LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[first mate]

KK I agree, I am all for cycling if people are able to, but weary of the ?holier than thou? tone adopted by some dispensing their advice and wisdom on the subject. And you are absolutely right about the perceived suggestion that any car user is some kind of wilful, low level criminal, only continuing to drive a car because they are lazy and ill informed.

[thebestnameshavegone]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> Not everyone can manage their needs without a

> car.

> Anyone speaking for car owners, as if they?re

> committing a misdemeanour by having a car, is

> obviously biased and clearly naive.

I think it's disingenuous to suggest people are saying get rid of them entirely.

Like it or not, the next ten years are going to see far more severe measures brought in as climate change takes a greater hold - transport in cities and the ability to leave an 8ft hunk of metal wherever you like are going to alter significantly.

I assume One Dulwich will still be leafletting furiously at this point, even as the Thames water rises over the chimney tops.

[mr.chicken]

Serena2012 Wrote:

>

> Whether it impacts your experience as a driver

> positively or negatively is not the point. The

> issue is that what is masquerading as a green

> initiative is actually causing tailbacks. Idling

> traffic = double the air pollution caused by

> free-flowing traffic.

There's no masquerade. Anything to reduce the amount of traffic will always start by causing tailbacks until people figure out they can actually take a different form of transport. People's behaviour always lags the changes, so if we have a requirement that we could never cause short term problems then it would be impossible to improve anything. Car use always grows to fill the available capacity, but that works both ways and it will shrink to fill the available capacity too. But that takes time and without shrinking the capacity, it will never happen.

[Wil72]

At 6pm last night (during the school holidays/lots of people still not back at work) the traffic was queuing and at a standstill on the South Circular from the Harvester all the way back to West Dulwich train station.

Blocking people from turning into or off the South Circular, and stopping people from getting on/off their driveways.

What a great way to reduce pollution Southwark Council

This is utter insanity!

Not only MORE dangerous for cyclists but for anyone trying to cross the road. Or just breath inside their car or on the pavement...

More pollution in Dulwich Park and the bus journeys taking 3 times as long for people that don't have cars/are trying to be more eco.

Imagine what will happen when there is an accident & a fire engine/police car/ambulance need to get through

And when kids go back to school & furloughing is over

Join https://www.onedulwich.uk if you think this is ridiculous too

Make your thoughts known at https://dulwichvillagestreetspace.commonplace.is/comment

You can comment as many times as you like and add comments to areas that have affected you

Can someone from Southwark or one of the Councillors explain in detail what type of monitoring is going on, when the facts will be published & when there will be a consultation with the residents of Dulwich & Herne Hill as to whether this is going to be kept/removed?

Thanks

[Spartacus]

mr.chicken Wrote:

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

> Serena2012 Wrote:

>

> >

> > Whether it impacts your experience as a driver

> > positively or negatively is not the point. The

> > issue is that what is masquerading as a green

> > initiative is actually causing tailbacks.

> Idling

> > traffic = double the air pollution caused by

> > free-flowing traffic.

>

> There's no masquerade. Anything to reduce the

> amount of traffic will always start by causing

> tailbacks until people figure out they can

> actually take a different form of transport.

> People's behaviour always lags the changes, so if

> we have a requirement that we could never cause

> short term problems then it would be impossible to

> improve anything. Car use always grows to fill the

> available capacity, but that works both ways and

> it will shrink to fill the available capacity too.

> But that takes time and without shrinking the

> capacity, it will never happen.

If only in this neck of the borough there were different forms of public transport. Reducing car journeys without providing a better public transport service is part of the problem and for a large number of people walking or cycling isn't the correct answer as they aren't practical for them.

I keep on seeing people say that drivers expect to park their cars for free on the road but no consideration is taken into how much VAT a new car attracts, How much car tax is paid every year, insurance premium tax and how much duty is charged on fuel. A large percentage of these taxes are given to local councils to pay for road maintenance so effectively car drivers are already paying for parking. If we get rid off all cars then who will pay to maintain the roads ? I'm sure there would be a public outcry if we taxed walking and cycling so be careful what you wish for is my advice.

