LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[first mate]

Mops, for the benefit of others on here who would suggest you cycle or walk your dog to the park or take public transport, can you explain why those options will not work? Please be clear, I am not criticising you, I just think that detail of individual circumstances is useful and revealing.

[Rockets]

Mops - I am afraid there isn't any clear direction from the council stating what the rules are - at least I am not aware of a single site that makes it clear what can and cannot happen. They are relying on the signage they have put up all around the area to "alert" drivers (but this has been criticised as unclear by many residents and also a fine tribunal who overturned some fines on the basis of confusing/unclear signage).

SO it will depend where you are coming from and at what time, but there are no restrictions on Eynella for either driving or parking (although the council did state they wanted to try and put some in).

[heartblock]

Legal - badly-run consultation seems to describe how Southwark have approached LTNs and building on estates.

Even local Labour Councillors are beginning to have concerns about how well the officers of the Council listen and take the views of Southwark residents. Apparently being 'told-off' for meeting with their own Ward residents.

[alice]

So C.Rose has agreed the LTNs. What happens now?

[ab29]

Deleted

[Shaggy]

The current plan has no ambition.

This is what we need: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/06/berlins-car-ban-campaign-its-about-how-we-want-to-live-breathe-and-play?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[Mops]

@first mate - I have already explained my dog cannot walk that far. I also have a disability. This is also irrelevant however as I asked a specific question about the rules, not whether the self appointed judges of the East Dulwich Forum deem my journey or mode of transport appropriate. Pretty impertinent and not very inclusive a response IMO?

[first mate]

Sorry Mops, not my intention.

[heartblock]

I think this is important - who decides or judges what journey in a car is necessary? Some individuals that still argue that LTNs reduce traffic, even though there is no evidence they do, still keep on going on about 'unnecessary' car journeys. It reminds me of the other debacle over Work Capability Assessments, it has an air of making some false moral judgement on people's driving habits.

Provide education, provide public transport, but moralising is just insulting and ableist.

[malumbu]

Many/most drivers are addicted. Mass car ownership was a game changer from the 1960s when cars became more affordable. They provide you convenience and comfort.

But the world is changing, we are screwing up the planet, there is only a finite space for roads (unless we pave over paradise), we are looking to share that space better with pedestrians and non-motorised transport. So things cannot continue the way they were.

But many/most will find it difficult to give up this privilege. Studies have shown that incentives and gentle nudges fail to deliver (I've posted references before). So you need some big sticks. There may be better ones than LTNs but tis up to the man in charge (the one that says a lot but not great on providing substance).

I liked all the draconian suggestions, and would impose them if I was King for the day, but I am not, and I am aware of the reality. I was involved in workshops a few years ago on improving air quality, and we'd always start up with discouraging people throwing in "if only we did this, that or the other.

[DulwichCentral]

I used to make unnecessary car journeys.

- I drove to Lordship Lane (a 10 minute walk or 5 minute bike ride) and got stressed and frustrated I couldn't park.

- I used to drive to a nursery in West Dulwich (a 30 minute walk or 15 minute bike ride) I could have cycled with a child seat if I had felt safe and confident enough but I didn't then.

- I always drove to Sainsburys (a 10 minute walk or 5 min bike ride). I'm amazed how much I can fit in panniers on my bike and with a rucksack I can do a really big shop if I need to.

- We used to drive to the Rosendale pub in West Dulwich (a 30 minute walk or 10/15 minute bike ride) - leave the car there overnight then walk to pick it up in the morning.

- We even drove to Bel Air House (a 10 minute walk or 5 min bike ride) and then picked the car up in the morning!

- And we used to drive into central London sometimes for 'convenience' except it wasn't. Got stuck in traffic on the way there. Paid a fortune for parking. Got stuck in traffic on the way back. Ended up anything but convenient.

All totally unnecessary car journeys.

Before I get judged for judging people I'm not judging anyone. Just sharing my experience. And I'm not saying everyone can do this because of course for some it's not possible. But I am sure there are many more who could give up short car journeys like this - even more than those who have done so already - if they feel safe enough to cycle instead, or get into the habit of allowing time to walk as many of my friends have said they've done since the measures have been put in place.

[Rockets]

DC - I suspect everyone on this forum can relate to that - we have all made those changes - it's why 68% of local journeys in Dulwich were already active travel in 2018 and I suspect the % was even higher before the pandemic and higher again post pandemic.

We are all doing our bit yet the council decides to deploy measures that create big increases in traffic and pollution for those who are already doing what they can to embrace active travel.

The LTN stick being wielded by the council is hitting those who have already embraced active travel the hardest and that is not right. And for what end? The results from the council's flawed and distorted review are hardly a ringing endorsement for the effectiveness of LTNs (and the council has obviously worked hard to try to create some sort of upside to the LTNs).

LTNs remain a very blunt and ineffective instrument in the fight against climate change and none of them have come close to delivering what the council(s) promised they would deliver. They know they aren't working, we know they aren't working, even the LCC know they aren't working. Which makes you wonder why they can't admit defeat.

[Mops]

I agree more needs to - and can - change and I think a bit of idealism isn?t entirely misplaced when it comes to environmental and social sustainability, but I also can?t help read this thread and find it all a bit privileged. Solutions need to include people with disabilities, people on lower incomes, people with caring responsibilities, women at higher risk of being victims of violence (and who are frankly traumatised by recent events in London) - and more. Whilst I?m sure there?s capacity abundant for the most privileged in society to make better choices within the existing infrastructure, I fear taking a judgmental, omniscient and frankly holier than thou approach only seeks to alienate the broader community, all of whom should be included in plans for sustainability.

