LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[ElsaH]

That's what I thought. I am in DV Zone B (the area that would be completely blocked in) and so we need all the support we can from E Dulwich residents in order to effectively oppose it. Do the residents of E Dulwich (especially those who were originally part of the consultation) intend to insist that they are brought back in as part of the process? Maybe request a public meeting in their area? Heaven knows what this proposal would do to Lordship Lane and other already saturated East Dulwich streets . . .

[wulfhound]

a gated community?

That you can freely walk, cycle, scoot in and out of - and still drive in and out from one end. Not very gated then - cul-de-sac would be a more accurate description.

[mockingbird]

wulfhound Wrote:

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

> > a gated community?

>

>

> That you can freely walk, cycle, scoot in and out

> of - and still drive in and out from one end. Not

> very gated then - cul-de-sac would be a more

> accurate description.

A cul-de sac does not have a myriad of permits, cameras and controls. Welcome to our healthy-streets ghetto......

[exdulwicher]

A cul-de sac does not have a myriad of permits, cameras and controls. Welcome to our healthy-streets ghetto...?

They very frequently do. Otherwise people just use them as a dumping ground to park their car (and you can imagine Melbourne Grove, with its proximity to ED station being used for exactly that purpose).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_end_(street)

Some interesting plus/minus points on their use in traffic management here while noting that, as living areas, people prefer them to living on a through road.

[mockingbird]

welcome to our privileged healthy streets ghetto

[Earl Aelfheah]

mockingbird Wrote:

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

> welcome to our privileged healthy streets ghetto

It's a shame they have focussed on the Village, which is already a a bit of a privileged bubble in terms of SE London. May have been better received if they had started with ED or Peckham, both of which have much bigger populations and higher pollution levels.

[wulfhound]

A cul-de sac does not have a myriad of permits, cameras and controls.

Because they don't need to - traffic is blocked out from the get-go. The permits etc., while certainly in some ways more intrusive and bureaucratic than simply building a house in the middle of the carriageway, create a kind of virtual cul-de-sac that can be ignored in specific situations (say if the major road gets temporarily closed for works, or an ambulance is trying to get somewhere in a hurry).

[Rockets]

The challenge with these no-go areas (as they found to their cost at Loughborough) is that ambulances find it hard to get anywhere in a hurry around the no-go area - I very much suspect that Lordship Lane will becoming increasingly difficult for emergency vehicles to get along due to the increased congestion - and as we all know from the constant sirens ion the area it is a well used route for the emergency services.

[seenbeen]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> The challenge with these no-go areas (as they

> found to their cost at Loughborough) is that

> ambulances find it hard to get anywhere in a hurry

> around the no-go area - I very much suspect that

> Lordship Lane will becoming increasingly difficult

> for emergency vehicles to get along due to the

> increased congestion - and as we all know from the

> constant sirens ion the area it is a well used

> route for the emergency services.

I bet Kings College Hospital didn't envisage this when they became a major trauma centre!

[AylwardS]

Saw details of this consultation in a business in the are that I use each month. As I?m outside the area this had passed me by. Read the last few pages in case there is anything I can raise in my response to the consultation.

Exeastdulwicher I don?t have a solution bit the mini roundabout suggested in your post on page 10 might not work.

One went in as you come out of Sainsburys. Driving into / out of the estate you enter after the park / before Dulwich Hamlet those going / coming from Sainsburys don?t expect you. Even indicating I?m going to the estate not Dog Kennel Hill I?ve had to hold back when according to the Highway Code when I learnt to drive I have priority. The EDG junction would be different but I can see those on EDG thinking they had priority.

KR988 good point re impact on 37. I?ll raise that in my consultation response and to TfL.

[AylwardS]

I?ve responded to the consultation, emailed my Councillors and submitted online contact forms to TfL and Kings College Hospital

[tiddles]

The dulwich village junction really has been kicked up - confusion and gridlock if someone wants to turn right into court lane - the whole junction is frequently frozen. I suspect they have not revisited this and probably would not admit it is a mess. Heaven help us with this next round....

