LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[heartblock]

No...LTNBoo, I said we were not invited to a private zoom meeting, with the council, which was only sent to a gated community so they could help Southwark with future changes. Please don?t twist my words.

It does seem that people on this forum who do not like us on roads that have seen an increase in pollution and traffic due to LTNs (independent pollution monitoring and Southwark?s own released data), highlighting these facts and asking for something to be done about it, cannot help themselves with twisting what we write and say, to fit their agenda of maintaining their privileged lifestyle.

I only hope if that I lived in a 2 million 5-6 bedroom house in a gated community, I would be a bit more thoughtful about a family, with a young child in a one bedroom 3rd floor flat with no garden who does not own a car and has to walk with her child along a polluted and traffic bound road every school morning.

Maybe a house swap for a month...and let?s see how the ?important people ? in the gated roads feel....

[LTN BooHoo]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> No...LTNBoo, I said we were not invited to a

> private zoom meeting, with the council, which was

> only sent to a gated community so they could help

> Southwark with future changes. Please don?t twist

> my words.

>

> It does seem that people on this forum who do not

> like us on roads that have seen an increase in

> pollution and traffic due to LTNs (independent

> pollution monitoring and Southwark?s own released

> data), highlighting these facts and asking for

> something to be done about it, cannot help

> themselves with twisting what we write and say, to

> fit their agenda of maintaining their privileged

> lifestyle.

>

> I only hope if that I lived in a 2 million 5-6

> bedroom house in a gated community, I would be a

> bit more thoughtful about a family, with a young

> child in a one bedroom 3rd floor flat with no

> garden who does not own a car and has to walk with

> her child along a polluted and traffic bound road

> every school morning.

>

> Maybe a house swap for a month...and let?s see how

> the ?important people ? in the gated roads

> feel....

When was this meeting you are referring to?

You discuss a ?gated community? but this is exactly what One Dulwich is pushing for. They advocate for a resident exemption permit system that would allow residents to drive freely in and out of their neighbourhood past your home. If they can?t have permits they want to remove all restrictions and go back to what we had. How does that help you? How will this help the generations that follow?

And I am being thoughtful about those who are less privileged. As I said it is wealthy people who own and drive cars so limiting their ability to freely drive their heavy, oversized SUVs is a good place to start. Walk around Dulwich there are plenty of homes with multiple cars in the drive with ? Clean Air for All? posters up. I am asking ?clean air for who? and ?clean air how??

And as an end note - the majority of LTNs in Southwark are in less privileged areas.

[Artemis]

northernmonkey - we all know we?re facing a climate emergency. All those who are ?moaning?, as you put it, would agree. The climate emergency has now ended up straight outside lots of doors in Dulwich in recent months and air quality in many residential areas is diminishing. By flagging that, residents are not moaning. They are not saying ?I want to drive my big polluting car everywhere?. They are saying ?there?s a climate emergency and this particular strategy doesn?t appear to be working in this particular area as I am now finding it increasingly difficult to cope with levels of traffic and pollution on my road/roads I use?. Not that Southwark Council has chosen to publish pollution data, but I know the self funded monitors are indicating that this is the case.

My view is that it makes no sense to try and sort out problems of pollution on a borough by borough basis. It would be like every council in the UK being given free rein to deal with a virus like Covid as they saw fit. So Southwark might choose to go for herd immunity, Lambeth may require compulsory vaccination, and Lewisham may legislate for enforced isolation. As a strategy, it would be possible for each council to say ?look, we?re doing something to combat the virus!? But if the road next door is doing something different, the virus would continue to spread. The same principle applies to LTNs. Southwark is attached to the rest of the London whether Southwark Council likes it or not. However, there appears to be very limited joined up planning and collaboration with the rest of London. It makes no sense to me.