I only came here looking for a map and some rules of the road so will back off now but felt strongly about the lack of inclusion and blinkered perspectives going on in here.

[Otto2]

Thanks for posting. Go Berlin. Will be interesting to see how it goes.

"But is banning cars necessary, and what is wrong with electric vehicles? ?We would need about half of cars to go electric next year in order to meet the federal government?s own targets for transportation emissions,? said Nik Kaestner, from the campaign. ?That clearly isn?t going to happen ? currently only 1.3% of vehicles in Germany are electric. So the only solution is to reduce the amount of driving that?s happening, not just to change how we drive.?

Shaggy Wrote:

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

> The current plan has no ambition.

>

> This is what we need:

> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/06/berl

> ins-car-ban-campaign-its-about-how-we-want-to-live

> -breathe-and-play?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[legalalien]

Interesting because I don?t relate to what DC says at all, as I?ve never had a driving licence. My partner does but has never made any unnecessary short trips in London - what?s the point when you can walk or take public transport? I say that not to be smug, but because I think there is a real difference in attitude between those who have done those trips - the kind of evangelical attitude that comes with being a reformed smoker, for example; and those who haven?t and don?t see the point of attempted nudges to behaviour that have perceptible negative effects. We all come at these things from our own personal perspectives. Am I being harsh?

[ab29]

There is a protest against Dulwich LTNs: Saturday 16 October from 12pm, Dulwich Village/Court Lane/Calton Avenue junction.

[heartblock]

I think Mops has said it all really and Rockets succinctly echos the reality. The moralising attitude is misplaced, misjudged and unhelpful when trying to find solutions that work.

This is why LTNs are such a poor idea, as Mops say's so eloquently 'there?s capacity abundant for the most privileged in society to make better choices within the existing infrastructure' and especially so when the outcome is the square of shame in one of the wealthiest parts of the UK - all at the expense of lower income families on other roads. These measures do alienate and divide the community, we need solutions that are equitable.

[malumbu]

Who is moralising? I'm just stating fact. The vast majority of motorists are not those groups listed above. Maybe most of us posting don't represent the 'typical' motorist. As most are outside of the metropolis that is not surprising. But to keep on referring to groups with particular needs appears disingenuous.

[Bicknell]

meet up with freinds and neighbours, and demonstrate against dulwcih ltns on Saturday 16 October

see https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/protest-on-saturday-16-october-at-12-noon

[Shaggy]

If it happens it will be very interesting to see how it goes. In truth, getting rid of cars in our cities would have to be a ten year project backed up with infrastructure changes. But somehow, some way, urban motorists need to be eradicated and better alternatives put in place.

And a blanket ban on cars aided by an improvement in infrastructure would improve air quality for all, rich and poor.

It?ll probably never happen. But yes, go Berlin.

Otto2 Wrote:

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

> Thanks for posting. Go Berlin. Will be interesting

> to see how it goes.

>

> "But is banning cars necessary, and what is wrong

> with electric vehicles? ?We would need about half

> of cars to go electric next year in order to meet

> the federal government?s own targets for

> transportation emissions,? said Nik Kaestner, from

> the campaign. ?That clearly isn?t going to happen

> ? currently only 1.3% of vehicles in Germany are

> electric. So the only solution is to reduce the

> amount of driving that?s happening, not just to

> change how we drive.?

>

> Shaggy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > The current plan has no ambition.

> >

> > This is what we need:

> >

> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/06/berl

>

> >

> ins-car-ban-campaign-its-about-how-we-want-to-live

>

> > -breathe-and-play?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[Earl Aelfheah]

Traffic is down 10% (on average -16,201 per day) in the Dulwich area overall.

Cycling is up 66% (on average an additional +4062 journeys per day) in the Dulwich area overall.

There has been a shift, in particular, of children walking, scooting and biking to school.

No one has been stopped from driving a car to any destination. But there are now a handful of routes around the area that aren?t quite so dominated by heavy vehicles, which is good for the many people who don?t own a car and need to walk or cycle.

Having the options that a (pretty minor) reallocation of space provides, benefits all sorts of people, whether they are older, younger, male or female. Not everyone owns a car.

No one is judging people who drive. Many people have to, or simply want to drive. But that doesn?t mean that cars should always have priority, or that we should allocate as much space as possible to motor vehicles to the detriment of anyone else.

[legalalien]

I think we can all agree that those numbers are contested.

[first mate]

I second that.

[Earl Aelfheah]

They?re based on traffic counts. I agree that not everyone likes what the counts show.

[Earl Aelfheah]

But let's ignore the growing body of evidence on LTNs. My other points remain:

No one has been stopped from driving a car to any destination. But there are now a handful of routes around the area that aren?t quite so dominated by heavy vehicles, which is good for the many people who don?t own a car and need to walk or cycle.

Having the options that a (pretty minor) reallocation of space provides, benefits all sorts of people, whether they are older, younger, male or female. Not everyone owns a car.

No one is judging people who drive. Many people have to, or simply want to drive. But that doesn?t mean that cars should always have priority, or that we should allocate as much space as possible to motor vehicles to the detriment of anyone else