LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[northernmonkey]

Not sure just posting the same thing over and over is doing it for him...

[slarti b]

@northern, Dulwich Central seems to have disappeared in a huff once people started asking him\her questions.

But thanks to him\her for highlighting that news piece by OneDulwich. Some pretty revealing information that, if true, would undermine the whole OHS consultation and our local councillors even more.

Anyway, I am sure DulwichCentral or one of the councillors will be able to deny it if the story isn't true. But watch out for some wriggling with words!

[Earl Aelfheah]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> > I am completely supportive of Carlton Avenue and

> Court Lane being filtered, but do not understand

> the rationale for Dulwich Village road being

> closed at certain times of day?...

>

> Rahrah, are you one of those nimby's from Calton

> who voted to close their own street to traffic but

> didn't want closures elsewhere? Since you can't

> spell Calton properly, maybe not. :-)

>

> Closing Court Lane and Calton by themselves will

> just divert traffic onto Dulwich Village, EDG and

> Lordship Lane, as we saw last year. All of these

> have schools and many pupils walking on the

> pavement. On the other hand it is great for

> Alleyns, presumably why the private school

> dominated SRS people are so keen on it.

>

> To avoid this massive displacment along the

> boundary Roads any clsoures need to be timed to

> protect school children and for a minimal amount

> of time. That is what One Dulwich supports and

> first put forward 4-5 years ago during the QW7

> consultation.

I don't live on an LTN.

Think it's good to discourage local car journey's and restrict the use of side streets as cut throughs. There need to be some quieter streets away from the main roads, for people to travel through the area safely by foot or by bike imo.

[Otto2]

I agree with Rahrahrah. And I do not live on an LTN either.

[slarti b]

@Otto Are you agreeing with RahRah that Dulwich Village should be re-opened, which was the starting point of this exchange?

[Rockets]

But at what cost - is what is happening on the displacement roads worth it or should we all just consider this as collateral damage for a few quiet roads? If all roads became quieter it would be justified but they are clearly not and one roads' gain is another roads' loss and that is not equitable.

I am sure you will all agree with that too.

It was clear from the outset that there were going to be massive knock-on effects of these closures and the council had no idea what problem they were trying to solve (and what was causing it) and put measures in that have backfired extra-ordinarily.

I do often think about how many of these councillors would be reacting to these closures should this have been implemented by a different party in leadership - I suspect they would be standing with those of us who think the measures are totally unfit for purpose.

[ab29]

Rockets, my thoughts exactly. Close roads so rahrahrah can walk for 15 min every day while hundreds of others have to put up with the extra traffic 24/7 - how is that fair?

[Otto2]

For clarity Slarti b - I was agreeing with rahrahrah's answer to you here when you accused him of being a "nimby" from Calton. I posted in answer to his post directly afterward. I've inserted his answer in quotes below.

Quieter streets for foot and bike traffic means many walkers and cyclists will also ADD TIME to their own journeys to avoid busy roads. I know I do.

"Think it's good to discourage local car journey's

> and restrict the use of side streets as cut

> throughs. There need to be some quieter streets

> away from the main roads, for people to travel

> through the area safely by foot or by bike imo."

[heartblock]

Conrad Poulson, Chief Executive Officer at Huq Industries, said: 'The research suggests that the timing of LTNs and similar measures may be doing more harm than good, as there has been an increase in traffic congestion in London to the point that it's worse now than before the pandemic.'Traffic isn't simply evaporating because there are fewer places for it to go. That's why it's more important than ever for councils to fully evaluate traffic flows and driver behaviours in order to introduce initiatives that succeed in reducing car usage.'

Top five London boroughs facing increased congestion since January 2020

The top five boroughs for increased road delays in the capital are currently:

1) Lambeth - 34.7 per cent

2) Wandsworth - 33.9 per cent

3) Islington - 33.6 per cent

4) Southwark - 33.3 per cent

5) Hackney - 32.2 per cent

link https://huq.io/indicators/congestion-on-londons-a-roads-30-up-since-pandemic/

[slarti b]

@Otto You must have missed my smiley when I suggested RahRah lived in Calton ;-)

But RahRah completely avoided my response to his suggestion that Dulwich Village should re-open 24\7. As I pointed out, "Closing Court Lane and Calton by themselves will just divert traffic onto Dulwich Village, EDG and Lordship Lane"

Closing a road such as Calton 24\7 has knock on impacts elsewhere which RahRah doesn't seem to want to acknowledge.

[DulwichCentral]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Conrad Poulson, Chief Executive Officer at Huq

> Industries, said: 'The research suggests that the

> timing of LTNs and similar measures may be doing

> more harm than good, as there has been an increase

> in traffic congestion in London to the point that

> it's worse now than before the pandemic.'Traffic

> isn't simply evaporating because there are fewer

> places for it to go. That's why it's more

> important than ever for councils to fully evaluate

> traffic flows and driver behaviours in order to

> introduce initiatives that succeed in reducing car

> usage.'

> Top five London boroughs facing increased

> congestion since January 2020

>

> The top five boroughs for increased road delays in

> the capital are currently:

>

> 1) Lambeth - 34.7 per cent

>

> 2) Wandsworth - 33.9 per cent

>

> 3) Islington - 33.6 per cent

>

> 4) Southwark - 33.3 per cent

>

> 5) Hackney - 32.2 per cent

> link

> https://huq.io/indicators/congestion-on-londons-a-

> roads-30-up-since-pandemic/

What Conrad Poulson also said - and what the report was based on - is that the reduction in use of public transport is key:

?Many people now favour their car over using public transport for their essential journeys, as it provides peace of mind in a secure, single-occupant environment. If certain roads are closed to vehicles, it simply means people are finding alternative routes and causing greater congestion,? said Huq Industries chief executive Conrad Poulson.'

