LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Otto2]

You could go NYC style and put alternate side of the street parking in place. What that means is you have to park on the opposite side of the street each day and move your car daily - by 8am. There are never enough spots for everyone and people grow tired of waking up early to secure a spot on the other side and - then - the idea of having a car is less attractive as it is burdensome. It also insures people weigh up the idea of storing a car on the street vs how much they use it and that also discourages car ownership.

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> sally buying Wrote:

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

> -----

> > DulwichCentral Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > legalalien Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > In hindsight, perhaps we

> > > > should have done before and after counts in

> > the

> > > > bike sheds at the various schools?

> > >

> > > Cycle sheds at Charter North Dulwich have

> been

> > > recently rebuilt about 4 times bigger - and

> are

> > > now overflowing.

> > >

> > >

> >

> https://twitter.com/CleanAirDulwich/status/1435230

>

> >

> > > 921565908992

> >

> > How many bikes did the sheds hold in the first

> > place when they were built?

> >

> > Without knowing this the above has no meaning.

>

>

> As I said in my original post - the bike sheds

> were made about four times bigger than they

> originally were.

> You could count the bikes in the picture which are

> under the storage area and divide by four to get

> the original

> capacity. Bearing in mind it's now four times

> bigger - and overflowing.

>

> I thought that meaning was pretty clear in my

> original post?

And this is brilliant - it is great to see more kids cycling to and from school but the council can only claim this as a victory for LTNs if those children were being driven previously. Given the catchment area of Charter North is very small I suspect the majority of that transition to cycling is from walking - which is not what the LTNs were designed for (well, maybe the cycle lobby would disagree but let's not go there!).

[Rockets]

DuncanW Wrote:

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

> There was an accelerator on fuel tax introduced

> for that purpose by the Major government, and

> subsequently increased by Blair.

> As you will remember, there were large-scale

> protests and it was scrapped.

>

> I wouldn't say it was the 'most fair' solution. As

> with any of these measures, the discomfort is

> never evenly spread. It would be effective though.

Agree. Means-tested road pricing is the only fair way forward. It also hits the delivery and logistics companies hard forcing them to change bad practices. Look what happened when we had an inadvertent road pricing example initiated by fuel shortages - car usage dropped because people questioned whether they really needed to make that journey in their car/by car.

[ED - NAGAIUTB]

Rockets Wrote:

> Look what happened when we had an

> inadvertent road pricing example initiated by fuel

> shortages - car usage dropped because people

> questioned whether they really needed to make that

> journey in their car/by car.

Erm...nope. People couldn't get fuel so couldn't make the journeys. They put off plans or rearranged.

The garages that had fuel used it as an opportunity to price gouge.

What it actually was, was another example of government stupidity washed down with human stupidity by people panic buying.

[goldilocks]

Both you and Heartblock keep quoting this - but it is taken from the generic chat about trends across london. It isn't the case for Dulwich. Cycling is not 'back to pre lockdown levels' in Dulwich, the monitoring shows that its significantly up.

For the avoidance of doubt the monitoring data released by the council shows increases in cycling from pre pandemic levels and the monitoring shows this to be sustained throughout the data points provided.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> If that is the council strategy then we are done

> for - 50 kids a generation in the Dulwich area -

> it's going to take 10 lifetimes! ;-)

>

> All joking aside we were sold the myth that LTNs

> create traffic evaporation. They don't. The

> council can't prove that the LTNs have delivered

> any traffic evaporation at all so, instead they

> herald an "increase" in cycling. That increase in

> cycling was in play before the LTNs went in and

> the catalyst for it was the lockdown (and of

> course cycling levels have now declined to below

> pre-pandemic levels invariably because we are not

> in lockdown anymore, life is returning to normal

> yet people aren't cycling into their offices or

> places of work as much as they used to because of

> the shift to working from home on a permanent

> basis).

