LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Pugwash]

When I worked, I was an essential car user and my local authority provided myself and other colleagues with an all borough parking permit. Frequently called out to respond to an emergency (or to transport a non car user colleague)and needed to be in areas not accessible by public transport. Sometimes I had to call the emergency services to attend. I imagine that the same situations now still require workers to 'access all areas' in the quickest possible time.

[goldilocks]

Rockets - I don't think anyone 'can't understand why people would prefer to jump in their car' - aside from the fact that driving is often slower and more congested, the journey is comfy, warm, own space etc. Compared to public transport with multiple changes, or having to walk 15 mins on both ends its an easy choice. But thats the point, if that choice is an easy one, then something is wrong. Allowing people to make journeys in a city by private car is unsustainable (in many ways). Driving needs to be reserved for those who really cannot travel in other ways, and no, thats not the 'busy mum trying to get to work after dropping the kids off'

[Rockets]

Pugwash - and there are thousands of people like you who rely/relied on their car to do their job - getting on a bike or public transport is not feasible.

I do think the uniqueness of the Dulwich area does lead some to believe that their way of life can be adopted by everyone. Dulwich is something of a unique bubble in London in that it has a thriving high street within walking distance of most who live in the area (which goes some way to explain why the area's active travel is already much higher than other parts of London), it has both an older and younger generational mix and it also has some of the most expensive housing stock in London. So it naturally leads many who live here to view the world only through their lens. They may only ever need to go to the local shops, they may not need to work or are retired and they may live in properties where storing bikes is easy to do.

It's why my wife argued with the lady she met outside of Au Ciel many months ago when the lady was lauding how good the LTNs were. My wife challenged her on some of her assertions as they were clearly based on this lady's particular bubble. But the lady would not listen and had a "bubble-influenced" response to everything my wife said: where people work vs where they live/bike storage etc etc - the lady couldn't, or wouldn't, grasp that some people weren't as privileged as she was. It's easy to be holier than thou when your ability to embrace a lifestyle shift is easy because of how much you have or the house you live in.

[Penguin68]

I do think the uniqueness of the Dulwich area

The Dulwich area is also very hilly (which militates against the elderly and frail using push bikes, and indeed against families with young children having to push them in prams) and very poorly served for east: west public transport - the fact that there is a thriving high street is in this instance a saving grace - without that the Southwark attacks on private car ownership would be a direct and irresistible attack on any but the fit, young and unencumbered to live here at all.

[heartblock]

Of course it must be great to have the nanny walk all the kids to school while one cycles to one's job in the City, very Calton Avenue/Gilkes Crescent - things are very different from some of the Mum's I met while doing a cleaning job for some extra cash.

Life was time-poor and cash-poor with the need for many multiple journey's as well as travelling to cleaning jobs that started at 5:30 am to then go and do their carers job and take children to school/shop for food. I was lucky as I could walk, although walking to work at 4:00 in the morning is interesting....

Just condemning people who have very few options to choose in life is one way of looking at this issue, but maybe trying to provide public transport links, school pick-up buses and help to not rely on a car is another.

[Nigello]

Goldilocks - if walking fifteen minutes both ends is a deal ender, well, what a state of affairs. (I don't say that you think this is too much to walk or not, so don't have a go if not. If you do, then, see above!)

[DulwichCentral]

For anyone new to this forum - just to summarise 7,775 posts:

Anti Low traffic measures:

- People who drive *always* need to drive because they are poor, disabled, elderly, key workers or single parents.

- People who cycle are privileged, smug, wealthy because they have big houses with bike storage facilities.

- No more people will switch from driving to active travel in Dulwich because they've all already done so.

- The only people benefiting from the filtered roads are wealthy mates of the councillors

- The filtered roads never needed any changes in the first place, and cycling is just a Covid related fad

- Southwark Council are a totalitarian dictatorship.

- The only way to stop people driving is improve public transport and road pricing - which will take years so we may as well give up.

