LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[JEG1]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> I can't speak for DC, but from my observations

> Alleyns and Jags certainly attract high volumes of

> car traffic, as confirmed by their school travel

> plans. The issue with these schools is they have

> a very wide catchment area, much wider than the

> state schools, and I suspect many parents are the

> type who prefer to ferry their kids to school in

> chelsea tractors rather than by bus.

>

>

I imagine there are a fair few parents lucky enough to live in (or have an address in) the tiny catchment areas of the 'outstanding' Dulwich Village and Charter schools, who also own 'Chelsea tractors'. They might not drive their children to school in the morning, but I'm sure they drive them to swimming, piano, drama, tutors etc. It's easy to blame one 'type'.of people when everyone is as much to blame really, unless you don't own a car at all.

[holymoly]

Vehicular traffic includes mobility scooters, waste disposal, post office, deliveries - many vital services. Trips to swimming, shops etc just as necessary for those who are reliant on modes of transport in specific circumstances. Southwark LBC and TfL are well aware that there are no regular public transport mechanisms east to west Dulwich and limited north to South. Southwark LBC 'should' but do not have holistic plans to create meaningful change. Their plans are politically motivated, impact the 'many' Dulwich residents and benefit the few. Shame on them.

[Melihoople]

holymoly Wrote:

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

> Vehicular traffic includes mobility scooters,

> waste disposal, post office, deliveries - many

> vital services. Trips to swimming, shops etc just

> as necessary for those who are reliant on modes of

> transport in specific circumstances. Southwark LBC

> and TfL are well aware that there are no regular

> public transport mechanisms east to west Dulwich

> and limited north to South. Southwark LBC

> 'should' but do not have holistic plans to create

> meaningful change. Their plans are politically

> motivated, impact the 'many' Dulwich residents and

> benefit the few. Shame on them.

I am deeply concerned by the lack of public transport & these plans.

[exdulwicher]

Melihoople Wrote:

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

>

> I am deeply concerned by the lack of public

> transport & these plans.

Public transport runs as normal. P4 still goes through the village; 37 can still get from Goose Green up ED Grove and past ND station; the 176, 185 etc are unaffected on LL and the 12 can still wind its tortuous way through the back streets of Peckham to the library.

The council don't run the buses. They will however consider and accommodate bus routes in their road plans. Also if there's less traffic overall, bus times become much more reliable.

[holymoly]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> Melihoople Wrote:

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

> >

> > I am deeply concerned by the lack of public

> > transport & these plans.

>

> Public transport runs as normal. P4 still goes

> through the village; 37 can still get from Goose

> Green up ED Grove and past ND station; the 176,

> 185 etc are unaffected on LL and the 12 can still

> wind its tortuous way through the back streets of

> Peckham to the library.

>

> The council don't run the buses. They will however

> consider and accommodate bus routes in their road

> plans. Also if there's less traffic overall, bus

> times become much more reliable.

You miss the point. The closure stops necessary access across Dulwich, worsening the limited public transport (buses) that currently exist. The route across Dulwich would be closed. The traffic through Dulwich Village, South Circ and Lordship Lane would become unworkable, the existing buses impacted and more air pollution caused. Southwark have already been refused by TfL to make changes to the Barry rd waiting point for buses so this is the hair brained counter scheme. The scheme is pure madness along the lines of the Loughborough Junction debacle.

[Melihoople]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> Melihoople Wrote:

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

> >

> > I am deeply concerned by the lack of public

> > transport & these plans.

>

> Public transport runs as normal. P4 still goes

> through the village; 37 can still get from Goose

> Green up ED Grove and past ND station; the 176,

> 185 etc are unaffected on LL and the 12 can still

> wind its tortuous way through the back streets of

> Peckham to the library.

>

> The council don't run the buses. They will however

> consider and accommodate bus routes in their road

> plans. Also if there's less traffic overall, bus

> times become much more reliable.

There are no workable East/West public transport options.