[Bicknell]

Just a reminder... 29 March is the deadline https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/our-healthy-streets-dulwich-phase-3/

[Sqiggles]

Having thought about this quite carefully, this is where Ihave got to.

The traffic problems with Dulwich Village have been seriously exacerbated by the Quietway changes to the main junction, which were completely ill conceived.

The proposed restrictions on traffic in Dulwich Village will have a disproportionately adverse effect on local roads such as Croxted Road, Half Moon Lane, East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane, all roads categorised as ?main roads? but which are in reality narrow residential roads with schools and nurseries. By comparison, Dulwich Village is wider, with pedestrians for the most part well set back from the road, and is much more suitable as a main road.

Dulwich Village is our high street and the shops are already struggling - the changes will damage their businesses and I am told that nearly all are against the proposals.

The foundation schools are at the heart of what makes Dulwich special, but unless and until they move to a more catchment area focused admissions policy the cost of the schools is term time traffic. This traffic is destination traffic which cannot be rerouted away from Dulwich - parents will continue to drive their children to school, particularly given the lack of east/west public transport in South London.

That then leads to the other proposals that are provoked by the justifiable fear that the Dulwich Village changes will cause rat-running through and school drop-offs in other residential roads. This puts neighbours against neighbours as each road looks to be a winner not a loser - and this divides our communities unnecessarily. Blocking off roads also divides communities from their neighbours and from local facilities. It inevitably pushes more traffic into roads that are retained as access points.

For these reasons I believe that the proposals are too radical and Southwark needs to go back to the drawing board to find a less fundamental proposal that has the full support of the community.

[exdulwicher]

Sqiggles Wrote:

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

> Southwark needs to go back to the drawing board to find a less fundamental proposal

> that has the full support of the community.

I think this thread has demonstrated that no proposal will have full support from anyone. Can't leave it as it is - it's not really working well for anyone. Can't change it back to how it was, that was no better. Legally, it has to push people towards more active travel options (and public transport is absolutely part of that).

That's in spite of today's Budget continuing the decade-long freeze on fuel duty (yay, keep driving cheap, more people drive!) and announcing billions of pounds more for road schemes.

But yeah, whatever happens, not everyone will be happy.

[rupert james]

You are talking sense but unfortunately Southwark have a plan which they will not deviate from regardless of how much common sense is put their way and those green warriors will not deviate from from their impossible fixed views. Perhaps to young to have any meaningful life experiences.

Southwark want cars off the road. That is their aim.

[Townleygreen]

you can't lay the blame at Southwark alone. London-wide, we have no real alternative to restricting car driving. The population of Greater London is steadily rising - bear in mind that from 1940-90 it declined from 8 to 6.5 million. It's currently around 9 million and growing at twice the national rate, by 120,000 a year. There is no room for new or wider roads. Then there's the pollution of the air. Affecting us all.

We have to move around as much as we can by walking, public transport and cycling rather than the car. If everyone had cars at the rate of people in Dulwich Village, the roads would be gridlocked almost the whole time. Uber cars crusing around waiting for riders help to clog things up even further, though they're obviously useful to some.

[exdulwicher]

rupert james Wrote:

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

> Southwark want cars off the road. That is their

> aim.

That's not really the worst aim in the world. I feel your comment is a bit over-dramatic - they don't want (and they'd never get) all cars off the road altogether, they just want fewer cars and especially fewer short journeys, the 1-mile drop the child at school / the "I'll just nip to the shops quickly" drive.

I mentioned it a few pages back and others have said similar. Fewer cars is a good thing. If you use a car daily and *need* to use one then fewer cars means your journey will be smoother and less time stuck in traffic. If you walk or cycle, fewer cars means a safer and more pleasant environment. If you get the bus, fewer cars means the bus has less time stuck in traffic and so more reliable bus journeys. If you live in/around the village, fewer cars means a quieter street, less pollution, easier for your kids to play outside, easier parking for you. If you own a shop or business in the village, fewer cars means easier travel and parking for those customers that do need to use a vehicle to get to you.

