LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[ed_pete]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> I agree completely - I believe the measures on

> Melbourne Grove (for example) make sense but they

> don't at the DV junction and it is the DV junction

> that is causing the problems across Dulwich and

> the council stedfastedly refuses to acknowledge

> that fact.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> 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...

>

> 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.

I'm confused - are you saying the Melbourne Grove LTN changes are OK but at the same time they are doing more harm than good ?

[Rockets]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> 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.

Malumbu - we have answered that time and time again yet you still keep asking the question but I will repeat again...you need road pricing, investment in public transport, segregated bike lanes, proper infrastructure to support modal shift, a commitment to embrace electric vehicles and the infrastructure needed to support it.

So what you can't do is do what the council did which is throw in a handful of roadblocks, sit on your laurels and think that solves the problem - it doesn't - it makes it much worse as it is tactical and not at all strategic.

[heartblock]

Dulwich and ED LTNs do NOT reduce traffic across the whole area - there is no evidence they do and specifically there is absolutely no/none/zilch evidence that LTNs have reduced traffic in this area. Please don't quote the reduction in traffic during pandemic lockdown that was seen across London in all areas as 'proof' and please don't write the obvious ..that a closed road has no traffic...because one road being gated and quiet does not equal a reduction in traffic.

All I could see was more idling traffic, longer car journeys and slower buses - which equals more pollution.

I just cannot understand why people keep saying LTns reduce traffic - they clearly don't.

Road pricing, cycle lanes, better local transport, more electric charging points - take street parking off one side of Calton - as plenty of parking for one car per house (I know that it is multiple car ownership down that road) and put a small local electric bus route connection from Sainsbury's -LL -EDG - Townley- Calton - Village - College- Southcirc - LL - Sainsbury's - plenty of space and room.

Open Gilkes and open Court - again no parking on one side of both roads and a protected bike lane down both. ED Grove once relieved of displaced traffic could then have a mixed bike/pavement extension on one side and parking taken off one side to allow for this.

Lot's of ways - rather the the failed LTN project.

[AlexandHelenC]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> 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.

The LTNs don?t reduce traffic or pollution. They make public transport (buses) much worse.

[Rockets]

And let's see what Cllr McAsh said on his blog a year ago on the matter (https://www.jamesmcash.com/blog/se22-councillors-low-traffic-neighbourhoods):

Low traffic neighbourhoods aim to do two things. First, they try to reduce emissions overall, by encouraging cycling and walking by making the road network safer and more pleasant. In addition, they try to segregate cars from cyclists as much as possible - making it safer for both groups. The ward I represent, Goose Green, has a small number of such measures on the streets around East Dulwich station: various roads which were cut-throughs are now cul-de-sacs, dramatically reducing their motor traffic. Although not in Goose Green, there have been similar - and potentially more significant - changes in Dulwich Village, which have had a knock-on effect in East Dulwich.

The goal - to be absolutely clear - is to reduce traffic overall, not simply to move it from one road to another. At the moment, it is hard to measure its success. For a start, we always anticipated a transitional period with higher traffic whilst everyone grows accustomed to the new layout. But more significantly, car-use is rising across London so it is a complex job to assess whether the roads would be better or worse without the new measures. If you?re in a warm room and wear a sweater to go outside, you may still be cooler than you were before but that does not mean the jumper did not warm you.

So, a year on from his blog and following the results of the monitoring and review the goal has not been achieved - the project has failed and I think we all know that the tweaking the council is suggesting won't resolve the issue.

He even references the knock-on effect that the DV closures are causing in his ward yet he stays silent and toes the party line by not speaking up against the measures and the impact on his constituents.

[DulwichCentral]

@Rockets wrote:

'you need road pricing, investment in public transport, segregated bike lanes, proper infrastructure to support modal shift, a commitment to embrace electric vehicles and the infrastructure needed to support it'

Sounds good but how are you going to get all this in place urgently in a climate crisis from a council with reduced funding, and a government who seem to be relying on the 'market' to get us to net zero?

Hopefully Southwark will use some of the money they've raised in fines on improving infrastructure to support modal shift. And maybe One Dulwich could donate their fundraiser to the council to help put all this in place instead of opposing what can be done in current circumstances?

[heartblock]

But LTNs do not do anything 'urgently' to help the climate crisis... they haven't reduced pollution - in fact there is more evidence of pollution increases on ED Grove and Calton.

Blood-letting was once though the best treatment for dropsy -of course it didn't cure dropsy and actually contributed to the final morbid outcome. I'm sure now we wouldn't say - but it's better than doing nothing.

