LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[mfcjoe]

DulwichGlobetrotter Wrote:

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

> Ok, can we send all the cars to sit outside your

> house then? Sounds like you?d be ok with it

> RahRahRah

Ok, so why is there half mile queues every morning and afternoon outside my niece's primary school(John Ruskin)?

Peoples health WALOB!

[first mate]

Correction, some people's and some children's health. For the rest it seems a sector are intensely relaxed about writing of the health and stress levels of a swathe of other sections of the community because, you see, the end justifies the means. Think not of your children now but in twenty years time and, anyway, many of the less mobile, the elderly, will by then be dead. Fanaticism and ruthless imposition make happy bedfellows.

[DulwichCentral]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> I am more of a carrot than a stick person so I

> would say make other modes of transport more

> attractive and convenient in tandem with making

> car journeys less convenient and you might be onto

> something.

What you describe here @rockets sounds remarkably like an LTN :) Like others have said; the safe routes are the carrot for my family - not just Dulwich safe routes, there are more than 400 modal filters across London now. With more, and more protected cycle paths, it all links up.

But going back to the original question (which got drowned out by descriptions of posh people causing tsunamis of traffic) assuming we all agree in reducing car usage and emissions urgently because we agree that climate change is real, and we agree that active travel is a factor in this and good for our health - how can this be achieved by meeting the following criteria:?

1. urgently

2. equitably

3. without causing inconvenience?

4. succeed in behaviour change

5. cheaply (as we know councils / TfL do not have huge budgets right now*)

IMO

- urgently needs to be cheaply so trams and tubes unfortunately don't fit in that they will take years

- equitably is more time consuming but less so than building new public transport infrastructure - main roads need addressing but they are designed to take more traffic so in accordance with (1) this is the first step. Addressing main road congestion would be more productive than being 'anti-LTN'

- hopefully we can all agree point (3) simply can't be met in order to achieve (4)

@slarti I had a quick look at One Dulwich's proposal and they want timed restrictions with resident permits as far as I can gather. This would cause the same displacement of through traffic onto boundary roads - but allow a select few to get away with zero behaviour change. That doesn't sound very equitable. And they want to remove modal filters which would remove the safe routes for those switching to active travel. So I can't see how their alternative meets the criteria above. Assuming this is the criteria we all agree on?

*Some might say the council are now loaded thanks to the fines they've raked in - so why not push the council to use that money for more measures on main roads?

[Siduhe]

I keep saying this - and it's notable that no-one who is pro the current LTNs has acknowledged this or responded, other than rahrahrah (which was appreciated) - it is possible to be anti the LTNs in their current form, or advocate for them to be reviewed and adjusted without being pro-traffic and unfettered driving.

At the risk of repeating myself - I'm a very occasional driver, but a regular commuting cyclist and pedestrian. I made the "modal shift" (which is a new term to me) a few years back and I've never looked back. However, the implementation of the Court Lane LTN has significantly, adversely affected the roads that I live on and cycle on, to the point where they feel less safe and I actively avoid cycling on them at peak times now, because they are being used as a cut through by drivers seeking to avoid the South Circular and Lordship Lane.

Leaving aside this was foreseeable, and taking the point that was made that these are experimental LTNs and can be adjusted, what is frustrating me and most of my neighbours is that no-one on the Council side will acknowledge there may be an issue, they are going out of their way not to monitor in our area, not to include us in the consultation (and when we pushed to be included, we've now been told that our views won't carry as much weight as those in the core area where the closures are) and that we must just be patient and wait for these sunlit uplands where traffic evaporates.

Very few people on here are advocating for the LTNs to be removed entirely - I'm certainly not - but I do want a proper monitoring program which looks at the impact outside the core area of closures so that we can assess whether these measures are actually working and if they are, whether the impact on other residents is worth it.

And I don't think that's unreasonable. But no-one who is pro the current LTNs will advocate for that, and we are just getting lumped in as "the vocal minority" who are "anti-traffic reduction". It's so frustrating, as we all want the same thing, but apparently asking for a system which would actually show how well these current measures are working is akin to heresy.

[roywj]

Saw a black SUV (think it was a VW) driving down Burbage Road towards Half Moon Lane with half the number plate covered in gaffer tape around 9.05am this morning.

I wonder if anyone looks at the camera footage and realises this is happening to avoid the closure? If it is all automated probably not.

