LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Earl Aelfheah]

@ab29 - seriously? Calling someone a ?know-it-all, arrogant cyclist', isn't name calling? I mean it's probably pointless to even have this discussion, but I would just point out that at no point have I resorted to personal attacks against you.

[exdulwicher]

I see the A205 has roadworks which is causing yet more chaos around the Dulwich area - has the watermain gone again?

@Rockets - think it's electricity works. However I was just crossing the S.Circ from Dulwich College heading towards the park on a bike last night so I didn't have chance to see any signage that said when it was expected to be done by.

[Rockets]

Ex- and Ab - let's hope whatever they are doing is done quickly. Any time there is a problem on the A205 it makes the LTN impact 10 times worse.

I was on my run this morning up past Dulwich College as well when I saw the temporary lights (and the horrible queue back past the college - even though it was 6.30am!)

[dulwichfolk]

I?m sure the road monitoring strips, used in the dulwich review, will obviously take these type of incidents and school holidays etc into account...

[DulwichCentral]

'Latest transport statistics show rail and Tube continuing to crawl upwards while road nudges 100% of pre-COVID use.'

Reduced capacity / use of public transport is a factor in the current level of cars on the roads. If increased public transport is, as is often stated here, a preferred alternative to LTNs, then it follows that the current *reduction* of public transport usage is having a negative impact and the actual results of experimental low-traffic measures can't be properly assessed until public transport is running at pre-pandemic levels.

[DulwichCentral]

Reduced capacity / use of public transport is a factor in the current level of cars on the roads. If increased public transport is, as is often stated here, a preferred alternative to LTNs, then it follows that the current *reduction* of public transport usage is having a negative impact and the actual results of experimental low-traffic measures can't be properly assessed until public transport is running at pre-pandemic levels.

[DulwichCentral]

There are more cars on the roads because people still aren't using public transport.

If increased public transport is, as is often stated here, a preferred alternative to LTNs, then it follows that the current *reduction* of public transport usage is having a negative impact and the actual results of experimental low-traffic measures can't be properly assessed until public transport is running at pre-pandemic levels.

[Spartacus]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> There are more cars on the roads because people

> still aren't using public transport.

>

> If increased public transport is, as is often

> stated here, a preferred alternative to LTNs, then

> it follows that the current *reduction* of public

> transport usage is having a negative impact and

> the actual results of experimental low-traffic

> measures can't be properly assessed until public

> transport is running at pre-pandemic levels.

I believe buses and trains are currently running to pre pandemic schedules and levels and the 30 passenger limit on buses has now been removed.

The possibility that people are avoiding using public transport as it is a risk infection wise may be something to consider

But saying that the current reduction in public transport is a factor is incorrect. But I stand to be corrected.

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> There are more cars on the roads because people

> still aren't using public transport.

>

> If increased public transport is, as is often

> stated here, a preferred alternative to LTNs, then

> it follows that the current *reduction* of public

> transport usage is having a negative impact and

> the actual results of experimental low-traffic

> measures can't be properly assessed until public

> transport is running at pre-pandemic levels.

But DC - many people are not yet back to their offices or places of work either so if there is increased congestion now it is not unreasonable to suggest that it will only get worse.

You could also say that given these measures have been in for a long time and traffic is still as bad as it was when they first went in then they are not having the impact needed and should be removed.

BTW I notice that Underhill Road now has a lot of monitoring strips in at various points.

[DulwichCentral]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> But DC - many people are not yet back to their

> offices or places of work either so if there is

> increased congestion now it is not unreasonable to

> suggest that it will only get worse.

>

I thought all the traffic is key workers, carers and people making essential journeys? Thats the rhetoric expressed on here in defence of people driving. Can't have it both ways ;)

[Nigello]

Dunstan?s at Underhill has 2 x monitoring strips.

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > But DC - many people are not yet back to their

> > offices or places of work either so if there is

> > increased congestion now it is not unreasonable

> to

> > suggest that it will only get worse.

