LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Bicknell]

shop next to cafe on closed junction in dulwich village closing down. so maybe trade not so good.

dv has a lot of nice places to sit. would rather have shops than another place to sit

[mfcjoe]

Three generous sized parks within 5-10 min walk from "Dulwich square", why should there be more open space for DV where most of the the wealthy residents will more than likely have a large garden, whilst the poorer parts of Southwark are having their small pieces of grass and playgrounds turned into housing.

WALOB

[legalalien]

It?s OK mfcjoe as long as Dulwich Square exists as a nice destination for those poor folk to visit and aspire to. I?m told that?s how nice places work.

mfcjoe Wrote:

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

> Three generous sized parks within 5-10 min walk

> from "Dulwich square", why should there be more

> open space for DV where most of the the wealthy

> residents will more than likely have a large

> garden, whilst the poorer parts of Southwark are

> having their small pieces of grass and playgrounds

> turned into housing.

> WALOB

[alice]

I have said before dulwich LTNs were never about bikes. Where are the bike lanes? its about making Dulwich 'more villagey'

quote from Dulwich councillor.

[northernmonkey]

haha - i'm guessing you've not spent much time passing that shop Bicknell?

Aqua was less of a shop and more of a project as far as I could tell - like something to do, sometimes. It didn't really open much and sold a really random selection of stuff. There are some nice bits in there but its just not somewhere that reliably traded. Will be great to get a new business in there - anything really as long as its a shop that opens!

Bicknell Wrote:

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

> shop next to cafe on closed junction in dulwich

> village closing down. so maybe trade not so good.

>

> dv has a lot of nice places to sit. would rather

> have shops than another place to sit

[ab29]

Yeah. They can visit and then go back where they belong - to a dirty, polluted road where they can continue to aspire. Or expire more likely.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> It?s OK mfcjoe as long as Dulwich Square exists as

> a nice destination for those poor folk to visit

> and aspire to. I?m told that?s how nice places

> work.

>

> mfcjoe Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Three generous sized parks within 5-10 min walk

> > from "Dulwich square", why should there be more

> > open space for DV where most of the the wealthy

> > residents will more than likely have a large

> > garden, whilst the poorer parts of Southwark

> are

> > having their small pieces of grass and

> playgrounds

> > turned into housing.

> > WALOB

[heartblock]

Vanity project for Village Councillors ... wealthy areas trying to be ? a house in the country? by exporting traffic to poorer areas, while still having all the convenience of a city. Meanwhile Southwark builds high rises on green spaces in the poorest areas.

Well at least when the cleaner leaves the gardenless flat on a busy road for the cleaning round, they can experience the clean, traffic free roads of Calton and Court...and have something to aspire to.

[mr whyte]

It'll be interesting to see if the "square" acts as overspill for Pub in the Park in a couple of weeks time...

[DulwichCentral]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Vanity project for Village Councillors ... wealthy

> areas trying to be ? a house in the country? by

> exporting traffic to poorer areas,

So how do explain same happening in Brixton, Peckham and Oval? 400 plus filters have been installed all over London.

[legalalien]

With apologies for pre-empting heartblock's reply:

(i) this was planned prior to/ separately from the COVID closures (and I think I saw on twitter that Cllr Leeming helped design it)

(ii) if Southwark had followed its own criteria for determining where to put LTNs, it wouldn't have put one here

(iii) there may be some LTNs in other places that are well thought through and work - that doesn't mean that this one does or that this one is motivated by the same considerations as the other ones. Perhaps the OHS proposal wasn't getting enough support and some people took the opportunity afforded by the other 400 plus filters being installed, to push the closure through?

(iv) some of the other 400 plus barriers may also be vanity projects or in wealthy areas trying to export traffic to poorer areas (I've certainly seen that criticism levelled at the closures near the Oval).

I can probably think of some other explanations.

[DulwichCentral]

The criteria for filtering streets is to stop rat-running (largely caused by sat-navs) and create safe routes for active travel. Hence the measures in Dulwich.

Did Google / Waze consult us before 'redesigning' streets into rat-runs?

[legalalien]

That misses the point I was making - which is that Southwark's prioritisation of this scheme over other potential road changes is inconsistent with its criteria for selecting LTN locations (PTAL levels, deprivation, etc etc).

Leaving aside whether the Dulwich LTN is workable, it seems to me likely that this scheme went in because there were local lobby groups actively engaging with the Council and pushing for it (Southwark Cyclists because of their masterplan re joined-up cycle routes across London, Safe Routes to School who had been lobbying for more active travel to the private schools in particular for a while, Mums for Lungs). And then the Calton Ave and Court Lane residents who didn't like having lots of traffic outside their houses. That's fine, and there's no problem at all with people lobbying for causes that they believe in and/or for changes which are in their own self-interest. But the Council is supposed to do a bit more than just try and please those who are most engaged with them or - as I think may often happen, uncritically accept what the lobby groups tell them. They need to step back and properly consider the big picture and the interests of those who are often not well-represented/ regularly engaged with the Council; moreover they should be keeping an open mind about these experimental schemes and be prepared to acknowledge problems. Maybe resourcing is the issue?

Instead we see one of the local councillors regularly on twitter acting as a cheerleader for the square and closures, in what I think is a fairly appalling manner.

I did smile at yesterday's effort when he explained to someone, in a particularly patronising way, that Southwark had no "agency" over Norwood Road because it is in Lambeth (he even posted a dictionary definition of agency) - and then realised that actually part of Norwood Road is within his ward boundary. Just shows how keen he is on representing the interests of those on main roads.

