LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[exdulwicher]

It further illustrated to me that there is a big problem with logistics companies and how they currently manage deliveries - why on earth were there 4 vans (3 of which we saw actively making deliveries) when one would have sufficed. I do wonder whether the proclaimed increase in traffic is not private car use and people making short journeys but the increasing reliance on home delivery services and their inefficiencies.

A lot of it is but it's a mixture of factors:

1) Short delivery times - retailers have for years sought to gain customers by offering express / next day and even same day delivery. The shorter the timeframe the more inefficient it is as the less likely it is to be able to fill a van.

2) Customers want / expect quick delivery which is a Catch-22 on the above. There are options on many online retailers where you can ask for your purchases to be delivered in the minimum number of parcels so instead of it being one delivery in 24hrs and a second in 48hrs, it'll be one in 48hrs which is obviously far more efficient. I've never seen any stats for how many customers take that option and I doubt retailers would give that info up without a fight.

3) Delivery companies are contracted to deliver the goods and the costs of running empty / half full are less than the fines they incur for failing to deliver on time.

And that drives traffic because there are more vans doing multiple trips with the added downside that when you pull up in a residential street, there's usually nowhere to park and one van double parked, blocking or partially blocking a road, will cause congestion almost immediately.

Rather ironically, LTNs can actually assist with that because there's less traffic within the LTN to actually get snarled up by a double parked van in the first place!

With HGVs, empty running has sat around 1/3rd for the last 15+ years in spite of some advances in load-sharing and back-hauling.

Vans etc in towns the figures vary wildly and of course some empty running is inevitable - once you've delivered all your parcels you go back to the depot and there isn't really much you can do to change that. As for your question about why there were 4 vans when one would have sufficed, it depends on the factors above, where each package was coming from, where to, the order-to-delivery timescale and the depot(s) used on its journey. Quite possible for one customer ordering several items from several companies to have multiple vans turning up, especially if each retailer has a contract with a different delivery company

The Pedal-Me cargo bike company has some interesting info about logistics:

https://cyclingindustry.news/pedalmes-data-snapshot-puts-beyond-doubt-cargo-bike-inner-city-efficiency/

Freight companies are notoriously hard to get any info out of at all as they're all operating on knife-edge margins and they're terrified that any of their data could find it's way to a competitor. This makes it very difficult for anyone to come in and offer logistical help to the whole sector. To make money, they have to work on delivery goals which is why they offer same-day delivery options to the retailers that contract them - it's a much easier sell than saying "we're far more efficient because we wait 2 days until we have one van full of goods to go to E.Dulwich therefore we can save you 24p per package".

[Bicknell]

I hope it gets debated at council. it should do.

[malumbu]

As ever we the consumer, traveller etc are much of the problem, we want things now, and we want to return them when they don't fit tomorrow. Needs 'big government' to sort it. I'll see what I can find out - not so easy now everything has to be done virtually (ironically of course reducing the need to travel).

But there is also counter arguments about the efficiency of home deliveries vs driving to the shops.

Not sure i believe all the negative stuff about HGVs running a third empty - went to a summit in the early 10s when heard that this was very different. It was also interesting the hear about the barriers to shifting to rail. One fact I can share without breaking any commercial confidentiality is that many of our stations have become shopping centres, yet none of the goods are moved by rail. Not sure what the future of Victoria, London Bridge, Liverpool Street etc retail space is now though.

[Rockets]

Ex- your analysis is spot on. I think there is a huge problem with delivery services and I think they are partly, if not mainly (when you lump them together with Ubers etc) responsible for the increase in traffic on side roads that is being used so much by the pro-closure lobby. The TFL data also backs it up with the huge increases in van and private hire vehicle traffic across London. In light of this, and if my assumption is correct, then LTNs will make the issues worse if there is not some sort of macro approach to streamlining logistical services. Most delivery companies use the hub and spoke model so all deliveries come into a central warehouse and then are distributed from there for the "last mile" leg of their journeys to the door. Southwark is hellbent on attacking private car ownership when, in fact, the problem looks like it is being caused by home deliveries and private hire vehicles - no doubt the stimulus for much of this usage is as many use their cars less or those who don't have a car look to get things delivered and get around! How ironic would that be! ;-)

[malumbu]

But aren't we still to blame Rocks? Whether it is us driving cars or ordering on line? There is some ideal balance.