>

> Now the council desperately clings to that cycling

> up stat to validate their continued persistence

> with the flawed LTN strategy. A large percentage

> of that "growth" is derived from pupils cycling

> from Dulwich to the plethora of schools in the

> immediate area and only if those journeys used to

> be made by car (and I am not convinced many of

> them were) can it be considered a win for the

> LTNs.

[Nigello]

Are there similar reports on walking/wheelchair use alone, ie. not lumped in with "cycling, scootering, etc."?

[DulwichCentral]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> -----

> > sally buying Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > DulwichCentral Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > legalalien Wrote:

> > > >

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > >

> > > > -----

> > > > > In hindsight, perhaps we

> > > > > should have done before and after counts

> in

> > > the

> > > > > bike sheds at the various schools?

> > > >

> > > > Cycle sheds at Charter North Dulwich have

> > been

> > > > recently rebuilt about 4 times bigger - and

> > are

> > > > now overflowing.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

> https://twitter.com/CleanAirDulwich/status/1435230

>

> >

> > >

> > > > 921565908992

> > >

> > > How many bikes did the sheds hold in the

> first

> > > place when they were built?

> > >

> > > Without knowing this the above has no

> meaning.

> >

> >

> > As I said in my original post - the bike sheds

> > were made about four times bigger than they

> > originally were.

> > You could count the bikes in the picture which

> are

> > under the storage area and divide by four to

> get

> > the original

> > capacity. Bearing in mind it's now four times

> > bigger - and overflowing.

> >

> > I thought that meaning was pretty clear in my

> > original post?

>

>

> And this is brilliant - it is great to see more

> kids cycling to and from school but the council

> can only claim this as a victory for LTNs if those

> children were being driven previously. Given the

> catchment area of Charter North is very small I

> suspect the majority of that transition to cycling

> is from walking - which is not what the LTNs were

> designed for (well, maybe the cycle lobby would

> disagree but let's not go there!).

Ha! nice try to spot the 'negative' @rockets ;)

[Rockets]

Goldilocks - it's not chat. It's fact. Southwark even references the decline in cycling to pre-pandemic levels (which comes from DfT data) in their final Dulwich LTN review report at the point when they talk about the increase they "monitored" in Dulwich during the pandemic.

The catalyst for cycling was lockdown and not LTNs and now lockdown is over cycling is down as a result. And I suspect the reason that cycling numbers are down below pre-pandemic levels is because people are not going to their offices as much as they used to.

[andrewc]

I saw this on the Southwark Website

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101504/Report%20Dulwich%20Streetspace%20Review%20outcome%20of%20experimental%20trial%20measures%20and%20decision%20on%20the%20next.pdf

Traffic data collected in June 2021 using Automatic Traffic Counts (ATCs) and compared with baseline data shows:

 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

Specifically, in June 2021, cycling journeys had doubled or more on average, per day, on the following streets6:

 Calton Avenue (+266%, +688)

 Burbage Road N (+85%, +400 )

 Eynella Road (+124%, +327)

 Turney Road E (+102%, +310)

 Dulwich Village (+266%, +688)

Vivacity Sensors were located at key junctions in Dulwich Village, East Dulwich and Champion Hill to record cycling and pedestrian activity.

7

The cycling data gathered in June 2021 , and compared with baseline data

at the following locations shows:

 Calton Avenue at the junction with Dulwich Village and Court Lane there was a 119% increase in cycling

 Townley Road there was a 50% increase in cycling

 Champion Hill there was a 247% increase in cycling

 Burbage Road there was a 77% increase in cycling

 Melbourne Grove there was a 79% increase in cycling

[heartblock]

Do go look carefully at the 'baseline' - not a proper comparable count as bike counters not in place and also...what year??? Figures from June..latest data shows a drop in cycling.

