LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Rockets]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Here's the agenda for next week's South Multiward

> forum meeting.

>

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.

> aspx?MId=6871

> It will be

>

> - announcing funding decisions on the list of

> applications for Cleaner, Greener, Safer funding

> (list of applicants attached to agenda) - about

> ?250k in total. A few cycle parking things that

> people might be interested in

>

> - announcing funding decisions on the list of

> applications for the Neighbourhoods Fund, I think

> ?10k per councillor. List of applicants also

> attached, including a ?3k application from Friends

> of Dulwich Square for a minimusic festival on the

> square, the aims of which are " To bring the local

> community together, support local businesses and

> showcase local musicians & artists. The closure of

> the junction in Dulwich Village has been

> controversial and has caused divisions with some

> in our community. The concept of a mini music

> festival on the newly formed public space is to

> demonstrate the positive potential of this new

> community space that was once a dangerous and

> polluting road junction. We hope to encourage

> footfall to help support the local businesses in

> Dulwich Village."

>

> Lastly, approving the allocation of "Devolved

> Highways Funding" for particular highways projects

> suggested by the local community(As I understand

> it, local councillors hold the purse strings on

> this funding pot). Here's the link to the

> list.http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s

> 93813/Appendix%201.pdf. No entirely clear to me

> whether they all get funded (about ?140k

> available)

>

> Anyone know /want to guess what the following

> are:

>

> East Dulwich Square

> Dulwich Village Cycle Roundabout ( something to do

> with the Burbage Roundabout, or will it go around

> "Dulwich Square"?)

> "Measures to complement the Streetspace

> programme".

> College Road and Huntsslip road safer routes

> masterplan (its the word masterplan that makes

> this sound sinister!)

>

> More seriously, worth taking a look, as seems to

> give an indication of things that are being

> proposed by the community / considered. Various

> road calming and cycle parking measures, the

> proposal for traffic lights/ ped crossing at

> LL/EDG junction, a proposal for less pollution on

> EDG. You can't see the details, but if anyone

> feels strongly about any of them (for or against),

> may be worth emailing the relevant councillors to

> share views in advance of the meeting/decision.

East Dulwich Square is intriguing indeed - I wonder where/what that will be? Is there anywhere that we can find more information on those programmes/suggestions - all of the other suggestions have a paragraph of explanation but none of those ones do?

[legalalien]

I think you could ask the relevant councillors, who will presumably be looking at the underlying proposals. If I had to guess, I'd say East Dulwich Square will be at the melbourne Grove / grove lane junction. Ie an element of pedestrianisation there?

[Rockets]

Legal - I can take the Dulwich Hill proposals and I will ask the councillors.

Could someone who is within the ward for the others initiate outreach to their local councillors to get an idea of what is planned in each? I would but we, ahem, know councillors refuse to engage with anyone from outside of their wards.....;-)

Has anyone else noticed how many more projects seem to be on the table for consideration in Goose Green and Dulwich Village for the Devolved Highways Funding - is that because their councillors are far more active or is it something else i.e. they are getting more because of the LTNs?

[legalalien]

Or it could be that more people in these wards are aware of funding opportunities and make proposals?

[alice]

How does the council reach out to community groups and individuals regarding such funding?

ps has the recent dulwich hill meeting been put on you tube. I can't find it.

[Abe_froeman]

That wouldn't make any sense though because that road is only closed to encourage social distancing during the Covid outbreak.

[legalalien]

Alice - this is a good question, as lots of reports to cabinet / committees etc refer to something along the lines of " usual council channels". Which I think means the hard copy of Southwark Life (which is supposed to go to everyone, although historically I'm not sure the delivery process has been perfect); email communication to anyone who has signed up online or previously been involved with the council in a relevant way and found themselves on a distribution list, council facebook pages (whose activity varies between wards), and being in a group that councillors see fit to engage with. I'm not sure it works as well as it could - info is not pushed out as widely as it could be: on the other hand, those who are proactive in finding out info can't be criticised for that. I've been trying to contribute by posting stuff on here, but that's not a comprehensive audience, obvs. Interesting discussion to be had on how this could happen better.

[Mrs D]

I submitted one of the proposals. this was after I had emailed councillor McAsh about the subject a couple of times and he asked if I would consider submitting the proposal to be considered for funding. I then had to go on a call to present my idea.There were a mix of applicants on the call, including parents who had submitted requests on behalf of local schools.

alice Wrote:

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

> How does the council reach out to community groups

> and individuals regarding such funding?

>

> ps has the recent dulwich hill meeting been put on

> you tube. I can't find it.