Probably be helpful if you stopped using the term lobby, I'm sure others have pointed out how divisive this is.

[Rockets]

Yes that is the point I am making - it's all well and good attacking private cars and painting them (and their owners) as the devil incarnate when, in fact, it is far more nuanced than that. My point from day 1 in this whole debate is that I don't think the council have the foggiest idea what the problem is and without knowing that you can't expect any plan to have a positive impact. You can't find a solution if you don't properly know what the problem is.

Referencing a lobby is not divisive - it's what both sides are doing - lobbying to get their point of view heard and actioned upon - and I have used it in relation to both those for and against the closures. So, in that respect, my usage is entirely accurate, appropriate, balanced and correct! ;-)

[Earl Aelfheah]

Not really lobbying. More expressing an opinion on a local forum. One Dulwich is actually lobbying.

[Rockets]

I agree OneDulwich is lobbying. As are the council, and Cllrs Leeming and Newens, and the Lordship Lane and Melbourne Grove shopkeepers, and the myriad of EDTSN twitter groups, Mums For Lungs etc etc, and the Melbourne Grove residents groups, and Southwark Cyclists, and the emergency services......everyone is lobbying so not sure why anyone would suggest that use of the term is divisive?

The only thing divisive in the truest sense of the word are the LTNs themselves ;-)

[malumbu]

The only lobby I am on is the lobby to tackle climate change. If that means reducing car use, and curbing some of our freedoms, so be it. Interesting being out today on two wheels is that the speed merchants are out again now traffic is lighter. Perhaps not so bad on the narrow residential roads, but Brenchley Gardens, Forest Hill Road, and even Wood Vale - vrmmm vrmmm. Is the anti LTN lobby also pro allowing motorists to do what they like. Maybe carry guns too.....

I'm being deliberately provocative of course......

[KidKruger]

yeah just like Bob Buzzard and Steven Taylor..

[Rockets]

Malumbu - yes I am on the lobby to tackle climate change as well but I want to do it in a way that doesn't make the problem worse and I want to try to deal with it with solutions that are fair to everyone and, perhaps more importantly, that know what problem they are trying to deal with from the outset. Your statement of "reducing car use" illustrates this very aptly.

I do, I hasten to add, admire your ability to create an oxymoron paragraph. On the one hand you lust to reduce car use by curbing freedoms yet moan that reduced car use means people are speeding - will you ever be happy? And for the record I hate speeding drivers too! ;-)

[malumbu]

It's about the 'right' to drive where you want, when you want, what you want, how you want, Rocks. You are defending the driving where you want, so naturally I expect that you would defend all the other freedoms. For example going back to the 60s when many drivers opposed the introduction of the breathalyser arguing that they drove more carefully when they were drunk.

KK do you have a point? This is social media where people discuss issues.

[KidKruger]

malumbu - Yeah I obviously have a point (though I?d prefer a pint), which is highlighting irony.

This is a social media.

[legalalien]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/street-closures-spark-a-new-culture-war-h5wgp7jl3?shareToken=6c1892d69dbd6ea76b851b8e16dfdf57

Article fom Janice Turner in The Times today sums it up for me - I expect it's behind a paywall though...

[tiddles]

Nope just read it - spot on

[rch]

Totally agree re the Janice Turner Times article... ironically, she lives locally and follows me on Twitter, so she?s completely aware of the local multiple layers of complexity.

[Rockets]

That is a great piece and I think reflects the views of many who believe the LTNs are too blunt an instrument to adequately deal with the complex nuances of the causes of the problem. The pro-closure lobby regularly fails to acknowledge that such nuances and subtleties exist in the discussion and Malumbu, I am afraid, your "drive where you want when you want" missive highlights this perfectly.

Malumbu I would be interested in your take on the article.

[AlexandHelenC]

It is a great article and I?d guess is representative of the vast majority of people?s views.

[exdulwicher]

It's an opinion piece, written in the same slightly lazy stereotyped way of most opinion pieces. Used by papers/websites as a way of being controversial and therefore generating comments, clicks and ad-revenue without falling foul of anything so boring as sticking to facts, having to do research and when the complaints come in, the paper can simply say that they're not in breach of any editorial code, it's simply one of their regular columnists "opinion-ing".

