LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[SpringTime]

I am so angry with Southwark it actually worries me.

[heartblock]

When one sees, smells and hears the extra traffic and pollution caused by a failed scheme just outside of ones home and can see neighbours children breathing in this polluted air on their walk to school - then of course it makes one angry. In the Labour movement they say 'don't mourn, organize' so leave anger aside and write, peacefully protest and vote!

[heartblock]

When one sees, smells and hears the extra traffic and pollution caused by a failed scheme just outside of ones home and can see neighbours children breathing in this polluted air on their walk to school - then of course it makes one angry. In the Labour movement they say 'don't mourn, organize' so leave anger aside and write, peacefully protest and vote!

[Rockets]

The problem with Labour nowadays is that sorry really does seem to be the hardest word and I really worry that even if they lose seats in the council elections in May it will have no bearing on the course they have chosen. I am afraid what we saw at national level in the last election is being repeated at local level: the Labour party has lost touch with its constituents and doesn't seem to care - it puts it's own ideology ahead of the will and desires of the people even when they are roundly rejecting it. Of course the difference being that losing a few Dulwich seats won't upset Cllr Williams too much and not have the wide ranging ramifications of the most humiliating election defeat in a generation that Corbyn presided over that gave us this shower we have governing us now!

[Rockets]

The problem with Labour nowadays is that sorry really does seem to be the hardest word and I really worry that even if they lose seats in the council elections in May it will have no bearing on the course they have chosen. I am afraid what we saw at national level in the last election is being repeated at local level: the Labour party has lost touch with its constituents and doesn't seem to care - it puts it's own ideology ahead of the will and desires of the people even when they are roundly rejecting it. Of course the difference being that losing a few Dulwich seats won't upset Cllr Williams too much and not have the wide ranging ramifications of the most humiliating election defeat in a generation that Corbyn presided over that gave us this shower we have governing us now!

[march46]

@heartblock have you seen posts on twitter about East Dulwich Grove traffic? Looks as though traffic volumes could have reduced significantly in the middle section between Townley and Melbourne Grove, rather than increased - good news if so with the Charter school / health centre etc

[march46]

@heartblock have you seen posts on twitter about East Dulwich Grove traffic? Looks as though traffic volumes could have reduced significantly in the middle section between Townley and Melbourne Grove, rather than increased - good news if so with the Charter school / health centre etc

[malumbu]

I agree too. Hmm, on what? Let's haves a look, ah Red Post's comments about how shocking the government was freezing fuel duty, and reducing tax on short haul flights. Really really rubbish, shame on you.

Anyway, there has been over 7000 posts on this thread and few acknowledge that we have to reduce the amount of motorised transport. Nigello was going down the right path talking about the school run but this has to go to other journeys. I doubt if many schools restrict teachers' parking, and similarly there will be businesses, mostly outside London, with free parking for employees. An obvious start is taxing free parking, where this is a perk, and organisations rewarding more sustainable choices, including lift sharing. Pfizer tried this in their production plant in Sandwich before most of this was closed down. Big site, with most living in the nearby towns helped.

But without this, and government doing more serious things (back to gesture politics) it is left to the local authorities. To get people out of their cars you have to inconvenience people. There will be winners and losers, certainly as schemes bed down. Businesses still operate in the central congestion charging zone, despite this and the high cost of parking.

So I hope that most agree that you need this big stick. How exactly that is done can be debated but in the 7000 plus posts so far I've not seen a proper alternative - either fiddling around at the edges or worse still reversing LTNs.

I posted about the impact of Southwark stopping right turns onto the South Circular from Wood Vale and Underhill Road. You could argue that this was because they were in the pockets of the rich people in their big houses on thee streets. The outcome was sending traffic up the glorified farm track that is Honor Oak Road. Stand on the Fairlawn School playground and just listen to the roar of traffic passing the school. But nobody said a thing when I posted this.

[malumbu]

I agree too. Hmm, on what? Let's haves a look, ah Red Post's comments about how shocking the government was freezing fuel duty, and reducing tax on short haul flights. Really really rubbish, shame on you.