[rupert james]

Whilst you all are rightly complaining about the traffic please spare a thought for those of us who live around the Bellenden.Lyndhurst, Chadwick Road triangle we have had local transport taken away as they have removed the local P13 bus from the area due to implementing social distancing in Rye Lane. Which is a joke if you have been down there.

Many people rely on the P13 as they are elderly and find walking difficult and do not cycle.

So now having to walk 15 minutes to get a bus you now find yourself caught up in traffic jams. One example a direct trip to Sainsburys is now impossible and trying to connect with bus routes takes up most of the morning. Try carrying shopping whilst doing this.

Southwark have no idea how widespread the knock on effect actually is unfortunately. Nor do they care.

Why Rye Lane has caused the diversion of the P13 when for months they were digging it up and it still ran on its route does not make sense.

The roads are getting busy and traffic is moving from one area to another which never happened to this extent.

Now the Government has given councils the right to do what they want it will only get worse.

[exdulwicher]

I keep on seeing people say that drivers expect to park their cars for free on the road but no consideration is taken into how much VAT a new car attracts, How much car tax is paid every year, insurance premium tax and how much duty is charged on fuel. A large percentage of these taxes are given to local councils to pay for road maintenance so effectively car drivers are already paying for parking.

Nowhere close to it.

Fuel duty (which has been frozen for 10 years now as a Government easy-win for "the hard-working motorist") brings in about ?28bn a year. Had it risen in line with inflation, as train and bus fares have done, it would have brought in an extra ?19bn over that 10-year period.

VED is about ?6.5bn a year at the moment; the way it was calculated changed recently so the impact is taking a while to filter through. Depending on how you count the rest, if you include VAT on essential motoring things like products and services, insurance premium tax on the car insurance you pay and exactly how car purchases are accounted (company cars as BIK, lease cars etc) is about another ?4-5bn. Rough total income, ?38bn.

Again, depending on how you count some of the costs and externalities, if you just focus on "road building" or include road improvement, basic maintenance (eg potholes) and if you factor in pollution, costs of road accidents, congestion (as a cost to the economy), the use of often valuable public space for storage of cars (be that residential parking or purpose-built car parks) and then less measurable issues like visual and noise pollution, you run at about ?48-50bn annual costs.

So no, it doesn't cover it.

The problem with taxation as an argument is it creates a them/us scenario, a sense of entitlement for those that pay ("I've paid to use my car therefore I will use it and sod the consequences to the rest of you" and "I've already paid taxes, why should I have to pay again to park?"). It makes it very difficult re-allocating road space to pedestrians and cyclists because "they don't pay road tax".

As a counter-analogy, it does work with smoking - no-one argues now that they've paid cigarette tax therefore they should be allowed to smoke wherever they want or they should get priority hospital treatment because their extra taxes have paid more to the NHS.

Normal roads (ie not motorways or highways) are the responsibility of the relevant local council and are paid for out of general taxation anyway (ie, council tax). Strategic roads (like Lordship Lane which is managed by TfL), are partly council and partly TfL funded. Road improvement schemes can be match funded or grant funded by Government too, the whole "I pay [x] tax therefore..." is a bit of a strawman argument because the funds can come from a variety of sources.

In the next few years, taxation from motoring is going to drop off more as the (gradual) shift to electric / hybrid vehicles means less VED and less fuel duty coming in. Ideally, there'd be a conversation going on already about this but the Government seem to have got too stuck in a rabbit hole marked "Brexit" to do anything useful like work out how motoring payments need to change to keep taxes income the same or higher. Road pricing, increases on fuel duty are both options, albeit very unfavourable ones - which is partly why no-one dares touch it.

In politics, parking is known as "the third rail". Touch it and you die.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I agree with the above. Paying higher rate tax doesn?t give you ?priority access? to public services, not should it. The same is true of any other form of taxation.

Don?t know if anyone has done this for London https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2018/jun/11/copenhagenize-case-urban-cycling-graphs

But I imagine the basic conclusion (that car journeys are a net cost to the taxpayer) are probably similar.

