LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Bicknell]

southwark themselves said figures needed to be clearer. leader of the council said that. but nothing happened. They should have just been open and publihed them so everyone could see. why didnt they?

[legalalien]

For those who didn?t receive an email from Southwark about their upcoming online climate strategy conference, info is at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency?chapter=4

There are various break out sessions, one on sustainable travel, doesn?t expressly mention LTNs but does talk about promoting walking and cycling and the ?intersection between accessibility and active travel?, which could mean any number of things (I?d like it to mean keeping bikes off pavements but I?m guessing it doesn?t).

It?s on 27 October from 6pm, you need to book a place online.

[DulwichCentral]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Interesting because I don?t relate to what DC says

> at all, as I?ve never had a driving licence. My

> partner does but has never made any unnecessary

> short trips in London - what?s the point when you

> can walk or take public transport? I say that not

> to be smug, but because I think there is a real

> difference in attitude between those who have done

> those trips - the kind of evangelical attitude

> that comes with being a reformed smoker, for

> example; and those who haven?t and don?t see the

> point of attempted nudges to behaviour that have

> perceptible negative effects. We all come at these

> things from our own personal perspectives. Am I

> being harsh?

Of course you're entitled to your personal perspective - but wow! - this strikes me as incredibly smug. Smugger than a reformed smoker to use your analogy; so your behaviour has been so impeccable all along that you can't relate to anyone else's efforts at changing their behaviour?

[heartblock]

The data was from June 2021 - before everyone was back in office and the raw data on numbers has not been released. There really is very little validated proof that LTNs have delivered on reducing pollution, car-use, traffic and increases in active travel outside of the year on year slow increase in cycling.

If it did work and traffic, pollution and active travel did increase as proven by validated and significant data showing positive change, with no confounding variable such as a PANDEMIC and LOCKDOWN, I would be the first to support.

But they do not - traffic and pollution increased on ED Grove and Croxted, LL - slower buses and pollution levels increased.

It isn't a difficult concept to understand, unless one's fundamental beliefs are a block to looking at actual evidence. Or one just has a gated road, an increase in house price and doesn't actually care about pollution at all.

[legalalien]

Fair enough :)

ETA, no so much impeccable as due to the fact I can?t drive.

[Rockets]

Rahx3 - don't go there - we really don't need another thread of people tearing the council's "count" methodology apart. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, made the point.

You might believe the stats/propaganda the council puts out to justify their LTNs - there are many more who don't.

It's interesting to see above that Rachel Aldred is now saying that LTNs are being removed without sufficient monitoring on the impact on walking and cycling.

Firstly the claim is wonderfully hypocritical and galling given the woefully inadequate (probably deliberately so) monitoring that was done before and after the LTNs went in to assess the impact on displacement from the LTNs and the collateral damage that was being done.

I do agree with her though that there needs to be an assessment on the impact on walking and cycling - in terms of how much of the increase in cycling has been from walking or other active travel modes.

The "growth" figures touted by the council on the increase in cycling in Dulwich is being driven, in the main, by the private school triangle around Dulwich Village - the majority of those cyclists are kids from DC, Dulwich Prep, JAGs, Alleyns and Dulwich Hamlet (I know that is a state school before someone choses to correct me) and are coming from Dulwich and I would hasten to guess that they were not being driven prior to the LTNs going in (or if they were it was a tiny percentage).

Of course, any active travel journeys are good and it is great to see kids cycling to school but it is not good if they aren't replacing car journeys - which the LTNs are supposed to target.

So maybe the council or TFL can commission Rachel Aldred to do some more research to determine how much of the claimed growth to active travel is actually from journeys that were previously done in a car.

[Rockets]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> The data was from June 2021 - before everyone was

> back in office and the raw data on numbers has not

> been released. There really is very little

> validated proof that LTNs have delivered on

> reducing pollution, car-use, traffic and increases

> in active travel outside of the year on year slow

> increase in cycling.

> If it did work and traffic, pollution and active

> travel did increase as proven by validated and

> significant data showing positive change, with no

> confounding variable such as a PANDEMIC and

> LOCKDOWN, I would be the first to support.

>

> But they do not - traffic and pollution increased

> on ED Grove and Croxted, LL - slower buses and

> pollution levels increased.