You say people could cycle. But the numbers of cycle journeys as a percentage of a all journeys is tiny. You clearly enjoy cycling and good for you. But others don?t. Other?s can?t. Even if numbers increased three-fold, the vast majority of journeys remain non-cycling and what is being done to cater for those journeys? Buses are slower. There are limited alternative public transport options in Dulwich. Massive amounts of money have been spent in London in improving cycle ways, but the numbers of cycle journeys as a whole is still very small. It baffles me how far Southwark Council seems to have attached itself to the cycling lobby rather than recognising that it has a duty to represent all its constituents. Instead, why are our councillors not lobbying for better public transport and a joined up transport/clear air policy? Why is the Council not asking Helen Hayes to ask questions in parliament about investment in green public transport, instead of this intransigent belief that by making the roads in Dulwich horrible for many that a sufficiently significant number of people to make a difference will get on a bicycle. It?s been a year. Traffic isn?t diminishing enough to justify the downsides, in my view.

[Artemis]

Sorry - it was LTN BooHoo talking about moaning etc. not northernmonkey?.

[Rockets]

LTN BooHoo...no it is you that needs to read up...you are correct, a low PTAL score does not justify any car ownership but it is, by far, one of the contributing factors and is one of the major ones in Dulwich.

As a reminder here is what Southwark's own Transport Report 2018 stated:

PTAL is a measure of accessibility used by TfL based on distance and frequency of public transport. The areas

with a high level of public transport accessibility usually score 5, 6a or 6b on the PTAL scale, whilst areas with

very low levels of public transport accessibility will score 0, 1a or 1b.

The Dulwich area has a low level of public transport accessibility. Areas around the main stations only reach

a PTAL 3 and The Village a PTAL 2 whilst the main commercial area around East Dulwich has a PTAL 3. Other

parts of Dulwich, particularly those where schools are located have a level 2 of accessibility translating into a

higher use of car and coach for pupils outside of Dulwich.

And then the report goes on to say later when talking about journeys out of the borough:

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.

BTW you openly admit you are an outsider - do we take it from that that you are not a Dulwich resident? Looking at your posting history you joined in April this year and have posted exclusively on posts related to LTNs and nothing else - not a single comment or contribution to anything outside of LTNs. I had presumed, maybe wrongly, that you are a Dulwich resident.

[heartblock]

Meeting as informed by Legal?s post earlier in thread

?So many messages to read through. I understand that Cllr in Chief Kieron Williams and Cllr Rose had a zoom call with reps of residents? associations last night. I?m not sure which RAs. I had a message from ours at 4:15pm about a meeting at 5:30pm and didn?t see it until later that evening so didn?t get a chance to pass on my views to those attending from our street. Apparently the meeting was to ?discuss the ongoing Dulwich Review process, the experiences of your members and your ideas for the future? - the full text of the letter from the council wasn?t sent through to us. Is anyone else aware of this meeting : able to give some insight on what was discussed? Haven?t had an update from our RA?

And yes those poor, starving people living on Calton, Gilkes, Court, Melbourne, Elsie...it must be awful for them...you can feel the poverty in Calton it?s palpable...

[Artemis]

LTN BooHoo Wrote:

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

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> > No...LTNBoo, I said we were not invited to a

> > private zoom meeting, with the council, which

> was

> > only sent to a gated community so they could

> help

> > Southwark with future changes. Please don?t

> twist

> > my words.

> >

> > It does seem that people on this forum who do

> not

> > like us on roads that have seen an increase in

> > pollution and traffic due to LTNs (independent

> > pollution monitoring and Southwark?s own

> released

> > data), highlighting these facts and asking for

> > something to be done about it, cannot help

> > themselves with twisting what we write and say,

> to

> > fit their agenda of maintaining their

> privileged

> > lifestyle.

> >

> > I only hope if that I lived in a 2 million 5-6

> > bedroom house in a gated community, I would be

> a

> > bit more thoughtful about a family, with a

> young

> > child in a one bedroom 3rd floor flat with no

> > garden who does not own a car and has to walk

> with

> > her child along a polluted and traffic bound

> road

> > every school morning.

> >

> > Maybe a house swap for a month...and let?s see

> how

> > the ?important people ? in the gated roads

> > feel....

>

> When was this meeting you are referring to?