[Spartacus]

Exdulwicher I agree with your estimate of income from motoring as the governments own sources are roughly the same source : https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14407

However I do disagree with some of your statement below

>>Again, depending on how you count some of

>>the costs and externalities, if you just

>>focus on "road building" or include road

>> improvement, basic maintenance (eg

>>potholes) and if you factor in pollution,

>>costs of road accidents, congestion (as a

>>cost to the economy), the use of often

>>valuable public space for storage of cars

>>(be that residential parking or purpose-

>>built car parks) and then less measurable

>>issues like visual and noise pollution, you

>>run at about ?48-50bn annual costs.

Total spend on the roads is ?4826 million in the 2018/19 fiscal year source : https://www.statista.com/statistics/298667/united-kingdom-uk-public-sector-expenditure-national-roads/ (approx 5 billion)

Car parks are often a source of income for councils (be they council run or managed by a third party) and includes revenue from fines as does revenue from CPZs so they can both be excluded from your estimate of "motoring cost to the public domain as they are often a profitable source of income.

Road accidents (being cold and analytical) are covered by emergency services and the NHS which both get funding from National Insurance (NHS) and council tax (Emergency services) and they would be required regardless on a standby basis so you can't really count the cost they incur in either side of the equation (unless for fairness you add in a portion of council tax and NI into the cost raised by motorist)

Congestion is a factor but one that can only be estimated as there is not any hard evidence on the actual cost, only estimations and models so it's hard to factor in. Pollution (in any form) is currently only modeled and no hard actual data has ever been produced so again difficult to give a definitive figure for. (Again being cold and analytical ) and as we approach the all electric future most pollution will be removed (agreed there will still be some)

Interestingly bike use now provides very low income to the national coffees as the cycle to work scheme source : https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/buyers-guides/cycle-to-work-scheme-everything-you-need-to-know/ removes about 32% off the cost of bike ownership (including bike and equipment purchase ) cyclists can also claim expenses for cycling to work (only pennies per mile)

This is the crux of the matter, car ownership does raise revenue which is used to pay for maintenance of the roads that cyclist demand to use for free. Dare the issue of cycling insurance and licences be raised and the cyclists go nuts yet this story on the BBC almost highlights the need source :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-53443639

So as I said in my earlier post, the ability to point at car ownership and ask why they should be able to park freely outside their houses is one, that if you reduce car ownership will have a direct cost on walking and cycling as the infrastructure still needs to be maintained and paid for.

It's not a cycling vs car issue, but it is about proportional cost sharing by everyone who uses the public realm

Oh and the cost to London of tfl is not covered by fares and advertising (total revenue : 6.1 billion) as they also get 3.4 billion in grants source : https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/how-we-are-funded

so again public transport is (according to your logic) a net cost to the tax payer so increasing capacity would also have additional costs associated with it.

[JohnL]

rupert james Wrote:

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

> Now the Government has given councils the right to

> do what they want it will only get worse.

They haven't though - they've told them what they want to do and these closures are happening all over the country for 18 months at least.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reallocating-road-space-in-response-to-covid-19-statutory-guidance-for-local-authorities

"Guidance for local authorities on managing their road networks in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak."

"Advice to local authorities on reallocating road space to:

encourage cycling and walking

enable social distancing

in response to COVID-19 issues.

This statutory guidance is made under section 18 of the Traffic Management Act 2004."

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reallocating-road-space-in-response-to-covid-19-statutory-guidance-for-local-authorities/traffic-management-act-2004-network-management-in-response-to-covid-19

"The government therefore expects local authorities to make significant changes to their road layouts to give more space to cyclists and pedestrians. Such changes will help embed altered behaviours and demonstrate the positive effects of active travel."

[mr.chicken]

Spartacus Wrote:

>

> If only in this neck of the borough there were

> different forms of public transport.

It's difficult with all the cars on the road.

> Reducing car

> journeys without providing a better public

> transport service is part of the problem and for a

> large number of people walking or cycling isn't

> the correct answer as they aren't practical for

> them.

