaching home births, community nurses and carers

9 make working parents' live harder because of unpredictable travelling times

10 BENEFIT THOSE WHO HAVE MOST AND HARM THOSE WHO HAVE LEAST

[alice]

Agreed, and all 10 are against Southwark?s ?Fairer Futures For All? Promise.

[macutd]

11. and make it dangerous for me as a cyclist. I now have to ride on a over congested dangerous road.