Pro Low traffic measures:

- Safe routes enable people to switch from driving to active travel

- More monitoring and assessment needs to be done

- More needs to be done to reduce non-essential car journeys

- More Safe routes needed to link up throughout the area - and London-wide

- 24/7 bus lanes - removing parking at pinch points - would reduce congestion

- We're in a climate emergency so it's good the council have made a start - it needs improving and more done.

[Penguin68]

Goldilocks - if walking fifteen minutes both ends is a deal ender, well, what a state of affairs.

A 15 minute walk is - roughly - a mile (assuming a 'normal' walking pace of 4 miles an hour). For many elderly or disabled a mile walk is actually up to an hours journey - so four hours added to a day there (2 '15 minute' walks at both ends of the day). Plus the time actually taken to commute. Or if you are carrying a load, you may make it quicker, but still be pretty tired at the end of it. If you are fit and young, of course that's not a problem (or shouldn't be) - but many are not fit and young, and to set up systems which only benefit the fit and young is discriminatory. And to say - 'if you can't do that, you should move' is, frankly, an obscenity, even were that a practical option.

If you are to ban the use of private vehicles - or set off in the way to do that - without practical and useful alternatives for all citizens available before, not well after, the event, then that is the act of a totalitarian regime who cares nothing for the actual people in their remit. Which does seem par for our particular course...

[Nigello]

Oh, come on - many of us can manage a 1 mile walk. We are not bloody made of felt! I agree that SOME people have a disability but let's not overplay this. Perhaps those who CAN, should think about getting into the position of even ENJOYING a one mile walk. Please don't use concern for a small group of people who do require our support and empathy to exaggerate the number of people who cannot (rather than CHOOSE NOT) to walk a mile or less as part of a daily commute. (Banning private vehicles was never in my argument, so not guilty of that.) I do feel strongly that people are getting lazier and unrealistic about what is a reasonable amount of self-propelled transport. If we are able we ought to move more and sit less, and if that means a half hour less in front of the telly or in the Q for an over-priced coffee in a plasticised cup, so be it.

[DuncanW]

Who has said anything about banning the use of private vehicles?

[Penguin68]

(Banning private vehicles was never in my argument, so not guilty of that.)

But the removal ('driving out') of privately owned vehicles from Southwark is in Southwark Labour Party's long term objectives - as stated by them. No reason why they shouldn't have such an objective, it's just not one I sign up to.

If we are able we ought to move more and sit less, and if that means a half hour less in front of the telly or in the Q for an over-priced coffee in a plasticised cup, so be it.

That is your view, but it is just a view - happy for you to have it, less happy for you to try to impose it on others. I have never suggested that people who want to shouldn't take as much exercise as they wish, for as long as they wish. That is, and should be, their choice. But it should not be their, or your, choice to impose that on others.

Perhaps those who CAN, should think about getting into the position of even ENJOYING a one mile walk

That is as sensible, and I will avoid reductio and absurdum to say that 'those who CAN, should think about getting into the position of even ENYOING a 2 hour session of boxing sparring' - or indeed any form of exercise or sport which you enjoy. I do happen to enjoy a one mile walk, taken for exercise sake, in good weather - but in fact I don't enjoy wasting my time by walking to get somewhere when, at my age, I have little time left to waste. I also like to chose when I walk, and where, not be forced into walking in urban streets because I have to, at a time not really of my choice.

I do feel strongly that people are getting lazier and unrealistic about what is a reasonable amount of self-propelled transport.

Your view, but not necessarily everyone's (indeed many would consider, I'm sure, that they are not lazy or getting lazier - do you think you are?) - but I resist your desire to impose your view on others. Hold it, by all means, of course, but do not think you have a right for your view to transcend.

[Nigello]

Since when am I imposing anything on anyone? It is a series of suggestions and thoughts, not thought-wave-carried compulsions. I think the council or other powers that be should take seriously the threat of obesity and of a sedentary lifestyle when thinking about traffic and travel provisions, as well as safety and security, as a matter of course.

