LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[legalalien]

An interesting thing I hadn?t seen before - open letter to the council after the announcement on Phase 2 closures from CAD/MFL / SC / LC, suggesting that the scheme doesn?t work in its currently constituted form and that more is needed

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G7EPWew-0GIi4DinUCRSIN7Mm3Ea7uAU/view

It looks like the Burbage Road closure at the roundabout was added in response to this (it was done in a separate TMO from memory), but not the other changes.

If the groups are right that without additional changes there will not be a ?modal shift? then we?re going to be stuck with traffic for a while...?

[Earl Aelfheah]

So the LTNs are simultaneously making it ?impossible? to drive anywhere and *also* doing nothing to discourage short car journeys. It?s just not credible that both these things are true

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> I?m fairly sure we?ve been through this before

> rahrah. Yes traffic needs to be reduced, short

> journeys are good to target for this. However can

> you show that closing the roads does this rather

> than just divert those journeys elsewhere,

> ironically probably travelling further in more

> congestion increasing pollution. I think the onus

> is on the pro closure lobby to prove this works

> rather than the other way, as this is an

> experimental order after all. Those living and

> using the diversion streets report much worse

> traffic and congestion and yet this seems to be

> entirely ignored by the pro closure lobby.

>

>

>

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Does anyone on here arguing against LTNs also

> > agree that we need to reduce the number of

> short

> > car journeys? If so, can you explain how

> allowing

> > cars to use side streets as cut throughs will

> > achieve this?

[Dulwichgirl82]

I didn?t say that. I said it takes longer in more congested traffic did I not? Twisting words to make more dramatic isn?t particularly helpful in order to actually have reasonable discourse on this.

It?s also not credible that traffic isn?t worse on the diversion roads now but was previously terrible on the closed roads?

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> So the LTNs are simultaneously making it

> ?impossible? to drive anywhere and *also* doing

> nothing to discourage short car journeys. It?s

> just not credible that both these things are true

>

> Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I?m fairly sure we?ve been through this before

> > rahrah. Yes traffic needs to be reduced, short

> > journeys are good to target for this. However

> can

> > you show that closing the roads does this

> rather

> > than just divert those journeys elsewhere,

> > ironically probably travelling further in more

> > congestion increasing pollution. I think the

> onus

> > is on the pro closure lobby to prove this works

> > rather than the other way, as this is an

> > experimental order after all. Those living and

> > using the diversion streets report much worse

> > traffic and congestion and yet this seems to be

> > entirely ignored by the pro closure lobby.

> >

> >

> >

> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Does anyone on here arguing against LTNs also

> > > agree that we need to reduce the number of

> > short

> > > car journeys? If so, can you explain how

> > allowing

> > > cars to use side streets as cut throughs will

> > > achieve this?

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don?t think traffic was terrible on side streets before. But they were never the less used as cut throughs to and from the main roads.

[Earl Aelfheah]

... the exception being the north part of Melbourne which was often pretty bad simply because it was too narrow to accommodate the large vehicles that often tried to navigate it

[Earl Aelfheah]

I have never accepted the argument that there is huge amounts of displacement on to main roads. Interestingly though your logic works the other way round... if there has been massive displacement as you suggest then it is hard to see how it would be appropriate to redirect all those cars down narrow side streets.

[Dulwichgirl82]

Interesting. So traffic wasn?t terrible on the closed roads but I assume we can agree it is now often on EDG and LL. so how do the closures make sense? EDG LL end isn?t very wide, and also residential (housing on both sides)

Regarding Melbourne grove north it?s actually as wide as the northern end of EDG if you take out one side of parking as they have on EDG

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I don?t think traffic was terrible on side streets

> before. But they were never the less used as cut

> throughs to and from the main roads.

[Dulwichgirl82]

But it?s not redirecting? The redirection has been from the closed roads to the main road, effectively giving their traffic to others. restoring the status quo would be going back to what it was. And there have been 5 roads closed in east dulwich onto one road. So yes I would rather 6 roads get some traffic than one road with houses, schools nursery?s and a health centre gets it all.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I have never accepted the argument that there is

> huge amounts of displacement into main roads.

> Interestingly though your logic works the other

> way round... if there has been massive

> displacement as you suggest then it is hard to see

> how it would be reasonable to redirect all those

> cars down the side streets.

[legalalien]

Incidentally reading the letter linked above took me down an internet wormhole where I found various Southwark Cycling Stakeholder Group minutes, although these seem to stop in 2018. For the ?undue external cycling influence on council

policy? conspiracy theorists among you (PH is the Council officer and AC is the Southwark Cyclists rep):

?PH says we want Liveable Neighbourhoods to be healthy and that we are interested in training officers for this. PH adds that we are interested in CSG locations for Liveable Streets. PH states that we will be the ones to choose the first Liveable Streets and doesn?t want Cycling Stakeholder group to feel that we are ignoring their views.