>

> You discuss a ?gated community? but this is

> exactly what One Dulwich is pushing for. They

> advocate for a resident exemption permit system

> that would allow residents to drive freely in and

> out of their neighbourhood past your home. If

> they can?t have permits they want to remove all

> restrictions and go back to what we had. How does

> that help you? How will this help the generations

> that follow?

>

> And I am being thoughtful about those who are less

> privileged. As I said it is wealthy people who own

> and drive cars so limiting their ability to freely

> drive their heavy, oversized SUVs is a good place

> to start. Walk around Dulwich there are plenty of

> homes with multiple cars in the drive with ? Clean

> Air for All? posters up. I am asking ?clean air

> for who? and ?clean air how??

>

> And as an end note - the majority of LTNs in

> Southwark are in less privileged areas.

Picking up on your ?end note?, Burbage Road, Court Lane Gardens and Dulwich Village are three of the five most ?expensive? roads in Southwark (according to Zoopla figures in 2020) and come within the LTNs. This is the East Dulwich Forum, not the Southwark forum. We are questioning whether the LTNs are equitable in this particular area.

[northernmonkey]

If we were being so clear cut in boundaries though Artemis, then Burbage, Court Lane etc are not in East Dulwich either!

[Rockets]

Artemis Wrote:

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

> northernmonkey - we all know we?re facing a

> climate emergency. All those who are ?moaning?,

> as you put it, would agree. The climate emergency

> has now ended up straight outside lots of doors in

> Dulwich in recent months and air quality in many

> residential areas is diminishing. By flagging

> that, residents are not moaning. They are not

> saying ?I want to drive my big polluting car

> everywhere?. They are saying ?there?s a climate

> emergency and this particular strategy doesn?t

> appear to be working in this particular area as I

> am now finding it increasingly difficult to cope

> with levels of traffic and pollution on my

> road/roads I use?. Not that Southwark Council has

> chosen to publish pollution data, but I know the

> self funded monitors are indicating that this is

> the case.

>

> My view is that it makes no sense to try and sort

> out problems of pollution on a borough by borough

> basis. It would be like every council in the UK

> being given free rein to deal with a virus like

> Covid as they saw fit. So Southwark might choose

> to go for herd immunity, Lambeth may require

> compulsory vaccination, and Lewisham may legislate

> for enforced isolation. As a strategy, it would be

> possible for each council to say ?look, we?re

> doing something to combat the virus!? But if the

> road next door is doing something different, the

> virus would continue to spread. The same

> principle applies to LTNs. Southwark is attached

> to the rest of the London whether Southwark

> Council likes it or not. However, there appears

> to be very limited joined up planning and

> collaboration with the rest of London. It makes

> no sense to me.

>

> You say people could cycle. But the numbers of

> cycle journeys as a percentage of a all journeys

> is tiny. You clearly enjoy cycling and good for

> you. But others don?t. Other?s can?t. Even if

> numbers increased three-fold, the vast majority of

> journeys remain non-cycling and what is being done

> to cater for those journeys? Buses are slower.

> There are limited alternative public transport

> options in Dulwich. Massive amounts of money have

> been spent in London in improving cycle ways, but

> the numbers of cycle journeys as a whole is still

> very small. It baffles me how far Southwark

> Council seems to have attached itself to the

> cycling lobby rather than recognising that it has

> a duty to represent all its constituents. Instead,

> why are our councillors not lobbying for better

> public transport and a joined up transport/clear

> air policy? Why is the Council not asking Helen

> Hayes to ask questions in parliament about

> investment in green public transport, instead of

> this intransigent belief that by making the roads

> in Dulwich horrible for many that a sufficiently

> significant number of people to make a difference

> will get on a bicycle. It?s been a year. Traffic

> isn?t diminishing enough to justify the downsides,

> in my view.

Artemis - absolutely spot on.

And when looking at the Dulwich Transport Report from 2018 68% of local journeys in Dulwich were made by foot or bike but only 3% were made by bike and I think this has been seized upon by the cycle lobby (who obviously have a vested-interested in increasing cycle share).