I don't think it wise or sensible that such acknowledgement be taken out of discussions when talking about public transit vs private mean of travel, any more than provisions for elderly, disabled, etc. should be ignored.

Public money is for everyone and ought to work to the public good of most people, taking into account special needs, of course.

So, if you are a bit fat and lazy, get up and walk a bit and you will be doing all of us a favour. If you are disabled and cannot, then I empathise, but I respect you and your position, and certainly don't patronise you by using you as a virtue-signalling shield against all suggestions and ideas that can work for as many people as possible.

[goldilocks]

Nigello - you realise that what you've essentially just said is 'how can you think this how ridiculous, have a word with yourself, then also added - if you don't think that, don't dare comment'. Really dude, its not how discussion forums work! You don't get to comment and then say - no comebacks.

Rockets was the one explaining how the idea of walking 15 mins on both ends was something that is offputting for people in using public transsport. I'm inclined to agree that it can be offputting if you have an easier option.

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Goldilocks - if walking fifteen minutes both ends

> is a deal ender, well, what a state of affairs. (I

> don't say that you think this is too much to walk

> or not, so don't have a go if not. If you do,

> then, see above!)

[goldilocks]

In Dulwich the majority of state schools have a catchment of less than 1km. Even with toddlers thats less than 20 mins walking. Even for those with a 1km catchment there is usually a closer school than that. So why is it that whenever topics like this come up people start talking about school busses? We live in a densely populated part of London with multiple local schools. No one needs a bus for primary school. At secondary, absent SEN, kids can make their own way there and would be helped massively by far fewer people driving.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Of course it must be great to have the nanny walk

> all the kids to school while one cycles to one's

> job in the City, very Calton Avenue/Gilkes

> Crescent - things are very different from some of

> the Mum's I met while doing a cleaning job for

> some extra cash.

>

> Life was time-poor and cash-poor with the need for

> many multiple journey's as well as travelling to

> cleaning jobs that started at 5:30 am to then go

> and do their carers job and take children to

> school/shop for food. I was lucky as I could walk,

> although walking to work at 4:00 in the morning is

> interesting....

>

> Just condemning people who have very few options

> to choose in life is one way of looking at this

> issue, but maybe trying to provide public

> transport links, school pick-up buses and help to

> not rely on a car is another.

[Nigello]

Thanks very much for telling me how things work. Much obliged, Miss/Mr Locks! I will try harder to use a public forum in the way you think it should be! I strive to be educated and you ahve helped me know so much more! I am much obliged for your help on my journey of understanding and I will now do so much better.

[goldilocks]

Or just try not a) getting it wrong and then b) adding on 'don't respond to this'.

If you want to just listen to your own opinions then talk at a mirror, otherwise you take your chances.

[ed_pete]

After 260 pages and 7700+ posts isn't it time the two sides met a pub one evening and let this thread die gracefully ?

[ab29]

After LTN is removed;)

[Rockets]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> Nigello - you realise that what you've essentially

> just said is 'how can you think this how

> ridiculous, have a word with yourself, then also

> added - if you don't think that, don't dare

> comment'. Really dude, its not how discussion

> forums work! You don't get to comment and then

> say - no comebacks.

>

> Rockets was the one explaining how the idea of

> walking 15 mins on both ends was something that is

> offputting for people in using public transsport.

> I'm inclined to agree that it can be offputting if

> you have an easier option.

>

>

> Nigello Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Goldilocks - if walking fifteen minutes both

> ends

> > is a deal ender, well, what a state of affairs.

> (I

> > don't say that you think this is too much to

> walk

> > or not, so don't have a go if not. If you do,

> > then, see above!)

