LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[heartblock]

Traffic dropped across London during the lockdown even in non-LTN Boroughs. Active travel was always high in this area, but also increased in non-LTN areas during the warm spring. All TFL data there for all to research.

It will increase again and as public transport has been reduced during lockdown, it will probably maintain a lower level of service at an elevated price, all playing into the overall reduction of good, clean and cheap public transport which is the real way out of reducing car use and reducing pollution. Diverting traffic to roads like the South Circular and other roads where the least well off in society live is a Tory plan that Southwark appears to support. What advice do LTN and the cycling lobby say to these residents..they tell them to move house.

Again, looking forward to seeing actual data rather than modelling based on schemes that are not like the Emergency LTNs. Yes I do personally support road pricing and ULEZ extension and I would happily see the banning of any non electronic vehicle in the Greater London Area, with the additional investment in public transport.

Because as I said before, the LTNs enforced on us by Councils at the behest of Johnson and Shapps is a diversionary tactic, so the lack of any real planning to reduce pollution goes under the radar.

So it?s then left up to local government and some sort of nudge theory and individual choice...it?s not revolutionary, it?s not central planning and it plays into the hands of vanity projects, leafy road home owners and the lack of any real change.

Meanwhile green spaces are built in and forests burn.

LTNs are like Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

No contact has been made to the residents of ED Grove to explain to us what the Council is going to do before schools open in September and the disaster of 25-35% more traffic, slowed buses, noise and increased pollution again causes distress and increased risk of cardio respiratory illness on this road that hundreds of children walk down, play sports next to and live.

I think you have all been fooled.

[Nigello]

Lest we forget, the school holidays do have a big effect on the amount of traffic in and around these contentious areas. It is only anecdotal, but the Village was like an early morning Sunday around 8am today - nary a vehicle to be seen. Why, then, not be honest about this negative impact on emissions and congestion from this reduceable problem? Maybe it is best to say that even with incentives, coaches, enlightenment from "busy mums/dads" there will ALWAYS be higher traffic in such areas and apply traffic measures accordingly?

[Abe_froeman]

ULEZ is a great idea for reducing pollution but it doesn't go far enough as far as certain commercial vehicles and buses etc are concerned.

It does nothing to reduce traffic though, in the same way "LTN"s do nothing to reduce traffic.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Clearly they do reduce traffic within the LTN / on minor roads. They also reduce the number of motor cars generally, reduce road injuries and increase active travel. It's true that they don't lead to cars moving around the area more quickly - but you cannot make driving more convenient and also reduce the number of people driving. The ULEZ seeks to tackle pollution, which obviously doesn't reduce traffic, but does mitigate some of it's impact. That said, I suspect you'll see the ULEZ extension lead to some reduction in car ownership.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Ultimately, if one thinks it's a good thing to have safer streets, fewer cars, more active travel etc. then we have to actually make some changes to how we allocate space.

[heartblock]

Any plan from a Conservative Government that impacts the least wealthy in society without actually tackling the real issues is just diversionary politicking and green-washing.

Safer streets for who? More active travel for who?

Doesn't do anything for a busy Mum living on a 'main road' with three kids at different schools, does nothing for the elderly or someone with mobility issues on a road with slower buses and idling traffic.

Fine if you live on Calton Ave or Gilkes, with 3 cars and a country get-away.

Terrible policy enabled by a Centrist Labour Councils.

[Rockets]

Rahx3 - do you have anything to support the notion that LTNs reduce the number of cars? I am not aware of any substantive data that shows that - didn't the Waltham Forest LTN actually see an increase in car ownership within the LTN?

Yes, LTNs reduce traffic within the LTNs but they do not reduce traffic outside of the LTNs - in fact, due to increased congestion they could well be increasing pollution as a whole. It is interesting we have seen no pollution data from the council in July as they promised. Moving the pollution from one part of Dulwich to another part of Dulwich is not the solution.

ULEZ is a great initiative and will have a far more positive impact than closing a few roads and forcing traffic onto fewer roads and thus increasing congestion.

Also, you say that ULEZ will lead to reduction in some car ownership - it will but don't lose focus on what the ULEZ is aiming to do - it's not just cars it's all vehicles as many of the problems are high polluting commercial vehicles.

[alice]

The zoom meeting last Friday surprisingly showed a lot of unhappiness from those within the dulwich LTN.

[Rockets]

I think the council misjudged the sentiment amongst those living within the LTNs. They probably thought they would be supportive of the measures but a large number of people I know and have spoken to within the LTNs are concerned about the impact the closures are having on those living outside of them.

[heartblock]

Indeed Alice and Rockets.

A lot of the less mobile residents inside of LTNs have found that their necessary short drive (yes cars have given mobility to people who do have mobility issues and this then alerts me to the very 'ableist' comments like 'there is a bike for everyone' etc.) ...they now have an hour journey rather than a 15 minute journey.

How is that reducing pollution?

