LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Serena2012]

In the aftermath of the Ella Kissi-Debrah inquest, I think Southwark need to be very careful here. They have tried hard

not to create an incriminating audit trail by steadfastly refusing to monitor air quality as well as refusing to identify displacement routes (the latter being a requirement under the emergency legislation used).

But the fact remains that the Streetspace Guidance for Boroughs dated May 2020 contained a hyperlink to a list of schools situated on roads where NO2 was at illegal levels in 2016. Unsurprisingly JAGS, Alleyn?s, DVIs, Goose Green all made the list (as would Charter ED and Harris Primary ED no doubt had they been fully operational on their current sites in 2016). It doesn?t take a rocket scientist to work out the displacement routes, and if challenged by experts therefore I suspect Southwark?s defence would crumble. They have recklessly displaced traffic onto school streets and residential main roads which were already illegally polluted, which to my mind is untenable.

[Rockets]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Unless and until Southwark measures pollution on

> the roads it has pushed traffic into, and has

> sound measures 'before' as well, then we can

> assume that any figure quoted as to changes or

> improvements will be rubbish. So no changes here,

> then. What I will expect to be told is that the

> measures have improved conditions for the roads

> which have been closed and then told 'job done'.

Given the council only put monitoring strips on the roads that were closed when they initiated the DV closures it is clear that was their initial strategic approach...displacement was not even considered....

[legalalien]

Just having a look at that evidence pack and it raises a lot of questions in terms of which stats were included / not included and what some of the terms mean.

What stands out for me though, is that those involved made a clear conceptual distinction between "residential roads" (Court Lane, Turney and Burbage" and "major" roads (Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove). No-one seems concerned about the fact that Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove are also residential roads. For example, there's no comparison of the amount of traffic that Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove are carrying versus similar A roads in Southwark - which seems a pretty important omission when considering whether or not to push traffic onto them.

On a related note, it would be useful to have the underlying info about the "basket" of "typical residential roads" compared against (I note that further up the comparison is said to be "similar" residential roads, which implies something different. Is the comparison against ALL residential roads in Southwark; or all residential roads similar to these roads in Southwark (e.g. classified C roads), or all non-A/B roads in Southwark? If the latter then it's obvious that e.g. Court Lane would carry more than the average as it is(was) a through route (and classified C road), rather than a side street or a dead end. Does anyone know?

Also seems to be a comparison of average "weekdays" of the specified roads with average "days" on Southwark roads generally - it's unclear whether this is just poor expression or whether the latter figures are actually whole week averages. I could go on - but generally leaving out this kind of info doesn't help paint a convincing picture to the first-time reader...

Lastly, I note that the last slide shows peak pollution times on East Dulwich Grove and Townley Road, but that the levels of pollution are not shown - it's odd for a graph not to have a y axis... the info must exist in order to produce that graph, does anyone know where that info exists? And why omit the info in the first place - you'd have to deliberately take it out?

I suspect these points have been well rehearsed in the past - if so apologies for raising again!

[redpost]

Utter nonsense rockets and you know it, we discussed this ages ago

I saw strips myself on EDG, Grove lane, dulwich village and LL plus various other roads

They were replaced once after cutting, not sure what happened after that, but they were there for 2 months at least

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Unless and until Southwark measures pollution

> on

> > the roads it has pushed traffic into, and has

> > sound measures 'before' as well, then we can

> > assume that any figure quoted as to changes or

> > improvements will be rubbish. So no changes

> here,

> > then. What I will expect to be told is that the

> > measures have improved conditions for the roads

> > which have been closed and then told 'job

> done'.

>

> Given the council only put monitoring strips on

> the roads that were closed when they initiated the

> DV closures it is clear that was their initial

> strategic approach...displacement was not even

> considered....

[Dulwichgirl82]

But again the question I asked is what would you say to those experiencing the traffic from the closed roads, whose quality of life and health has been damaged by the closures? Do they have to put up with the traffic from those roads to protect certain routes/roads.

You suggest a few measures to help, why aren?t those measures good enough for the closed roads? The reality is that the diversion roads would still experience excess traffic from the closed roads even if those were put in place. If the measures were put in for everyone then everyone would benefit, instead of the current situation of helping some and harming others?