[rollflick]

Many people in this thread are claiming that traffic is only a problem during school drop off/pick up times. But the traffic data gathered by the council clearly shows that traffic - and air pollution - levels are high into the evening. All the data is on the consultation page in the evidence report, here's a link for anyone who's not found it yet: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/our-healthy-streets-dulwich-phase-3/supporting_documents/OHS%20Dulwich%20Phase%203%20Evidence%20Pack.pdf

If you think the council data is wrong, please tell us why. Otherwise shouldn't we move on to focus on facts?

In terms of public transport, the only credible way now to get improvements is to limit car traffic here. Doing that means fewer delays for buses (so the same number of buses can operate a faster, higher frequency service) and it will increase demand, creating a business case for TfL to invest in service improvements in our area. There's no space for major development in the area so no developer cash. The govt's new "Levelling up" agenda means London won't get more cash at the time when TfL's budget is going down the hole that is Crossrail. Lobbying TfL for more services will get nowhere.

The council has a clear mandate for change. For anyone still with misgivings about these proposals despite looking at the compelling evidence underpinning them, the effective way to influence them would be to come up with alternatives that would lead to similar improvements for air quality, cycling etc.

[intexasatthe moment]

holymoly - was the meeting informative ,good on you if you were there for the 9am presentation .

I see there are 2 more

Presentation and Workshop - Herne Hill Baptist Church

From 29 Feb 2020 at 09:00 to 29 Feb 2020 at 12:30

Presentation and Workshop - JAGS

From 4 Mar 2020 at 18:30 to 4 Mar 2020 at 21:00

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/our-healthy-streets-dulwich-phase-3/

[sand12]

The presentation today at Alleyn?s was informative. I wasn?t able to stay for the QA afterward. The representatives from the council were doing their best to clarify and present the options under consideration. Some folks were eager to voice their objections, but it was unclear if they had taken enough time to listen or read through the documentation beforehand.

We have to address this issue collectively. Pollution and congestion are a health hazard for all- young/old, pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers. The area was not built to accommodate the level of thru traffic, commuters who park/ride, and the increase in pupil numbers at the private and state schools, the rise in household deliveries/couriers, or AI which redirects traffic to routes which shorten the journey, but cause harm to the local area. We need to address these issues collectively and with empathy. There are many reasons why each of us has cause to use a particular mode of transport, or not. We should listen to what those reasons are as well as share how those choices impact on others. Some measures will need to be trialed and revisited, but inaction is causing irreparable physical harm.

[holymoly]

Southwark presentation this morning clarified that all the funding for this work is coming from TfL and not from Southwark. So as we have seen before, TfL as funding body will want specific outcomes - unclear what the range of specific outcomes will be. But for sure they will not want to permit any thing that impacts buses.

This is consultation on Phase 3 - responses to be in by 29th March. Form at: www.southwark.gov.uk/ohs-dulwich

The specifics of what is proposed are still contradictory on Southwark's own materials and so it was not possible to get informed answers to the access for residents for Area B and other Areas. We are described as ?Permit Holders?. Andy Simmons stated that residents would get permission to access. He was not clear whether all residents in areas A, B and C get access to all areas or just their own. When specifically asked, he stated that Teachers would not be given permits. Not sure that this is correct as they would need them to get in to park in Alleyns, surely? He also stated that Plumbers, carers etc would be permitted but under some sort of yet to be clarified arrangement. No clarity has been given on whether these Permits are chargeable for residents and/or for others accessing. He also mentioned that that they wish to offer CPZ in these areas as well ? so this all sounds chargeable access driven.

See the diagram on the Consultation link above and I am now referring to that and another A4 document available today that had more detail.

1. Junction East Dulwich Grove and Townley Road

Time restrictions here are proposed to be lengthy. 7-10am and 3-7pm with no turn into Townley from either direction, except cyclists. Not clear where the school buses will stop.

Outside these hours, access is for Residents and other ?permit holders? only. Not clear who this covers ? whether all area A,B,C residents and which other categories of user.

2. Townley Road

There is access for residents (Areas not specified) and other permit holders who can exit onto EDG during the restricted hours.

The controls at Lordship Lane junction are not specified as restricted hours but permit residents in. They will permit non-permit holders in but these user cannot exit onto EDG and would have to go back out via Lordship Lane or Court lane.