PH says we will be looking at a steering group to decide the first one and one of the CSG?s will be a part of it. PH adds that we are now asking all developers to look at how they make a healthy review.

AC states that he would like to make a bid for Dulwich Village, Bellenden and sorting out Gyratory somewhere in Walworth.?

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/7455/CSG-Friday-1-September-2017.pdf

[Spartacus]

Here's an obvious question to the pro group

Why do we need to reduce car usage ?

If it's to reduce pollution then isn't that the role of the extended ULEZ coming in next year plus the stopping sales of fossil fuel cars in 2030 ?

LTNs have been shown (as in the case of Wandsworth) to drive up pollution not down

Whilst there are no viable improvements to public transport (and saying if the roads are clear buses can go quickly, have you never been in a bus that "is being held to regulate the service") then people aren't going to ditch their cars on cold wet miserable days even for short journeys.

Closing roads causes more pollution, delays for emergency services and essential workers all so the council and pro lobby groups can tick a box and get funding.

Let's be honest here, the real way forward is for the council to work with the whole community , local businesses, emergency services and transport providers to come up with realistic solutions that work for all.

[Siduhe]

I have never accepted the argument that there is huge amounts of displacement into main roads. Interestingly though your logic works the other way round... if there has been massive displacement as you suggest then it is hard to see how it would be appropriate to redirect all those cars down narrow side streets.

This is where I think the theory parts company with the reality - at least at the moment. I'm not necessarily in favour of reversing the two sets of closures and I agree that shorter car journeys which can easily be done by cycling and walking should be promoted and facilitated. As someone who barely drives any more and mostly cycles (having made the switch these closures are trying to encourage a while back) I'm also in favour of encouraging traffic onto main roads and off side streets.

But the current situation isn't about 100% of traffic being moved on the main roads and 0% being allowed on side roads, it's about 0% of traffic on a few, select roads with significantly increased traffic on other sides roads and some main roads. And I do think in some ways it is fairer to have traffic spread around more evenly across main roads and all side roads, giving more options to deal with snarl-ups and road works.

But I acknowledge that doesn't achieve the overall reduction in traffic that we all agree we want and it doesn't make it safer to cycle or walk. So what I do want is a fair process, that looks at the overall picture and has a qualitative element of analysis to it. Which is exactly what we are not getting.

And I'll be upfront that some of this is personally motivated - I live on a road that is a side road, actually quite similar to Melbourne Grove, but has a bus route running down it, which for the last 15 years I've lived here has had reasonable amounts of traffic on it, but almost never bumper to bumper (unless there was a traffic issue somewhere else), has been relatively safe to cycle on and no better or worse for pollution than our overall area. Now traffic is bumper to bumper most days at peak times, my home air pollution monitor is through the roof at those times (as traffic idles trying to get to and around the South Circular) and my previously safe cycle home feels a lot less safe.

When I've asked how the council is going to help me and my neighbours as part of its overall plan, I've been told variously:

Give it time to bed in - ok, that's fair - what would be a fair amount of time to review - 6 months maybe? The council won't even commit to reviewing the impact in our area, only the area which is directly impacted by the two closures in 18 months time, so our views don't even get taken into account.

There's nothing we can do as you're on a bus route - that's a TFL issue What about bus gates, or timed closures or anything that would help mitigate the effects we are seeing?

We have no plans to monitor pollution specifically in your area, but will consider the impact overall in East Dulwich

It's easy to ask simple questions that lead to answers like of course it's unfair to expect people on side roads to put up with cut through car traffic, especially when that traffic is for a short journey that could easily be done another way. And anyone who says different is an idiot in my view. And I could definitely put up with the (hopefully short term) pain that I and my neighbours are feeling if I thought it was part of a managed process that would look at everything in the round and come up with something that is fair for our entire area. But this is so far from that, that it is difficult to support right now.

I've done my best to answer your question rahrahrah, and I'd really appreciate it if you could answer mine - what is is that you think we should be doing in the context of responding to the current LTNs? Accepting it and hoping it turns out ok? I don't think there's a lot here that most people disagree on whether they are for the closures, against the closures or like me, fine with the closures if it's part of a short term plan to benefit the area with a clear path for assessment and review? It would be so helpful if some of those in favour of the current closures could also lobby the council for a fair and managed assessment of the impacts, and so much harder for the council to do what it is doing, which is ignoring those requests in favour of a "let's just see" approach.

[DulwichCentral]

The traffic on Melbourne Grove was terrible - consistently congested and dangerous. It was also terrible on Calton Avenue, Court Lane, Townley road and Dulwich village. People seem to forget.