As for your final point it?s not ?opening up residential roads? it?s ending the in my opinion failed experiment, the roads which have been diverted to are residential also, with schools and health centres on. How can this possibly be considered fair or reasonable?

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > But that?s not really answering my question.

>

> Dulwich central: to echo another question you

> > haven?t answered when was court lane a grid

> locked

> > rat run?!

>

> I think I did - at least the one you said I hadn't

> yet answered.

>

> In answer to your other question and following on

> from what others have discussed here, I would

> support protected cycle lanes on main roads,

> reduced parking and 24/7 bus lanes (the parked

> cars on LLane block the buses and then cause

> congestion as the buses have to pull out) and road

> pricing and ULEZ ASAP. I think it would be more

> productive to push the council for those things

> urgently.

>

> I don't think opening up residential roads to

> 'spread out' the traffic is a step in the right

> direction because it will just go back to how it

> was, I think it's better to move forwards not

> backwards if we genuinely want to reduce traffic

> overall (which I do) - I think its really

> important to push the council for *more* not less,

> because what has been proven is that by filtering

> residential roads people are more likely to switch

> to cycling or walking - which is an important part

> of reducing traffic overall.

[Rockets]

redpost Wrote:

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

> Utter nonsense rockets and you know it, we

> discussed this ages ago

>

> I saw strips myself on EDG, Grove lane, dulwich

> village and LL plus various other roads

>

> They were replaced once after cutting, not sure

> what happened after that, but they were there for

> 2 months at least

>

>

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Penguin68 Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Unless and until Southwark measures pollution

> > on

> > > the roads it has pushed traffic into, and has

> > > sound measures 'before' as well, then we can

> > > assume that any figure quoted as to changes

> or

> > > improvements will be rubbish. So no changes

> > here,

> > > then. What I will expect to be told is that

> the

> > > measures have improved conditions for the

> roads

> > > which have been closed and then told 'job

> > done'.

> >

> > Given the council only put monitoring strips on

> > the roads that were closed when they initiated

> the

> > DV closures it is clear that was their initial

> > strategic approach...displacement was not even

> > considered....

No Redpoat I am afraid you are wrong on this one. The strips on displacement roads went in a long time after the DV closures. Initially, after the DV closures went in, the council only put monitoring strips in on Court Lane, Calton Avenue and the roads closed. It was those strips that were vandalised. It was only after people started questioning why they were only monitoring the closed roads that they started putting them in elsewhere but that followed a couple of months after the initial DV closures. It's why many people are concerned that they have no benchmark for displacement as the monitoring on those roads started so long after the impact was already being felt. It's one of the reasons that the council is looking to modelling to determine the impact: they have no raw data.

[Rockets]

DulwichGirl82 - the experiment has failed. Completely and utterly. The council knows it, the pro-closure lobby knows it - we all know it. The experiment has forced traffic from one set of roads onto another set of roads, increasing congestion and pollution as a result. For all the harping on about modal shifts in Dulwich Village and for all the pictures of people cycling and walking the overall impact has been a negative one on the broader Dulwich community. The council is well aware of this and is trying to manipulate everything in a desperate attempt to justify the closures. They know that they have to try and hang on for their own credibility. The whole idea was flawed from the beginning, badly planned and poorly executed and will have done untold harm to the long-term goals of reducing pollution.

It is a shame as it didn't take a rocket scientist to work out what would happen when you closed those roads (many on here predict exactly what was going to happen). The reason many won't answer your question is because they fail to acknowledge there is a problem as it undermines their whole position. Once you acknowledge that there has been displacement the experiment will have failed.

[ab29]

Could not agree more.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> DulwichGirl82 - the experiment has failed.

> Completely and utterly. The council knows it, the

> pro-closure lobby knows it - we all know it. The

> experiment has forced traffic from one set of

> roads onto another set of roads, increasing

> congestion and pollution as a result. For all the

> harping on about modal shifts in Dulwich Village

> and for all the pictures of people cycling and

> walking the overall impact has been a negative one

> on the broader Dulwich community. The council is

> well aware of this and is trying to manipulate

> everything in a desperate attempt to justify the

> closures. They know that they have to try and hang

> on for their own credibility. The whole idea was

> flawed from the beginning, badly planned and

> poorly executed and will have done untold harm to

> the long-term goals of reducing pollution.