3. Roundabout at Burbage Road and Dulwich Village

This is not shown on the consultation map but it is intended for there to be two cameras on the Dulwich Village entry and Burbage Rd entry from this roundabout, that will prevent College Rd and Gallery Rd traffic using those routes. Residents/Permit holders will be allowed to go through. Other users will have to return to the South Circ.

The major access restriction at Dulwich Village blocks access to all.

[slarti b]

exdulwicher Wrote:

> Public transport runs as normal. P4 still goes through the village; 37 can still get from Goose

> Green up ED Grove and past ND station; the 176 185 etc are unaffected on LL and the 12 can still

> wind its tortuous way through the back streets of Peckham to the library.

> ...

> Also if there's less traffic overall, bus times become much more reliable.

I dont think you have considered the knock on effects of the proposals.

EDG and, especially, LL will end up with far more traffic. This will delay the 185\176\42, all highly important North South bus routes,along LL. More traffic on EDG will make the already erratic 37 even less reliable. The P4 is the only route likely to benefit.

A scheme that displaces traffic and worsens public transport will not benefit wide public health.

[mockingbird]

sand12 Wrote:

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

> The presentation today at Alleyn?s was

> informative. I wasn?t able to stay for the QA

> afterward. The representatives from the council

> were doing their best to clarify and present the

> options under consideration. Some folks were eager

> to voice their objections, but it was unclear if

> they had taken enough time to listen or read

> through the documentation beforehand.

>

> We have to address this issue collectively.

> Pollution and congestion are a health hazard for

> all- young/old, pedestrians, cyclists, and

> drivers. The area was not built to accommodate the

> level of thru traffic, commuters who park/ride,

> and the increase in pupil numbers at the private

> and state schools, the rise in household

> deliveries/couriers, or AI which redirects traffic

> to routes which shorten the journey, but cause

> harm to the local area. We need to address these

> issues collectively and with empathy. There are

> many reasons why each of us has cause to use a

> particular mode of transport, or not. We should

> listen to what those reasons are as well as share

> how those choices impact on others. Some measures

> will need to be trialed and revisited, but

> inaction is causing irreparable physical harm.

Yes we need to understand and take action.

However the presentation was not very clear in fact, many questions went unanswered about the timing and scope of past traffic and air monitoring and no honest conversation to admit any limitations. The Council representative was clear to note that they wanted to understand 'unintended' consequences - but none were put forward as considered already by Council. In the very limited time allowed for the breakout sessions after the 3 hour meeting, the Officers indicated there is no intention to allow for a pilot and plan to move straight to construction and post build monitoring.

Personally I consider that this approach is not acceptable and commits considerable spend before the scheme is properly tested and unintended consequences understood. I would be prepared to work with a trial but not straight to construction for such a major set of works. I think it is unreasonable for our Council to expect to be able to operate in this way with taxpayers' money.

I encourage you to attend (and go prepared with questions) to one of the remaining two meetings. Perhaps ask for the extra material distributed in advance, so that you have time to look at it properly and can tailor your questions accordingly.

[dbboy]

From what has been stated so far it appears to be TfL monies, not Southwark Council monies.

[Serena2012]

Excellent post Mockingbird. I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. The lack of a trial is particularly concerning, because although there was some acknowledgment from the council that they could look to make tweaks once any zone was in place, there is a real risk that it will be very difficult to make wholesale changes once the horse has bolted, even in circumstances where the unintended consequences are grave.

[goldilocks]

Just to reiterate - there is loads of material online on the council website. The healthy streets weblink has been shared upthread but otherwise typing 'healthy streets Dulwich' will find it. There is detailed discussions on the proposals, as well as additional / optional wider areas. In addition people should review the 'evidence pack' for an understanding of the data that has driven the options as outlined.

It would be great if people could take some time to understand really what is proposed by looking through this data - it may also help make the consultations more useful for people.

[mockingbird]

Serena2012 Wrote:

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

> Excellent post Mockingbird. I agree wholeheartedly

> with your comments. The lack of a trial is

> particularly concerning, because although there

> was some acknowledgment from the council that they

> could look to make tweaks once any zone was in

> place, there is a real risk that it will be very

> difficult to make wholesale changes once the horse

> has bolted, even in circumstances where the

> unintended consequences are grave.