[Nigello]

I agree with the last post. I don't have a car, bike, scooter, so use my own legs and the occasional bus. LTNs have not made my life any easier; they have not encouraged me to do anything more or less than I would have done but they have annoyed me because supporters think they are more influential in reducing traffic than they actually do. I think having timed restrictions in the Village is better. Having two roads blocked off and the restrictions in the Village make for a triple whammy - too much and optically not good.

[dulwichfolk]

Pre pandemic there was discussions about flight paths being concentrated. Are all LTN advocates happy to have all the planes fly over 24 hours a day. Will make it better for the majority and is greener due to less changes in direction needed....

Appreciate this is change but there is a climate emergency after all.

[alex_b]

roywj Wrote:

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

> Saw a black SUV (think it was a VW) driving down

> Burbage Road towards Half Moon Lane with half the

> number plate covered in gaffer tape around 9.05am

> this morning.

>

> I wonder if anyone looks at the camera footage and

> realises this is happening to avoid the closure?

> If it is all automated probably not.

If an ANPR system gets a partial read it will be flagged for a human to review. Who knows if the Southwark system does colour or vehicle type matching too but I?ve seen systems that can do this to check for dodgy plates. Whether Southwark or the Police have the resources to then track the vehicle with an obscured licence plate is another question, personally I hope so.

[mfcjoe]

roywj Wrote:

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

> Saw a black SUV (think it was a VW) driving down

> Burbage Road towards Half Moon Lane with half the

> number plate covered in gaffer tape around 9.05am

> this morning.

>

> I wonder if anyone looks at the camera footage and

> realises this is happening to avoid the closure?

> If it is all automated probably not.

Good idea, you don't have to cover half the number plate though, just rearrange a digit and a letter, job done.

[northernmonkey]

I think that the majority of people on here who are pro LTNs want them to be monitored properly and adjusted if required - but unfortunately right now there isn't any data. Rather than pushing for you not to be included, those of us who are supporting the council have in fact been pushing for more data, for it to be released well in advance of the consultation so that people can have time to review it and understand it. The fact that this hasn't happened is unsatisfactory for everyone really.

Siduhe Wrote:

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

> I keep saying this - and it's notable that no-one

> who is pro the current LTNs has acknowledged this

> or responded, other than rahrahrah (which was

> appreciated) - it is possible to be anti the LTNs

> in their current form, or advocate for them to be

> reviewed and adjusted without being pro-traffic

> and unfettered driving.

>

> At the risk of repeating myself - I'm a very

> occasional driver, but a regular commuting cyclist

> and pedestrian. I made the "modal shift" (which

> is a new term to me) a few years back and I've

> never looked back. However, the implementation of

> the Court Lane LTN has significantly, adversely

> affected the roads that I live on and cycle on, to

> the point where they feel less safe and I actively

> avoid cycling on them at peak times now, because

> they are being used as a cut through by drivers

> seeking to avoid the South Circular and Lordship

> Lane.

>

> Leaving aside this was foreseeable, and taking the

> point that was made that these are experimental

> LTNs and can be adjusted, what is frustrating me

> and most of my neighbours is that no-one on the

> Council side will acknowledge there may be an

> issue, they are going out of their way not to

> monitor in our area, not to include us in the

> consultation (and when we pushed to be included,

> we've now been told that our views won't carry as

> much weight as those in the core area where the

> closures are) and that we must just be patient and

> wait for these sunlit uplands where traffic

> evaporates.

>

> Very few people on here are advocating for the

> LTNs to be removed entirely - I'm certainly not -

> but I do want a proper monitoring program which

> looks at the impact outside the core area of

> closures so that we can assess whether these

> measures are actually working and if they are,

> whether the impact on other residents is worth

> it.

>

> And I don't think that's unreasonable. But no-one

> who is pro the current LTNs will advocate for

> that, and we are just getting lumped in as "the

> vocal minority" who are "anti-traffic reduction".

> It's so frustrating, as we all want the same

> thing, but apparently asking for a system which

> would actually show how well these current

> measures are working is akin to heresy.

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I am more of a carrot than a stick person so I

> > would say make other modes of transport more

> > attractive and convenient in tandem with making

> > car journeys less convenient and you might be

> onto

> > something.

>

> What you describe here @rockets sounds remarkably

> like an LTN :) Like others have said; the safe

> routes are the carrot for my family - not just

> Dulwich safe routes, there are more than 400 modal

> filters across London now. With more, and more

> protected cycle paths, it all links up.

