LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Earl Aelfheah]

The number of cars travelling along EDG is down (by more than 20%).

There is a counter at the junction of EDG and Lordship Lane however, that's shown and increase ('EDG East'). If you look at the turning patterns it will be clear why this is.

Cars that would have previously turned off before Lordship Lane, cutting down Melbourne Grove (passed the school), now don't. And vice versa. So originally, there would have been fewer cars on the East section than in the central section.

Now there are fewer cars generally, but more staying on between MG and Lordship Lane.

There is a school on Melbourne Grove and Derwent and Elsie are small, residential roads. Personally, I think it's right that traffic should have to drive round. It's a really small diversion and overall traffic has decreased significantly.

There has been a massive increase in the number of kids walking and cycling too, along Melbourne Grove and via Calton Avenue. Anyone who is familiar with ED Charter cannot have failed to see this.

Now, I've answered your question and you still haven't answered mine:

Do you think the number of kids walking and cycling to school would increase or decrease if all local restrictions on cars and all the quiet routes are removed?

[CPR Dave]

Seems like you are saying that the traffic in Lordship Lane has gone up (by more than 20% of the traffic that was in EDG) to accomdate the closed roads Rah rah?

[Rockets]

Rah - EDG South is up, EDG East is up , EDG Central (miraculously) is down. So to say traffic is down on EDG is complete nonsense - the council alleges it is down on one section.

Again, do you think it is fair that some are getting less traffic and some are getting more along the same stretch of road?

I answered your question. Stop pontificating (but we have seen more than enough times that the pro-lobby aren't good under cross-examination!) ;-)

[Earl Aelfheah]

I would rather that cars didn't cut pass the entrance to East Dulwich Charter on Melbourne Grove. It's instructive that you were arguing against the LTN on the grounds that it supposedly increased traffic outside the school, but now argue that cars should be encouraged to pass the school rather than drive an extra couple of minutes to avoid it. It's clearly better to have less traffic and more people walking and cycling. It's clearly better to have cars avoid driving passed the entrance to a school and yes, if that means a 2 or 3 minute diversion further along the road in order to avoid it, I do think that's preferable.

You didn't answer my question about whether the number of kids walking and cycling to school would increase or decrease if the LTN was removed, but up to you.

[ed_pete]

CPR Dave Wrote:

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

> Seems like you are saying that the traffic in

> Lordship Lane has gone up (by more than 20% of the

> traffic that was in EDG) to accomdate the closed

> roads Rah rah?

I guess that depends on the direction and destination.

If you were heading east and intended to head south along LL then I guess that previously you might have headed down Melbourne/Ashbourne/Chesterfield/Blackwater etc but ultimately you'd still be on LL so no net increase if you measured say around the Lordship pub but there would be an increase if you measured around the Palmerston.

If you were heading east and intended to head towards Grove Vale then yes that would be an increase in the section from the EDG/LL junction to the roundabout.

[ed_pete]

Just a note on Charter East Dulwich. The number of pupils attending has increased over the past few years. I think in September 2019 the original cohort were entering year 10 and the 6th form (year 12) only opened in September this year. This would partly explain any observed increases in numbers walking to that school.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I would rather that cars didn't cut pass the

> entrance to East Dulwich Charter on Melbourne

> Grove. It's instructive that you were arguing

> against the LTN on the grounds that it supposedly

> increased traffic outside the school, but now

> argue that cars should be encouraged to pass the

> school rather than drive an extra couple of

> minutes to avoid it. It's clearly better to have

> less traffic and more people walking and cycling.

> It's clearly better to have cars avoid driving

> passed the entrance to a school and yes, if that

> means a 2 or 3 minute diversion further along the

> road in order to avoid it, I do think that's

> preferable.

>

> You didn't answer my question about whether the

> number of kids walking and cycling to school would

> increase or decrease if the LTN was removed, but

> up to you.

Rahx3 but I am not arguing that am I? Really you do seem to be tying yourself in knots trying desperately to make a point that doesn't exist.