Cycling is currently impractical for the majority of people. I'm a confident cyclist and used to be pretty keen but I don't like the london murder roads. With removal of the majority of cars on many routes it becomes practical again.

There are a very large number of people for which walking and cycling is practical. People like driving because it's faster and easier, so they'll drive even if alternatives are fine. Making the car option harder will push people to walk rather than sit in traffic forever. If you really need to drive, the option will remain.

[Abe_froeman]

Given the government's announcement today that we should all be using public transport as per normal and get back to business as usual as soon as possible it's time the council ended these farcical "covid" related schemes instantly.

[Spartacus]

Mr chicken

My point was that walking or cycling isn't practical simply because of things like disability, age, needing to carry babies, needing to go long distances, carry heavy or impractical loads and so on (the list goes on and if I wanted to walk or cycle all the time I would move to Holland 😃)

I actually am a confident cyclists but for various reasons I can't at the moment and the lack of public transport is not down to too many cars, we aren't served by tubes and buses take too long (even when the roads are empty they take ages as they need to necessarily stop to pick people up !)

I'm all for well thought out and consulted fairly measures which isn't what is happening at the moment.

[thebestnameshavegone]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> Mr chicken

> My point was that walking or cycling isn't

> practical simply because of things like

> disability, age, needing to carry babies, needing

> to go long distances, carry heavy or impractical

> loads and so on (the list goes on and if I wanted

> to walk or cycle all the time I would move to

> Holland 😃)

>

These are all outliers in terms of what actually constitutes modal traffic share. All they did in Holland was decide that there should be plenty of much more appealing alternatives to making a trip by car and offer up lots of alternatives for active transport, they weren't crazy hippies or anarchists, they just realised life could be better.

I love the bloke up there ^^ insisting families *need* to make trips by car. What we're dealing with are a bunch of highly priveliged people who can't imagine their lives being even slightly more inconvenient.

[Rockets]

Please please please stop using the Netherlands as a great example. It is a great example of how cycling can be integrated with other forms of road use but it is also very, very different to the UK. Fundamentally different.

For a start Amsterdam, the biggest city has only 800,000 people living in it and is very very small.It is not a mega city, like London.

The Netherlands is very very flat. So flat that they were able to develop significant canal networks that came with tow paths - you may have noticed Amsterdam is famous for it's canals! Tow paths lend themselves very nicely to cycle lanes.

Much of the Netherlands was reclaimed in the 1920s so is relatively new and don't rely on Victorian infrastructure.

Due to the flat nature of the country and tow paths cycling has always been a big part of the culture there.

So please, show me a mega city that developed significantly during Victorian times and built along railways lines and tube lines and then I might pay attention. But please, don't cite The Netherlands as a comparable model to what could happen here. It won't.

[thebestnameshavegone]

...

[thebestnameshavegone]

Hmmmm As recently as the 70s, the Netherlands was choked with traffic. Don't know how much you've cycled there, but tow paths are hardly the main feature of riding. There's tons of integrated infrastructure.I rode 200km across the Netherlands last year asking segregated cycle routes with barely a canal in sight.

We'll get there, it's just that we have huge Conservatism locally from comparitively wealthy and privileged residents who can't imagine ever having to compromise their lifestyles for the environment.

[Rockets]

The cycling revolution started in the Netherlands in the 1970s after huge numbers of children were killed on the roads. Since then it has been part of a mix- transport usage plan across the country where equal weight is given to all transport types. This is what we all want.

It was built into many town plans from the outset because much of the development was Greenfield or reclaimed!

Did you happen to cycle through a mega city during your 200km cycle?

And yes, I have done a fair bit of cycling myself there - my aunt and uncle used to live in Venlo!

[mr.chicken]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> Mr chicken

> My point was that walking or cycling isn't

> practical simply because of things like

> disability, age,

The point isn't to eliminate all car journeys ever, it's to eliminate many of them. OK, so you're of limited mobility, use a car. The majority of car journeys are not made by limited mobility people though. And in fact heavily encouraging those without mobility problems to use other modes of transport will free up more road space for those who need it more.

> needing to carry babies,

You know every time I get in this debate, people tell me my sister doesn't exist. She does. There are plenty of people who manage to have kids and not own a car. I know one.