>

> But going back to the original question (which got

> drowned out by descriptions of posh people causing

> tsunamis of traffic) assuming we all agree in

> reducing car usage and emissions urgently because

> we agree that climate change is real, and we agree

> that active travel is a factor in this and good

> for our health - how can this be achieved by

> meeting the following criteria:?

>

> 1. urgently

> 2. equitably

> 3. without causing inconvenience?

> 4. succeed in behaviour change

> 5. cheaply (as we know councils / TfL do not have

> huge budgets right now*)

>

> IMO

> - urgently needs to be cheaply so trams and tubes

> unfortunately don't fit in that they will take

> years

> - equitably is more time consuming but less so

> than building new public transport infrastructure

> - main roads need addressing but they are designed

> to take more traffic so in accordance with (1)

> this is the first step. Addressing main road

> congestion would be more productive than being

> 'anti-LTN'

> - hopefully we can all agree point (3) simply

> can't be met in order to achieve (4)

>

> @slarti I had a quick look at One Dulwich's

> proposal and they want timed restrictions with

> resident permits as far as I can gather. This

> would cause the same displacement of through

> traffic onto boundary roads - but allow a select

> few to get away with zero behaviour change. That

> doesn't sound very equitable. And they want to

> remove modal filters which would remove the safe

> routes for those switching to active travel. So I

> can't see how their alternative meets the criteria

> above. Assuming this is the criteria we all agree

> on?

>

> *Some might say the council are now loaded thanks

> to the fines they've raked in - so why not push

> the council to use that money for more measures on

> main roads?

DC - I think it depends on whether you think LTNs have to close the roads to car traffic or if you think an LTN should be designed to let cars and other forms of traffic co-exist safely. I fear the council has been listening too much to those who say a safe road is a carless road and there are other way to deal with this.

I refer you to the list I posted in March (I post it unedited so some references may seem out of context now) on how I think this should have been done.

1) Investment in transport infrastructure (I know this is long-term but PTAL scores are very low in Dulwich). Without public transport infrastructure you cannot expect people to get out of the car.

2) Integrated cycling infrastructure. Bikes and cars have to coexist. Make it easier for people to make modal shift but not by closing roads to through traffic as that doesn't fix anything - it makes things worse.

3) Cycling support infrastructure. Cycling cannot remain the domain of those with space to store bikes. There needs to accelerated investment in giving every household access to bike storage. Without it cycling will remain only accessible to the most wealthy.

4) Proper commitment to EV infrastructure - but I appreciate many in the cycle lobby don't want this (as demonstrated by the minutes of the meeting posted earlier in the thread). But if emissions are the problem we are tacking then tackle them.

5) Means tested road pricing.

6) Do nothing in isolation. Do a proper area-wide approach and include everyone in the debate and give equal weighting to all road users.

7) Don't put measures in place that cause more problems than they solve and divide a community.

8) Be transparent with the plans and put proper monitoring in place to determine what is working and what is not. Do not be afraid to admit that something is not working.

I think the biggest failing of the council was that they were so laser focussed on waging war on cars that they lost sight of properly assessing what the issue actually is. They had a solution but they didn't know what the problem was. Only when they determine where the traffic is coming from and going to can they properly intervene to resolve the issue.

Remember, the council's own report says that 68% of local trips were being done on foot or on bike so it's clear that you, me and all the others on the forum contributing to the debate from the local area aren't the major cause of the problems - yet many of us are now being forced to live with the fallout from the council's ludicrous measures.

[exdulwicher]

1) Investment in transport infrastructure (I know this is long-term but PTAL scores are very low in Dulwich). Without public transport infrastructure you cannot expect people to get out of the car.

2) Integrated cycling infrastructure. Bikes and cars have to coexist. Make it easier for people to make modal shift but not by closing roads to through traffic as that doesn't fix anything - it makes things worse.

3) Cycling support infrastructure. Cycling cannot remain the domain of those with space to store bikes. There needs to accelerated investment in giving every household access to bike storage. Without it cycling will remain only accessible to the most wealthy.

4) Proper commitment to EV infrastructure - but I appreciate many in the cycle lobby don't want this (as demonstrated by the minutes of the meeting posted earlier in the thread). But if emissions are the problem we are tacking then tackle them.

5) Means tested road pricing.

6) Do nothing in isolation. Do a proper area-wide approach and include everyone in the debate and give equal weighting to all road users.