>

> It is a shame as it didn't take a rocket scientist

> to work out what would happen when you closed

> those roads (many on here predict exactly what was

> going to happen). The reason many won't answer

> your question is because they fail to acknowledge

> there is a problem as it undermines their whole

> position. Once you acknowledge that there has been

> displacement the experiment will have failed.

[Raeburn]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> DulwichGirl82 - the experiment has failed.

> Completely and utterly. The council knows it, the

> pro-closure lobby knows it - we all know it. The

> experiment has forced traffic from one set of

> roads onto another set of roads, increasing

> congestion and pollution as a result. For all the

> harping on about modal shifts in Dulwich Village

> and for all the pictures of people cycling and

> walking the overall impact has been a negative one

> on the broader Dulwich community. The council is

> well aware of this and is trying to manipulate

> everything in a desperate attempt to justify the

> closures. They know that they have to try and hang

> on for their own credibility. The whole idea was

> flawed from the beginning, badly planned and

> poorly executed and will have done untold harm to

> the long-term goals of reducing pollution.

>

> It is a shame as it didn't take a rocket scientist

> to work out what would happen when you closed

> those roads (many on here predict exactly what was

> going to happen). The reason many won't answer

> your question is because they fail to acknowledge

> there is a problem as it undermines their whole

> position. Once you acknowledge that there has been

> displacement the experiment will have failed.

But it hasn't failed as you are saying? There's a brilliant post from @SE22_2020er on previous page explaining how they have decided to do what they can to reduce reliance on motor vehicles, but still uses them when necessary. It was refreshing to read an honest, considered and pragmatic view. More cycling and other active/wheeled transport has been enabled through these corridors, and it's made a big difference to school transport. It is possible to find the LTNs inconvenient and acknowledge negative aspects, but still support them and the objectives.

Maybe, just maybe - stick with me for this - London has developed an over-dependance on vehicles, and that's whats causing the congestion and pollution? The statistics certainly present this, without increase in vehicle size even factored in. I'm amused that Dulwich Village has been shaped by an LTN before motor vehicles even existed; the toll booth on College Rd has been diverting traffic from (what was) the main road into London for 230 years....

The idea that this is a covert plan by the council is laughable; this is a cascade from the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030. Every UN member state signed up in 2015; whats happening currently is implementation on a national/industry/local level. This is why you see organisations declaring a climate emergency, this is why Johnson has bought forward the phasing out of petrol and diesel cars to 2030, its why theres a sugar tax, why there's a shift to reduce meat consumption. Every industry has goals to cut CO2 reliance, improve working conditions, balance equality, phase out harmful substances etc etc to connect with the 17 categories. It's everywhere if you look. Some countries/councils/towns/industries are way ahead of targets, and some ....aren't.

Wether you like it or not, these changes are happening - some big, some small - because we can't keep on the same trajectory. To make changes sooner is going to be considerably more efficient in the long run. If you aren't willing to make changes, no problem, but it is possible to support/enable those who do want to. Every person choosing not to make a journey in a vehicle, makes it easier for those who do rely on them.

[Dulwichgirl82]

But I don?t think the failure relates to some changing their modes of transport, that?s great. But if it harms children using roads to schools and nurseries, cause people who walk down Lordship lane and east dulwich grove to now breathing in more pollution then that is a failure. I?ve seen no evidence that overall traffic has gone down and as there wasn?t monitoring beforehand I?m not sure how that will occur.

I?d also be interested to know if even if there are less cars(not proven) if they are now driving further, in slower traffic and idling more. Ironically increasing pollution

in the area.

I have no skin in the game of driving, and it would be nice if this wasn?t constantly jumped on as the only reason for someone to object to LTNs when there are clearly a lot of issues. But I do walk my children now increasingly polluted roads, and get no benefit from these LTNs and as the streetspace survey shows I?m not alone in this.

[Bicknell]

@raeburn I suppose this is what irritates me most about the whole thing ? people not thinking clearly. Yes its good to reduce relying on cars and only use when you realy need to. But corridors arent the answer. If too many people are using cars, we need a borough wide (or national) way to deal with this. just shutting off roads doesnt get us anywhere. Road tax?Fuel tax? driving tax? dont mind, don?t care. But not this mindless pointless closing of roads that makes butterflies and bird and lambs for some roads and lung-clotting pollution for others. thats just not thinking straight. And holding onto it when you can see it isnt working isnt good politics for any party ? tory, green or labour.