Anyway, there has been over 7000 posts on this thread and few acknowledge that we have to reduce the amount of motorised transport. Nigello was going down the right path talking about the school run but this has to go to other journeys. I doubt if many schools restrict teachers' parking, and similarly there will be businesses, mostly outside London, with free parking for employees. An obvious start is taxing free parking, where this is a perk, and organisations rewarding more sustainable choices, including lift sharing. Pfizer tried this in their production plant in Sandwich before most of this was closed down. Big site, with most living in the nearby towns helped.

But without this, and government doing more serious things (back to gesture politics) it is left to the local authorities. To get people out of their cars you have to inconvenience people. There will be winners and losers, certainly as schemes bed down. Businesses still operate in the central congestion charging zone, despite this and the high cost of parking.

So I hope that most agree that you need this big stick. How exactly that is done can be debated but in the 7000 plus posts so far I've not seen a proper alternative - either fiddling around at the edges or worse still reversing LTNs.

I posted about the impact of Southwark stopping right turns onto the South Circular from Wood Vale and Underhill Road. You could argue that this was because they were in the pockets of the rich people in their big houses on thee streets. The outcome was sending traffic up the glorified farm track that is Honor Oak Road. Stand on the Fairlawn School playground and just listen to the roar of traffic passing the school. But nobody said a thing when I posted this.

[Rockets]

Mal - no, no, no a thousand times no?..everyone wants to reduce traffic just most don?t believe LTNs are the solution to this problem and you cannot present a single piece of evidence that shows they are delivering the changes that were promised by the council at the outset - wasn?t it councillor McAsh who said if they don?t reduce traffic everywhere then they would have failed?

They have had plenty of time to bed in and the council had to manipulate their monitoring figures to come close to any sort of ?positive? outcome.

LTNs have never reduced the amount of traffic anywhere they just divert traffic along fewer and fewer roads - you know that, the council knows that, we all know that.

LTNs do more harm than good and are actually harming the majority of residents of Dulwich. The council knows this they just haven?t got the honesty and backbone to admit failure. They have wasted 2 years pursuing a policy that was doomed to failure from the start - just imagine what could have been achieved in that time - this is the LTN legacy - a wasted opportunity to do something positive - our council and councillors should hang their heads in shame.

[Rockets]

Mal - no, no, no a thousand times no?..everyone wants to reduce traffic just most don?t believe LTNs are the solution to this problem and you cannot present a single piece of evidence that shows they are delivering the changes that were promised by the council at the outset - wasn?t it councillor McAsh who said if they don?t reduce traffic everywhere then they would have failed?

They have had plenty of time to bed in and the council had to manipulate their monitoring figures to come close to any sort of ?positive? outcome.

LTNs have never reduced the amount of traffic anywhere they just divert traffic along fewer and fewer roads - you know that, the council knows that, we all know that.

LTNs do more harm than good and are actually harming the majority of residents of Dulwich. The council knows this they just haven?t got the honesty and backbone to admit failure. They have wasted 2 years pursuing a policy that was doomed to failure from the start - just imagine what could have been achieved in that time - this is the LTN legacy - a wasted opportunity to do something positive - our council and councillors should hang their heads in shame.

[Penguin68]

LTNs do more harm than good and are actually harming the majority of residents of Dulwich.

As a general statement ('LTNs do more harm than good') this is not supportable. In the specific Dulwich example it is however arguable that the balance of benefit has been skewed, and that the dis-benefits to areas to which traffic has been displaced outweigh the benefits to those in the protected areas.

Certainly numbers of London councils (a significant number I think that started down the LTN route) other than Southwark have stopped or severely pruned back their initial proposals in the light of actual experience.

And as regards pollution, no chance has been given to see what the ULEZ expansion has/ will do for e.g. particulate levels. Indeed their track record would suggest that Southwark will claim any improvements as being LTN rather than ULEZ driven - whatever the actual truth (which is not being measured for, I'm guessing) shows.