Step 1. Find [a thing] that has appeared in the new recently or is known to be controversial: LTNs, cycling/cyclists, dogs, the yoof of today. They're all rich veins to mine.

Step 2. Your next step is to make some positive-sounding noises about how you actually love [the thing] (or sometimes that you like the idea of [the thing] but...). This makes you seem open-minded, even though you are not.

Step 3. Having safely established that you aren?t a prejudiced moron (when of course you are), you can then move on to step three, which is to talk about [the thing] featuring in the news. The golden rule here is to focus on the negative. You can use either your own anecdotes or cherry pick a few stories that fit your point of view or a combination.

Step 4. Having got this far, you?ve done the hard work, and you are now free to wibble on about how all [things] are innately bad. It doesn?t matter if you?ve still got hundreds of words to write to fill out your copy; the field is now open for you to crowbar in as many of the trite and overused clich?s about [the thing] as you can.

Honestly, it's like Chapter One in the school of journalism, opinion pieces can be churned out more or less ad infinitum. Done well they can be quite funny - political satire is often where the better writers end up - but most are just playing to the crowd of populist opinion. They all have that thin veneer of sounding fairly reasonable and then you look more deeply at them, fact check a few of the statements and they all follow the same four steps above.

[Spartacus]

Ex, is that the same 4 steps you followed when discussing the article ?

[DulwichCentral]

The article is completely devoid of evidence and therefore typical of a) an opinion piece and b) the anti LTN argument.

[ab29]

'The only thing divisive in the truest sense of the word are the LTNs themselves' - spot on.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> I agree OneDulwich is lobbying. As are the

> council, and Cllrs Leeming and Newens, and the

> Lordship Lane and Melbourne Grove shopkeepers, and

> the myriad of EDTSN twitter groups, Mums For Lungs

> etc etc, and the Melbourne Grove residents groups,

> and Southwark Cyclists, and the emergency

> services......everyone is lobbying so not sure why

> anyone would suggest that use of the term is

> divisive?

>

> The only thing divisive in the truest sense of the

> word are the LTNs themselves ;-)

[Rockets]

The great thing about opinion pieces (and to be fair Ex- you could apply all of your points to most of the pro-LTN tripe churned out by the likes of Peter Walker in The Guardian, except they do nothing to establish themselves as neutral in the discussion nor do they flag them as opinions) is that for many they strike a chord and this one, I suspect, resonates with many who are having to live with the impacts of LTNs.

DulwichCentral - unfortunately the council isn't sharing any data or evidence, and has no intention of doing so for some time - we all know they are sitting on data that would answer many of the questions we have but we keep being told these measures need time to bed in which is political speak for "damn they're right but let's hope we can drag this out so long that they either lose interest or we can manipulate the data to our advantage".

Given you dismissal of the article on lack of evidence I presume you treat local councillors tweeting #modalshift images with the same contempt as they are not built around "evidence"?

[DulwichCentral]

Rockets - do you have any evidence that 'the council isn't

> sharing any data or evidence, and has no intention

> of doing so for some time - we all know they are

> sitting on data that would answer many of the

> questions we have but we keep being told these

> measures need time to bed in which is political

> speak for "damn they're right but let's hope we

> can drag this out so long that they either lose

> interest or we can manipulate the data to our

> advantage".

Or did you just imagine it?

Rockets Wrote:

> DulwichCentral - unfortunately the council isn't

> sharing any data or evidence, and has no intention

> of doing so for some time - we all know they are

> sitting on data that would answer many of the

> questions we have but we keep being told these

> measures need time to bed in which is political

> speak for "damn they're right but let's hope we

> can drag this out so long that they either lose

> interest or we can manipulate the data to our

> advantage".

>

> Given you dismissal of the article on lack of

> evidence I presume you treat local councillors

> tweeting #modalshift images with the same contempt

> as they are not built around "evidence"?

[Spartacus]

DC

I think what rockets is really eluding to is that the council doesn't actually have any baseline data to share , but that's my interpretation of what was written.

Even the new road based measuring strips are only going to tell them what the volume of traffic is now, not what it was before LTNs were introduced.