And yes that was my point - in an area with such low PTAL scores it naturally means that many people are some way away from public transport and that when they factor that in it becomes part of the decision-making process whether they jump in the car or not - which is why, of course, Southwark initially suggested that LTNs should on go in in areas with high PTAL scores.....which, of course, Dulwich is not.

Additionally, the reason school buses comes up is that still many people drive their children to state schools - we do, however, need to be mindful that school catchment areas are growing - didn't Southwark say as part of their school place funding discussion claim some are now travelling 4kms to schools? Just go and stand outside any of the state schools in Dulwich and you can see parents dropping children off every day. School traffic still accounts for a large proportion of the journeys in Dulwich, be that state or private schools, and if the council would funnel more energy into working with schools to fix that problem then there probably would not be any need for LTNs.

[hpsaucey]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> For anyone new to this forum - just to summarise

> 7,775 posts:

>

> Anti Low traffic measures:

> - People who drive *always* need to drive because

> they are poor, disabled, elderly, key workers or

> single parents.

> - People who cycle are privileged, smug, wealthy

> because they have big houses with bike storage

> facilities.

> - No more people will switch from driving to

> active travel in Dulwich because they've all

> already done so.

> - The only people benefiting from the filtered

> roads are wealthy mates of the councillors

> - The filtered roads never needed any changes in

> the first place, and cycling is just a Covid

> related fad

> - Southwark Council are a totalitarian

> dictatorship.

> - The only way to stop people driving is improve

> public transport and road pricing - which will

> take years so we may as well give up.

>

> Pro Low traffic measures:

> - Safe routes enable people to switch from driving

> to active travel

> - More monitoring and assessment needs to be done

> - More needs to be done to reduce non-essential

> car journeys

> - More Safe routes needed to link up throughout

> the area - and London-wide

> - 24/7 bus lanes - removing parking at pinch

> points - would reduce congestion

> - We're in a climate emergency so it's good the

> council have made a start - it needs improving and

> more done.

Love it DC!!! Not just good for newbies - also pretty bloody useful for those who've doggedly ploughed through most of the thread.

HP

[redpost]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> goldilocks Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Nigello - you realise that what you've

> essentially

> > just said is 'how can you think this how

> > ridiculous, have a word with yourself, then

> also

> > added - if you don't think that, don't dare

> > comment'. Really dude, its not how discussion

> > forums work! You don't get to comment and then

> > say - no comebacks.

> >

> > Rockets was the one explaining how the idea of

> > walking 15 mins on both ends was something that

> is

> > offputting for people in using public

> transsport.

> > I'm inclined to agree that it can be offputting

> if

> > you have an easier option.

> >

> >

> > Nigello Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Goldilocks - if walking fifteen minutes both

> > ends

> > > is a deal ender, well, what a state of

> affairs.

> > (I

> > > don't say that you think this is too much to

> > walk

> > > or not, so don't have a go if not. If you do,

> > > then, see above!)

>

> And yes that was my point - in an area with such

> low PTAL scores it naturally means that many

> people are some way away from public transport and

> that when they factor that in it becomes part of

> the decision-making process whether they jump in

> the car or not - which is why, of course,

> Southwark initially suggested that LTNs should on

> go in in areas with high PTAL scores.....which, of

> course, Dulwich is not.

>

> Additionally, the reason school buses comes up is

> that still many people drive their children to

> state schools - we do, however, need to be mindful

> that school catchment areas are growing - didn't

> Southwark say as part of their school place

> funding discussion claim some are now travelling

> 4kms to schools? Just go and stand outside any of

> the state schools in Dulwich and you can see

> parents dropping children off every day. School

> traffic still accounts for a large proportion of

> the journeys in Dulwich, be that state or private

> schools, and if the council would funnel more

> energy into working with schools to fix that

> problem then there probably would not be any need

> for LTNs.

There is nothing exceptional about the PTAL score for this area, look at the map of london and you can see other low-density suburbs full of terraced houses have similar PTAL. In fact, when compared to the rest of the UK this area has pretty good public transport.