> >

> I thought all the traffic is key workers, carers

> and people making essential journeys? Thats the

> rhetoric expressed on here in defence of people

> driving. Can't have it both ways ;)

Er DC....the rules have changed a bit since the beginning of lockdown on essential journeys...shops are open, people aren't restricted on where they travel to and from etc etc...what's happening is what many of us predicted would happen...;-)

[LTN BooHoo]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Well..I bought my flat as a poorly paid junior

> health professional 30 years ago. I wish it was

> worth 3 million. I think you might find that

> houses in Calton, Court, Melbourne, Derwent are as

> a mode average far more expensive than ED Grove.

>

> A mean average isn't much use when thinking about

> house prices because if you have one 4 mill house

> and 3 400K flats your average is 1.3 million which

> is silly if looking at house prices on ED Grove.

>

> From RightMove 'The majority of sales in East

> Dulwich Grove during the last year were flats,

> selling for an average price of ?530,500'

>

> which is cheap for this area.

>

> Compare to gated community Melbourne 'The majority

> of sales in Melbourne Grove during the last year

> were terraced properties, selling for an average

> price of ?1,060,000.'

>

> and gated community Calton Ave 'Properties in

> Calton Avenue had an overall average price of

> ?2,700,000 over the last year. Overall, sold

> prices in Calton Avenue over the last year were

> 68% up on the previous year.'

>

> Or gated community Court Lane

> 'Properties in Court Lane had an overall average

> price of ?1,781,667 over the last year. The

> majority of sales in Court Lane during the last

> year were terraced properties, selling for an

> average price of ?1,795,833. Semi-detached

> properties sold for an average of ?1,753,333.'

>

>

> There are a lot of posters on the Dutch Estate,

> posters at the LL end and the Village end, with

> privately owned flats along the middle.

>

> The rental flats - of which there are many - on

> conversations with some renters, hate the

> increased traffic, but are worried about

> landlords, so will not put a poster up.

>

> I'm amazed by the support for re-thinking the LTNs

> on ED Grove..many people are very upset about the

> extra traffic on an already illegally polluted

> road. Many residents live in flats with no garden,

> very different from the houses in the LTNs, many

> of which have huge gardens.

Isn?t Dulwich Alliance advocating for a virtual gated community by promoting the introduction of a permit system where only those with permits can drive in at certain times?

[LTN BooHoo]

I?ve heard that Dulwich residents are getting fed up with the numerous flyers from DA all spouting various levels of misinformation or propaganda. They offer no viable solution and only want to go back to what we had before. At one point I thought I could support them but no more.

?Share pollution equally? is their offer and I?m not sure how that meets the climate emergency we face.

[legalalien]

Even if the DA flyer is as you say, it at

least helps to offset the misinformation /propaganda that the Council has been propagating :) I?ve also had a couple

of flyers from the other side (alliance4dulwich)? I suspect

people are only bothered by the ones that don?t support their views.

At this stage I think DA?s

proposal is to bring the Council back to the table

and force them to acknowledge

the flaws in the current arrangement and listen to a wider range of residents than they have to date. They have (I think rightly) reluctantly concluded that the only way to do that is to encourage people to select ?reverse the changes? in the review, as that response is difficult for the Council to ?reinterpret? (they have form). Let?s

not forget, a response

to the review is not a binding vote - the Council doesn?t have to implement exactly what the majority want. It is a channel for sending a message to the Council about the popularity of the experimental schemes- and on that basis I think DA have probably got it right. Hence, I guess, your posts.

LTN BooHoo Wrote:

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

> I?ve heard that Dulwich residents are getting fed

> up with the numerous flyers from DA all spouting

> various levels of misinformation or propaganda.

> They offer no viable solution and only want to go

> back to what we had before. At one point I

> thought I could support them but no more.

>

> ?Share pollution equally? is their offer and I?m

> not sure how that meets the climate emergency we

> face.

[heartblock]

I think the posters who support the LTNs in the current configuration should not worry. Although it is obvious to residents in Croxted, ED Grove, Grove Vale and LL that LTNs have definitely increased idling and polluting traffic, Southwark have absolutely no intention of removing them, they have entrenched opinions on LTNs and even evidence of increased illegal levels of pollution (measured at cost by residents, because Southwark has not been measuring historically), will not shift their opinion.

