LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Pugwash]

The Dulwich Estates since the 1950s (or earlier) rejected the idea of public transport going through the village as they wanted to maintain a 'village atmosphere' to encourage wealthy people to live there. I had friends who lived in Court Lane who at times would have benefitted access to public transport - especially to get to Norwood and the Palace.

I think it was only in the 1990s that a bus route was 'authorised' due to the increasing elderly population and growth of schools being used by non local parents.

[bagpuss]

I live by goose green

My road is closed in the morning and afternoon due to the cleaner streets campaign

I don?t drive

But it?s annoying for residents who do

And when I have visitors

Also - the school has sat and Sunday lettings which means weekend parking is now an issue

I?d also think that Sunday with amount of vehicles turning up that adds to pollution

The talking trees are also an eyesore

My road looks like a nuclear testing zone with all the yellow and black signs

[James Barber]

Such a package of measures should include permit restrictions to travel along Melbourne Grove. Else much of the Village and Townley Road traffic will divert via Lordship Lane/Melbourne Grove.

[goldilocks]

And that is exactly what one of the proposals does!

[Rockets]

Such a package of measures should not be implemented at all. It is obvious this is going to cause huge problems for anyone living outside of the car-free area. Nevermind just Melbourne Grove - that traffic is going be funnelled all across the remainder of East and West Dulwich.

I wonder what any of the current local councillors think of the proposals as this will impact their constituents? They can't be oblivious to it.

[first mate]

But this is exactly the outcome S?Wark want. Increase pressure on those outside the ?non car? areas so they too beg for CPZ. Remember too that there is a view that if you cannot cope without a car that really you should move, you have no business living here.

[exdulwicher]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Such a package of measures should not be

> implemented at all. It is obvious this is going to

> cause huge problems for anyone living outside of

> the car-free area. Nevermind just Melbourne Grove

> - that traffic is going be funnelled all across

> the remainder of East and West Dulwich.

>

> I wonder what any of the current local councillors

> think of the proposals as this will impact their

> constituents? They can't be oblivious to it.

They're legally obliged to address it, it's part of declaring a Climate Emergency.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2019/apr/southwark-council-declares-climate-change-emergency

Mix of things like parking charges / CPZ, making walking/cycling/public transport easier and more accessible to more people and making driving more onerous to push people towards more sustainable transport options.

Doing nothing is not an option - if they don't address it, they can be taken to court and fined a lot of our council tax money!

[Rockets]

They are contributing to the climate emergency: their changes to the DV junction over the last 18 months has created more pollution (their own research demonstrated this) and these measures will do too. For all the changes to the DV junction to create safer routes for cyclists very few are actually using it - have they asked the question why?

To build measures based on the presumption that people will stop using their cars is naive and a deliberate dereliction of duty by the authorities - similar measures elsewhere have been utterly ineffective - they merely push the congestion elsewhere, slow the flow of traffic and create more pollution.

Until there are properly planned and well thought plans that are inclusive of ALL modes of transportation then this city will never make any progress.

[goldilocks]

Just to call out a point in your last post that isn't 100% accurate - the council did not agree that their changes had created more pollution - they have done detailed analysis on that junction and found that there are no solutions that will work given the volume of traffic that needs to flow through and the space available.

I do agree that the junction is unsatisfactory and has worsened with the new priorities - but this being true doesn't also mean that the previous design wouldn't be a problem now given the huge increases in traffic flowing through Dulwich Village in the last 5 years (and would guess that Waze and similar plays a significant role in this).

There isn't a solution that allows continued car use and addresses the public health emergency from both pollution and inactivity.

[kr988]

If the proposals were to improve public transport links first by train and buses then people would be much more positive and engaged . As people have pointed out there are some distances that are too far to walk and many are not happy to cycle if it means at some point you will be sharing roads with other motor vehicles. These proposals may worsen the only bus routes available on EDG, the village and Lordship Lane .

[Rockets]

Goldilocks - it is 100% accurate - I am not sure what you heard from the council (perhaps they are spinning something different verbally - who'd have imagined it hey ;-)) but the Dulwich Village Monitoring Report of May 2019 clearly says:

Air Quality: comparing before and after data

shows that there has been a moderate increase

in NO2.

You can find it here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/our-healthy-streets/our-healthy-streets-dulwich. Scroll to the bottom of the page under Related items and you can read it.

What amazes me is the carte-blanche given to councils to do what they want without any accountability. It is clear that the changes made at DV have worsened congestion, pollution and safety and yet some on here blindly say "yup, we'll have more of that please" without considering the broader impacts of a badly designed initiative.

I am all for doing what we all can to help resolve the issues caused by pollution and congestion but this is not the way to do it - and that is obvious to everyone bar the most hardened of anti-car campaigners. What the council is suggesting is a pollution disaster waiting to happen - look already the debate is spreading to extending the programme to Melbourne Grove too (which is inevitable) - whatever next Lordship Lane too?

[wulfhound]

To build measures based on the presumption that people will stop using their cars is naive and a deliberate dereliction of duty by the authorities - similar measures elsewhere have been utterly ineffective - they merely push the congestion elsewhere, slow the flow of traffic and create more pollution.