[FairTgirl]

Think East Dulwich Square may be the same or related to this CIL funding request from... Southwark Cyclists.

https://goosegreenmapcil.commonplace.is/comments/5ed42e12df3b12cea3a5c766 - and attached.

The space, even if you fill in the loading bay for M & S feels quite limited to create a square, although some tidying up would be good.

Not sure if it got CIL funding and this is additional, or it didn't (although I thought I read it had got funding alongside the EDG/LL junction) but as they are both in the Devolved Highways funding requests I am not sure if they had funding or enough perhaps...

[Abe_froeman]

This is my favourite comment on that website:

"Why not send out letters and warnings to the idiots who let their front hedges grow 2 to 3 feet over the pavements and make them cut them back."

[slarti b]

Agree it could do with tidying up and there are some reasonable ideas there but since Grove Vale is an A road and major bus route I suspect any changes will require approval by TfL.

But strange why they want to call this "East Dulwich Square", a bit like justifying the closure of DV and Calton Avenue to provide space for social distancing and then asking for funding to run concertS there in May !!

[Nigello]

It is a real problem, especially for blind and disabled people, and/or those taking care of children, to be hit in the face with branches or forced to go into the road to avoid them. I think the council should pare them back, willy-nilly, if householders don't do it themselves. If we want to persuade more people to walk then lots of things, some of which may look trite, are important to consider: pavement conditions, bins blocking footpaths, vandalism of properties/street lighting, etc., absence of greenery all matter.

[Earl Aelfheah]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> Hear hear.

>

> To everyone who doesn't understand it and suffers

> from a COMPLETE LACK OF EMPATHY like rahrahrah

> here: move in to a flat/house on Lordship Lane -

> and see for yourself how it feels. Would you like

> it on your road 24/7?

>

> And multiply this by a hundred as it is quieter

> now because of the lockdown.

>

>

> KidKruger Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Yeah there?s a few roads in ED that are now

> main

> > rat runs compared to previously, the problem?s

> > just moved to other people?s streets since the

> > LTNs.

I live just off Lordship Lane. It's a main road. I don't accept that it was traffic free ever. I do have empathy for those who live on main roads, but also for those who want safer routes for walking and cycling.

I'm in favour of creating a small number of paths through and around the area which are 'relatively' free of traffic. To suggest this shows no empathy is ridiculous.

I accept that 'rat running' is an emotive phrase (albeit a well understood and commonly used one) - I'll rephrase my question:

Those of you who want to end low traffic neighbourhoods and allow cars to use side streets to save time cutting between main roads - Do you have anything that you would like to see replace them?

[Metallic]

>

> Those of you who want to end low traffic

> neighbourhoods and allow cars to use side streets

> to save time cutting between main roads - Do you

> have anything that you would like to see replace

> them?

One way streets with half the road a cycle lane and half for motor traffic. Create a good one way system and this nonsense would be unnecessary.

[alice]

Ban on road parking (start in dulwich village) where off road parking is available. Use space for new bus and/or cycle lanes.

Use current households without gardens information to prioritise green improvements

[Earl Aelfheah]

Metallic Wrote:

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

> >

> > Those of you who want to end low traffic

> > neighbourhoods and allow cars to use side

> streets

> > to save time cutting between main roads - Do

> you

> > have anything that you would like to see

> replace

> > them?

>

> One way streets with half the road a cycle lane

> and half for motor traffic. Create a good one way

> system and this nonsense would be unnecessary.

Sounds like a great idea

[snowy]

But one that?s not often recommended by traffic planners eg

https://www.bathnes.gov.uk/services/streets-and-highway-maintenance/road-safety/traffic-schemes/one-way-streets

?Many streets suffer from rat-running or high traffic volumes and may benefit from the introduction of this type of control, but it is likely that:

Some traffic will simply be diverted onto other less suitable streets

The new one-way street may attract more traffic albeit in the remaining direction

Residents may have to access their street by an alternative and less convenient route which may involve the use of other neighbouring streets

Traffic speeds may increase due to drivers' perception that there is no opposing traffic

Without physical traffic calming there may be an increase in accidents and their severity

Some, particularly short sections of one-way street are likely to be contravened by drivers thereby requiring police enforcement.?

[alice]

Words like ?are likely? and ?May prove? just mean I?m not listening. Evidence please.

[FairTgirl]

snowy Wrote:

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

> But one that?s not often recommended by traffic

> planners eg

>

> https://www.bathnes.gov.uk/services/streets-and-hi

> ghway-maintenance/road-safety/traffic-schemes/one-

> way-streets

>

> ?Many streets suffer from rat-running or high

> traffic volumes and may benefit from the

> introduction of this type of control, but it is

> likely that:

>

> Some traffic will simply be diverted onto other

> less suitable streets

>

> The new one-way street may attract more traffic

> albeit in the remaining direction

>

> Residents may have to access their street by an

> alternative and less convenient route which may

> involve the use of other neighbouring streets

>

> Traffic speeds may increase due to drivers'

> perception that there is no opposing traffic

> Without physical traffic calming there may be an

> increase in accidents and their severity

> Some, particularly short sections of one-way

> street are likely to be contravened by drivers

> thereby requiring police enforcement.?

