LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[northernmonkey]

No data for Underhill Road - apart from on page 34 of the main report where there is monitoring data for Underhill Road?

Rockets Wrote:

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

> DC - two things:

>

> Firstly, the council stated in their interim

> monitoring report that traffic was down 12% across

> Southwark. So are we actually running at a 2%

> increase compared to the borough average?

>

> Secondly, and perhaps more damning, is that the

> council's monitoring data is incomplete - no

> monitoring data has been shared or included for

> Underhill Road, which, I am sure you realise, is

> one of the key displacement routes for traffic

> trying to cut the corner from Lordship Lane to

> avoid the Grove Tavern/A205 daily traffic jam.

> Anyone can see that Underhill's traffic has

> increased hugely since the LTNs went in and it was

> vital that monitoring should have been included in

> the "area-wide" monitoring numbers the council

> produced.

>

> The council didn't add them - I wonder why not?

> The council was forced to add monitoring to

> Underhill by irate residents who had seen they

> were planning not to count there during the review

> and promised to include the data in the review. I

> wholly suspect that once Underhill is included in

> the council's data that the 10% reduction quickly

> evaporates and turns the area-wide decrease into

> an increase.

[Rockets]

Northern - my bad I missed that passing reference to the Underhill data collection on Page 34 of the main report as I was looking at the Traffic Flow analysis and Data collection timings detailed reports - neither of which even mention Underhill Road or Barry Road.

That's a bit odd is it not?

Any idea why there is no reference to Underhill or Barry Road in the main detailed reports sharing the data they collected via monitoring? It seems as if they have done a cursory - "Underhill went up 3%" but not given any further info to back-up that claim - they don't even detail when the pre-Covid data was collected.

[Metallic]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > 18 months in and there is not a sign that what

> you

> > say happens is happening. In fact, there isn't

> an

> > LTN anywhere that has not displaced traffic

> from

> > one set of roads to another - the traffic

> doesn't

> > evaporate it displaces.

> >

> > LTNs are failing. That much is abundantly

> clear.

>

>

> The Southwark Council data shows traffic down 10%

> across the area - 16,000 vehicles less per day

> across the area.

>

> Maybe One Dulwich and their various off-shoots

> have got secret ways of measuring traffic they

> think are more sophisticated and accurate than the

> council's 24/7 monitoring strips on all roads in

> the area. I do recall seeing one of their members

> standing by the roadside with a pen and a

> clipboard. Maybe he is their source of

> information.

Well you would know wouldn't you? How do you feel about ignoring the views of thousands of people? Happy with that?

[ab29]

Which 'surrounding roads'? Lordship Lane, South Circular, East Dulwich Grove? These are densely populated residential roads - real people actually live there (surprise surprise). LTN has dumped even more pollution, dirt and noise on these roads - it is its only achievement so far.

Asset Wrote:

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

> No Way should Court/Village open, it's so much

> better for the schools and pedestrians now.

>

>

> With roads it is a case of open them/build them

> and they'll fill with cars, close them and cars go

> away. simple. Once the drivers who do short

> unnecessary journeys realise it's not worth it,

> the surrounding roads will be clear for the people

> who do need to use their cars.

[alice]

Asset. More pedestrians and schools have seen increase in pollution(slow/idling traffic) than the reverse.

[andrewc]

Do the road closures increase bike use?

[heartblock]

There is no evidence that traffic or pollution has decreased due to LTNs in Dulwich and East Dulwich. There is evidence that car use dropped during lockdown across London in all areas.

There is no evidence that active travel increased due to LTNs in Dulwich and East Dulwich. There is evidence that local active travel increased during lockdown.

There is evidence that pollution and traffic levels on Croxted and ED Grove increased - in some cases by 200% after the LTNs were introduced - at a time of decreased pollution and traffic across London.

Cycling levels have now dropped to pre-lockdown figures.

If you really want less traffic and less pollution then you would not support LTNs that do not achieve this.

If you just want YOUR road to be quiet and gated to traffic at the expense of others, then you support these LTNs.

This is pretty clear to 4000+ responders to the consultation.

[andrewc]

I really want less traffic and less pollution.

[Rockets]

Don't we all. But unfortunately the only way to get it in Southwark is to move to street within the LTN area.

And the irony is the majority of people who live within the main tranche of the LTN closures around Dulwich Village don't want it either as they know that whilst they live with less traffic and less pollution someone a few streets away has to live with more.

LTNs are so flawed that the council hasn't even been able to convince the people benefitting from them the most that they are a good thing......

[andrewc]

I think that it is much more likely that people vote against road closures because it restricts their ability to drive where they want and when they want.

I don't mean that as a criticism of those who post on here. It's just that people...in the main... love their cars and want to protect that freedom and are less bothered about the rest.

It may be that Dulwich in the majority has had an outpouring of community minded thinking but it's more likely that they want to use a brilliantly useful, cozy, convenient method of transport over walking, cycling or getting the bus.

Or I might be wrong!

[legalalien]

You?re probably right as regards some folk and wrong as regards others tbh.I?m still opposed at this stage, have never had a driving licence and have done the school run locally walking and cycling for over a decade.

I?m as concerned about process - the way officers and councillors have handled this thing- as I am about the question of closures. I think we all should be.

[alice]

I think you are wrong Andrew.

If East/ West bus routes were 'allowed' to cross Dulwich Village, If surrounding roads were now as peaceful as Dovercourt/ Court/ Calton etc, If idling coaches were not blocking EDG and Townley road, if tailbacks on Lordship lane/A205 didn't stretch back to the library, If the windows on Lordship lane estate were not shut tight on the hot days, if I could cycle down court lane without worrying about a parked car door opening, ....