What is certainly true is that publicly provided travel alternatives to private vehicles are very poorly provided for here - particularly for East West traffic - and the topology and demographics (hills and old people or people with very young children etc.) make the actual alternatives (bike or walking) unattractive or very difficult for a significant portion of the local population. And if you have to walk or bike along roads with standing traffic to get to where you need to be going, actually dangerous, health wise. What is forgotten is that the sealed roads may be nice to walk and bike along, if you can, but they may not actually take you where you need to go. Indeed, and in the main, the benefit of the sealed roads is directed at those who actually live there, and very few others.

[Penguin68]

LTNs do more harm than good and are actually harming the majority of residents of Dulwich.

As a general statement ('LTNs do more harm than good') this is not supportable. In the specific Dulwich example it is however arguable that the balance of benefit has been skewed, and that the dis-benefits to areas to which traffic has been displaced outweigh the benefits to those in the protected areas.

Certainly numbers of London councils (a significant number I think that started down the LTN route) other than Southwark have stopped or severely pruned back their initial proposals in the light of actual experience.

And as regards pollution, no chance has been given to see what the ULEZ expansion has/ will do for e.g. particulate levels. Indeed their track record would suggest that Southwark will claim any improvements as being LTN rather than ULEZ driven - whatever the actual truth (which is not being measured for, I'm guessing) shows.

What is certainly true is that publicly provided travel alternatives to private vehicles are very poorly provided for here - particularly for East West traffic - and the topology and demographics (hills and old people or people with very young children etc.) make the actual alternatives (bike or walking) unattractive or very difficult for a significant portion of the local population. And if you have to walk or bike along roads with standing traffic to get to where you need to be going, actually dangerous, health wise. What is forgotten is that the sealed roads may be nice to walk and bike along, if you can, but they may not actually take you where you need to go. Indeed, and in the main, the benefit of the sealed roads is directed at those who actually live there, and very few others.

[heartblock]

Two days in June during lockdown...yes sure, that will prove that the traffic I see every morning on my way to work (walking) past this junction is just my imagination and that living on the same road for 35 years just means I'm far too old to actually notice a sudden change. I'm still waiting for Southwark to publish the raw data and pollution levels. I do hope they are still measuring cycling numbers, car numbers, pollution - so that they can actually compare Nov 2018 with Nov 2021 rather than comparing cycling numbers from a baseline of Winter 2018 to Summer 2021 - and declaring that LTNs have increased cycling numbers...Doh!

[heartblock]

Two days in June during lockdown...yes sure, that will prove that the traffic I see every morning on my way to work (walking) past this junction is just my imagination and that living on the same road for 35 years just means I'm far too old to actually notice a sudden change. I'm still waiting for Southwark to publish the raw data and pollution levels. I do hope they are still measuring cycling numbers, car numbers, pollution - so that they can actually compare Nov 2018 with Nov 2021 rather than comparing cycling numbers from a baseline of Winter 2018 to Summer 2021 - and declaring that LTNs have increased cycling numbers...Doh!

[heartblock]

Ha ha.. and the data - a 2019 ESTIMATE of traffic compared to April 2021 (lockdown - or coming out of lockdown as the 'data' shyly calls it).

Don't show me cr*p data over a whole two days that compares estimates before a pandemic lockdown to manual counts during a pandemic lockdown - the usual CAD 'data' we are expected to take seriously. Even CAD can't quite commit to this rubbish presented as 'evidence' "it appears possible" yep - so do Unicorns.

[heartblock]

Ha ha.. and the data - a 2019 ESTIMATE of traffic compared to April 2021 (lockdown - or coming out of lockdown as the 'data' shyly calls it).

Don't show me cr*p data over a whole two days that compares estimates before a pandemic lockdown to manual counts during a pandemic lockdown - the usual CAD 'data' we are expected to take seriously. Even CAD can't quite commit to this rubbish presented as 'evidence' "it appears possible" yep - so do Unicorns.

[BrandNewGuy]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> That junction used to have a reasonable free flow

> of traffic as did ED Grove.

>

> Southwark redesigned the ED Grove Townley rd

> junction and the Court-Calton - Village junction

> at a huge cost and messed up both so badly that

> they became dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists

> and increased idling traffic.

