LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[heartblock]

What is consistently ignored in quoting the Southwark Council report, is the bias in questions so that nobody could choose that they wanted less traffic but over the consultation period were exposed to more traffic and more pollution so wanted LTNs removed. What is consistently ignored is Labour Councillors encouraging non-Southwark residents and cycling lobby groups to respond to the consultation.

What is consistently ignored is that despite a very poorly worded consultation, incorrectly calculated published data, biased leaflets with incorrect information that LTNs have been proven to reduce traffic, over 4000 people responded to the consultation for LTNs negatively compared to only 800 positives.

[slarti b2]

@DulvilleRes

Pure whataboutery. Repsondents had the opportunity to say they would like to "retain the measure but modify\enhance it with other features" which would cover what the council is proposing to do. But only 10% wanted that option.

Based on the previous behavious of Soutwark council, selecting any option other than removing the current closure of the junction would have been claimed as support for the measures. What OneDulwich couldn't anticipate was that, following the many promises of the senior council menbers to listen to local voices, Southwark would ignore and bury the results when they turned out "wrong " from the council's viewpoint.

A scandal for local democracy, abetted by our dreadful local councillors who don't care for their constituents.

[legalalien]

For anyone interested, here is the decision / description of traffic calming measures going in on Brenchley Gardens.

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7445

The cost has increased from an original estimate of ?150k to around ?730k! Road works ain?t cheap.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Rahx3 - stop this nonsense about good transport

> links - you know that is not true.

I pointed out that we don?t have one of the worst PTALs in London. Another assertion by the scientifically rigorous contributor who denies the existence of peer reviewed research by other academics. The PTAL for most of Dulwich is rated ?moderate? (by London standards, which are generally high). I would love to see improvements. But how good does local transport have to be before you attempt to reduce car use? Around 40% of car journeys in London are under 2 miles as we know. It?s an absolute cop out to say, we shouldn?t tackle casual car use until we have , what? A PTAL of 4, 5?

Heartblock is talking of banning cars entirely when PTAL improves.. improves to what?! Would you support that? It?s absolute nonsense.

[heartblock]

Nope never said that...said I have no problem banning cars - never said in which context.

Peer reviewed mmmhhh what national or international peer reviewed publication have they appeared in?

Anyway - car ownership does not equal levels of traffic in an area. So why the research uses this as proof that the traffic is reduced one can only guess.

So LTNs don't work - they do not tackle 'casual car use' (what is that anyway?) there is no evidence they do. Car ownership is not a measure of traffic levels.

[first mate]

Slarti b2

I agree with you and the notion that we can trust the council in any way on consultation is laughable.

slarti b2 Wrote:

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

> @DulvilleRes

> Pure whataboutery. Repsondents had the

> opportunity to say they would like to "retain the

> measure but modify\enhance it with other features"

> which would cover what the council is proposing to

> do. But only 10% wanted that option.

>

> Based on the previous behavious of Soutwark

> council, selecting any option other than removing

> the current closure of the junction would have

> been claimed as support for the measures. What

> OneDulwich couldn't anticipate was that,

> following the many promises of the senior council

> menbers to listen to local voices, Southwark would

> ignore and bury the results when they turned out

> "wrong " from the council's viewpoint.

>

> A scandal for local democracy, abetted by our

> dreadful local councillors who don't care for

> their constituents.

[Metallic]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Raeburn I think there is some doubt as to whether

> the statement in the Southwark FAQs is actually

> accurate, I seem to recall that the fortnightly

> meetings referred to weren?t happening (can

> someone confirm)? I?d be very cautious about

> relying on statements on the Southwark website as

> a source of fact. They failed to comply with their

> statutory duties to advise TfL in advance as well,

> if the FoI responses from TfL are correct. I?d be

> keen on Southwark not posting statements that are

> untrue, as people are likely to believe them. Am

> less worried about Rockets ;)

The published FOI says that there were 4 meetings between LAS and Southwark, in 5 months. Southwark said on zoom and in print that they held FORTNIGHTLY meetings with LAS. This is what I find so depressing. A lie. Ambulances using the closed off area are constantly having to do u turns near Gilkes Place because they can't get through Calton Avenue. Neighbours have videos to prove that.

[johnhinton]

Heartblock,

Agreed with respect to car ownership and traffic levels.

The accusations of hypocrisy levelled at people with a car on the drive misses the point that if cars are parked, they're not contributing to traffic. Furthermore, traffic flows represent the movement (however slow) of vehicles through the area, from somewhere else to somewhere else. Blocking that flow increases local pollution levels, hostility, frustration, and accident potential. Purely local vehicular traffic is hardly a thing, unless there is no fuel to be found.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Rahx3 - stop this nonsense about good transport

> > links - you know that is not true.

>

> I pointed out that we don?t have one of the worst

> PTALs in London. Another assertion by the

> scientifically rigorous contributor who denies the

> existence of peer reviewed research by other

> academics. The PTAL for most of Dulwich is rated

> ?moderate? (by London standards, which are

> generally high). I would love to see improvements.