I go to Lordship Lane every day and it seems pretty much the same ever - as for East Dulwich Grove there have been regular tailbacks on the red post hill to townley road bit for years. And as exdulwicher said 'traffic everywhere (not just Dulwich, not just London and certainly not just in areas with LTNs) has jumped in the last week by up to 70% in some areas' - that seems pretty obvious since lockdown has eased and people not using public transport.

So why is it so bad to carve out a bit of space for people to walk and cycle safely? Especially on school routes. If people are genuinely thinking of 'the many' they'd look at the big picture and see that LTNs are the only way to reclaim a bit of space back from cars and get people walking and cycling instead. With cycling people start at a local level then gain confidence to cycle further - which is why cycle paths on main roads are important too.

PS re Farage - no surprise there, he's never been keen on facts :)

[redpost]

Reasons to reduce car usage:

1) health of driver, not walking/cycling

2) health of people breathing pollution

3) people killed on roads

4) Co2 emissions

5) particulate pollution (brake pad dust, tyre dust) of the land from runoff

6) land usage dedicated to roadspace

[Dulwichgirl82]

Dulwich central your comments don?t make sense. Apparently traffic was terrible on all these roads but now on LL and EDG where they displace to it?s not worse than before? Where exactly has all this ?terrible traffic? gone then? I assume you aren?t claiming everyone of those cars now cycles or walks?

[Spartacus]

redpost Wrote:

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

> Reasons to reduce car usage:

>

> 1) health of driver, not walking/cycling

Not everyone can walk or cycle, the elderly, the disabled, those with other issues .. the population isn't all 20 to 45 Year olds !

> 2) health of people breathing pollution

ULEZ and non fossil fuel cars will kill that argument

> 3) people killed on roads

More people due from cancer, the flu and medical issues.

> 4) Co2 emissions

Same as your answer 2 no points for repeating

> 5) particulate pollution (brake pad dust, tyre

> dust) of the land from runoff

Fair point but it's minor compared to answer 2 (thank the stars you weren't around in the 60s when London was covered in smog)

> 6) land usage dedicated to roadspace

And what should it be used for ? Cycling ? That just replaces one use with another

As I said there needs to be a proactive joined up policy involving ALL stakeholders to come up with a solution fit for all

LTNs aren't the solution for all, just the few

As a side thought maybe we need to stop building more homes and encourage people to move away from London so that the infrastructure can cope , not push more and more people onto it this creating conflict

[DulwichCentral]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> LTNs have been shown (as in the case of

> Wandsworth) to drive up pollution not down

>

If you're referring to the article in The Telegraph the final paragraph says:

A spokesman for the Department of Transport said: "As the report itself makes clear, it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions from this limited data, and therefore it is misleading to imply that the Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in Wandsworth led to a worsening in air quality in the area."

and also:

'Unusual patterns of travel during the Covid pandemic, as well as the limited period of monitoring and even changes in environmental conditions could have contributed to the stark difference in readings, the report authors note, urging the data to be viewed with "heavy caveats".'

It was a sampling window of 4 weeks during a newly implemented LTN and then after the LTN was taken out. I don't think anyone who supports LTNs expects instant results - some displacement is inevitable to begin with - maybe the LTN in the article wasn't given enough time and they measured the worst bit when most impact was felt?

[Nigello]

There is no one solution. If there is too much congestion, then part of the solutions woudl be to deter driving. I hve no car, so that is my part of the solution. Others may have other things to offer but most won't because they don't really care that much. It is that simple.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The reality is, you cannot reduce car use without making it less convenient / more expensive, providing better alternatives, or both.

LTNs are definitely part of the answer. They both make short car journey's less appealing and make cycling / walking a more attractive option, by creating some quieter streets off the main roads.

Public transport improvements are also required, but take much longer and are more expensive. That said, we have seen a number of improvements across London in the last decade or so.

What definitely isn't going to reduce short car journeys or encourage people to try cycling for the first time, is allowing vehicles to cut through side streets.

[Nigello]

I agree. For a long time, I wouldn't think twice about using my weekly bus pass or travelcard as much as possible "to get my money's worth" but since I have not had either and the pandemic is with us I walk so much more - there was a change, a nudge and a result. So, car owners can also be nudged into usign the bus or walking or cycling in a similar way, and LTNs are a valid way of doing so.

[Siduhe]

@rahrahrah - I appreciate that yours may be a more general reply, and nothing in what you've said that I disagree with - but could you look at my post above and let me know what your answer is to the question about what people living on other side roads who are being negatively impacted by these changes should do? Specifically about these closures and their impact?

I don't want the closures reversed, I want a proper, managed assessment that looks at our area as a whole for ideally no more than six months, but apparently we can't have that. So what is the solution for me and my neighbours?