It's scary when you look at the amount of airtime the cycle lobby has been given during this process, especially when so little input has been sought from anyone who actually lives in Dulwich. How many meeting notes of council meetings on OHS etc have a list of the usual suspects from the cycle-lobby as the only people giving input - Monk, Walker and Aldred? How come when the emergency services provided feedback on the Peckham Rye LTNs they were ignored but the input from Southwark Cyclists was implemented into the proposals without question?

The council is way too close to the cycle lobby and I think it is clouding their judgement.

Active travel is not just cycling and I fear that the council is putting so much energy into pushing a cycle agenda that they are merely robbing Peter to pay Paul. I do wonder how many of the school children cycling to JAGs and Hamlets etc that are being heralded as modal shift are just shifting from walking. Remember 68% of local journeys were already active travel in 2018.

[LTN BooHoo]

Artemis Wrote:

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

> LTN BooHoo Wrote:

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

> -----

> > heartblock Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > No...LTNBoo, I said we were not invited to a

> > > private zoom meeting, with the council,

> which

> > was

> > > only sent to a gated community so they could

> > help

> > > Southwark with future changes. Please don?t

> > twist

> > > my words.

> > >

> > > It does seem that people on this forum who do

> > not

> > > like us on roads that have seen an increase

> in

> > > pollution and traffic due to LTNs

> (independent

> > > pollution monitoring and Southwark?s own

> > released

> > > data), highlighting these facts and asking

> for

> > > something to be done about it, cannot help

> > > themselves with twisting what we write and

> say,

> > to

> > > fit their agenda of maintaining their

> > privileged

> > > lifestyle.

> > >

> > > I only hope if that I lived in a 2 million

> 5-6

> > > bedroom house in a gated community, I would

> be

> > a

> > > bit more thoughtful about a family, with a

> > young

> > > child in a one bedroom 3rd floor flat with no

> > > garden who does not own a car and has to walk

> > with

> > > her child along a polluted and traffic bound

> > road

> > > every school morning.

> > >

> > > Maybe a house swap for a month...and let?s

> see

> > how

> > > the ?important people ? in the gated roads

> > > feel....

> >

> > When was this meeting you are referring to?

> >

> > You discuss a ?gated community? but this is

> > exactly what One Dulwich is pushing for. They

> > advocate for a resident exemption permit system

> > that would allow residents to drive freely in

> and

> > out of their neighbourhood past your home. If

> > they can?t have permits they want to remove all

> > restrictions and go back to what we had. How

> does

> > that help you? How will this help the

> generations

> > that follow?

> >

> > And I am being thoughtful about those who are

> less

> > privileged. As I said it is wealthy people who

> own

> > and drive cars so limiting their ability to

> freely

> > drive their heavy, oversized SUVs is a good

> place

> > to start. Walk around Dulwich there are plenty

> of

> > homes with multiple cars in the drive with ?

> Clean

> > Air for All? posters up. I am asking ?clean

> air

> > for who? and ?clean air how??

> >

> > And as an end note - the majority of LTNs in

> > Southwark are in less privileged areas.

>

> Picking up on your ?end note?, Burbage Road, Court

> Lane Gardens and Dulwich Village are three of the

> five most ?expensive? roads in Southwark

> (according to Zoopla figures in 2020) and come

> within the LTNs. This is the East Dulwich Forum,

> not the Southwark forum. We are questioning

> whether the LTNs are equitable in this particular

> area.

The meeting you are referring to was with the chairs if residents associations. I have spoken to our chair and have been told that 2 people from Croxted were there. Not sure about other boundary roads as not everyone noted the road they were representing. Write to Councillor Williams for clarification instead of guessing.

It is sad that the main point of restraining those with cars from driving is being missed. It is really simple; those with cars drive through poorer areas. They have big, heavy polluting often high performance cars. Not difficult to understand.

I?m going out now to buy a Porsche might as well join the club.

