LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[alice]

My gut was majority LTNnegative

[legalalien]

It was in my group but sounds as though it varied between groups.

[alice]

this stress on great agreement on principles is a way of avoiding the strong criticism of measures.

[DulwichCentral]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> Oh, so it is ok to make the already busy and

> polluted roads even more so? Shouldn't the 'clean

> air for all' start from making it better for those

> already very badly affected e.g. people living on

> South Circular?

>

> And looking at the bigger picture - how is pushing

> the traffic from one road to another better for

> the overall air pollution and climate change,

> which the pro-LTN groups like to refer to?

So having seen the video will you withdraw your previous comment that pushing traffic from 'quiet roads' was untrue?

Those roads were clearly very busy for a very long time.

I'm sure most of the people who support the measures in Dulwich also support further measures elsewhere. I hear that view being expressed all the time. But people opt for active travel locally first - using the safe routes to do so. Hopefully this means they will use their cars less which is happening because I witness the vast increase in cycling on a daily basis, and overall traffic will reduce. With more safe routes linking up across London people will cycle further.

I'm sure the LTN supporters would, if they could, wave a magic wand and instantly reduce traffic everywhere. But it's not that simple is it? How do you suggest improving main roads like the south circular before tackling residential roads?

Dulwich, as a wealthy area, has higher than average car ownership - so people more likely to drive. That's not equitable - because poorer areas suffer more from pollution but own less cars.

[LTN BooHoo]

The discussion was more balanced in my group. It was nice to hear one chap talk about climate change and the need to address it. (Opponents didn?t seem particularly worried about that ) Most of the discussion centred on displacement and the disabled. Otherwise it was personal accounts of inconvenience.

One person pointed out the traffic numbers have actually fallen on main roads in the last decade enabled by Google maps, and that residential roads had been soaking up the displacement but this didn?t count for much in the group.

Reading the ire on the chat was disappointing.

[alice]

When you are not listened to or your words changed to suit others then it is natural to become exasperated.

[Chris_1]

I think that was the best one of the meetings the council has hosted so far - although that might be a function of the bar having been so low following the first two meetings. I think my group was fairly similar to most: hard to disagree with the governing ideas (do you want clean air? Do you like nice things?) but overwhelmingly against the current implementation. School streets, or very brief timed closures to facilitate clean and safe travel for kids was pretty broadly supported.

I was encouraged - as someone who lives on a boundary road, and who has been massively negatively impacted by the measures (specifically Turney and Burbage restrictions) how many times groups seemed to comment on the impact on boundary roads.

One thing that has amazed me is the extent to which people have lost confidence in the council. That feedback was abundantly clear from my group at least - no trust that the review is anything other than an exercise in ?going through the motions? and the outcome is already predetermined. I don?t know that today remedies that - comments in the chat suggested not all of the group summaries were quite so glowing as the groups reported.

I really hope they take feedback onboard and modify some of these schemes to make life easier for people on boundary roads. Suspect hopes might go unanswered.

[ab29]

"So having seen the video will you withdraw your previous comment that pushing traffic from 'quiet roads' was untrue?

Those roads were clearly very busy for a very long time." - I will not.

Court Lane comparing to Lordship Lane was (and is) an extremely quiet road.

And what is it that you are trying to prove anyway? That it is ok to treat people living on the busy roads like LL with even more fumes? Why, are they some sort of second class citizens that can be done away with?

Chris said "One thing that has amazed me is the extent to which people have lost confidence in the council" - oh yes. There has to be a change after the next local elections.

[Rockets]

Chris_1 Wrote:

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

> I think that was the best one of the meetings the

> council has hosted so far - although that might be

> a function of the bar having been so low following

> the first two meetings. I think my group was

> fairly similar to most: hard to disagree with the

> governing ideas (do you want clean air? Do you

> like nice things?) but overwhelmingly against the

> current implementation. School streets, or very

> brief timed closures to facilitate clean and safe

> travel for kids was pretty broadly supported.

>

> I was encouraged - as someone who lives on a

> boundary road, and who has been massively

> negatively impacted by the measures (specifically

> Turney and Burbage restrictions) how many times

> groups seemed to comment on the impact on boundary

> roads.

>

> One thing that has amazed me is the extent to

> which people have lost confidence in the council.