The problem is that most people want fewer cars - provided it's not THEIR car. Everyone thinks that the neighbourhood should be green and peaceful, provided that THEY don't have to change anything about THEIR life. Everyone else's children should walk/get the bus but THEY have to drop their little darling right at the school gates because.....

It's going to require some changes to the established way of life. You can still drive your car but it might be more efficient/quicker to walk, cycle, scooter, bus your journey instead. That's the aim - it's been done hundreds of times in towns and cities across the world, it does work (including up in town with Congestion Charge and now ULEZ plus things like the closing of Bank Junction to everything except buses and bikes).

It also requires some buy-in and some "nudging" in the right direction. Someone mentioned a couple of pages ago about Southwark "leading people to where they want them to be" and asking why common sense can't be used instead. Well common sense clearly hasn't worked - if it had, people would not be sitting for 20 minutes in traffic to travel quarter of a mile along Calton Avenue because common sense would have kicked in and they'd have realised that you can walk that distance in half the time.

If you currently drive that because cycling / walking feels dangerous because of the sheer number of cars (catch-22 right there), then reducing that number enables you to walk or cycle more safely. Cycling around town is quite nice at the moment. Maybe we need more viruses to change people's way of life... Save a fortune on infrastructure...

[handh]

Reading all these posts, I don't think we can fully please everyone. But our choice now is trying something like this and doing nothing. And looking at our beautiful but traffic-choked streets doing nothing does not feel like an option.

There is a basic conflict between the rights of our children to walk to school on streets free from pollution and the right to drive down those same streets spewing out toxic gases. We have to make a choice, and I think we should collectively put our children's health first.

The main risk of these proposals looks to be more traffic on East Dulwich Grove and other roads where the walk to school numbers are also high. If that happens, we need to be ready to take further steps to restrict traffic at school times.

In the end there's no solution other than less cars on the road (and electric cars, though I understand they're not totally pollution free). We all need to play a part in achieving that.

[first mate]

Cycling feels dangerous for reasons other than cars, although cars are a factor. I have found other cyclists going faster than me a real menace and have had a number of close shaves. Cycling at night/ fear of crime is another factor.

In terms of collectively putting children?s health first, it does seem as though school traffic is a big issue. Perhaps parents need to work harder with other parents to figure out how to get their children to school without using cars and coaches? Should we start seeking a situation where children have to go to a school that is walking or cycling distance only? Should 6th formers be banned from driving to school by the schools they attend?

[Townleygreen]

You can't "ban" 6th formers from driving. They can park away from the school so no one would know. daft idea.

[first mate]

Down to the parents really, surely they would know if their child owns a car and is using it to get to school? if it is made school policy it would be the parent?s responsibility to enforce.

[Townleygreen]

Yes but often parents leave home before the kids at that age, so....

[first mate]

My guess is no child of that age could access a car on a regular basis without the parent?s knowledge. Just as parents pay for the school fees they will also more than likely have purchased the car. Parents with the means to do both probably also have sufficient means and intelligence to monitor and, if necessary, curtail their child?s behaviour.

Anyway, it is a very minor point. The broader point is whether children should on the whole only go to schools local to them and schools be made to limit their catchment areas? I guess it would impact negatively on the business, competitive nature of the current education model but school traffic seems to be a major problem and this might go some way to tackling that?

[exdulwicher]

Parents are often delighted to have their children drive to school, it means they don't have to drive them!

Tackling that is going to involve several factors:

1) Healthy Streets / CPZ etc by the council which makes it more difficult and/or more expensive for children to drive themselves to school.

2) Schools themselves - either via policy or perhaps going the other way like incentivising "other" travel. The problem here is that schools actively try to avoid doing anything outside the school gates - they'll say it's not their responsibility, it can't be enforced, etc.

3) Parents and children - the only real way through here is make driving to school socially unacceptable in the way that (say) drink driving is now unacceptable. That'll be a decade of work though, in spite of Greta Thunberg's efforts.

With (3), it's very much "not their problem". It's not their roads being clogged up, not their streets being used for parking so they don't really care. They've packed their child off to school, job done. We're back at the point that they'd love fewer cars provided that their child can still drive to school and park unrestricted.