The report also says: 'Those regions that have seen an increase are generally densely populated areas that have traditionally relied heavily on public transport."

Avoiding public transport is clearly a major factor in any transport issue during a pandemic. Surely whichever side of the debate can agree on that.

So lets wait and see.. as restrictions ease and people return to public transport.

[heartblock]

Good public transport is key to reducing car use...absolutely agree.

[Spartacus]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Good public transport is key to reducing car

> use...absolutely agree.

Good and safe from picking up covid or other transportable respiratory viral infections. Which means more of it running with everyone respecting each other and wearing masks

However this doesn't mean penalising cars to make it run faster as "this service has been held to regulate service" will occur. It needs more buses, longer (more carriages), quicker and more frequent tube trains, maybe trams and more trains to various places.

TFL are stymied by the issue with resistance to driverless trains / tubes as they can improve service frequency but require better infrastructure and the unions arguing it's not safe. The German Frankfurt tram system tested automatic obstacle detection and breaking systems plus dlr trains operate driverless which proves it can work but to retrofit to other tfl rolling stock (plus potentially new tram systems) requires investment which isn't available at the moment and no bashing of car users will produce that investment.

So it appears stalemate for the moment, people need to get around, there's a general agreement that where practical car use should be less but the public transport system isn't going to be able to pick up a model shift in its present form and cycling / walking is only practical for short trips for the fit, non disabled and is generally elderly unfriendly plus as soon as you get a large item (or lots of shopping) to carry it's unsafe or difficult to cycle and walk.

The current solution of bash / tax the driver will cause resentment so the real response should be massive investment in better, more frequent and possibly running at a loss / empty at times to more destinations public transport before people will substitute it for some (but not all) car journeys.

The council are building resentment by what a lot of people see as waging war on motorists without also tackling the lack of practical safe alternatives (and not just the cheap option of saying cycling and walking which is frankly not enough)

[Penguin68]

A hopper (P4) bus passed me a couple of days ago - with one of those 'Bus Full' notices at the front. There were three (3!) passengers on board, all at the back of the bus. Public transport, what public transport?

[alice]

If you saw a P4 on the south circular. You would be passing it. Soo slow

[Penguin68]

You would be passing it. Soo slow

I was walking at the time, and it wasn't on the S Circular.

[alice]

Yes, P4 and P13 are ridiculously slow on that convoluted jammed stretch.

[slarti b]

@Dulwich Central

I am still waiting to hear from you about why the OneDulwich expos? of the DV Councillor's secret working Group (set up "to help run the OHSD consultation") is deceitful.

And whether you think that the Councillor's claims of a 47% increase in traffic was deceitful.

btw you complained to Trevor M about the number of OneDulwich supporters. Well, I looked at the info on the OneDulwich map (reluctantly released by the Council under FoI) and counted how many people within the OHS consultation area supported closing Calton Ave 24\7 in the online consultation. The answer? 54 people (20 of them from Calton); the council called this strong support.

Compare this to the (freely available) information on the One Dulwich web site which shows how many in the consultation area oppose the 24\7 closure. 1,008 people; local councillors dismiss this as a vocal minority.

Clearly neither you, nor our councillors, understand data and numbers.

[DulvilleRes]

Clearly there are a lot of arguments flying around about consultation/ representation, but I think there is a simple bottom line - if we're going to tackle the climate emergency, where do we start?

An obvious place for me is unnecessary short car journeys, and the creation of LTNs certainly helps reduce that by creating a disincentive for default car use. I'm inconvenienced by a number of the effects of the LTN, but I buy into the fact that if there is to be a major shift in thinking as to how we live in the future, we have to start somewhere. Plenty of smokers were railing against banning smoking in pubs - a couple of decades or so on, how many of us miss those days?

[first mate]

So let those who are able to make the adjustments to lifestyle. Let those who are vociferously pro LTNs but who still own a car, cease car ownership. That's a start. At a time when many are under incredible pressure to earn a living, care for relatives and just survive, forcing extreme lifestyle changes in a matter of months is divisive and unhelpful. If you are merely inconvenienced by LTNs that is one thing, for others the impacts are a lot more serious.

[alice]

As Dulville says 'Where do we start?' Well How on earth did the answer to that question involve the centre of the richest, biggest houses, largest gardens, biggest car section of south southwark. Open Dulwich

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Good public transport is key to reducing car

> > use...absolutely agree...

> However this doesn't mean penalising cars to make

> it run faster

It is dreamland to imagine that bua transport can improve without inconveniencing car drivers. Buses need more dedicated street space, priority over cars, and fewer cars in the way.

[Spartacus]

Correct dkhb, but removing the cars and not providing alternatives is what the council are proposing

It's got to be joined up thinking, not just doing it on a wing and a prayer without massive investment in public transport.

[alice]

Absolutely - why not ban on street parking in court lane, create a new faster P4 route in a bus lane and there will still be room for a bike lane.

[spider69]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> Spartacus Wrote:

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

> -----

> > heartblock Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Good public transport is key to reducing car

> > > use...absolutely agree...

> > However this doesn't mean penalising cars to

> make

> > it run faster

>

> It is dreamland to imagine that bua transport can

> improve without inconveniencing car drivers. Buses

> need more dedicated street space, priority over

> cars, and fewer cars in the way.

Thought they had this already with bus lanes and red routes?