> But how good does local transport have to be

> before you attempt to reduce car use? Around 40%

> of car journeys in London are under 2 miles as we

> know. It?s an absolute cop out to say, we

> shouldn?t tackle casual car use until we have ,

> what? A PTAL of 4, 5?

> Heartblock is talking of banning cars entirely

> when PTAL improves.. improves to what?! Would you

> support that? It?s absolute nonsense.

Rahx3 - read it again:

"Areas around the main stations only reach a PTAL 3 and The Village a PTAL 2 whilst the main commercial area around East Dulwich has a PTAL 3. Other parts of Dulwich, particularly those where schools are located have a level 2 of accessibility translating into a higher use of car and coach for pupils outside of Dulwich."

The PTAL for Dulwich Village is 2 - that is poor (per the PTAL definition, 2 is poor, 3 is moderate) - Dulwich Village is where the council have made the focal point for the LTNs and put the most disruptive LTN in - that makes no sense. The council asserted many moons ago that LTNs should only be put in place in areas with high PTAL scores. Even the areas closest to the station "only" reach a 3 which is moderate.

And then the council's report goes on to say:

"This is confirmed also by more general DfT accessibility statistics which show that, in general the area has a lower public transport accessibility level than the remainder of Southwark whilst by car it tends to be on par with the other parts of the borough or somewhat higher for hospitals, particularly due to the proximity of Dulwich Community Hospital."

Even that suggests that whilst we don't have the good PTAL scores of other parts of Southwark our car use is on a par with those other areas in the borough. So why is Southwark so focussed on Dulwich?

You can see the extent of the issue by looking here: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/planning-with-webcat/webcat - look at that huge swathe of poor/moderate PTAL scores around Dulwich and compare it to Camberwell or further north in the borough.

You need to start looking at the cause of the problem not the outcome. The pro-LTN lobby focusses solely on the outcome (too much traffic) and says let's stop the traffic that will solve the problem. It doesn't because there is, no acknowledgement of, or action to tackle what the cause of the problem is.

It is well documented that areas with poor PTALs have higher car use because there are limited public transport options. - so what happens when you block some roads with LTNs - the traffic goes elsewhere because people cannot use public transport because it is poor?

And you don't need a piece of peer-reviewed research to understand that.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It's easy to say 'we should concentrate on improving public transport before we do anything else', because no one is against better public transport, you can avoid any difficult decisions, and it kicks the can down the road indefinitely.

Heartblock says he's not against banning cars when public transport is improved. By how much exactly? Do you really think that the idea of getting to say PTAL 4, and then banning cars is a serious suggestion?

[Earl Aelfheah]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> So wanting to ban cars is too much and over the

> top but wanting to close roads which causes other

> streets to be more congested and polluted is fine-

> yeah.

>

> Typical: I will not give up anything for the cause

> but happy to sacrifice others' health and well

> being.

Yes, I think banning cars is over the top. I would like to see us take reasonable measures to reduce car use, and encourage more active travel - but there will always be times that people need to either drive or be driven.

You're in favour of banning cars?

[Rockets]

Rahx3 - not diversionary at all - it is you who are trying to convince (yourself maybe) that Dulwich has good transport links. It hasn't - at best they are moderate but large parts of Dulwich has poor accessibility to public transport.

We are not saying you shouldn't try to reduce car use just the means that the council has chosen is utterly inappropriate for an area with poor/moderate PTAL scores.

It is one of the worst served areas in London (certainly within the north and south circular) on the basis of PTAL scores - just look at the TFL PTAL score link I posted - it's all there for you to see in glorious technicolour - darker areas are good, lighter areas are bad.

It is about now someone will probably come on and say: "but PTAL scores are not reflective and shouldn't be used, blah, blah blah" but here is how TFL defines them....

"PTALS are a detailed and accurate measure of the accessibility of a point to the public transport network, taking into account walk access time and service availability. The method is essentially a way of measuring the density of the public transport network at any location within Greater London."

Maybe you should ask some of your peer-reviewed research lobbyists to do analysis on the PTAL tipping point - the point at which LTNs do more damage than good. I suspect, though, that someone has done that before as Southwark was originally recommending that LTNs only go in in areas with high PTAL scores.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I agree that public transport in the area is not great by London standards. Absolutely agree with that.

That does not mean that a large number of local car journeys could not be avoided. One look at a line of single occupancy vehicles, all travelling in the same direction at the same time, many making journey's of less than 2 miles, tells you that.

The 'fix public transport before you do anything else' argument, is a manifesto for in action. I will very happily support campaigns for improvements to public transport, but one can do that whilst also campaigning for safe walking and cycling routes and schemes to discourage casual car use.

[Rockets]

Finally we have agreement....!