[malumbu]

You need to hurt the driver. This is from someone who drives. I don't drive into central London due to the congestion charge. I'd been successfully put off by it being increasingly difficult to drive. I'd stopped going via the Elephant following the redesign - done to smooth flows from other directions. I'd given up on my back route through Farringdon due to congestion. I've avoided Court Lane and the Village at certain times for donkeys years.

But at no point have I whinged on this site about this. Am I the only one who says that I can't be bothered to drive many of these routes any more. Of course I'm happy to cycle most of them, but at times I may need a car.

I've made the point many times that the lack of balls from successive governments to do this properly is the issue, from Labour doing an about turn on its pro public transport stance after the fuel protests. This lot are even worse due to their mixed messages. But don't hold your breath (not meant to be a pun)

Ask anyone outside the capital or visitors to London about public transport and they think it is wonderful. Not sure why we knock it so much.

Over to you Rockets. What is the next cheap insult going to be?

[alice]

Dulwich LTNs are not working.

[Rockets]

Malumbu - your statement about needing to hurt the driver is exactly why this debate has become so polarised and why so many people, whilst acknowledging the urgent need to do something, oppose these measures. It seems an anti-car lobby has been allowed to manipulate and dictate the terms of the measures being put in. Closing some roads in the hope that people change their mode of transport is a short-sighted as it is stupid. It was only ever going to deliver two things - a tiny amount of modal change for the few in the closed areas but a huge amount of negative impact for everyone else.

I do wonder whether years down the line both the council and councillors will be held to account for why they did this and failed to monitor the impact - whether people will take the council to court for increasing pollution for some.

It's clear LTNs are not the answer, they were never the answer - they were a very blunt instrument experiment that has been an epic failure and the council and councillors don't have the guts to admit it - accountability has never been their strong point!

[ab29]

"I do wonder whether years down the line both the council and councillors will be held to account for why they did this and failed to monitor the impact - whether people will take the council to court for increasing pollution for some" - I certainly hope so. I will be one of those people.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Malumbu - your statement about needing to hurt the

> driver is exactly why this debate has become so

> polarised and why so many people, whilst

> acknowledging the urgent need to do something,

> oppose these measures. It seems an anti-car lobby

> has been allowed to manipulate and dictate the

> terms of the measures being put in. Closing some

> roads in the hope that people change their mode of

> transport is a short-sighted as it is stupid. It

> was only ever going to deliver two things - a tiny

> amount of modal change for the few in the closed

> areas but a huge amount of negative impact for

> everyone else.

>

> I do wonder whether years down the line both the

> council and councillors will be held to account

> for why they did this and failed to monitor the

> impact - whether people will take the council to

> court for increasing pollution for some.

>

> It's clear LTNs are not the answer, they were

> never the answer - they were a very blunt

> instrument experiment that has been an epic

> failure and the council and councillors don't have

> the guts to admit it - accountability has never

> been their strong point!

[DulwichCentral]

Yet again @Rockets you and others here *refuse* to acknowledge that LTNs provide *through-routes* for people travelling from one area to another. You continue to perpetuate the myth that the only people using the safe routes are those who live on the LTN streets. Do you think they just cycle and scoot up and down their own road all day?? :) A large part of the anti LTN narrative you push here depends entirely on this myth.

Rockets Wrote:

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

It

> was only ever going to deliver two things - a tiny

> amount of modal change for the few in the closed

> areas but a huge amount of negative impact for

> everyone else.

>

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral - a survey done in the Calton Ave area by the pro-closure lobby showed that there was only a few hundred extra cycle journeys made. It's not nearly enough to make the impact required on reductions of car use for the net impact of the LTNs to be anything other than massively negative. And letting it "bed in" won't make the slightest bit of difference. The whole experiment is flawed.

[DulwichCentral]

@Rockets I think there were around 800 cyclists counted in half a day. So clearly not all Calton Ave residents unless you are claiming the population of Calton Ave has drastically increased? :) So can the myth that its only the residents on the closed road that benefit be put to rest please?

I believe the count was only half a day - so if everyone is returning in the evening those journeys could be doubled.