That's not true - it just doesn't happen overnight.

Thought experiment. Suppose all the roads around London flowed freely and you could reliably travel at the posted speed limit, 24/7. I know for a fact I'd drive a lot more. I suspect we all would. Indeed, because with more regular driving, car ownership would be more economical for me than ZipCars, I'd likely end up driving many of the trips that I walk, bus or cycle at the moment.

40/50 years ago, they tried to build their way out of London's congestion. It didn't work. Neighbourhoods were blighted, and the three lane flyovers they built at enormous financial and environmental cost are still as congested as the South Circular at busy times.

Traffic will expand to fit the space available. Spend some time in Birmingham or Los Angeles, for example. The huge catchment areas of the private schools are both cause and symptom of a lot of the driving - anyone can find the Mumsnet threads where people are applying to half a dozen schools that are miles and miles from home.

The flip side is, reduce road capacity and the demand for it will shrink. That's not to say it's necessarily a smooth and easy process, but surely smoother and easier than dealing with 2.5c of climate change, or the chronic health consequences of living an inactive lifestyle in a soup of PM10s. But it has been shown to work - the most recent example being Walthamstow Village - huge improvement in air quality, big increases in walking and cycling, and minimal difference in journey time for those vehicles still using the roads. (With the caveat that their public transport is somewhat better than ours).

[Rockets]

I agree that reducing road capacity has to be a long-term strategy but you don't do it one street/section of streets at a time - commmon sense suggests that it won't work.

Let's take your thought-experiment and look at it slightly differently - given traffic doesn't flow freely throughout the city then why do think people do drive? It can't be through choice because it isn't a pleasant experience. Perhaps it is because other options do not work and driving is the least worst option?

Additionally, there has been a significant increase in the number of vehicles on the road due to the proliferation of home delivery services and services like Uber (Uber has 45,000 vehicles in London alone). So this isn't solely linked to the high number of private schools in the area - it is a challenge faced by all parts of London as consumer habits change and it puts more pressure on the existing infrastructure.

And to your point on Walthamstow - yes, their public transport is much better than ours but our council likes to use such examples as a proof that their plans are a good thing without ever applying specific local intelligence to it. And the danger is that it is the residents of the area as a whole that feel the broader impact of their lazy planning.

[wulfhound]

Let's take your thought-experiment and look at it slightly differently - given traffic doesn't flow freely throughout the city then why do think people do drive? It can't be through choice because it isn't a pleasant experience. Perhaps it is because other options do not work and driving is the least worst option?

From personal experience, they just take a different view on the many things that make up the cost/benefit equation. Case in point, many regard cycling as more dangerous than I do (they might very well be right there), or more difficult (mostly through lack of experience - talking about people of similar age and (un)fitness). Once you own a car, it's convenient - I'm certainly no saint, part of the reason I use ZipCar is that I feel the convenience level is about right - there if I really need it, but inconvenient enough that I'll walk instead if I can. And (personal view), most people with cars under-price or discount entirely the knock-on effects: noise and air pollution, road danger, emissions, and clogging up the roads to the expense of those making trips that really do need to be driven.

Beyond that, frankly, a lot of people just don't care - either they're selfish, or just not aware of / attuned to the environmental and social consequences. (They're easy to identify - they're the ones that drive like thugs and treat pedestrians like cr*p). Thatcherite mentality basically - I've earned it, I've paid for it, screw the lot of you.

And an element of living within ones' means.. because I drive rarely & my partner not at all, we tend to choose destinations (shops, parks, leisure, after-school activities) which are manageable on foot or by public transport. Friends with cars will go further afield to do essentially the same thing. On a personal level, there's no real right or wrong to that, but on a city planning / design level, surely it's right to design for the outcomes the council has decided are appropriate?

And to your point on Walthamstow - yes, their public transport is much better than ours but our council likes to use such examples as a proof that their plans are a good thing without ever applying specific local intelligence to it.

It's better, but not as much as you might think. The Tube connection is handy for getting to and from Central London (if you live near it), but the Lea Valley, North Circular and A12 are worse barriers than anything we have to deal with. I do hope that TfL are planning some extra buses for the area though - one or two new routes and improved frequency on the existing services would make a huge difference.

[seenbeen]

wulfhound said

'Thatcherite mentality basically - I've earned it, I've paid for it, screw the lot of you.'

No it isn't- the attitude to the car has been around for more decades than Mrs T- it's a toy to young men, and a 'chick magnet'- (I knew a woman back in the 1970s who said she would never go out with a bloke who didn't have a car) - and it is freedom for women- transporting shopping, kids, THEN getting to work on time.

The mental attitude is obvious.

[goldilocks]

Can only assume that's an 'in the past' characterisation of what the car symbolises rather than a description of now? Otherwise I'm interested in what jobs the 'little ladies' have after their childcare responsibilities that can be driven to!

There will clearly be some people who drive to work, but in Dulwich and surrounding they're in a significant minority. More common perhaps are those who drive to school and then onto a toddler activity or similar, or just school and back home again.