[Artemis]

LTN BooHoo Wrote:

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

> Artemis Wrote:

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

> -----

> > LTN BooHoo Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > heartblock Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > No...LTNBoo, I said we were not invited to

> a

> > > > private zoom meeting, with the council,

> > which

> > > was

> > > > only sent to a gated community so they

> could

> > > help

> > > > Southwark with future changes. Please don?t

> > > twist

> > > > my words.

> > > >

> > > > It does seem that people on this forum who

> do

> > > not

> > > > like us on roads that have seen an increase

> > in

> > > > pollution and traffic due to LTNs

> > (independent

> > > > pollution monitoring and Southwark?s own

> > > released

> > > > data), highlighting these facts and asking

> > for

> > > > something to be done about it, cannot help

> > > > themselves with twisting what we write and

> > say,

> > > to

> > > > fit their agenda of maintaining their

> > > privileged

> > > > lifestyle.

> > > >

> > > > I only hope if that I lived in a 2 million

> > 5-6

> > > > bedroom house in a gated community, I would

> > be

> > > a

> > > > bit more thoughtful about a family, with a

> > > young

> > > > child in a one bedroom 3rd floor flat with

> no

> > > > garden who does not own a car and has to

> walk

> > > with

> > > > her child along a polluted and traffic

> bound

> > > road

> > > > every school morning.

> > > >

> > > > Maybe a house swap for a month...and let?s

> > see

> > > how

> > > > the ?important people ? in the gated roads

> > > > feel....

> > >

> > > When was this meeting you are referring to?

> > >

> > > You discuss a ?gated community? but this is

> > > exactly what One Dulwich is pushing for. They

> > > advocate for a resident exemption permit

> system

> > > that would allow residents to drive freely in

> > and

> > > out of their neighbourhood past your home.

> If

> > > they can?t have permits they want to remove

> all

> > > restrictions and go back to what we had. How

> > does

> > > that help you? How will this help the

> > generations

> > > that follow?

> > >

> > > And I am being thoughtful about those who are

> > less

> > > privileged. As I said it is wealthy people

> who

> > own

> > > and drive cars so limiting their ability to

> > freely

> > > drive their heavy, oversized SUVs is a good

> > place

> > > to start. Walk around Dulwich there are

> plenty

> > of

> > > homes with multiple cars in the drive with ?

> > Clean

> > > Air for All? posters up. I am asking ?clean

> > air

> > > for who? and ?clean air how??

> > >

> > > And as an end note - the majority of LTNs in

> > > Southwark are in less privileged areas.

> >

> > Picking up on your ?end note?, Burbage Road,

> Court

> > Lane Gardens and Dulwich Village are three of

> the

> > five most ?expensive? roads in Southwark

> > (according to Zoopla figures in 2020) and come

> > within the LTNs. This is the East Dulwich

> Forum,

> > not the Southwark forum. We are questioning

> > whether the LTNs are equitable in this

> particular

> > area.

>

> The meeting you are referring to was with the

> chairs if residents associations. I have spoken to

> our chair and have been told that 2 people from

> Croxted were there. Not sure about other boundary

> roads as not everyone noted the road they were

> representing. Write to Councillor Williams for

> clarification instead of guessing.

>

> It is sad that the main point of restraining those

> with cars from driving is being missed. It is

> really simple; those with cars drive through

> poorer areas. They have big, heavy polluting often

> high performance cars. Not difficult to

> understand.

>

> I?m going out now to buy a Porsche might as well

> join the club.

And most of the people complaining on this forum are not drivers of Porsches. I live neither on a displacement road or an LTN. I rarely drive. I have no vested, personal interest in this. I just don?t like the fact that Dulwich has become a divided, smelly, traffic clogged area unless you have won the golden ticket and live on an LTN (and even if you do, you?re in jeopardy if you need an ambulance and the ambulance has a longer journey because of road closures). EVERYONE?S main point is that there are too many cars. The anti-LTNers point is that the LTNs don?t seem to be doing enough to restrain them. They?re not missing the point at all. From my perspective it is sad that the LTNers seem so entrenched in a position that the LTNs are how to achieve the goal of reducing traffic. Wider policy at a governmental level is what is needed to reduce travel, in my view.