>

> It isn't a difficult concept to understand, unless

> one's fundamental beliefs are a block to looking

> at actual evidence. Or one just has a gated road,

> an increase in house price and doesn't actually

> care about pollution at all.

And what is confusing me about the data is that on the interim report the council said that traffic was down across Southwark by 12% and that across the whole Dulwich area it was down 16% but by the time of the final report that reduction in traffic had raised to 10%. So does that mean traffic is actually up in Dulwich compared to the rest of Southwark?

[Galileo]

Rockets

You say:

?Of course, any active travel journeys are good and it is great to see kids cycling to school but it is not good if they aren't replacing car journeys - which the LTNs are supposed to target. ?

But isn?t this part of the long game? If kids now have space to cycle and to become confident cyclists then they don?t become the driver of the future - they become Legal Alien who takes public transport and active travel out of habit.

[Rockets]

If that is the council strategy then we are done for - 50 kids a generation in the Dulwich area - it's going to take 10 lifetimes! ;-)

All joking aside we were sold the myth that LTNs create traffic evaporation. They don't. The council can't prove that the LTNs have delivered any traffic evaporation at all so, instead they herald an "increase" in cycling. That increase in cycling was in play before the LTNs went in and the catalyst for it was the lockdown (and of course cycling levels have now declined to below pre-pandemic levels invariably because we are not in lockdown anymore, life is returning to normal yet people aren't cycling into their offices or places of work as much as they used to because of the shift to working from home on a permanent basis).

Now the council desperately clings to that cycling up stat to validate their continued persistence with the flawed LTN strategy. A large percentage of that "growth" is derived from pupils cycling from Dulwich to the plethora of schools in the immediate area and only if those journeys used to be made by car (and I am not convinced many of them were) can it be considered a win for the LTNs.

[Earl Aelfheah]

So we should allocate as much space as possible to cars, across as broad an area as possible. No attempt to create quieter routes.

The huge growth of traffic on minor roads over the last few years caused by navigation apps must continue. With luck we can ensure every road is equally congested as that?s ?fairer? for everyone.

People who have no option but to walk and cycle because they don?t own a car should get one (even if they can?t afford one), and stop ?virtue signalling?.

All the research suggest that making driving easier increases the amount of driving. Literally all of it. But until it?s definitive we?ll pick holes in individual studies or data sets, and ignore the emerging picture across a growing body of evidence. Yup, let?s go with the view that making driving as convenient as possible (and walking and cycling less pleasant and / or safe) will reduce car use. There?s no evidence at all for that but, it?s obvious isn?t it?

[Earl Aelfheah]

From 2009 onwards, motoring on minor roads in London almost doubled from 5.5bn vehicle miles to nearly 9.5bn in 2019. Traffic on main roads remained relatively stable in the same period. Navigation apps such as Waze have caused huge displacement on to side streets. Where?s the outrage over this, significant ?displacement?.

[legalalien]

I do think there are more children cycling to Alleyns, DPL and DC actually. Not so sure about the state schools in and around the Village as I suspect they already had high levels of active travel (fairly postage stamp sized catchments except JKPS, but not much space to drop off there).

Whether this is due to improved safety as a result of LTNs, or perhaps perceived improved safety, or peer pressure / a push from the kids themselves coupled with the fact that more adults are working from home and available to chaperone, I?m not sure, probably a combination. I don?t believe the increase is as great as Southwark?s figures would have us believe though, and I do think that one off count is flawed. In hindsight, perhaps we should have done before and after counts in the bike sheds at the various schools? (Or measure the parking situation on HuntsSlip / Bowen/ Alleyn Park).

But I don?t think we need a hard closure at Court Lane to achieve / continue that, and I don?t think that a few more children cycling to school is enough of a benefit to offset the negative impacts on workers and others reliant on motor transport, residents of boundary roads etc. I did the school commute on foot and cycle for the best part of a decade, including through the Court /Calton junction (needs must), if I had a pound for every parent at the school gate who told me over the years that they really should walk /cycle and there was no reason not to, I?d be rich - so I can see why active travel campaigners who have been trying to get traction at the local independents for years without success might see the LTN initiative as a good opportunity. I could live with a timed school street type arrangement in term times to facilitate school travel, but don?t think all the existing timed closures are needed for that purpose. And just focusing on school travel, I think there?s been a failure to take account of the travel experiences of children travelling on the boundary roads, including those in buses. I?m guessing Rosendale wasn?t involved in Safe Routes to Schools? decision to wholeheartedly back the scheme?

