LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[first mate]

So, ignoring what could be construed as a deliberate attempt to get this thread lounged perhaps we can return to the subject of LTNs in the ED area. On another thread it was suggested that Charter has been running much of the summer so we should not expect much increase in traffic when schools return in September. I'm interested in views on this?

[heartblock]

No Charter has not been running most of the Summer at capacity, so the school run in September will cause idling traffic again on ED Grove.

[malumbu]

first mate Wrote:

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

> So, ignoring what could be construed as a

> deliberate attempt to get this thread lounged

> perhaps we can return to the subject of LTNs in

> the ED area.

My word, bearing in mind half the people here post off topic from time to time that is a bizarre thing to say. In fact most threads on this site can go off at a tangent. I post some stuff in good faith, replying to legals comments and jesting with Spartacus and ...

[Abe_froeman]

Don't worry Malumbu if you do succeed in getting this lounged we will just start it again.

LTNs have caused so much strife to residents of East Dulwich (i.e. not you) that we will continue to discuss them until they are resolved.

[first mate]

Heartblock, that is what I thought. I guess we will get a much better sense of LTN impact once schools are back in full swing.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> No Charter has not been running most of the Summer

> at capacity, so the school run in September will

> cause idling traffic again on ED Grove.

[northernmonkey]

I think you?re referring to my comment on the nursery thread and if so you have misunderstood. The comment was that charter had been running over the last academic year not over the summer

[first mate]

Thanks northern, apologies if I had misunderstood. Is it your view we will not see much of a difference in September then or have I misunderstood you on that score as well?

[northernmonkey]

You were saying that it would remain to be seen in sept, as to whether Tell Grove and MGS became a drop off for Charter. My point was that the road changes were put in last September (sept 2020) and so there has already been a whole academic year with school in session so why would it be different come Sept?

[first mate]

If the complete school has been up and running all year then I stand corrected. I was not aware all years and classes had been functioning earlier this year? Building work is still ongoing?

[heartblock]

Building work is still ongoing. There will be extra entrances on ED Grove and outdoor sports facilities just metres away from ED Grove. Not sure why anyone who is a parent would be ok with 25-36% more traffic on a road right next to a school.

[northernmonkey]

The school has had all years on site 7-11 this past year. Next year will be the first year of the sixth form. Cant imagine that?s a year that would suddenly start to be dropped off, so the point still stands that if Tell Grove and Melbourne Grove South weren?t an issue re being used for drop off last academic year, there is no reason why this coming academic year should be different

[Otto2]

Charter admissions policy is distance to the door. Students are local and walk/cycle.

[Spartacus]

Croydon's scheme was mention on Joe Lycett's got your back.

Seems to imply it's about raising funds not reducing vehicle usage (but that's my take)

[alice]

the 'extra' pupils will be the year 7s not the 6th form. Maybe 180 of them.

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> The school has had all years on site 7-11 this

> past year. Next year will be the first year of the

> sixth form. Cant imagine that?s a year that would

> suddenly start to be dropped off, so the point

> still stands that if Tell Grove and Melbourne

> Grove South weren?t an issue re being used for

> drop off last academic year, there is no reason

> why this coming academic year should be different

[oimissus]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> The school has had all years on site 7-11 this

> past year. Next year will be the first year of the

> sixth form. Cant imagine that?s a year that would

> suddenly start to be dropped off, so the point

> still stands that if Tell Grove and Melbourne

> Grove South weren?t an issue re being used for

> drop off last academic year, there is no reason

> why this coming academic year should be different

Surely not. Did Charter East not have to lockdown when all other schools did? Did bubbles not have to isolate if a child or teacher tested positive?

Charter has the catchment of a sneeze so I agree that the bulk of children will cycle or walk but it is simply not true that Charter, or indeed any school, especially secondaries, has been running at full capacity for the entirety of the past academic year.

I also agree with a pp that surely no-one, parent or otherwise, wants displaced traffic pouring past a school. Road closures and the LTN have created that for Goose Green, Charter East, JAGS and Alleyns.

[Metallic]

Three entrances to Charter ND shown on the illustration of the school as a finished project. Or maybe it is girls, boys and teachers so they'll be spread out. That reminds me, where do the teachers park?

[northernmonkey]

My point is not that all children have attended for all days. But that there have been many months of full capacity (years 7-11) over the past academic year to understand whether dropping off on tell and MG South is an issue (haven?t heard anything to suggest it was) so it?s not clear why it would suddenly become an issue next academic year

[first mate]

I think the best answer is let's wait and see. If no difference that would be good news.