[Raeburn]

Good news Artemis; gvmt released info on this last week, inc reiterating plans for 50% of journeys in cities and towns to be walked or cycled by 2030. This 50% objective has been at the heart of Transport messaging this year, aligning with the UK/UN's Sustainable Development Goals for 2030. Reassuring to hear;

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-publishes-worlds-first-greenprint-to-decarbonise-all-modes-of-domestic-transport-by-2050

Statement from Sustrans here;

https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/news/2021/july/walking-and-cycling-should-be-natural-first-choice-for-short-journeys/

But better analysis here, put into more context;

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2021/07/14/uk-unveils-revolutionary-transport-decarbonization-plan-but-still-to-spend-27-billion-on-roads/

[Artemis]

Aren?t 68% of short journeys in the area already by cycle or foot? Or have I got my data wrong?

[northernmonkey]

That data is difficult from my perspective though - its based on a longstanding london wide survey and for trends its helpful. But the question as to what is a short journey is self selecting. I think it could mean that short trips include things like going to the post box / corner shop, but then longer trips eg to school / swimming / gyms etc might be by car and its impossible to separate out.

[heartblock]

So..is a 25-35% increase in traffic and increased levels of illegal pollution on East Dulwich Grove an acceptable sacrifice for the quiet roads?

Because that is what you are saying.

[Rockets]

Northern - it's not I am afraid, It is Dulwich specific data and the report can be found here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Dulwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf

The report is well worth a read as it is fascinating and demonstrates what a foolhardy approach the LTNs were - when I read it I was wondering how on earth could the council justify doing this - the data doesn't back up the conclusions they seem to have reached to facilitate the implementation of the LTNs (although we have to remind ourselves they were first installed to aid, ahem, social distancing).

The report considers a local trip one anywhere within Dulwich (across the three wards of College, East Dulwich and Village) so that 68% of local journeys done by foot or by bike will include trips to the post box, gym, swimming, schools and so the list goes on. And that 68% was significantly higher than other parts of the borough.

Their definition is below:

Trips within Dulwich

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.

Figure 2.5: Internal surveyed trips by purpose (5-year total surveyed trips)

Source: LTDS 2010-2015 (internal trips sample n=148,105)

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.

[heartblock]

By the way..... before LTNs went in.

The 2011 Census has demonstrated an aggregate increase in percentage cycling to work in Southwark of 3.75% points since the 2001 Census (that is, from 3.98% to 7.73%). The number of people cycling to work rose from 3,965 in 2001 to 10,898 in 2011, which is an increase of 275%.

Dulwich showed increases in cycling trips in line with the general trend in the borough or slightly higher. Confirming the attitude towards cycling recorded in 2001, there are significantly higher rates within the Village Ward (above 10% share in some areas); on the other hand, College Ward maintains a very low cycling share, and resilience towards an attitudinal change (+2.5% increase).

So guess what, cycling was increasing anyway...so have LTNs really encouraged active travel or just longer car journeys?

[Abe_froeman]

95% of my local journeys are by foot or bicycle. I still recognise that the local LTNs are a failure and they have made our area worse and shown up the residents of Dulwich Village and Melbourne Grove asa bad neighbours.

[heartblock]

100% of my local journeys are walking, 95% of my long journeys are PT, my commute is walking and PT. I recognise that LTNs are not working in the Dulwich/East Dulwich area and only wealthy people in gated communities with 1-3 mill housing and a car on their huge drive are benefiting.... and also invited to private zoom meetings....

[Rockets]

Abe - I think you would be surprised how many people in the village oppose these measures - the majority don't want them.

Here is a link to the One Dulwich survey they did on many of the streets in Dulwich Village: https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/80-of-local-households-do-not-support-closure-of-dulwich-village-junction

I know people will accuse this of being leading questions/biased etc but it seems very compelling and they did go door-to-door on each of the streets included in the research and got 800 responses that each person had to put their name and address to.

[northernmonkey]

Rockets, again, thats not correct I'm afraid.