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> So we should allocate as much space as possible to

> cars, across as broad an area as possible. No

> attempt to create quieter routes.

>

> The huge growth of traffic on minor roads over the

> last few years caused by navigation apps must

> continue. With luck we can ensure every road is

> equally congested as that?s ?fairer? for

> everyone.

>

> People who have no option but to walk and cycle

> because they don?t own a car should get one (even

> if they can?t afford one), and stop ?virtue

> signalling?.

>

> All the research suggest that making driving

> easier increases the amount of driving. Literally

> all of it. But until it?s definitive we?ll pick

> holes in individual studies or data sets, and

> ignore the emerging picture across a growing body

> of evidence. Yup, let?s go with the view that

> making driving as convenient as possible (and

> walking and cycling less pleasant and / or safe)

> will reduce car use. There?s no evidence at all

> for that but, it?s obvious isn?t it?

Rahx3 - I am not sure that is virtue-signalling.

Virtue signalling would be, I don't know, cycling towards the Court Lane/DV junction, seeing a group of elderly people protesting against the closures and taking umbrage that a couple of their bags were blocking a small part of the junction and then coming on here and moaning about how dangerous it was.

P.S. did you see the complete blockage of the same junction during the recent Margy Party in the Square? I am presuming not because you didn't come on here and moan about it dangerously blocking your cycle route.....;-)

[Rockets]

Legal - I completely agree. The council's approach should have been a targeted roll-out of the school streets programme (and they needed to get the private schools on board but I know the relationship between them and the council has been strained due to some council member's ideological views on private schools) allied with a programme of segregated bike lanes and building the infrastructure to support modal shift (more bike storage for those who don't have anywhere to store their bikes, more places to secure bikes on Lordship Labe etc etc etc).

Instead they put all their energy and money into the flawed LTN programme that has utterly failed, divided a community (well divided suggests a 50/50 split so maybe I should rephrase that as turn the majority of the community against the measures) and made the very problems they were trying to solve even worse.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> From 2009 onwards, motoring on minor roads in

> London almost doubled from 5.5bn vehicle miles to

> nearly 9.5bn in 2019. Traffic on main roads

> remained relatively stable in the same period.

> Navigation apps such as Waze have caused huge

> displacement on to side streets. Where?s the

> outrage over this, significant ?displacement?.

I don't think there is outrage over it because those stats, which are touted exclusively by the pro-LTN groups, don't stack up.

Look at what you said. You're saying that traffic on sideroads has almost doubled yet traffic on main roads remained stable. So, the only conclusion there is that there must have been an almost doubling of the number of vehicles because those extra journeys on side roads have to come from somewhere and if levels are stable on main roads then you can't claim these are people rat-running.

Car ownership in London is declining. Van ownership and PHV ownership is rocketing on the back home deliveries and private hire vehicles and those two things are not deterred by LTNs - the journeys still happen. It's clear that's where the increase on side roads is coming from and the main catalyst is not apps such as Waze as you claim.

[legalalien]

Just musing on the idea that the active travel benefits may have disproportionately benefited children at the independent and more affluent schools (and the air pollution from displaced traffic disproportionately affected some of the less affluent ones). Perhaps one of the many things that should have gone into the analysis of compliance with the council?s new socioeconomic duty (something that seems to have been given very little consideration in the report accompanying the decision notice).

I see on Twitter that the LDs have requested the decision to be called in before Overview and Scrutiny (stating concerns about adequacy of consultation). Let?s see if the council approve that request. A chance for both sides to air their concerns about process flaws. If it happens I wonder if the meeting is a public one.

[DulwichCentral]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> In hindsight, perhaps we

> should have done before and after counts in the

> bike sheds at the various schools?

Cycle sheds at Charter North Dulwich have been recently rebuilt about 4 times bigger - and are now overflowing.