[DulwichCentral]

Those against: Journeys are longer because of LTNS - people who drive less than a mile now have to drive further.

Those for: Why are they driving less than a mile?

Those against: Because they are disabled.

Those for: What about mobility scooters? Is a single occupancy car the best way to do a short journey in climate emergency?

Those against: Not ALL drivers are disabled - some are working parents or key workers getting to work.

Those for: Well *some* of those people are abled-bodied and could walk / cycle / use public transport. They are more likely to switch to sustainable transport if the safe routes are there for them to do so.

Those against: ???

[alice]

Dulwich LTNs failed. And yr still coming it it with narrow self interest arguments.

[heartblock]

Nudge theory from the Tory party.. self interest and policy as individual choice by those who can choose. Meanwhile no public transport policy, no policy to really tackle climate change and pollution - just a process of blame towards those most impacted by pollution.

Get that Tory grit out of your eyes and start seeing the truth.

[Spartacus]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Those against: Because they are disabled.

> Those for: What about mobility scooters? Is a

> single occupancy car the best way to do a short

> journey in climate emergency?

What a "male chicken" for making a statement like that

Mobility scooters aren't wheelchair friendly for example , some disabled people need to be driven so how does that work with a scooter (plus the car is then not single occupancy)

Some disabled people are children (see above argument)

Stop scratching in the dirt with your claws and open your eyes as not everyone has the same needs, disability or mobility so by denying them access to a car you might well be condemning them to being stuck indoors and a less rich life

Roads must be for all users, not just the fit healthy able bodied ones and if that sticks in your craw then get on your bike and pedal off (that's assuming your able bodied of course)

Rant over.

[heartblock]

Thanks Spartacus, I'm so done with the 'ableist' lobby. In fact fuming at some of the comments.

Southwark didn't at any point factor in any equality impact assessment (EIA), there was no evidence-based approach to ensure the decision-making process was fair and did not present barriers or disadvantage for those with reduced mobility.

I have continually suggested to Southwark to invest in local, clean, cheap transport, like the yellow bus in Brighton, but they are so tied to these ridiculous gated leafy roads, they cannot see beyond their own vanity projects.

[alice]

Dulwich LTNs failed. And yr still coming it it with narrow self interest arguments.

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Those against: Journeys are longer because of LTNS

> - people who drive less than a mile now have to

> drive further.

> Those for: Why are they driving less than a mile?

> Those against: Because they are disabled.

> Those for: What about mobility scooters? Is a

> single occupancy car the best way to do a short

> journey in climate emergency?

> Those against: Not ALL drivers are disabled - some

> are working parents or key workers getting to

> work.

> Those for: Well *some* of those people are

> abled-bodied and could walk / cycle / use public

> transport. They are more likely to switch to

> sustainable transport if the safe routes are there

> for them to do so.

> Those against: ???

Those against: But 68% of local journeys were already done as active travel

Those for: Not enough of that active travel was cycling.

[DulwichCentral]

Ah thanks Spartacus. I wondered what the response would be. So to even dare to suggest that some people could use a mobility scooter is met with insults and and abuse.

Very rational.

[Spartacus]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Ah thanks Spartacus. I wondered what the response

> would be. So to even dare to suggest that some

> people could use a mobility scooter is met with

> insults and and abuse.

>

> Very rational.

Insults and abuse ?

You are so blinkered that you think a rational response about why a mobility scooter isn't the answer is abusive that you then try and turn the tables

Maybe I was incorrect in calling you a make chicken, you are far far below that on the evolutionary scale if you are so disability blind.

Maybe try watching the paralympics in a few weeks to see how many different disabilities there are out there (including the blind who can't drive themselves) then come crawling back on here and say that they could all use mobility scooters (I can't wait for the rants on here if every street was taken up by mobility scooters by the way)

If we are all to use mobility scooters the council will have to spend a fortune on improving the pavements as they are currently not good enough for wheelchairs let alone mobility scooters!

[Chris_1]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> The evidence so far is that traffic has dropped

> across the wider area, and active travel has

> increased significantly. EDG is the exception and

> one of the few perimeter roads where there does

> seem to have been an increase in traffic. That

> needs to be addressed - but the evidence on the

> Dulwich LTN, and on LTNs more generally, is that

> they reduce car use and increase active travel. I

> also expect (and again, evidence from similar,

> longer standing schemes would support the

> expectation) that modal shift will continue over

> time - possibly even pick up momentum. I know a

> number of people (myself included), who have

> changed their behaviour since the introduction of

> LTNs and further encouraged by the pending ULEZ

> extension, are looking get rid of their cars

> altogether. Of course this is anecdotal, and time

> will.

>

> What will definitely not improve upon the previous

> situation is returning everything to the previous

> state. By definition.

This unfortunately isn?t the case for Croxted Road either, the published council data appears to examine all day volumes and both directions - obviously the problem direction is northbound consistent with timed closures only currently being northbound, and to get an accurate picture you need to look during the problem hours. Fortunately TfL provides all those stats. I?m not sure why the report didn?t flag this.