The data used came from the London wide survey though obviously only uses those responding in Dulwich:

It also talks about Dulwich as being the 3 wards of East Dulwich, College and Village (pre new ward boundaries) so that 65% figure wouldn't capture say East Dulwich to Peckham Rye, or Dulwich Village to West Dulwich.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Northern - it's not I am afraid, It is Dulwich

> specific data and the report can be found here:

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

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

>

> The report is well worth a read as it is

> fascinating and demonstrates what a foolhardy

> approach the LTNs were - when I read it I was

> wondering how on earth could the council justify

> doing this - the data doesn't back up the

> conclusions they seem to have reached to

> facilitate the implementation of the LTNs

> (although we have to remind ourselves they were

> first installed to aid, ahem, social distancing).

>

> The report considers a local trip one anywhere

> within Dulwich (across the three wards of College,

> East Dulwich and Village) so that 68% of local

> journeys done by foot or by bike will include

> trips to the post box, gym, swimming, schools and

> so the list goes on. And that 68% was

> significantly higher than other parts of the

> borough.

>

> Their definition is below:

>

>

> Trips within Dulwich

> 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.

> Figure 2.5: Internal surveyed trips by purpose

> (5-year total surveyed trips)

> Source: LTDS 2010-2015 (internal trips sample

> n=148,105)

> 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.

[heartblock]

Mmmh I had an interesting link, but can?t find now...hence this lazy edit.

[heartblock]

Aah found it...It is Dulwich specific Northern as Rockets has said

Dulwich Area Traffic Management Study

Final Report April 2018

London Borough of Southwark 23130501

[Rockets]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> Rockets, again, thats not correct I'm afraid.

>

> The data used came from the London wide survey

> though obviously only uses those responding in

> Dulwich:

>

> It also talks about Dulwich as being the 3 wards

> of East Dulwich, College and Village (pre new ward

> boundaries) so that 65% figure wouldn't capture

> say East Dulwich to Peckham Rye, or Dulwich

> Village to West Dulwich.

>

>

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Northern - it's not I am afraid, It is Dulwich

> > specific data and the report can be found here:

> >

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

>

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

> >

> > The report is well worth a read as it is

> > fascinating and demonstrates what a foolhardy

> > approach the LTNs were - when I read it I was

> > wondering how on earth could the council

> justify

> > doing this - the data doesn't back up the

> > conclusions they seem to have reached to

> > facilitate the implementation of the LTNs

> > (although we have to remind ourselves they were

> > first installed to aid, ahem, social

> distancing).

> >

> > The report considers a local trip one anywhere

> > within Dulwich (across the three wards of

> College,

> > East Dulwich and Village) so that 68% of local

> > journeys done by foot or by bike will include

> > trips to the post box, gym, swimming, schools

> and

> > so the list goes on. And that 68% was

> > significantly higher than other parts of the

> > borough.

> >

> > Their definition is below:

> >

> >

> > Trips within Dulwich

> > 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.

> > Figure 2.5: Internal surveyed trips by purpose

> > (5-year total surveyed trips)

> > Source: LTDS 2010-2015 (internal trips sample

> > n=148,105)

> > 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.

Northern - please look at the map on page 7 of the report - the area covered is quite clearly shown.

I really don't see what your point is; journeys from Dulwich Village and West Dulwich would be covered and so would journeys from East Dulwich to Peckham Rye. What point are you trying to make - that you don't think the council's figures are correct or accurate? And there was me thinking that was reserved only for us when we questioned the presentation of the interim LTN data from the council!!!!

[northernmonkey]

The map that you have pointed out has as its most westernmost point, croxted road. Even the most Dulwich village centric of people couldn't consider that to be West Dulwich. So my point is that journeys from Dulwich Village to say west of croxted road would be considered non local, similarly with any journeys beyond Forest Hill Road to the East.

These figures are based on a 5 year dataset on a london wide survey - so not Southwark's monitoring data, rather its using a subset of a much wider study.

I don't doubt that of the people who are responding, over 60% of local journeys within the area defined on the map are walked, but there are many more which are slightly longer that could represent walked / cycled or multi modal trips - eg its not only the remaining 40%