But lets say a modest estimate 1200 in the whole day, even factoring out children independently cycling, thats a hell of a lot of cars. Now do you see the impact?

You will now no doubt shift the goal post / post a very long diatribe to block this comment / or just ignore it - let's see...;)

Rockets Wrote:

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

> DulwichCentral - a survey done in the Calton Ave

> area by the pro-closure lobby showed that there

> was only a few hundred extra cycle journeys made.

> It's not nearly enough to make the impact required

> on reductions of car use for the net impact of the

> LTNs to be anything other than massively negative.

> And letting it "bed in" won't make the slightest

> bit of difference. The whole experiment is flawed.

[spider69]

...

[Northern Star]

Re cycling - Carlton Avenue. I was one of the cyclists that got counted. However I biked that route prior to the closures too...

Ultimately in my view we do all need to use cars less. I don?t think LTNs are a fair way of doing it though.

[Dulwichgirl82]

Dulwich central I don?t think you can accuse others of ignoring posts when you didn?t answer my question of what you would say to those who cannot use these closed streets, who instead now need to use the roads which have taken their traffic such as lordship lane east dulwich grove? My children now breathe in far more pollution since the introduction of the LTNs as do those going to the schools and nurseries on edg, those who play in the playground Near East dulwich road and many more. Can you really expect people who now experience more pollution to support this scheme?

As an aside as mrs D points out, how many cycled before on this or a different route or who walked and now cycled? We don?t have pre data for car traffic which is the main aim, so perhaps in order to do a genuine comparison the LTNs should be removed and data gathered then a genuine consultation with accurate data can look at the best way to help everyone.

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral - unlike some I am happy to answer questions that arise from posts I make here. Especially when the are bowled slightly wide and are asking to be knocked for 6.

So let's look at the numbers. The number of cyclists observed rose from 417 (in 2018) to 808 (In November this year) - this is the doubling that members of the pro-closure lobby were heralding as significant - but it's only 391 more cycle journeys. Given we were still in lockdown in November I am surprised the figure is this low. I would have expected to see a much more significant jump in cyclists as more people have time to cycle their children to school and are looking for new ways to exercise.

So let me ask you a question, Do you think all the disruption, increased congestion and pollution for the likes of Heartblock is worth it for so few bike journeys? And remember those 391 were journeys in a street bookended by three big schools and counting would include those dropping kids off and returning along the same route and each person on a bike is considered a journey. That dilutes the impact even further. Of course more people may be walking but no data was presented on that so we cannot analyse it.

Whichever way you cut it it's clear this experiment is not working. If there was no displacement and negative impact on others then you might be able to celebrate it but there is significant negative impact and they far, far outweigh the positives.

[legalalien]

Obvs all the cyclists wouldn?t be from Calton Avenue but I?d hazard a guess many would be from the closed roadS in Areas A and B. I walk around the area a lot during the day and there are very few cyclists outside the school run- some on Calton but few to none on Court Lane /

Woodwarde Road. It makes no sense for Court Lane to be unused all day when there is horrific traffic on the displacement roads.

Random thought as I was walking there today and noticed a lot of free kerbside parking spaces - why not re-open Court Lane, remove on street parking on one side of the road; restrict on street parking on the other side of the road to residents without off street parking (plus some areas reserved for delivery vans, carers who need to visit etc), and then put in a cycle lane (which would address the ?route? issue for DulwichCentral). Alternatively the pavements are very wide, could have pavements on one side for pedestrians and the other for cycles? It seems to me that a cycling route could be implemented reasonably easily without having to do the displacement thing. Calton also quite wide so could have a school street thing at peak times and some sort of similar ?remove parking and cycle Lane? or ?designate pavement? alternative?

Edited to add - on Malumbu?s point about hurting the driver - a good place to start may be two car households (in circumstances where both cars aren?t required for work purposes) - hence start by targeting on street parking for people who have off street parking?

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

"whilst acknowledging the urgent need to do something, oppose these measures. It seems an anti-car lobby has been allowed to manipulate and dictate the terms of the measures being put in..."

The urgent need to do something, but not anything that causes anyone to use their cars less, apparently.

[Rockets]

No DKHB...do something but not something that makes the problem you are trying to solve worse...surely that's basic commonsense?