I know I risk sounding like a stuck record, but follow the money... The ED Grove / Townley Road / Green Dale junction was redesigned because there was a large sum available from a London-wide cycling initiative from Boris Johnson when he was Mayor. The council wouldn't have even thought of altering that junction, but when a six-figure sum was dangled in front of them, they grabbed it and came up with a bunch of post hoc justifications for the redesign. Plus ca change...

[BrandNewGuy]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> That junction used to have a reasonable free flow

> of traffic as did ED Grove.

>

> Southwark redesigned the ED Grove Townley rd

> junction and the Court-Calton - Village junction

> at a huge cost and messed up both so badly that

> they became dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists

> and increased idling traffic.

I know I risk sounding like a stuck record, but follow the money... The ED Grove / Townley Road / Green Dale junction was redesigned because there was a large sum available from a London-wide cycling initiative from Boris Johnson when he was Mayor. The council wouldn't have even thought of altering that junction, but when a six-figure sum was dangled in front of them, they grabbed it and came up with a bunch of post hoc justifications for the redesign. Plus ca change...

[heartblock]

It was a design disaster - whoever is responsible for that awful 'redesign' shouldn't be allowed near a footpath let alone a three-way junction -with heavy pedestrian and cycling use. Yet again they take Boris-cash for yet another Southwark disaster.

I long for a Labour Council that actually benefits the poorest in the borough rather than the richest. Gentrification, Heygate, Aylesbury, Peckham Green, jobs for the 'boys' and girls with property developer companies. It saddens me greatly.

Now LTNs - only benefitting the richest and most able - not benefiting the elderly, busy mums, the less able and those families, stuck in small garden-less flats on already polluted ribbon roads.

[heartblock]

It was a design disaster - whoever is responsible for that awful 'redesign' shouldn't be allowed near a footpath let alone a three-way junction -with heavy pedestrian and cycling use. Yet again they take Boris-cash for yet another Southwark disaster.

I long for a Labour Council that actually benefits the poorest in the borough rather than the richest. Gentrification, Heygate, Aylesbury, Peckham Green, jobs for the 'boys' and girls with property developer companies. It saddens me greatly.

Now LTNs - only benefitting the richest and most able - not benefiting the elderly, busy mums, the less able and those families, stuck in small garden-less flats on already polluted ribbon roads.

[Chick]

Totally agree. With that and Starmer I don't think I'll ever vote Labour again.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> It was a design disaster - whoever is responsible

> for that awful 'redesign' shouldn't be allowed

> near a footpath let alone a three-way junction

> -with heavy pedestrian and cycling use. Yet again

> they take Boris-cash for yet another Southwark

> disaster.

> I long for a Labour Council that actually benefits

> the poorest in the borough rather than the

> richest. Gentrification, Heygate, Aylesbury,

> Peckham Green, jobs for the 'boys' and girls with

> property developer companies. It saddens me

> greatly.

> Now LTNs - only benefitting the richest and most

> able - not benefiting the elderly, busy mums, the

> less able and those families, stuck in small

> garden-less flats on already polluted ribbon

> roads.

[malumbu]

So Rocks, the question I posed, which as you know I have done fairly regularly over many months, is how would you reduce traffic? Ask people nicely?? No matter how good you make public transport and the alternatives many will not switch; it has to be a hard intervention unless you or others know better.

[alice]

It?s the location of that hard intervention that is the problem.

[Artemis]

But a hard intervention in one small part of a metropolis, which doesn?t link up with policies/interventions in the other parts of the metropolis and relies on public transport (which the Council cannot control in isolation) may simply not work. It doesn?t logically follow that if government policy is not achieving aims of reducing traffic that individual councils will be able to achieve it - in fact, if it?s in the ?too difficult/too expensive? pile of central government, is it realistic to expect Brave Little Southwark to succeed where central government has failed? What can Southwark do about the huge increase in online shopping which is one of the major reasons that traffic is increasing? Nothing, in isolation. While we?d all like to reduce traffic, it doesn?t mean that it?s realistic to expect an individual council to be able to do it. And I?ve seen absolutely nothing to suggest that ?hard intervention? in Dulwich is actually working - in fact, all evidence points to the opposite.