7) Don't put measures in place that cause more problems than they solve and divide a community.

8) Be transparent with the plans and put proper monitoring in place to determine what is working and what is not. Do not be afraid to admit that something is not working.

1) PTAL is not wholly relevant in Dulwich because there simply aren't the E-W links you so desperately want. PTAL is low because the area has vast expanses of green space which block direct E-W access and - because PTAL is based on 100m grid squares which I covered a few pages back - you end up with loads of grid squares in the middle of places like Dulwich, Brockwell & Belair Parks, Alleyn's / JAGS / DC playing fields etc where fairly obviously, you're never going to be near a bus or train. Your E-W links are the South Circular, the DV junction/Turney Road which you can't get a bus down anyway and EDG/Half Moon Lane. Honourable mentions to Herne Hill / Denmark Hill which is NE/SW. You could put as many buses in as you want but they can still only go along S.Circ and EDG/Half Moon Lane.

2) and 3) - absolutely agree - in many cases the only way to get people cycling is to have proper safe segregated cycling infrastructure (not a painted lane down half a pavement) and proper secure bike storage/lock ups accessible at both home and destination (whether that be work or shops or school or whatever). Disagree about bikes and cars having to coexist though. That's been the main stumbling block in cycling advocacy for decades and the reason cycling has stubbornly stuck at 1% or so of modal share. Most people are not going to cycle if there are buses and cars thundering past them or they're having to negotiate major junctions. But if you put a safe segregated lane in, modal share jumps. That's been seen worldwide. Take the lane out (like Kensington & Chelsea did with their "flagship" pop-=up lane) and modal share crashes back through the floor.

4) is also vital but to be honest that's slightly less to do with councils. There's a bit of a battle going on with EV charging at the moment as car manufacturers, electricity suppliers, changepoint manufacturers etc are all fighting for a piece of the pie, trying to implement their own solutions and it risks becoming a very messy picture. It really needs a national policy, not individual councils agreeing to put in 5 of these chargers here and a supermarket agreeing to have 2 of those chargers there. Piecemeal EV charging will be like piecemeal cycle lanes.

5) Agree - so do many experts, there was a good piece in Transport Times on the subject the other week but that needs to be a national policy too.

6) That's sort of where lots of LTNs come in to be honest - as was the case with the standalone Loughborough Junction, that solved nothing but if you have a reasonable network of LTNs complementing each other then that's part of the area-wide solution. And "giving equal weighting to all road users" - no. We're in this situation because the only mode of transport catered for in the last 20 years has been cars. You want to balance it out, you need to drop the "consideration for all users" and concentrate on EQUITY which is absolutely not the same as equality.

7) Yes but as I mentioned back on page 151, that's the point of the LTN and the Experimental Traffic Order. Experiment, monitor, modify, resolve. LTNs are easier and cheaper than doing a massive road rebuild, can be "undone" or modified quickly and easily and pretty much anything you do is going to cause division somewhere - in some respects that actually means it's working well if car drivers are complaining it's more difficult to drive, that's part of the point!

8) Oh God, very much this - as I mentioned a page ago, I think that's where the council have fallen down more than the actual schemes themselves. Although, that said, there's no need for them to be telling residents data on every single car or traffic jam or breaking down pollution by individual postcode because it just doesn't work like that. It also takes a while to collate the data so sometimes "silence" while info is gathered and written up is mistaken for inaction. Again, that's down to communication though.

[slarti b]

@DulwichCentral

I had a quick look at One Dulwich's proposal and they want timed restrictions with resident permits as far as I can gather. This would cause the same displacement of through traffic onto boundary roads - but allow a select few to get away with zero behaviour change. That doesn't sound very equitable. And they want to remove modal filters which would remove the safe routes for those switching to active travel.

The OneDulwich proposal has a central objective, no 24\7 road closures, but camera controlled timed closures instead. This allows for adjustments to timing and the use of permits if there is support. The proposal aims to protect active travel to school while keeping the timed closures as short as possible, minimising traffic displacement. Is it perfect? No but a lot better than the mess we currently have.

The OneDulwich proposal is fully consistent with the stated objectives of the OHS scheme, to tackle only peak hour through traffic and to minimise inconvenience to local journeys. You disparage resident permits but these were a fundamental part of the scheme put forward by Southwark and the local councillors during the OHS Phase 3. They now say permits are against council policy or in your phrase not "equitable". Did the C'llrs mislead people on this just as they did with their alleged huge traffic increases?