LTNs in Dulwich = blood letting for treating dropsy

'These remedies were rudimentary, erratic in action, and associated with inconvenient side effects'

[DulwichCentral]

There has been modal shift in Dulwich - of course some here will disagree but I see it on a daily basis during school run. And I saw on Twitter it's possible that traffic on some parts of EDG have actually reduced. I don't see a massive increase there - as I have said before - no doubt you'll disagree because of what you see on a daily basis. Fair enough. So it's a matter of opinion - what you see and what I see.

But if it's not possible to instantly install everything Rockets suggests due to lack of ??? - and you don't want LTNs either - then it seems the only other option is to do nothing?

That's definitely not going to do anything urgently to help the climate crisis is it?

[Otto2]

Here's a new report...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1007815/gear-change-one-year-on.pdf

[malumbu]

OK Rocks, here's another question. Stopping vehicles turning right into and out of the South Circ on the junctions with Wood Vale and with Underhill increased traffic flows on Honor Oak Road, including passing a primary school, Fairlawn.

Should Southwark reinstate those restricted turns, and what would you say to the citizens of Wood Vale and Underhill? Some consistency would be great.

[Artemis]

But as I said before - if there is nothing that a single council will be able to do in isolation that improves traffic, surely there is an argument to say it IS better to do nothing, if the ?something? you can do is making things worse? Tackling the climate crisis is not going to be solved by installing measures that have a negligible positive effect in some roads in the area, and a not insignificant negative effect in others. Perhaps instead Southwark should use its energies to lobby local schools to think of ideas to reduce the number of car journeys to their premises and to lobby central government to introduce measures that discourage car use and tackle the massive increase in online shopping. Heartblock?s ?dropsy? analogy is spot on. Do you really think the majority of respondents to the consultation who want the LTNs removed DON?T want a solution to the climate crisis and are just being selfish? Or do you think they have the intelligence to realise that the aims of the measures are simply not being achieved by the measures?

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> There has been modal shift in Dulwich - of course

> some here will disagree but I see it on a daily

> basis during school run. And I saw on Twitter it's

> possible that traffic on some parts of EDG have

> actually reduced. I don't see a massive increase

> there - as I have said before - no doubt you'll

> disagree because of what you see on a daily basis.

> Fair enough. So it's a matter of opinion - what

> you see and what I see.

>

> But if it's not possible to instantly install

> everything Rockets suggests due to lack of ??? -

> and you don't want LTNs either - then it seems the

> only other option is to do nothing?

>

> That's definitely not going to do anything

> urgently to help the climate crisis is it?

But are those children cycling to school within the Dulwich triangle taking enough cars off the road to impact climate change? No. Are those children cycling to school within the Dulwich triangle reducing car usage sufficiently to not create congestion and increased pollution on boundary roads? No.

Therein lies the point - the most any LTN has managed to allegedly reduce car use by is 11% (and that claim is one from the pro-LTN lobby) which is not enough to have a positive overall impact due to displacement.

You have to stop looking at this from the purview of the few that are benefitting within the Dulwich triangle - that is not sustainable.

I see pictures all the time on twitter heralding modal shift - I also saw a picture on twitter from Cllr Newens heralding that she had saved the cashpoint in Dulwich Village. When I walked to said cashpoint the day after it had been removed. Not everything on twitter is accurate or reflective of what is actually happening out there! ;-)

[Rockets]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> OK Rocks, here's another question. Stopping

> vehicles turning right into and out of the South

> Circ on the junctions with Wood Vale and with

> Underhill increased traffic flows on Honor Oak

> Road, including passing a primary school,

> Fairlawn.

>

> Should Southwark reinstate those restricted turns,

> and what would you say to the citizens of Wood

> Vale and Underhill? Some consistency would be

> great.

Malumbu - it's a bit of a daft question to be honest - we're talking about the LTNs installed under the OHS initiative. Those measures weren't put in under the pretence that they would reduce car use and pollution - were they? Nor did they cause massive congestion issues elsewhere - did they? I very much suspect they were put in to stop accidents as cars tried to turn across fast-moving traffic on the A205. Please do correct me if I am wrong and those measures were installed, in fact, to encourage modal shift.

You love asking questions so here's one for you to answer - do you think the LTNs have delivered against the objectives Cllr McAsh stated in his blog post in October 2020 that being: The goal - to be absolutely clear - is to reduce traffic overall, not simply to move it from one road to another.

[heartblock]

EDG traffic reduction ..no if you look at the actual data. Overall reduction outside of a pandemic lockdown.. no if you look at the baselines chosen. McAsh success measures.. not achieved.

[Rockets]

Otto2 Wrote:

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

> Here's a new report...