> That feedback was abundantly clear from my group

> at least - no trust that the review is anything

> other than an exercise in ?going through the

> motions? and the outcome is already predetermined.

> I don?t know that today remedies that - comments

> in the chat suggested not all of the group

> summaries were quite so glowing as the groups

> reported.

>

> I really hope they take feedback onboard and

> modify some of these schemes to make life easier

> for people on boundary roads. Suspect hopes might

> go unanswered.

Perhaps if the council agreed to subscribe to the Clean Air For All mantra then we could see some progress. All anyone wants to see are measures that lower pollution for everyone - that surely can't be too much to ask for but nowadays Labour finds it very difficult to admit they got anything wrong (nothing is ever their fault). They are reluctant to make changes that show that their path is anything other than the right one.

[DulwichCentral]

@ab29 Court Lane was also in the video and it wasn't quiet at all.

[ab29]

As I said: Court Lane comparing to Lordship Lane was (and is) an extremely quiet road.

And what is it that you are trying to prove anyway? That it is ok to treat people living on the busy roads like LL with even more fumes? Why, are they some sort of second class citizens that can be done away with?

[Rockets]

Ab29 - it's part of the ever changing narrative from the council as they try to find ways to protect their LTNs. Firstly Cllrs, like Cllr McAsh, were saying if traffic doesn't reduce everywhere then the scheme will have been a failure and then they changed it to suggest that A-roads were made for more traffic and therefore, by default, increases there would need to be considered (one can only presume as an acceptable consequence of closing other roads).

It suggests they are aware there is a problem with displacement and I also think this is why Cllrs have been suggesting there may need to be tweaks made. But it may be too late if enough people have been forced to vote for the "Return the measures back to how they were before".

[Chris_1]

I do hope they?ve recognised the need for tweaks. Croxted road was never an idyllic country lane pre pandemic but the traffic moved and it never really backed up too much outside of the worst of morning rush hour and even then it wasn?t back eg as far as the Pymers Mead estate. I?m pleased that it (finally) seems to be getting paid some attention and I do hope the other boundary roads that are suffering the same fate or worse get the help they need too.

As for your comment Rockets about ?votes?, I?m still really dubious whether any of these stages of the consultation actually means anything. The council must have been inundated with negative emails (most of the people I speak with on this street have written). Streetspace comments are like, 75% negative or something like that... and yet we?re still forging ahead, full steam, with no tweaks. I do worry a lot that it?s a foregone conclusion.

[heartblock]

How is this for a baseline from the Taskforce for Lung Health

Southwark - 12.69μg/m3 background PM2.5, worse road is 15.12μg/m3

In 2018 an estimated 6.74% of deaths were attributable to PM2.5 air pollution which was equivalent to 91 deaths, with each 5μg/m3 increase in concentrations of PM2.5 there is a 7% increase in mortality. Southwark has a population of 314,232 meaning 67,403 children and 246,829 adults are being exposed to toxic air.

I imagine on our roads with traffic funnelled from the 5 LTNs, the exposure will increase. Exposure to PM2.5 can cause illnesses like asthma, COPD, coronary heart disease, stroke, and lung cancer. There is also evidence that links PM2.5 to low birth weight, diabetes and diseases such as Alzheimer?s and Parkinson?s.

Do we have figures for NO2...no because Southwark has not monitored pollution, which is appalling considering that people living, working or going to school in these local areas are likely to be exposed to dangerous levels of NO2, across the year. Research from 2017 showed that over 2,000 nurseries, schools, further education centres and after school clubs in England and Wales were within 150 metres of a road with levels of nitrogen dioxide that broke the law.

East Dulwich Grove has schools, nurseries and a health centre and yet Southwark has chosen it to be a high traffic neighbourhood.

[first mate]

That is the central dilemma, those who support this version of LTNs are also in favour of HTNs (high traffic neighbourhoods) whatever way they try to twist it round, that is the reality

[alice]

Tweaks won?t work. The central conceit of the Dulwich LTN was flawed from the start. Dulwich Village/Court Lane junction cannot be the centre of the new plan

[Bicknell]

when are we getting data on traffic counts, polution etc.

cant see how people are expected to anwser duwlich ltn survey without it

[DulwichCentral]

@Alice Dulwich Village / Court Lane is central to 20 schools in the area with people travelling through from all directions to all schools. You seem to want it opened up to cars and lorries making it dangerous and polluted again? a

All those people walking or cycling through now - what would they do? Go back to driving?