What I want is less traffic for everyone - not less for some and more for others. I want people to be able to walk and cycle safely and to answer your question I am not convinced the LTNs have had any positive impact on modal shift - I think the pandemic was responsible for that and I think the council needs to remove the LTNs but then put measures in that protect modal shift (especially walking that they seem to have neglected).

[Earl Aelfheah]

Just to put all this in context, EDG South is a 350m stretch of road. Traffic there is up 4% on pre-scheme levels, but currently dropping (it's fallen 6% in the last month).

EDG East is a 260m stretch, where there there has been an increase in traffic as a result of cars and HGVs being directed away from a school. As I explained above, I think it's absolutely right that cars should drive a couple of hundred metres further down the road before turning, rather than being directed past the school. Not so far up this thread, you were arguing that LTNS increased traffic outside Charter. Now you seem to be calling for them to be removed so that traffic on EDG East can be moved towards it.

Everywhere else, including the main section of EDG between Townley Road and Melbourne Grove has seen a decrease in traffic. Across the whole area, traffic is down and walking and cycling are up.

[Earl Aelfheah]

How would scrapping a scheme that has reduced traffic, result in 'less traffic for everyone'? It wouldn't, clearly. With regards the coupe of hundred metres of road between Melbourne Grove and LL, there is a choice. You can either divert some of the traffic past the school, or not. I think the current prioritisation is preferable. Not least because if you make it easier to cut through from Grove Vale to EDG, you actually increase the total amount of traffic across both streets. To just refuse to make a choice and to say 'less traffic for everyone/ milky bars are on me', isn't a serious response.

[CPR Dave]

Hang on now you are saying that two thirds of East Dulwich Grove has had an increase in traffic!

Are you sure this a "good thing" ??

[Rockets]

CPR Dave Wrote:

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

> Hang on now you are saying that two thirds of East

> Dulwich Grove has had an increase in traffic!

>

> Are you sure this a "good thing" ??

CPR - it's always a case of "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" with the pro-LTN lobby! Time and time again their claims are torn apart by people looking at the detail for themselves and it's often a case that the more the pro-LTN lobby talk the deeper the hole they dig (I refer you to Rahx3s 20% reduction along EDG statement which three messages later they have to admit is not true as the two other parts of EDG have increased traffic numbers).

This is the worst situation for the council, and why they are so nervous as they know people will look at what they are putting out there (on this and everything moving forward), because the trust in them has been so eroded by this process. They can't get away with pushing things through without their constituents looking at it in minutia.

They have made a huge rod for their own backs.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Look at the data, it's pretty clear. There are fewer cars driving along EDG. Yes, at one end some vehicles are turning off a little later. It used to be that they would cut through past the school. As everyone here has said, they were desperately worried about traffic by the school and health centre on EDG (at least up to the point that the data shows the LTN reduces it). I think most people, if they were honest, would agree that it's better traffic is turning 200 metres further down the road in this instance.

At the southern end there is almost no change, and traffic is actually falling month on month at an accelerating rate. Across the length of the road, traffic is down more than 20%.

Again, this is an example of a few people searching as hard as possible for a reason to object; To the point that they're now arguing for an increase in the number of cars driving along EDG, passing the school (both on EDG and past the entrance on Melbourne Grove) and passing the health care centre. Things they were claiming to be of deep concern just last week. It's absurd.

Would you really prefer traffic to rise across the entire areas, including along the central section of EDG rather than have some cars turn 200 metres later to avoid a school?

Traffic down. The number of people walking and cycling up. And you would reverse it all just to feel that you've 'won'... what exactly, I don't know. Fewer kids walking to school? More traffic across the whole area?

*slow handclap*

[Earl Aelfheah]

For those who are interested in what's actually happening, rather than desperately looking for anything that might be spun to support a prior belief. Here is a summary of what's been achieved:

 

[alice]

Pink is not persuasive.

The switch from percentages to actual numbers is very interesting.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> For those who are interested in what's actually

> happening, rather than desperately looking for

> anything that might be spun to support a prior

> belief. Here is a summary of what's been

> achieved:

>

>

Assumes advert voice over voice....