>

> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen

> t/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1007

> 815/gear-change-one-year-on.pdf

One wonders whether you will be heralding the 2021 report quite as enthusiastically.....2021 cycling levels (according to DfT) are now reportedly below pre-Covid levels so all of those gains will have been wiped out in a year suggesting that the pandemic was the major catalyst for temporary cycle growth not any of the measures put in to facilitate modal shift.

[malumbu]

Wow, Rocks, with getting on for almost 8000 people posting on this thread you have managed to expose the hypocrisy of many opposed to LTNs.

Firstly, on the question of how to get people out of their cars, you look to the utopian world of road user charging, better public transport, improved road infrastructure, and segregated cycle routes. I agree with the first three but all road users should be better prepared to share space - a separate thread. Segregated cycle routes just reinforce the view of many that motorised road transport takes precedence. But whilst we wait for this to happen what are the hard measures that should be taken to reduce motorisd traffic? And even when we get there how do we drag those who still fail to see the benefits to get out of their cars??

But then to say that the Southwark restrictions on side roads entering the South Circ are irrelevant to the thread takes the biscuit. Many are saying clean air for everyone. Yet when I point out restrictions that mean more pollution past a primary school you infer that this does not matter...

Anyway, not quite an olive branch but you are engaging with my points, and I expect that most posting on this thread are not entitled monists and many will not own cars. I've never posted about the details of this and other LTNs, just the praecipe of having hard measures to deter some journeys.

[alice]

Mal. So you?re anti bikelanes. Ha I have always thought Dulwich LTNs were never about bikes.

[Rockets]

Malumbu - I am not sure what point you are trying to make about the right turn in and out of Wood Vale and I am not sure you are either to be honest....your rationale seems confused at best. What point are you trying to make, can you explain it please? Were those measures put in to create modal shift, did they lead to an increase in congestion and pollution? I am not sure why you think our position is hypocritical unless you are just trying to use that to deposition any opposition.

Anyway, my question to you which I repeat for your benefit as you seem (again) reluctant to answer is...on the basis of Cllr McAshs post a year ago do you think the LTNs have achieved their objective?

I think we all know why you refuse to answer and that answer helps you answer the question you post about what hard measures are needed whilst we wait for more strategic ones.....we need ones that work and these measures clearly do not work.

[heartblock]

Transport for London (TfL) - "London cyclist is typically white, under 40, male, with medium to high household income?

Gov.uk-

"2015-2019, on average, black people made the most local bus trips. Local bus trips accounted for 19% of all trips made by black people, the highest percentage out of all ethnic groups"

"In 2019, people in the lowest real income quintile made 75 local bus trips on average, more than any other income quintile, while those in the highest income quintile made the least"

"women made more local bus trips than men"

And shockingly "Buses make up 0.7% of all motor vehicle traffic in 2019. This has been on a downward trend since 2007 and has reduced 2.2% in the last year"

Why does Southwark put cycling as a priority above local buses?

[Rockets]

Interesting thread on car ownership levels in areas with LTNs. Wasn't a reduction in car ownership slated as one of the aims, doesn't seem to be happening...

[Zaardvark]

Yes and imagine how bad it would be if there were no LTNs - people are afraid to get on public transport, prefer cars and we would be in an even worse scenario without LTNs. We are in a pandemic and sometimes people's choices (solo travel by car) will be to the detriment of the many.

However, the car registrations could be an ULEZ phenomenon also? Are people buying new cars for that, and are yet to sell their old cars? ULEZ versus another dense area of the SE without ULEZ would be interesting to look at.

Z.

[fredricketts]

Been against them from the beginning, if I can help any way,

with computer work or as i have been doing spreading it in

the different media groups.

I live in Ashbourne Grove, I attended the last meeting protest in the village.

[Rockets]

Zaardvark Wrote:

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

> Yes and imagine how bad it would be if there were

> no LTNs - people are afraid to get on public

> transport, prefer cars and we would be in an even

> worse scenario without LTNs. We are in a pandemic

> and sometimes people's choices (solo travel by

> car) will be to the detriment of the many.

>

> However, the car registrations could be an ULEZ

> phenomenon also? Are people buying new cars for

> that, and are yet to sell their old cars? ULEZ

> versus another dense area of the SE without ULEZ

> would be interesting to look at.

>

> Z.

I am not sure people are afraid of public transport, at some times it is as busy as it ever was pre-pandemic, especially when you look at the below article in light of the fact most companies are not returning to offices full-time.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-58360193

A reduction in car ownership was one of the promised outcomes of LTNs and, like so many of the other promises, it isn't actually being realised.

[tiddles]

.

[ab29]

'Imagine how bad it would be without LTNs' - for who? Certainly not for people living on the boundary roads as we are getting all you traffic now. LTN is one of the most socially unjust scheme ever invented.