[Artemis]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> In Dulwich the majority of state schools have a

> catchment of less than 1km. Even with toddlers

> thats less than 20 mins walking. Even for those

> with a 1km catchment there is usually a closer

> school than that. So why is it that whenever

> topics like this come up people start talking

> about school busses? We live in a densely

> populated part of London with multiple local

> schools. No one needs a bus for primary school.

> At secondary, absent SEN, kids can make their own

> way there and would be helped massively by far

> fewer people driving.

>

>

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Of course it must be great to have the nanny

> walk

> > all the kids to school while one cycles to

> one's

> > job in the City, very Calton Avenue/Gilkes

> > Crescent - things are very different from some

> of

> > the Mum's I met while doing a cleaning job for

> > some extra cash.

> >

> > Life was time-poor and cash-poor with the need

> for

> > many multiple journey's as well as travelling

> to

> > cleaning jobs that started at 5:30 am to then

> go

> > and do their carers job and take children to

> > school/shop for food. I was lucky as I could

> walk,

> > although walking to work at 4:00 in the morning

> is

> > interesting....

> >

> > Just condemning people who have very few

> options

> > to choose in life is one way of looking at this

> > issue, but maybe trying to provide public

> > transport links, school pick-up buses and help

> to

> > not rely on a car is another.

But to talk about the catchment area of state schools is ignoring the elephant in the room: the fact that Dulwich has four of the largest private schools in London with catchment areas of considerably more than 1km. That traffic is not going away.

[Penguin68]

There is nothing exceptional about the PTAL score for this area, look at the map of london and you can see other low-density suburbs full of terraced houses have similar PTAL.

I think the point being made is that Southwark indicated that it was those areas - within its borough - with comparatively high PTAL scores which would be most eligible for LTNs - Dulwich has one of the lowest PTAL scores in Southwark and yet it is there where immutable LTNs have been imposed. Perhaps you could demonstrate in those areas of low-density terraced houses with low PTAL outside Southwark how many comparable LTNs have been imposed by their councils.

And I would agree that the provision of public transport in Dulwich is far better than in some parts (rural?) of the country, but again, in how many of these have LTNs been imposed?

[heartblock]

From Southwark's own report from 2018 PRE- LTNs Dulwich Area Traffic Management Study.

The Dulwich area has a low level of public transport accessibility. 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.

Vehicle's per day 2015 East Dulwich Grove - 14,833 Melbourne Grove - 2,500

Southwark is the London borough with the sixth highest share of commuting cycle users (source: Transport Plan Annual Monitoring Report 2016). The 2011 Census has demonstrated an aggregate increase in percentage cycling to work in Southwark of 3.75% points since the 2001 Census (that is, from 3.98% to 7.73%). The number of people cycling to work rose from 3,965 in 2001 to 10,898 in 2011, which is an increase of 275%.

A study carried out in July 2015 by The Railway Consultancy on six stations in Southwark, highlighted that a very large majority of rail passengers walks to the station (88% according to National Rail Travel Survey), while approximately 4-5% uses bus or car.

Most of the local trips are made on foot but there is a significant number of pupils escorted to school by car from further locations.

Interestingly - they added that closing Calton as a timed restriction would be problematic -

a significant part of the existing traffic in residential areas is generated by parents dropping their children at school, this solution risks shifting the drop-off activity onto main roads with implications for congestion and safety of children.

So Pre-LTNs

Poor PTAL, cycling increasing, high levels of walking, including local school children and so called rat-run Melbourne not even anywhere as busy as ED Grove and a reluctance to do anything to add congestion onto ED Grove as concerns about the 'safety of children'

So what have the LTNs really contributed apart from raising the value of houses in a few gated roads? It is interesting reading the report, one does get the impression that Calton Ave was closed mainly because the residents hated the private school coaches for JAGs and Alleyn's parking on their road.

[sally buying]

Why does nobody talk about champion Hill that has been turned into a gated community?