But apparently local car journeys are not as big an issue in Dulwich as other parts of Southwark as, in the same report as the PTAL scores, it said 68% of local journeys were already active travel. Again, it begs the question why LTNs were chosen for Dulwich - it makes no sense at all.

Talking about questions, this dropped through our door today from Dulwich Alliance - what they are doing is so important as the council buried some many of the key facts from their propaganda document, sorry Review report, that leaflet drops are the only mechanism DA have to shine light on the council's manipulation of the report.

Many people I have spoken to are so angry with the council for the way that they have hoodwinked the residents of Dulwich and I suspect many who receive this leaflet will feel the same way.

DA are right - we have been conned.

[DuncanW]

But don't other areas of Southwark already have LTNs in one form or other?

[legalalien]

This was in my mail today (along with the DA thing). I?ll say it again - it?s the deliveries we need to focus on. There was someone on Sky this morning reflecting on how many HGV drivers have switched to more local Amazon, supermarket, gourmet food box type jobs.

[Rockets]

Legal - I agree. A lot of the "increase" in residential traffic that is touted by the pro-LTN lobby is being driven, no pun intended, by the move to online delivery services - and they will still deliver whether a street has an LTN or not.

[Earl Aelfheah]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> This was in my mail today (along with the DA

> thing). I?ll say it again - it?s the deliveries we

> need to focus on. There was someone on Sky this

> morning reflecting on how many HGV drivers have

> switched to more local Amazon, supermarket,

> gourmet food box type jobs.

The increase in traffic on minor roads is largely down to Google maps and Waze etc. Of course, there is silence on the significant displacement this caused away from main roads onto back streets over several years.

Re. delivery vans. - one vehicle delivering groceries to 10 houses, rather than 10 individual cars driving back and forth to the shops, is likely to cause a lot less congestion.

I'm not sure why we can't accept the idea that traffic is caused by too many (often single occupancy) cars driving around.

'Rat-running' increases on residential UK streets as experts blame satnav apps https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/25/rat-running-residential-uk-streets-satnav-apps

[Earl Aelfheah]

DuncanW Wrote:

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

> But don't other areas of Southwark already have

> LTNS in one for or other?

Yes, they are many across Southwark and London

[Rockets]

Rahx3 - did you read the article beyond the headline? It's often a good idea to, especially with Guardian articles....

?The massive increase in traffic on C roads is probably due to a combination of home shopping and van-based home services,? said King. The greater use of satnavs to avoid traffic congestion was also a likely factor, he said.

Personally, I think home deliveries are probably the biggest contributor - granted Waze etc do not help but they still tend to take people down what used to be known as rat-runs - they don't just direct people around side streets for the sake of it.

If I remember rightly, the biggest increases in vehicle type on London roads have been seen in delivery vehicles - vans etc.

On the subject on other LTNs does anyone know how the LTN's the Guys and St Thomas' Trust were funding are going as they were doing proper analysis on things like displacement?

[legalalien]

My point was that increasingly it isn?t just one grocery van delivering groceries to ten houses, which I think is Ok if the ten houses are getting one delivery a week and choosing the ?green van? option. It?s the proliferation of small on demand grocery orders, Uber eats, deliveroo, having one or multiple veg and grocery boxes, a separate pasta evangelists box, maybe a regular Harry?s shaving order, and now a separately packaged and delivered coffee service... the list goes on. Things like Amazon Prime and I think now a similar deliveroo service where you pay a monthly all you can eat delivery fee... it doesn?t bode well.

Rrr you seem to be suggesting that the problem requiring a solution is not an overall increase in traffic but rather one of displacement from main roads to back streets?

[legalalien]

Also I don?t really get the fixation with single occupancy in cars. Lots of people using their car or van for work during the day would be single occupancy surely?

[first mate]

I wonder if there is any research looking at potential correlation between those that use cars less and increasing reliance on delivery and online shopping?

legalalien Wrote:

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

> This was in my mail today (along with the DA

> thing). I?ll say it again - it?s the deliveries we

> need to focus on. There was someone on Sky this

> morning reflecting on how many HGV drivers have

> switched to more local Amazon, supermarket,

> gourmet food box type jobs.

[Otto2]

I'd love to see the council require home delivery services to do so by bicycle tbh. And a national listing of companies that deliver their goods by bicycle. Pedal Me App guys can carry a massive amount on their bikes - kegs, a fridge, a house move...this is do-able.

There is an increase in cars and will continue to be an increase in cars to the point no one can get anywhere. That is why convincing some people to make the shift is important in addition to pollution, climate change, health, etc.

People are avoiding public transport still if they can and jumping in cars. Or, on bikes or feet.

[first mate]

I think you know the point I am getting at though Otto. Is it the case that those using cars less, cycling more and virtue signalling, are more reliant on online deliveries and online shopping. I don't know that answer but perhaps there is some research?

Seriously, how many people could really truly do a house move by bike? If you are young with few possessions and moving within the same area then yes, otherwise...hmmm.