> needing

> to go long distances, carry heavy or impractical

> loads and so on

What proportion of journeys involve you carrying heavy or impractical things? Do you always drive a van so you can carry particularly large and impractical loads? Or maybe a lorry because a van isn't really big enough either. Where does that end? Like I said, the point isn't to ban all car journeys ever, just the ones where you don't actually need to go by car.

> (the list goes on and if I wanted

> to walk or cycle all the time I would move to

> Holland 😃)

This has got to the nub of the matter: you simply don't want to.

> I actually am a confident cyclists but for various

> reasons I can't at the moment and the lack of

> public transport is not down to too many cars, we

> aren't served by tubes and buses take too long

We have trains. They're pretty decent. Depending on which part of Dulwich you live in, it's a half hour walk to Brixton where there's a fine tube. In fact pre-corona that was my morning commute.

> (even when the roads are empty they take ages as

> they need to necessarily stop to pick people up

> !)

If there were fewer cars, they could run more buses and they'd go faster.

> I'm all for well thought out and consulted fairly

> measures which isn't what is happening at the

> moment.

Seems good to me.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Ask cars to stop driving through a few residential streets and people lose their sh*t.

[first mate]

The flatness of NL compared to UK is a major consideration and really makes comparison almost pointless. Also think people who are talking about 200km rides are showing how invested they are in cycling as a lifestyle and hobby they have chosen because they love it. This is very different from forcing people into something that feels not only alien and difficult but may also present real physical obstacles.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Please please please stop using the Netherlands as

> a great example. It is a great example of how

> cycling can be integrated with other forms of road

> use but it is also very, very different to the UK.

> Fundamentally different.

>

> For a start Amsterdam, the biggest city has only

> 800,000 people living in it and is very very

> small.It is not a mega city, like London.

>

> The Netherlands is very very flat. So flat that

> they were able to develop significant canal

> networks that came with tow paths - you may have

> noticed Amsterdam is famous for it's canals! Tow

> paths lend themselves very nicely to cycle lanes.

>

> Much of the Netherlands was reclaimed in the 1920s

> so is relatively new and don't rely on Victorian

> infrastructure.

>

> Due to the flat nature of the country and tow

> paths cycling has always been a big part of the

> culture there.

>

> So please, show me a mega city that developed

> significantly during Victorian times and built

> along railways lines and tube lines and then I

> might pay attention. But please, don't cite The

> Netherlands as a comparable model to what could

> happen here. It won't.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Ask cars to stop driving through a few residential

> streets and people lose their sh*t.

But are they? Aren't they just saying that these particular closures are causing huge issues elsewhere and not dealing with the issue they were designed to...infact they are making things worse.

Anyway, One Dulwich now have the attention of Helen Hayes and are in dialogue with her and she has indicated she has some concerns. This is exactly the path that was followed at Loughborough junction and when the proper politicians get involved you know things are moving in the right direction..... ultimately the local council's folly may have a longer term impact as their mismanagement of these programmes will impact their political ability to push proper plans through - people won't trust them on anything.

[intexasatthe moment]

rahrah I think you frequently make good points and this isn't directed at you but everyone

please can we stop referring to "residential " streets .It implies some sort of hierarchy where "residential streets " should have priority when considering vehicle movement. I appreciate that roads vary in width and how many bends they have ( reducing the need to introduce more measures to slow traffic) but people also live and suffer from pollution on wider straighter roads that carry buses .

[James Barber]

But the UK does have a road hierarchy.

Motorways, dual carriageway, A road, B road, unclassified road - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-road-classification-and-the-primary-route-network

This Manual for Streets - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjctqqZ6tjqAhWkQxUIHXswBhAQFjAKegQIBBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F341513%2Fpdfmanforstreets.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3fQ2fpERMEtyUUOBDv-Q1d - altogh printed way back tries to explain how to balance place with route.

[Spartacus]

Mr chicken

Your attempt to belittle my comments has shown your ignorance concerning others needs and mobility challenges which doesn't put you in a good light morally.