Time to move out of Dulwich if you live on any of these roads and have young children. You only matter if you live on a 'leafy' street.

[DulwichCentral]

I wrote:

> I thought all the traffic is key workers,carers

> and people making essential journeys? Thats the

> rhetoric expressed on here in defence of people

> driving. Can't have it both ways ;)

>

Rockets wrote:

> Er DC....the rules have changed a bit since the

> beginning of lockdown on essential

> journeys...shops are open, people aren't

> restricted on where they travel to and from etc

> etc...what's happening is what many of us

> predicted would happen...;-)

I wasn't referring to essential journeys in relation to Covid Rockets, so no need to be patronising ;)

I was referring to the One Dulwich rhetoric that people *absolutely have to* drive and can't possibly walk or cycle because they depend on their car to make *essential journeys* i.e. they are disabled, elderly or key workers. According to One Dulwich rhetoric one would think these journeys constitute the majority of traffic on our roads.

My point was, just to be super clear, that it is highly unlikely that all the traffic on the roads fits that definition of essential journey.

And more likely people are driving for a number of reasons (i.e. to get work or to get their nails done) because they're avoiding public transport.

And yes - this is what was predicted by TfL, the government and Mayors office - a car recovery. Hence the need for safe routes for people who *do* want to walk and cycle.

[DulwichCentral]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Even if the DA flyer is as you say, it at

> least helps to offset the misinformation

> /propaganda that the Council has been propagating

> :)

So it's OK to 'offset' propaganda and misinformation with more propaganda and misinformation?

Who to believe?

Southwark Council who ran a year long consultation in 2019 with numerous public meetings, surveys, stalls, flyers... involving highways engineers, TfL, and consultation with emergency services. A council that were democratically voted in on their mandate to reduce traffic in a climate emergency.

OR

One Dulwich. A group of Dulwich village people who attended those meetings - shouted that they would be 'kettled' in their homes (the first of many bogus claims), then demanded permits *for themselves*, then denied the consultation ever happened, and are now saying rip out all measures and go back to status quo.

[legalalien]

I don?t trust the Council, and I don?t need to trust the Dulwich Alliance as they don?t have any decision making power.

Heartblock you may be right. If the Council wasn?t prepared to heed TfL?s request to delay the Phase 2 closures by a week to enable TfL?s concerns about their potential effect on its road network and buses to be properly considered, it seems unlikely they?ll listen to mere residents.

(Perhaps if they had engaged properly, rather than informing TfL of the details of the closures on the Thursday evening before the Monday they went in, Croxted Road might not be in the mess it is in.)

[DulwichCentral]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> I don?t trust the Council, and I don?t need to

> trust the Dulwich Alliance as they don?t have any

> decision making power.

>

Fair enough you can choose who you trust its a free country.

But being ok with Dulwich Alliance spreading misinformation and propaganda to 'offset' what you believe to be the propaganda the council spreads? Seems an odd choice.

[legalalien]

There was a reason for the smiley face emoji after that comment, I was being tongue in cheek. But having re-read the offending leaflets, I wouldn?t describe them as misleading (I gather the two sides differ about the level of business opposition? But that figure is linked to a specific survey). Of course they take a particular perspective and are designed to persuade.

[DulwichCentral]

Yes its strange isn't it. When TfL evidence shows that businesses do better in low-traffic areas - why on earth would Dulwich Village shops support DA? Maybe they've fallen for the propaganda - such as not mentioning Covid when it comes to a drop in takings.

[alice]

Ask the fading businesses in Melbourne grove. Or better still walk there. It?s dead.

[legalalien]

The thing is, the TfL data is an average. With the Village already having a much higher than average level of pedestrian activity, and the fact that a number of shops are ?destination? shops, it?s entirely possible that these specific shops are having a different experience from the average. Telling them they don?t know what is happening and have been misled by Dulwich Alliance comes across as incredibly patronising. I am sure that they are more than aware of the pandemic.

[DulwichCentral]

@ Alice

Seem to be doing ok to me