[Metallic]

Short journeys of course should be encouraged to be walking or cycling instead of a car, but there are literally hundreds of people going through our area every day, I include Lordship Lane to Croxted and East Dulwich Grove, who are also making longer journeys - business people, tradespeople, delivery people, you name it. You can't deliver 80 parcels on a bike and PLEASE do not say use a cargo bike delivery as they are often the most irritating deliveries, never knowing when they are coming.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> But it?s not redirecting? The redirection has been

> from the closed roads to the main road,

> effectively giving their traffic to others.

> restoring the status quo would be going back to

> what it was. And there have been 5 roads closed in

> east dulwich onto one road. So yes I would rather

> 6 roads get some traffic than one road with

> houses, schools nursery?s and a health centre gets

> it all.

>

>

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I have never accepted the argument that there

> is

> > huge amounts of displacement into main roads.

> > Interestingly though your logic works the other

> > way round... if there has been massive

> > displacement as you suggest then it is hard to

> see

> > how it would be reasonable to redirect all

> those

> > cars down the side streets.

You are insisting there has been massive displacement of traffic from side streets. This relies on the premise that these roads (a) can carry large amounts of traffic, (b) that large amounts of traffic on side streets is acceptable.

My experience is that in reality it only takes a truck, or a couple of vans meeting each other / trying to cut through a street like Melbourne Grove to cause chaos - both on the road itself and at the junctions of that road.

But either your argument is right, and removing the LTNs would send large numbers of cars onto narrow side streets, or it's not, in which case the LTNs cannot be the primary cause of increased congestion since the start of the pandemic.

Either way, I don't see how allowing cars to use side roads as 'cut throughs' discourages short car journeys.

[Dulwichgirl82]

It?s a bit confusing as others of the pro closure lobby do seem to think there was a large amount of traffic on the closed roads...

however it doesn?t take a lot of traffic on each individual road to cause a lot of traffic on one when you go from 6 roads to 1? Say each road had 2 cars per hour (random number for example) and so now instead of that one road had 12 an hour and 5 roads had 0. Now I doubt it was evenly split like this but the point is each road didn?t need a lot of traffic (though that seems to be a matter of contention) to cause a lot of displacement elsewhere.

I also have never said ending the experimental measure and restoring the original routes (which we should remember is the change here) would discourage short car journeys, I also don?t think the LTNs have done this. Not enough to warrant the problems they have caused elsewhere.

I genuinely believe my children get exposed to more pollution now as we use communal areas negatively effected by these changes, and don?t live on a closed road. Can you explain to me how this is improving their health or quality of life?

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > But it?s not redirecting? The redirection has

> been

> > from the closed roads to the main road,

> > effectively giving their traffic to others.

> > restoring the status quo would be going back to

> > what it was. And there have been 5 roads closed

> in

> > east dulwich onto one road. So yes I would

> rather

> > 6 roads get some traffic than one road with

> > houses, schools nursery?s and a health centre

> gets

> > it all.

> >

> >

> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > I have never accepted the argument that there

> > is

> > > huge amounts of displacement into main roads.

> > > Interestingly though your logic works the

> other

> > > way round... if there has been massive

> > > displacement as you suggest then it is hard

> to

> > see

> > > how it would be reasonable to redirect all

> > those

> > > cars down the side streets.

>

> You are insisting there has been massive

> displacement of traffic from side streets. This

> relies on the premise that these roads (a) can

> carry large amounts of traffic, (b) that large

> amounts of traffic on side streets is acceptable.

>

> My experience is that in reality it only takes a

> truck, or a couple of vans meeting each other /

> trying to cut through a street like Melbourne

> Grove to cause chaos - both on the road itself and

> at the junctions of that road.

>

> But either your argument is right, and removing

> the LTNs would send large numbers of cars onto

> narrow side streets, or it's not, in which case

> the LTNs cannot be the primary cause of increased

> congestion since the start of the pandemic.

>

> Either way, I don't see how allowing cars to use

> side roads as 'cut throughs' discourages short car

> journeys.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Siduhe - just seen your post above. I think it's very fair. I was critical of the way the council approached this, for many of the reasons you allude to. The reality is however, that we now have the schemes we have and if they were to be reversed, I think the impact overall would be quite negative. I appreciate that doesn't help you or your neighbours. I think you are right to push the council for mitigation / review or your particular circumstances.

[Dulwichgirl82]

Oddly enough rahrah I think we are on the same side in that we would like less traffic and pollution. However we differ in that I don?t believe the LTN in it?s current format is doing that, in fact I think it?s making things worse for many people. We have discussed the inequality of the roads closed versus those damaged by it. But also overall i think pollution is worse as traffic is stuck idling in a few places rather than disappearing. Impacted roads include other side roads, look at Matham.

So I feel that the LTN should be changed, maybe removed and rethought maybe partially so, but I am also concerned based on the recent council meeting just how much they are actually interested in a fair consultation.