Your comment about loving cars[?] - Most people don't have one, especially those that live outside the beneficial zone.

[ab29]

I don't have a car - never had one - I walk and use public transport.

[march46]

andrewc Wrote:

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

> Do the road closures increase bike use?

[legalalien]

If only that were true.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Look at the photo. Very clearly there are people

> blocking anyone turning right from the main road

> into Calton Ave.

>

> They could have had their protest without blocking

> people using the supposedly ?closed? road. But

> they wanted to get lots of honks from those

> driving by, whilst they called for less car

> pollution and protested restricting access as they

> blocked those turning right. With no sense of

> irony.

Rahx3 - we can only presume you weren't trying to cycle through Margy Square at the weekend as that band playing in the road was blocking the road far more than the aged protestors a couple of weeks ago you were complaining about...

[malumbu]

P3girl Wrote:

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

> Just to clarify the MAIN FOCUS of this is project, as was said earlier, is......... ""It will also highlight the inequitable distribution of pollution on young and vulnerable residents as a result of LTN's. Plus the effects

> on local businesses and protected minorities.""

> Need I say more?

Oh, such a shame, I thought that you were looking at a wide range of measures to improve air quality. As such is appears as a Trojan horse for anti LTN. Perhaps think again.

As others have pointed out you need hard measures to get some people out of their cars for journeys that could be made by more sustainable/environmentally friendly and healthy means. Listening out on conversations about the fuel crisis has confirmed that in my mind - "oh we had to walk to work in the last few days" "to, hooray, we have fuel and we can now drive again". Not sure why the PM hasn't talked about workplace parking levies, why should workplaces subsidise those driving when those using other means don't get financial support.

[heartblock]

But there is no proof that LTNs 'get some people out of cars' by making journeys longer and increasing idling traffic, Why this is constantly repeated when it is not true amazes me.

As the UN states, the best way to reduce car traffic and pollution, and to get people to work is to have an excellent public transport system, so PT in Dulwich ED needs to be reviewed. Active travel in this area is already very high, before LTNs. Local people already choose to walk if they can. Just constantly blaming people for the choices they make really isn't going to solve the problems of pollution and global warming - and neither are LTNs.

We need green policies, less reliance on fossil fuels, better public transport that is end-to-end and does not create barriers for people with mobility and visual impairments.

LTNs distract from the real solutions and just create pockets of privilege.

[Nigello]

I completely agree that a better-than-we-have-now public transport option is needed to entice people from their cars. Cycling, walking, e-scootering (thought is is far from being an advert for them) all have their place but zippy mini-buses perhaps linking up with a light rail or guided bus system would be a good solution for this part of S London.

[Earl Aelfheah]

London?s Low Traffic Neighbourhoods: An Emerging Evidence Base: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d30896202a18c0001b49180/t/60003fabf3791928a02b707f/1610629036655/LTN+Briefing_FINAL.pdf

[heartblock]

Local drop in car ownership does not equal a drop in traffic and pollution. Cycling levels have already dropped back to pre-lockdown levels. Closed roads will have fewer accidents..who'd have thought?

This also quotes the cycling increase in Dulwich that happened over lockdown...and equates this with LTNs...cycling has been gradually increasing across London over the past 5 years, it blipped up during lockdown and had now returned to the previous trajectory.

So - how about some valid data please?

It says 'research' but reads as an LTN lobby trying to prove that something that they are pushing as THE solution for reducing car use in London works...when there is no actual raw data that supports this 'idea'.

(edited to add - graph showing traffic levels also wrong as it conflates a change in how TFL measured traffic from 1993-2010 compared to after 2010 as the change and increase in traffic, in fact it was a change in how TFL measured traffic and flows - this graph keeps getting touted around)

So how is the traffic, pollution and idling car situation on Croxted, LL and ED Grove today..how are those LTNs working?

[heartblock]

Yes - Nigello, completely agree.

[legalalien]

Councillor Rose is apparently briefing the Oversight and Scrutiny Committee on the reopening of Rye Lane to buses and the Streetspace trials/ reviews in the borough at their next meeting on 13 October. Agenda here:

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7002

I imagine there will be some limited opportunity for committee members to ask questions, let?s hope some of them ask some questions about process issues.

[legalalien]

Just started watching last night?s housing scrutiny committee meeting on YouTube. Cllr Mills is standing up for her constituents and having a go at council officers regarding the consultation on Brenchley Gardens. It?s quite refreshing to see. I gather the project has been paused.

ETA surprise, surprise, the tenants association has expressed various concerns about the use of commonplace including the fact that there seems to be a large number of leading questions. Lots of parallels? worth a watch on YouTube? be interesting to see where the meeting ends up?

Another important point made by Cllr Mills that informing and consulting with a TMO is no substitute for properly informing and consulting with residents (Sam applies to residents assns in my opinion). Officers very defensive and there are suggestions made that their summary report for the meeting is somewhat misleading.

[Mops]

Very sorry if this has already been answered, but is there anywhere online it?s easy to see what the rules currently are?! I?m not just asking this to make a point (though that too!) but genuinely, how do I find out the most recent rules for when and where I can drive?!

It seems when you google it lots of contradicting maps come up from phase one and phase two and on the councils website phase one maps are linked more frequently and obviously than phase three? which doesn?t make much sense to me.

I basically want to park on Eynella road to walk my dog in Dulwich Park as he can?t walk all the way to the park and back from our house!

Thank you