[rupert james]

andrewc Wrote:

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

> I saw this on the Southwark Website

>

> https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s1015

> 04/Report%20Dulwich%20Streetspace%20Review%20outco

> me%20of%20experimental%20trial%20measures%20and%20

> decision%20on%20the%20next.pdf

>

> Traffic data collected in June 2021 using

> Automatic Traffic Counts (ATCs) and compared with

> baseline data shows:

>  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

> Specifically, in June 2021, cycling journeys had

> doubled or more on average, per day, on the

> following streets6:

>  Calton Avenue (+266%, +688)

>  Burbage Road N (+85%, +400 )

>  Eynella Road (+124%, +327)

>  Turney Road E (+102%, +310)

>  Dulwich Village (+266%, +688)

> Vivacity Sensors were located at key junctions in

> Dulwich Village, East Dulwich and Champion Hill to

> record cycling and pedestrian activity.

> 7

> The cycling data gathered in June 2021 , and

> compared with baseline data

> at the following locations shows:

>  Calton Avenue at the junction with

> Dulwich Village and Court Lane there was a 119%

> increase in cycling

>  Townley Road there was a 50% increase in

> cycling

>  Champion Hill there was a 247% increase

> in cycling

>  Burbage Road there was a 77% increase in

> cycling

>  Melbourne Grove there was a 79% increase

> in cycling

When I have walked along Champion Hill down Green Dale on many occasions I have hardly seen any cyclists even though it is part of the Spine. Where do these % come from?

This road should be re-opened to all. All this closure does is force other users to use local roads where Champion Hill stops this.

From what I have read 63% of people who filled in the consultation wanted it reopened.

Why can Southwark not listen

[legalalien]

I?ll bite.

Musing process:

1. I think DC (or whoever it was) is right, I have noticed more cyclists in the village area, but most of them seem to be in DC/ Alleyns/ DPL uniform.

2. I wonder why that is?

3. I guess because most of the kids at the state primaries already walked / scootered to school because the catchments are really small in comparison.

4. And it?s mostly about primary children changing to cycling, as no self- respecting teenager would be dropped at /picked up from secondary school unless it was raining extremely hard. (This actually feeds into Rockets subsequent question about whether the modal shift at Charter is from driving or from bus/ walking).

5. I bet DPL and DC were keen on anything encouraging cycling given the traffic chaos at those schools at pick up / the grief they get from neighbours and locals about it. Ditto Alleyns.

6. I wonder what schools are involved in that Safe Routes to School thing

7. Google

8. Doesn?t seem to be a list, maybe if I look at the minutes?

http://dulwichsaferoutes.blogspot.com/p/minutes-of-meetings.html

9. Ok so basically led by Alleyns and DC and JAGS https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ilc9B-tduEoHCneZaUzHn0LLL8-GOLjC/view

10. Although there is then a meeting the next day that involves charter, HH, the village schools, Judith Kerr, Dulwich Wood, Bessemer (with Kingsdale invited) so the first one looks like a premeet of some sort with foundation schools only? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a3P3Nydf0AuB5uXVa1E54Mn3m-cg-0sP/view

11. Given thought 3 above, ie that all the really local children are already walking, scootering, cycling to school, is the additional benefit of the closures, insofar as they facilitate NEW active travel, really accruing to the foundation schools, whose children travel further on average (hence cycling works but walking not so much), and given thought 5, the schools have reputational benefit to gain from cutting parental drop offs in cars.

12. Given other local schools affected such as Harris, Rosendale I wonder if the councillors met separately with them / their views were taken into account.

I think ?grift? is a bit harsh to describe the above, good word though, I?ll look out for an opportunity to use it.

Minutes highlights btw: Andy Simmonds saying the Melbourne Grove North closures were being discussed by Goose Green councillors (they?re not mentioned as one of the 3 (out of 20 total) measures being considered as at June, anyway);the chap from HHS school foreseeing that the Phase 1 closures would cause terrible congestion and they?d ultimately need to close DV and keep traffic out of Turney and Burbage (no mention of Croxted though so there was a limit on the foresight); trying to guess the tone of Andy Simmonds comments that he shares people?s concerns but there are budget constraints and the Council really needs to feed more people in the borough at [the time of the meeting]; the chap from DC minuted as saying that people needed to be ?collaborative, constructive, collegiate?. I mean, he must have actually said that, I can?t imagine the minute taker made that up.