*a liberal dose of council spin may have been applied to the numbers therein and users are advised to treat the numbers with caution. Other analysis may also be valid and you should seek advice from a professional without a vested interest....

[SE22_2020er]

How many pages of hyperbolic drivel will it take until people actually understand that the root cause of the problem is the number of journeys that are being made by car and the number of cars that we've allowed to take over our streets and absolutely not the LTNs.

The LTNs are a first step in redressing the awful balance that has been set in allowing cars to take over this city over the last 50 years. If you think that East Dulwich Grove was a car free panacea before the LTNs then go and get your head tested. There were regularly tail backs from the JAGs lights all the way back to Melbourne Grove - and yes, even on a Saturday. I used to marvel at how stupid people were to waste their weekends in cars when I cycled back to Lordship Lane from Herne Hill on a Saturday morning.

Are you guys not fed up with the fact that every street is lined with cars on both sides - have you become immune to their presence or do you see them all as some sort of contemporary street art?

I hope that each of you have written a strongly worded letter to each of the local schools in Dulwich (private and state) to insist that they STRONGLY discourage any child being driven to school and that they need to put in rules to stop parents driving their children to school

I hope that each of you are campaigning for the congestion charge in our area - hopefully not long now after the ULEZ has been implemented.

I hope that each of you are campaigning for an increased number of cycle lanes - especially one from Lordship Lane to Herne Hill.

I don't buy the 'public transport is not good enough' line. I've lived in 15 countries around the world over the last 50 years and the public transport we have here in London is amongst the best. Here alone in Dulwich we have buses to each of the main rail terminals, buses to tube stations, a train line directly into one of the major UK train terminals. If my 80 year old parents can cycle here in London then a damn sight more of the rest of you can and should.

The problem is pure and simply that there are too many cars and now is the time to redress the balance in favour of other means of transport - be that walking, cycling, scooters, taxis, Ubers and buses.

ps @Alice - Pink is persuasive

[ab29]

What is "actually" happening is what I can see from my windows and what I see/experience while walking to Forest Hill and ED train stations.

As if I was telling a hungry person that they are not hungry at all:

"I am starving, I have not eaten in three days. My stomach is rumbling and I am about to faint!"

"The recent data shows that you cannot possibly be hungry if the last time you ate is within the last 24hrs; therefore, you are faking it"

[rjsmall]

> The problem is pure and simply that there are too

> many cars and now is the time to redress the

> balance in favour of other means of transport - be

> that walking, cycling, scooters, taxis, Ubers and

> buses.

Well I can't see too many buses, taxis or Ubers getting through the junction in the Village.

I'm not sure why the figures are only from June 2021 - the measures have been in a lot longer so why don't they show from when they were implemented? (and when are the -10% June, -12% Sept figures down from? - is it year on year, month on month etc?)

[ab29]

I no longer care about anything as along as the traffic on my stretch of Lordship Lane is back to what it was pre - LTN.

See? The council has turned many of us into complete cynics.

SE22_2020er Wrote:

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

> How many pages of hyperbolic drivel will it take

> until people actually understand that the root

> cause of the problem is the number of journeys

> that are being made by car and the number of cars

> that we've allowed to take over our streets and

> absolutely not the LTNs.

>

> The LTNs are a first step in redressing the awful

> balance that has been set in allowing cars to take

> over this city over the last 50 years. If you

> think that East Dulwich Grove was a car free

> panacea before the LTNs then go and get your head

> tested. There were regularly tail backs from the

> JAGs lights all the way back to Melbourne Grove -

> and yes, even on a Saturday. I used to marvel at

> how stupid people were to waste their weekends in

> cars when I cycled back to Lordship Lane from

> Herne Hill on a Saturday morning.

>

> Are you guys not fed up with the fact that every

> street is lined with cars on both sides - have you

> become immune to their presence or do you see them

> all as some sort of contemporary street art?

>

> I hope that each of you have written a strongly

> worded letter to each of the local schools in

> Dulwich (private and state) to insist that they

> STRONGLY discourage any child being driven to

> school and that they need to put in rules to stop

> parents driving their children to school

>

> I hope that each of you are campaigning for the

> congestion charge in our area - hopefully not long

> now after the ULEZ has been implemented.