[Penguin68]

Did Google / Waze consult us before 'redesigning' streets into rat-runs?

They didn't design rat runs. Instead their algorithms look for routes which are currently uncongested/ quicker and divert traffic down these. As moving traffic tends to generate less polluting particles than standing traffic (if only because they complete a given journey quicker/ with fewer hold-ups) this may well be health beneficial. The effect of this is to (probably) create less pollution and certainly to distribute polluting activities wider, which reduces the intensity of impact on particular high use routes. Almost the reverse of what the Dulwich LTN schemes do, in fact.

[heartblock]

Thank you Legal, you clearly explained. If Southwark had followed their own guidelines, then the LTNs in this area would be very different.

Calton and Court are wide arterial routes and not little country lanes - not very different from Croxted and ED Grove, except for the modal value of housing - ?3,112,550 in Calton and the majority of sales in East Dulwich Grove during the last year were flats, selling for an average price of ?530,500.

This 'rat-run' idea is not only ridiculous it is insulting to residents on ED Grove, Croxted, LL and Grove Vale - apparently we are lesser mortals who deserve 'rats' on our roads. Seeing car ownership is very high in the chosen LTNs and significantly lower on our ratty roads, it would appear that most of the 'rats' driving down my road, live in the LTNs!

The 'lobby' for a gated community has been active in Calton/Court/Melbourne and Derwent for many, many years. Professional, white, wealthy, middle classes...(apart from the wealthy part, I fit that demographic), who are very able to vocalise and organise.

The point of having councillors is that they should consider impacts of any decision on those less able to organise, voice opinion and have little or no agency.

Instead this really is the vanity project of one councillor, without any consideration on the surrounding areas, so that they are popular with these pressure and lobby groups.

It is quite shameless and entitled.

[teddyboy23]

Gallows locksmiths is moving onto grove vale in a few weeks time.taking part of the old library.due to the ltn and lack of footfall

[teddyboy23]

Also the planters are going .not sure on the date.instead the cameras will monitor the traffic as in dulwich village .same times will apply is.no through road between 8am 10am and 3pm 6pm

[Abe_froeman]

It's not a vanity project of one councillor, it's a core Labour policy and any criticism of it by a Labour councillor is likely to lead to re-selection at next year's elections.

[LTN BooHoo]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Thank you Legal, you clearly explained. If

> Southwark had followed their own guidelines, then

> the LTNs in this area would be very different.

>

> Calton and Court are wide arterial routes and not

> little country lanes - not very different from

> Croxted and ED Grove, except for the modal value

> of housing - ?3,112,550 in Calton and the majority

> of sales in East Dulwich Grove during the last

> year were flats, selling for an average price of

> ?530,500.

>

> This 'rat-run' idea is not only ridiculous it is

> insulting to residents on ED Grove, Croxted, LL

> and Grove Vale - apparently we are lesser mortals

> who deserve 'rats' on our roads. Seeing car

> ownership is very high in the chosen LTNs and

> significantly lower on our ratty roads, it would

> appear that most of the 'rats' driving down my

> road, live in the LTNs!

>

> The 'lobby' for a gated community has been active

> in Calton/Court/Melbourne and Derwent for many,

> many years. Professional, white, wealthy, middle

> classes...(apart from the wealthy part, I fit that

> demographic), who are very able to vocalise and

> organise.

> The point of having councillors is that they

> should consider impacts of any decision on those

> less able to organise, voice opinion and have

> little or no agency.

> Instead this really is the vanity project of one

> councillor, without any consideration on the

> surrounding areas, so that they are popular with

> these pressure and lobby groups.

> It is quite shameless and entitled.

I stopped reading just after ?wide arterial routes? and for the record the value of housing is Immaterial. Go to Leyton and see for yourself.

?An arterial road or arterial thoroughfare is a high-capacity urban road that sits below freeways/motorways on the road hierarchy in terms of traffic flow and speed?

[heartblock]

Yes there is truth in that Abe...my local Labour Ward voted to keep LTNs and the very active members live in an LTN. I think the ?square? though is definitely a bit of a two councillor show....with one very vocal person.

[trinidad]

forgive me if this has been mentioned previously, but is there any form of consultation period being hosted by the council regarding the LTNs?

[Nigello]

teddyboy23 Wrote:

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

> Also the planters are going .not sure on the

> date.instead the cameras will monitor the traffic

> as in dulwich village .same times will apply is.no

> through road between 8am 10am and 3pm 6pm

That?s interesting. Has anyone else heard of this?

[Rockets]

Not that, but I did hear that Court Lane was going to be made one-way as the council was acknowledging that there were problems being caused by the throttling of east/west routes by the closures.

Maybe the two are linked?

[LTN BooHoo]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Not that, but I did hear that Court Lane was going

> to be made one-way as the council was

> acknowledging that there were problems being

> caused by the throttling of east/west routes by

> the closures.

>

> Maybe the two are linked?

Making Court Lane one way is a great way to ensure there is an accident. One way roads encourage speeding thereby increasing the likelihood of pedestrian fatalities.

[Rockets]

Looks like there is a photo op taking place in Margy Square. There is a photographer there and a load of cyclists passed us one of whom was carrying a large More Safe Routes flag.

[ab29]

Hope you had the 'Clean air for all' poster with you :)