DuncanW Wrote:

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

> I wonder what you might be basing those musings

> on? Please share.

>

> JAGS, JAPS and Alleyns all face out onto EDG,

> Alleyns has a playground that is directly adjacent

> to it, so they would be feeling any disbenefit in

> equal (as can be roughly measured) proportion.

>

> Proportionately and absolutely, far more children

> from the local state schools live within realistic

> 'active travel' distance, so I would think more

> are enjoying the benefits to a greater extent.

>

> There are all sorts arguments both for and against

> the LTNs in Dulwich, but this particular narrative

> just seems like grift to me.

>

>

>

>

> legalalien Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Just musing on the idea that the active travel

> > benefits may have disproportionately benefited

> > children at the independent and more affluent

> > schools (and the air pollution from displaced

> > traffic disproportionately affected some of the

> > less affluent ones). Perhaps one of the many

> > things that should have gone into the analysis

> of

> > compliance with the council?s new socioeconomic

> > duty (something that seems to have been given

> very

> > little consideration in the report accompanying

> > the decision notice).

> >

> > I see on Twitter that the LDs have requested

> the

> > decision to be called in before Overview and

> > Scrutiny (stating concerns about adequacy of

> > consultation). Let?s see if the council approve

> > that request. A chance for both sides to air

> their

> > concerns about process flaws. If it happens I

> > wonder if the meeting is a public one.

[Rockets]

And the fact Southwark calls out the DfT data showing a drop in cycling is because they know their next tranche of "monitoring" will show a decline in cycling and they are getting their defence in early!

Because they fudged the increase numbers by using a dodgy baseline may mean the decrease numbers become way more pronounced.

But look, the numbers shown above goes to validate how much of an impact the school cycle run is having on the overall numbers - the main increase is being driven by local children who go to DC, DPL, Jags, Alleyns and Hamlet cycling to school.

[Rockets]

I see articles like this and never know whether Southwark councillors recoil to see the negative publicity or frame it and pin it on their walls as some sort of validation of the great job they (think) they are doing!

[Rockets]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Just musing on the idea that the active travel

> benefits may have disproportionately benefited

> children at the independent and more affluent

> schools (and the air pollution from displaced

> traffic disproportionately affected some of the

> less affluent ones). Perhaps one of the many

> things that should have gone into the analysis of

> compliance with the council?s new socioeconomic

> duty (something that seems to have been given very

> little consideration in the report accompanying

> the decision notice).

>

> I see on Twitter that the LDs have requested the

> decision to be called in before Overview and

> Scrutiny (stating concerns about adequacy of

> consultation). Let?s see if the council approve

> that request. A chance for both sides to air their

> concerns about process flaws. If it happens I

> wonder if the meeting is a public one.

Legal, do you have any idea how the Overview and Scrutiny committee works as I see that Margy and Victoria Olisa are both members of it. Do they have to withdraw from the committee if it goes for review due to a conflict of interest?

[legalalien]

Don?t know. But essentially it?s not an appeal with a new decision maker, it?s a chance for more transparency and a look at what has been done.

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s100483/Overview%20and%20Scrutiny%20Procedure%20Rules%20May%202019.pdf

Look at para 19. I don?t think this is outside budget / policy, if there are issues it goes back to the decision maker (Cllr Rose) . It?s a relatively weak process tbh but does allow questions the asked and give councillors and potential councillors an opportunity to dhow their true colours (or not) before next year?s elections.

[malumbu]

I'd love to cycle over to the demo tomorrow, but have to family matters over the water. But it continues to worry me the anger towards cyclists. You may not like the LTNs, you may not believe in the measures to encourage active travel, but surely you can't disagree with the principle.

It feels like the anti vaxxer movement where whilst people can exercise free choice on getting the jab do they really need to campaign against the majority who are happy, and at times intimidate those involved in the vaccination programme? I feel concerned that a number of you could get quite aggressive, this is after you have spent been out hurling abuse at groups of cyclists on the various segregated cycle routes.