[ab29]

"traffic on main roads remained stable" - this is not true. Traffic has significantly worsened after the road closures were introduced and how could it not? The main roads have to now accommodate higher number of vehicles. I've seen it with my own eyes and confirmed with neighbours it is not just my imagination.

I've been in my current place long enough to be able to compare the 'before' and 'after' and yet someone who does not live on the main road, does not have my experience of living where I do knows better - but of course.

And good to hear the LDs have decided to challenge this outrageous decision.

[sally buying]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> legalalien Wrote:

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

> -----

> > In hindsight, perhaps we

> > should have done before and after counts in the

> > bike sheds at the various schools?

>

> Cycle sheds at Charter North Dulwich have been

> recently rebuilt about 4 times bigger - and are

> now overflowing.

>

> https://twitter.com/CleanAirDulwich/status/1435230

> 921565908992

How many bikes did the sheds hold in the first place when they were built?

Without knowing this the above has no meaning.

[legalalien]

They'll have to start a campaign to get students to switch from cycling to walking!

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> legalalien Wrote:

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

> -----

> > In hindsight, perhaps we

> > should have done before and after counts in the

> > bike sheds at the various schools?

>

> Cycle sheds at Charter North Dulwich have been

> recently rebuilt about 4 times bigger - and are

> now overflowing.

>

> https://twitter.com/CleanAirDulwich/status/1435230

> 921565908992

[DuncanW]

I wonder what you might be basing those musings on? Please share.

JAGS, JAPS and Alleyns all face out onto EDG, Alleyns has a playground that is directly adjacent to it, so they would be feeling any disbenefit in equal (as can be roughly measured) proportion.

Proportionately and absolutely, far more children from the local state schools live within realistic 'active travel' distance, so I would think more are enjoying the benefits to a greater extent.

There are all sorts arguments both for and against the LTNs in Dulwich, but this particular narrative just seems like grift to me.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Just musing on the idea that the active travel

> benefits may have disproportionately benefited

> children at the independent and more affluent

> schools (and the air pollution from displaced

> traffic disproportionately affected some of the

> less affluent ones). Perhaps one of the many

> things that should have gone into the analysis of

> compliance with the council?s new socioeconomic

> duty (something that seems to have been given very

> little consideration in the report accompanying

> the decision notice).

>

> I see on Twitter that the LDs have requested the

> decision to be called in before Overview and

> Scrutiny (stating concerns about adequacy of

> consultation). Let?s see if the council approve

> that request. A chance for both sides to air their

> concerns about process flaws. If it happens I

> wonder if the meeting is a public one.

[DulwichCentral]

sally buying Wrote:

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

> DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> -----

> > legalalien Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > In hindsight, perhaps we

> > > should have done before and after counts in

> the

> > > bike sheds at the various schools?

> >

> > Cycle sheds at Charter North Dulwich have been

> > recently rebuilt about 4 times bigger - and are

> > now overflowing.

> >

> >

> https://twitter.com/CleanAirDulwich/status/1435230

>

> > 921565908992

>

> How many bikes did the sheds hold in the first

> place when they were built?

>

> Without knowing this the above has no meaning.

As I said in my original post - the bike sheds were made about four times bigger than they originally were.

You could count the bikes in the picture which are under the storage area and divide by four to get the original

capacity. Bearing in mind it's now four times bigger - and overflowing.

I thought that meaning was pretty clear in my original post?

[Shaggy]

This may well have been raised in other posts, but surely the most fair solution that could be put in place without too much trouble is road pricing.

If we had to pay extra to drive, and that money was put into pubic transport, we'd think twice about doing it and public transport would improve.

People who needed to drive for their jobs or particular situations could be exempt. Bigger cars could be charged more. We would all have the freedom to drive but would be incentivised to drive less in less polluting cars.

It will probably be very unpopular because people will say "I already pay road tax" but it could be made to be more flexible and ultimately more fair for everyone.

[alice]

How would that money be collected?

[DuncanW]

There was an accelerator on fuel tax introduced for that purpose by the Major government, and subsequently increased by Blair.

As you will remember, there were large-scale protests and it was scrapped.

I wouldn't say it was the 'most fair' solution. As with any of these measures, the discomfort is never evenly spread. It would be effective though.