[creditwheredue]

I mentioned Melbourne Grove at the start of this thread, selfishly maybe as it?s very close to where I live. The southern section has a 90 degree turn which is already a road rage blackspot, as does Colwell Road thanks to the council?s failure to paint double yellow lines on the inside of the turn. Ridiculous when you see them on the outside turn in Playfield/Lytcott which caused no problem previously. Anyway, back to Melbourne, the crossroads with EDG is already hell, no-one knows who has right of way. An increase of motorists looking to cut from Lordship Lane to EDG to get off the main road, which is human nature is going to block Melbourne unless plans are made from the outset rather than monitored and action taken as a result. One way, back to the barrier across idea previously muted, better get their thinking caps on quick.

[exdulwicher]

creditwheredue Wrote:

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

> I mentioned Melbourne Grove at the start of this

> thread, selfishly maybe as it?s very close to

> where I live. The southern section has a 90

> degree turn which is already a road rage

> blackspot, as does Colwell Road thanks to the

> council?s failure to paint double yellow lines on

> the inside of the turn. Ridiculous when you see

> them on the outside turn in Playfield/Lytcott

> which caused no problem previously. Anyway, back

> to Melbourne, the crossroads with EDG is already

> hell, no-one knows who has right of way. An

> increase of motorists looking to cut from Lordship

> Lane to EDG to get off the main road, which is

> human nature is going to block Melbourne unless

> plans are made from the outset rather than

> monitored and action taken as a result. One way,

> back to the barrier across idea previously muted,

> better get their thinking caps on quick.

Anyone remember when the 37 bus used to go down Melbourne Grove? That was always entertaining, having two double decker buses trying to pass along there...

I'd make Melbourne one way from East Dulwich Station towards EDG and put a mini-roundabout at the top (have to be a mini one cos the buses along EDG couldn't get round a proper one). Or smart traffic lights that prioritise green along EDG, only turning green for Melbourne when there's a couple of vehicles there.

Contraflow cycle lane (EDG -> ED station direction), one-way vehicle traffic. And some actual proper measures to stop parking on that inside bend as nicely demonstrated by Google Stretview

[richard tudor]

Can anyone remember the time when people used common sense and thought for themselves and not as is usual today to be led by the nose by others.

The world is a very strange place these days.

Southwark is leading people by the nose to where they want you to be.

[Metallic]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Which by my reckoning would add at least an

> additional 1.5 miles to a 3 mile journey...so a

> 50% increase in pollution by an increased journey

> length. Then factor in the number of additional

> cars also making that journey because of the

> closure of DV to through-traffic (remember the

> council reckons there are 7000 cars going through

> there a day) and the A205 and other roads become

> more choked with traffic and so the cars spend

> more time in high pollution idling mode stuck in

> traffic....

>

> Do you see the issue here....the problem here is

> Nimbyism....all the council is going to do is move

> the problem from one area to another and create

> more problems than there were originally...?

>

> And some may say that people will stop using their

> cars...well maybe 10% might but even then there's

> still a lot of through traffic to contend with

> elsewhere (6,000+ a day) and by looking at the

> council's own numbers a tiny number of cycles use

> that junction despite the alterations made to it

> which may suggest that it isn't a route cyclists

> want or need to take.

>

> Just speak to anyone in Lambeth who lived through

> the Loughborough Junction debacle for a real-life

> case-study of what will happen. The impact was so

> catastrophic (in terms of congestion and

> pollution) to the surrounding areas that Lambeth

> had to reverse their plans.

The Council's own figures show 14,000 cars per day using Dulwich Village.

[Metallic]

kiera Wrote:

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

> I've always understood that, historically, the

> residents of Dulwich Village resisted the

> introduction of public transport into the Village

> & that that is why they only have one little

> single decker bus.

Incorrect. It was the Estate - but the P4 has been going for years - at one time you just stuck your hand out and it would stop. It is heavily used and should be more frequent.

[Zig-Zag]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> They are contributing to the climate emergency:

> their changes to the DV junction over the last 18

> months has created more pollution (their own

> research demonstrated this) and these measures

> will do too. For all the changes to the DV

> junction to create safer routes for cyclists very

> few are actually using it - have they asked the

> question why?

>

> To build measures based on the presumption that

> people will stop using their cars is naive and a

> deliberate dereliction of duty by the authorities

> - similar measures elsewhere have been utterly

> ineffective - they merely push the congestion

> elsewhere, slow the flow of traffic and create

> more pollution.

>

> Until there are properly planned and well thought

> plans that are inclusive of ALL modes of

> transportation then this city will never make any

> progress.

YES to all this!

[mockingbird]

Deventer Crescent off Greendale. How will residents get in and out when Greendale becomes a school street?

[Abe_froeman]

On their bicycles of course!

[Bicknell]

Final meeting tomorrow 4 March 6.30 - 9 at JAGS East Dulwich Grove. Last chance to ask questions eg how much do permits cost, who gets them, where will all the traffic go, will it slow down the buses, etc, etc.