>

> I hope that each of you are campaigning for an

> increased number of cycle lanes - especially one

> from Lordship Lane to Herne Hill.

>

> I don't buy the 'public transport is not good

> enough' line. I've lived in 15 countries around

> the world over the last 50 years and the public

> transport we have here in London is amongst the

> best. Here alone in Dulwich we have buses to each

> of the main rail terminals, buses to tube

> stations, a train line directly into one of the

> major UK train terminals. If my 80 year old

> parents can cycle here in London then a damn sight

> more of the rest of you can and should.

>

> The problem is pure and simply that there are too

> many cars and now is the time to redress the

> balance in favour of other means of transport - be

> that walking, cycling, scooters, taxis, Ubers and

> buses.

>

> ps @Alice - Pink is persuasive

[Nigello]

I hope that each of you have written a strongly worded letter to each of the local schools in Dulwich (private and state) to insist that they STRONGLY discourage any child being driven to school and that they need to put in rules to stop parents driving their children to school

Done this, one replied only. Perhaps you will have better luck. Please tell us how it goes.

[Rockets]

How many pages of hyperbolic drivel will it take

> until people actually understand that the root

> cause of the problem is the number of journeys

> that are being made by car and the number of cars

> that we've allowed to take over our streets and

> absolutely not the LTNs.

This just shows the blinkered view of the problem that so many have that is utterly paralysing the opportunity for rational debate and analysis - vehicle miles is not just about the car (private car ownership and use has been declining, albeit slowly, across London for years) but the huge rise in LGVs and PHVs has been driving the vehicle miles up - and LTNs don't do anything to deter that problem.

When you start understanding the problem you can try and fix it but if you focus solely on the private car you are missing the bigger picture.

[ab29]

Rockets, I really despair over this.

" (...) the root cause of the problem is the number of journeys that are being made by car (...)" - what that got to do with road closures? People will NEVER EVER stop driving just because a road or two were closed.

Based on talking to many, many people - friends, acquaintances, neighbours (for the records: I do not drive of own a car).

Road tax is needed. Personally, I would also like to see ban on multiple car ownership per household (with exceptions) and ban on car journeys with a single occupant (=driver; with exceptions).

Why is it so difficult for people to understand that those of us who live on already busy and polluted roads do not want more traffic, noise and pollution on our doorstep?

[SE22_2020er]

@Rockets - I cycle down EDG every day - 7 days a week. Please don't refer to my view as 'blinkered'. Every day I count the number of vehicles that are sitting in traffic at 8am in the morning and whether they are cars or vans. The overwhelming majority are cars - i.e. more than 80%. Happy to provide you the numbers that I write down every day - just send me a PM and I'll respond.

Please hold back on your disingenuous comments, unhelpful.

[SE22_2020er]

@abn - I completely agree with you. The problem is the number of car journeys. I'd completely support increased road tax.

I think Congestion Charging is a good way of doing this taxing as it taxes the actual problem. I do also like the idea of electronic toll gates:

"Sure you can drive along EDG at 08:00 in the morning, but we'll charge you ?5 for the pleasure of ruining the air quality for the people who live on EDG"

If I was being charged ?5 each way to drop my kids to school then they'd be getting the bus on day 2!

[Rockets]

But they are not disingenuous are they - you are suggesting cars are the problem but the data shows private car ownership and usage is declining in London and that the biggest problem in London is the growth of LGVs and PHVs driven by the online "mobility as a service" economy? Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's not correct. On your cycle ride during rush hour you may see more cars but that doesn't mean they are the sole problem and until you start trying to manage the problem in it's entirety you will never solve the problem.

You are highlighting why we are in this mess because the council got seduced by the bike lobby idea that the private car was the root of all evil (fossil fuel or electric) and they implemented the cycle-lobby's grand plan as part of the war on cars and it was downhill from there.

How do LTNs deal with the growth in LGVs and PHVs?