A gross exaggeration but take a step back but think how your posts and possible beliefs will look to the typical man/woman on the Clapham Omnibus?

[legalalien]

?? Hurling abuse at cyclists? Majority who are happy? Yy to people who agree with the principle but not the specific Dulwich measures though.

Is there a protest tomorrow or something?

Quite confused tbh.

[slarti b]

andrewc Wrote:

I saw this on the Southwark Website

...> Specifically, in June 2021, cycling journeys had doubled or more on average, per day, on the

> following streets6:

>  Calton Avenue (+266%, +688)

>  Burbage Road N (+85%, +400 )

>  Eynella Road (+124%, +327)

>  Turney Road E (+102%, +310)

>  Dulwich Village (+266%, +688)

Do you really believe those figures are are accurate and based on true like for like comparisons, adjusting for other changes such as seasonality and changes to cycling patterns caused by Covid? If so you are naive beyond belief or desperate to believe Southwark's biased propoganda.

Lets look at the 2 biggest increases in the council's list that you have quoted~:

- Calton Avenue,

One Dulwich did an excellent analysis of the interim report. The 266% increase in cycling stated in the report used an innacurate, erroneous baseline (either Nov or Dec) and compared it with June 2021 figures without any adjustements for seasonality. Southwark could have used their own June 2020, pre-closure count but didn't, becuase it would show a much smaller inrcease.

To claim that this is a true like for like increased directly caused by the road closure is beyond misleading, it is fraudulent.

- Dulwich Village

Strange that this shows exactly the same increase in both absolute and percentage terms as the increase for Calton Avenue. Is this a con-incidence or a mistake, deliberate or otherwise.

If it IS yet another of Southwark Highway's department's errors it undermines even further what is a already a flawed and biased report.

And please, if you disagree with these points please explain why and which parts of the OneDulwich analysis are incorrect.

[malumbu]

Thanks Legal, it is the following Saturday, I'll have a cycle through. I'll be on a push bike, wearing clothes.

[heartblock]

LTNs also are responsible for the days being longer in June 2021 than in November 2018, I can prove this with some wonderful statistics

[legalalien]

Ah, I see. I won?t. (Be there or on a cycle, I expect I?ll be wearing clothes). I don?t really equate being opposed to the measures as being anti-cyclist tbh. The only thing that bothers me about cyclists is their riding on the pavement (I) on streets where there is a segregated cycle lane and (ii) in the LTN area when there are no cars on the street. And also when they whizz through the pedestrian crossing on gallery road, overtaking cars that have stopped for pedestrians - that?s quite dangerous and happens quite frequently. I?ve managed to limit myself to a Paddington like hard stare rather than hurling abuse though. I don?t kid myself that they care what I think anyway.

I have some sympathy with the cyclists who get frustrated with the random pedestrians they encounter milling around / stepping out into the road on Calton Avenue. Related to that, yesterday I saw some temporary signs at the corner of Calton and Woodwarde - a ?Road Closed? sign indicating that the bit of Calton between Woodwarde and DV was closed, and a yellow diversion sign directing people into Woodwarde. In a very car-centric way I wondered what the point of that was given the road ahead is closed anyway (to stop people parking, including delivery vans which quite often seem to stop there and jump out with deliveries?), but I guess technically that closure would apply to cycles (all of them were ignoring it in any case). Wonder why it was there though, something to do with the trucks coming in and out of the construction site maybe - in which case could last a while.

malumbu Wrote:

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

> Thanks Legal, it is the following Saturday, I'll

> have a cycle through. I'll be on a push bike,

> wearing clothes.

[Rockets]

I really hope this is not true.

Do any traders on Melbourne Grove have any info?

[legalalien]

Another brilliant TfL streets initiative - not.

See https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/5-parts-london-streets-paved-20832137 and then https://www.transportforall.org.uk/campaign/colourful-crossings/.

[oimissus]

There is a reason why zebra crossings across the world are black and white.