Remember that, as the council's own figures show, The proportion of trips already carried by active travel within Dulwich at 68% is is far, far higher than Soutwark average and also higher than the Southwark target for 2030.

Rather than trying to change force behaviour change on local residents who already walk and cycle, perhaps the council should be looking at the private shools with their wide catchment areas and large numbers of staff and pupils who travel by car. The volume of traffic they generate is glaringly obvious when you see the change during their school holidays. But I guess SRS, heavily dominated by the Private schools, in particular Alleyns, JAGs and Dulwich College, have too strong an influence with Southwark for this to happen.

[mr.chicken]

roywj Wrote:

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

> Saw a black SUV (think it was a VW) driving down

> Burbage Road towards Half Moon Lane with half the

> number plate covered in gaffer tape around 9.05am

> this morning.

Is this technique endorsed by One Dulwich? After all, all streets matter and we should be able to drive our SUVs down them without restriction, because that will help the the under 17s and over the over 60s who don't drive. It will also help people who can't afford cars.

[Spartacus]

mr.chicken Wrote:

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

> roywj Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Saw a black SUV (think it was a VW) driving

> down

> > Burbage Road towards Half Moon Lane with half

> the

> > number plate covered in gaffer tape around

> 9.05am

> > this morning.

>

> Is this technique endorsed by One Dulwich? After

> all, all streets matter and we should be able to

> drive our SUVs down them without restriction,

> because that will help the the under 17s and over

> the over 60s who don't drive. It will also help

> people who can't afford cars.

What a strange leap you made there, what drew you to that fantastical conclusion ?

[mr.chicken]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> mr.chicken Wrote:

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

> -----

> > roywj Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Saw a black SUV (think it was a VW) driving

> > down

> > > Burbage Road towards Half Moon Lane with half

> > the

> > > number plate covered in gaffer tape around

> > 9.05am

> > > this morning.

> >

> > Is this technique endorsed by One Dulwich?

> After

> > all, all streets matter and we should be able

> to

> > drive our SUVs down them without restriction,

> > because that will help the the under 17s and

> over

> > the over 60s who don't drive. It will also help

> > people who can't afford cars.

>

> What a strange leap you made there, what drew you

> to that fantastical conclusion ?

I read the arguments of the anti closure crowd and you all convinced me. I'm less convinced by the idea of timed closures and permits since that would really only allow the wealthy local SUV drivers free reign. We need to make sure everyone rich or poor and pretty much even those without a license has a fair chance to drive the biggest SUV they can afford or borrow on the roads at as often as they can manage.

[Abe_froeman]

Is it court lane or Calton Avenue that you live on mr chicken? How many cars do you keep?

[legalalien]

I don?t have a licence. I?m not sure why you are suggesting I find an SUV and get some driving lessons - unless you think I could help create traffic on the main roads, to assist with the LTN / car reduction experiment?

[mr.chicken]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Is it court lane or Calton Avenue that you live on

> mr chicken? How many cars do you keep?

I'm particularly miffed at not being able to drive to the park so easily. It seems a dreadful waste of time to walk.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> I don?t have a licence. I?m not sure why you are

> suggesting I find an SUV and get some driving

> lessons

Absolutely. What we need is more cars.

[first mate]

Mr chicken needs his wings clipped😉

[ab29]

Someone form the Labour party has been just commenting on the radio on the lost by-election in Hartlepool He said 'We talk to ourselves too much' and need to start talking and listening to constituents instead. One would hope the Dulwich Labour councillors take notice of that.

[first mate]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/07/fireplaces-and-stoves-are-bigger-polluters-than-traffic

Saw this. Wonder what stats are like in Southwark?

[ab29]

Interesting; although must admit I trust The Guardian less after their biased and one sided reporting on LTNs

first mate Wrote:

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

> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/0

> 7/fireplaces-and-stoves-are-bigger-polluters-than-

> traffic

>

> Saw this. Wonder what stats are like in Southwark?

[DulwichCentral]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> Interesting; although must admit I trust The

> Guardian less after their biased and one sided

> reporting on LTNs

>

No much better to trust The Telegraph, The Times and the Daily Mail and their biased and one-sided reporting on LTNs instead.

[first mate]

Eh, just because ab29 does not trust 'journalism' in one newspaper does not automatically mean he completely trusts it in another. Tsk, such a black and white view, laden with assumptions. In my view, you'd be a fool to completely trust reporting from any media outlet.