Much of this describes what is already occurring as a result of LTNs.

One ways and cycle routes that could potentially link up public transport hubs and local schools would undoubtably be an improvement on what came before and will lessen the unfair displacement occurring as result of the LTNs.

[malumbu]

It worries me that some out there are trawling the internet for anything that you can possible find that is negative about LTNs. I don't feel obliged to do the opposite as don't have the same level of obsession. But on this occasion I've looked at the BATHNES article and will use this to further my own cause. 'One way streets should be accompanied by traffic calming'. My words: traffic calming is needed as too many motorists are irresponsible. That can apply to safety and the environment.

[Rockets]

Malumbu - trust me, most people on here aren't having to trawl the internet to find something negative about LTNs - they just have to step outside their house to see evidence of it!

[malumbu]

Well I suppose that I should thank you and others to directing me to Clean Air Dulwich and in turn this nice article about the longer term experience in Waltham Forest https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d30896202a18c0001b49180/t/60003fabf3791928a02b707f/1610629036655/LTN+Briefing_FINAL.pdf Refers to some academic studies - maybe tree hugging hippies wearing sandals even at this time of the year, but an interesting counterargument, particularly showing that it takes time for the positive impact to come through.

[slarti b]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> Well I suppose that I should thank you and others to directing me to Clean Air Dulwich and in turn

> this nice article about the longer term experience in Waltham Forest...refers to some academic studies

No idea whether they are tree hugging but the authors are pretty biased activists and propogandists for LTN's, far from objective academics. For example Dr Alldred's study of Waltham Forest was based on a self selecting sample drawn to a large extent from a TfL cycling database. Much more representative of London cyclists (white, male middle aged, better off ) than the general local population. And any results claimed from a longitudinal study of where 50% of the initial repsondents drop out is highly questionable.

Waltham Forest is an intreresting example of what you can do by spending several years and ?25m (I believe)on a flagship scheme. But even so, I have seen studies suggesting that the traffic has just been displaced onto surrounding roads.

I have no problems with LTN's in principal, provide they are well designed and consider the effect of traffic displacement and other knock on effects. Closing roads whiel sticking fingers in ears about the consequences, as our local councillors have done, is the wrong way to go about it.

[legalalien]

I think you?re right Slartib - the same small group of people keep republishing the same small pieces of selective data under different names to make it seem like new and more objective info. The two contacts on the document are Active Travel Academy (at UoW, director Rachel Aldred), and a freelance campaigner who has worked for SusTrans and Waltham Forest Council, writing a piece about Rachel?s LTN research, how good Waltham Forest is - and including Rachel?s colleague?s frankly risible Dulwich snapshot cycle count to give the headline that cycling has doubled in Dulwich (we?ve discussed the flaws in that already). The DfT data, which we now know is hotly disputed by TfL, remains a centrepiece...

What we need is some independent local monitoring and to see traffic modelling for the Dulwich LTNs and critically all the relevant boundary roads.

[Rockets]

Waltham Forest Council's own data showed that displacement was, and continues to be, a big issue. Those who use it as the beacon of hope for LTNs fail to acknowledge that there was a big displacement issue created by it - the council's own stat showed that there was a 28% increase on traffic on a road 3.1 miles from the outer most boundary of the LTN.

Given what Cllr McAsh said last night I think we can put another part of the jigsaw in place as to how the council are going to present their review. Given his focus on overall reduction in traffic volumes I suspect the council are trying to keep the review area deliberately small (only the roads, and the ones most neighbourly to them in the area) so they can show a decrease in traffic volume and claim this as success. This is how Waltham Forest was, and continues to be, presented - an overall reduction in traffic volumes within the boundaries of the LTN = success. It obviously doesn't.

The council will do everything to fight against including displacement roads like Underhill and Croxted as then their figures will not show a reduction in overall traffic volumes (or one so small - the 135 journeys people are now doing on bikes in the review area as they drop their kids to Dulwich Hamlet school or whatever the cycle count number that was done by the pro-closure lobbyists shows - that it cannot be classified as a success).

Everyone should lobby their local councillor to ensure the review is an area-wide review and data is collected and presented from all the roads that are being impacted - that is the only way a proper decision can be made and ensures the LTNs are fair to all.