Average daily volumes are up for the morning session northbound on our road, despite borough wide volumes apparently tracking down 12%. Average daily increases varied from mid single digits to low double digits from Feb onwards - eg higher despite Feb still having some lockdown measures.

I?m very concerned about what happens when traffic volumes normalise ? and who knows if that 12% ?reversion? will increase everywhere (probably not due to LTN), or if it will disproportionately impact main roads.

We?ve also seen massive increases - anecdotally at first - and statistically thereafter (thanks TfL) in congestion on our road.

I?ve found it a bit frustrating. The data report should be used to paint an accurate picture of what is going on, instead it seems like it is lacking in quite a lot of ways, which makes me think it?s a bit more of a political item ?look at what a success this is?, versus being an objective analysis. Unless our road is the only one that has been analysed incorrectly.

[RoundTable]

Chris_1 Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > The evidence so far is that traffic has dropped

> > across the wider area, and active travel has

> > increased significantly. EDG is the exception

> and

> > one of the few perimeter roads where there does

> > seem to have been an increase in traffic. That

> > needs to be addressed - but the evidence on the

> > Dulwich LTN, and on LTNs more generally, is

> that

> > they reduce car use and increase active travel.

> I

> > also expect (and again, evidence from similar,

> > longer standing schemes would support the

> > expectation) that modal shift will continue

> over

> > time - possibly even pick up momentum. I know a

> > number of people (myself included), who have

> > changed their behaviour since the introduction

> of

> > LTNs and further encouraged by the pending ULEZ

> > extension, are looking get rid of their cars

> > altogether. Of course this is anecdotal, and

> time

> > will.

> >

> > What will definitely not improve upon the

> previous

> > situation is returning everything to the

> previous

> > state. By definition.

>

>

> This unfortunately isn?t the case for Croxted Road

> either, the published council data appears to

> examine all day volumes and both directions -

> obviously the problem direction is northbound

> consistent with timed closures only currently

> being northbound, and to get an accurate picture

> you need to look during the problem hours.

> Fortunately TfL provides all those stats. I?m not

> sure why the report didn?t flag this.

>

> Average daily volumes are up for the morning

> session northbound on our road, despite borough

> wide volumes apparently tracking down 12%. Average

> daily increases varied from mid single digits to

> low double digits from Feb onwards - eg higher

> despite Feb still having some lockdown measures.

>

> I?m very concerned about what happens when traffic

> volumes normalise ? and who knows if that 12%

> ?reversion? will increase everywhere (probably not

> due to LTN), or if it will disproportionately

> impact main roads.

>

> We?ve also seen massive increases - anecdotally at

> first - and statistically thereafter (thanks TfL)

> in congestion on our road.

>

> I?ve found it a bit frustrating. The data report

> should be used to paint an accurate picture of

> what is going on, instead it seems like it is

> lacking in quite a lot of ways, which makes me

> think it?s a bit more of a political item ?look at

> what a success this is?, versus being an objective

> analysis. Unless our road is the only one that has

> been analysed incorrectly.

NEWSFLASH - ** Data is being mis-represented for political purposes shocker **

I do not mean to be rude, but it is pointing to the blindingly obvious. I'm expecting the next report from the council/ campaigners to highlight that the LTNs are directly responsible for peace in the Middle East and quote some random figures to back it up.

We've lived through Brexit, Trump and Bojo. Haven't we learnt anything?!

[Lebanums]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Those against: Journeys are longer because of LTNS

> - people who drive less than a mile now have to

> drive further.

> Those for: Why are they driving less than a mile?

> Those against: Because they are disabled.

> Those for: What about mobility scooters? Is a

> single occupancy car the best way to do a short

> journey in climate emergency?

> Those against: Not ALL drivers are disabled - some

> are working parents or key workers getting to

> work.

> Those for: Well *some* of those people are

> abled-bodied and could walk / cycle / use public

> transport. They are more likely to switch to

> sustainable transport if the safe routes are there

> for them to do so.

> Those against: ???

Not against if done correctly, but the public transport network is inadequate, especially if you are away from LL. Direct access to train stations & connections to other neighbourhoods is lacking.

It should not be about making it inconvenient for drivers, but simply make public transport more convenient/accessible and the shift will happen naturally.

[Abe_froeman]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

>"... So to even dare to suggest that some

> people could use a mobility scooter is met with

> insults and and abuse.

>

> ... "

It is an appallingly offensive suggestion tbf. I would have hoped local councils' disability training was better than that.

[Chris_1]

Dunno. Not sure I?m sufficiently pessimistic to think that. Suspect it?s more a lack of resources and expertise.

[Abe_froeman]

Lebanums putting on lots more buses would also make it less convenient to drive and courage modal shift from cars to public transport.

But for some reason the council only seem to care about implementing the Tory' s plans to force everyone to cycle.