[heartblock]

Children playing sports outside only metres away from a road with 25-36% more traffic on an already polluted road is the issue. Frankly I cannot understand how people do not acknowledge this, unless of course they don?t really care about pollution but only care about how quiet their road they they live on is.

Melbourne Grove - some of the retail businesses have reasons to believe that some of the residents are more than happy for the businesses to close down so that their road isn?t bothered by retail rubbish and visitors to their road. Truly wanting a gated community....I mean there is talk of extra security to protect the barricades.....

What next....?

[Metallic]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> My point is not that all children have attended

> for all days. But that there have been many months

> of full capacity (years 7-11) over the past

> academic year to understand whether dropping off

> on tell and MG South is an issue (haven?t heard

> anything to suggest it was) so it?s not clear why

> it would suddenly become an issue next academic

> year

And if the mega nursery goes ahead you will have that to add to the drop offs. All those pro LTNers in Melbourne, Derwent and Elsie have to learn to share if this is the case. Please don't suggest nursery users will not use their cars.

[northernmonkey]

There is a separate thread on the nursery, but this conversation spans from that- where are they all going to park. You can?t just tip out small kids and drive off, drop off takes a while.

[Metallic]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> There is a separate thread on the nursery, but

> this conversation spans from tht tip out small

> kids and drive off, drop off takes a while.

Exactly. But this thread is about the roads and they are already too full thanks to ED closures.

[northernmonkey]

Ok- was trying not to duplicate - but let?s play this out.

This nursery is going to be expensive per day and I?d imagine it?s main attraction as a site is proximity to ED station.

So let?s say for example you live on Crystal Palace Road and you have a 1 year old and a job in the city. You can?t drive to the nursery and park there all day until you return as there is a cpz surrounding it. You could I suppose try to park somewhere near to but outside the cpz (in which case you?re unlikely to drive on East Dulwich Grove at all) and there aren?t v many spaces on that side anywhere?

Alternatively is your theory that you would drive to nursery, drop off (and pay for cpz parking whilst you do) and then drive home, then walk back to the station?

[exdulwicher]

Exactly. But this thread is about the roads and they are already too full thanks to ED closures.

They were already too full before that - pollution on EDG was already above legal limits and you cannot seriously say that there were never traffic jams before LTNs because there were. Routinely, day-to-day.

Problem is, if you're engineering on a highways basis alone (without considering behaviour) then you will always end up with congestion somewhere no matter how much you try to keep vehicles moving. It's why tinkering with a junction here and a set of lights there is almost always doomed to failure.

In terms of impacts though, you always see the worst of impacts once an active travel scheme goes in and before things improve. With a highways engineering scheme (like building a new bypass) you see the best of it when implemented before gradually, almost imperceptibly, things return to status quo as more people choose to drive (because it's easier, because "the roads are quieter" or because there is simply no other option been made available).

Active travel scheme goes in - short term (and yes, 18-months is short term) disruption as everyone adapts - improvement

New road goes in - short term (again, 18 months) improvements and people going "gosh, isn't it nice in the town now the bypass has been built?!" - regression to norm.

Problem is that councillors are not experts in this and most councils and Governments are extremely reactive to short term news items without ever considering longer term impacts - for many of them they won't be here to see or be held accountable for anything long term. That's when it becomes purely a political football rather than an engineering plan.

[heartblock]

Cycling has already reduced from the lockdown Summer high in London. (Lots' of data- just look for it)

The nudge theory that eventually people will swap cars for bikes locally is flawed, people in Dulwich/East Dulwich walk in the main for short journeys rather than cycle. The whole push about cycling is a diversion. So much so that the cycling lobby have to include walking into all the 'research' data to make it appear that cycling is 'the answer'. I love cycling, but for short journeys I along with many prefer to walk and if I go further in and around London PT is great if only it was cheaper, more reliable etc.

What car journeys and deliveries/ services that are undertaken as necessary are now all funnelled and concentrated on fewer roads that are in the least wealthy areas...causing idling traffic that produces 3x more pollution than moving traffic.

Good public transport is the answer and waiting longer for the miracle of evaporation is like wishing for unicorns. Instead of lobbying for LTNs it would be far better for the environment and far more inclusive to lobby and campaign for decent, cheap, reliable and efficient public transport.