[AylwardS]

@Tutorse22

The experimental measures are currently up for consultation. The map on this page is the most recent I know of https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review but hopefully with this and the one on the page posted above you can see what will affect your journey.

In Dulwich Village there are timed restrictions if travelling from the South Circular, through the village to turn right onto East Dulwich Grove between 8-10am and 3-6pm. Going the other way through the village is fine.

[AylwardS]

We had a leaflet through the door from those in favour of the road closures. Agree or not they have a suggestion I wish I?d put in my response to the consultation. Suggest a crossing at the East Dulwich Grove / Lordship Lane junction. One has been needed for some time, more so now.

If you?ve not responded the consultation is open until 11 July https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dulwich-review/

[Siduhe]

I've held off posting on this thread for a bit but I did want to update on my personal experience living on near boundary roads to the Court Lane LTN.

One bit of good news is that we have monitoring strips in place now on Underhill, Wood Vale and Melford Road thanks to our local councillors. The feedback from the strips won't be gathered until after the consultation closes but will form part of the considerations I understand.

The other thing is that I have noticed a distinct downturn in traffic/vehicle numbers on those roads at peak times since the end of the half term. The cynic in me suspects that is more to do with the Thames Water works on Wood Vale/Forest Hill Road than modal shift, but it definitely feels less busy traffic-wise than it did after the Court Lane LTN went in, so I'm open to the idea that things may be settling down for us a bit. I do appreciate not everyone is having the same experience - the traffic on Lordship Lane and EDG seems particularly bad when I head down that way, but things certainly seem less bad (in this corner of ED) than they did, which is hopeful.

[alice]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> @Alice Dulwich Village / Court Lane is central to

> 20 schools in the area with people travelling

> through from all directions to all schools. You

> seem to want it opened up to cars and lorries

> making it dangerous and polluted again? a

> All those people walking or cycling through now -

> what would they do? Go back to driving?

DC The East Dulwich Grove junction with Lordship lane is central to 20+ schools, nurseries, Hospital as well many bus routes. It also has higher density housing and a much lower % percentage of homes with gardens. Why not start from there.

[DulwichCentral]

@Alice

Totally agree that junction needs to be made safer too. A pedestrian crossing as @AylwardS suggested above.

And a cycle lane / crossing there would help kids cycling to school from the other side of Lordship Lane - continued up East Dulwich Grove. 24/7 bus lanes on Lordship Lane would prevent congestion caused by parked cars. Maybe if you like some of these suggestions you can add them to your response to the council.

[alice]

D.C. traffic has intensified at edg ll junction tweaking won?t work. A new plan with this junction at the heart of changes opening the village.

[exdulwicher]

D.C. traffic has intensified at edg ll junction tweaking won?t work. A new plan with this junction at the heart of changes opening the village.

There's not really a whole lot that can realistically be done with EDG/LL junction. In effect, it's actually a broadly staggered junction: the meeting of the A2216 (LL) and the A2214 (EDG).

The 2214 just does a big kink north before reverting to it's easterly heading as you go off towards Peckham.

You can't really widen it or smooth out the turns because of the shops on LL and the houses on EDG. The parking on both roads massively contributes to the issues there - in fact STREETVIEW shows this perfectly with the lorry turning in and then basically getting stuck there unable to proceed westbound along EDG due to parking on its side and oncoming traffic on the other side.

You've then got other minor junctions cluttering the place up. The more nodes (junctions) you have closely together, the worse the traffic which is why DV is so bad because that is basically 5 junctions in one and the slightest hiccup anywhere (like one car trying to turn across traffic) brings the whole thing to a halt instantly. At EDG/LL, you've got the pedestrian crossing lights right next to it as well plus the zebra crossing on the roundabouts - so as soon as anyone crosses there, traffic is immediately stopped ON the roundabout which instantly blocks most of it.

The easiest fix for that junction is to remove all the on-street parking. You could make the GG roundabout smaller but that would increase traffic speeds through it which is also undesirable, especially given the pedestrian crossings on each exit.

A lot of the issues there happen before the junction anyway - one option would be to shift the filters on Melbourne, Derwent, Elsie and Tintagel to the EDG end instead of LL which would force anyone driving to those roads to come in from LL which between ED station and GG roundabout is better suited to handling turning traffic than EDG is.