Thank you - A pilot is essential in my view

[alice]

Are there not computer programs that can model the effects of different road closures?

[mockingbird]

I recommend that anyone going to the next meetings takes a look at the limited data modelling provided so far. Most of what is expressed on the Council consultation feedback documents and supporting documents is not clear on that.

Traffic:

We should request I suggest, the LinSig documents and other modelling that has been done for traffic flows with dates etc to be loaded on the Consultation website so that these can be looked at - not just the summaries that Southwark has chosen to present.

Air quality

The council presenter said yesterday that these are limited samples on street because the cost of detailed air quality monitoring is prohibitive (mentioned Google car and ?500k running cost). Perhaps Google will let us have this data so that we can see it in context.

You can see the summary of the earlier consultations and the 'supporting' evidence at this link:

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/roadworks-and-highway-improvements/street-improvements/our-healthy-streets-dulwich

Worth a look at the final pages of the Summary of Feedback document. Understandable that Mums for Lungs and Clean Air for Dulwich have sent in their organisation's views but the Dulwich Society commenting on our behalf I do find unacceptable. I pay my subs but I certainly do not give them permission to represent me. Does Southwark treat them as a consultee?

The Dulwich Society, 12 December

Our Healthy Streets: Dulwich

The Dulwich Society responds as below to the consultation on phase 2. The Society has a membership of over 1,100

households, mainly in Dulwich and in the area affected by the potential solutions.

The Society has been active in encouraging its members to engage with the issues.

While the Society has not carried out a systematic survey of its members? views, it appears clear that the membership

is in favour of radical solutions to the problems of:

? traffic generated air pollution;

? traffic congestion due to an excessive volume of vehicles using the roads and junctions;

? through traffic from outside the area in Dulwich Village and elsewhere;

? road safety, especially for pupils getting to and from school;

? inefficient use of the limited amount of car parking, partly because of all-day parking by commuters using the railway

stations;

? general impact on the public realm from domination by motor vehicles.

I attach a list of local stakeholders which we think the Council should consult. We can help you with contacts (subject to

their approval).

The Society believes that measures such as the first seven listed in the consultation leaflet would have the potential to

solve these problems.

The Society therefore supports the proposals you are working on.

[Serena2012]

Alice - The council is proposing to undertake modelling once they have a more concrete proposal covering areas A, B and C. However, it was conceded at yesterday?s meeting that no modelling will ever be perfect (hence my strong preference for a trial).

In the context of the modelling, my concern, as a resident of one of the A roads which could bear the brunt of some of the ?redistributed traffic? is that there is proper stress testing of the assumption that the A roads involved (many stretches of which are narrower, more densely populated and have properties closer to the road than other B roads in the area) can safely handle any increased volume of traffic, and the knock on impact on air quality on these roads (particularly given that these A roads house a large number of schools and young families).

It is imperative that this data is shared by the council in a comprehensive format, so that residents are fully informed on the potential repercussions and any unintended consequences before the statutory consultation takes place, and that the modelling isn?t simply part of a box ticking exercise/ one designed to only share ?positive?/ ?helpful? outcomes whilst failing to address the negatives.

Alice Wrote:

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

> Are there not computer programs that can model the

> effects of different road closures?

[Metallic]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> exdulwicher Wrote:

>

> > Public transport runs as normal. P4 still goes

> through the village; 37 can still get from Goose

> > Green up ED Grove and past ND station; the 176

> 185 etc are unaffected on LL and the 12 can still

> > wind its tortuous way through the back streets

> of Peckham to the library.

> > ...

> > Also if there's less traffic overall, bus times

> become much more reliable.

>

> I dont think you have considered the knock on

> effects of the proposals.

>

> EDG and, especially, LL will end up with far more

> traffic. This will delay the 185\176\42, all

> highly important North South bus routes,along LL.

> More traffic on EDG will make the already erratic

> 37 even less reliable. The P4 is the only route

> likely to benefit.

>

> A scheme that displaces traffic and worsens public

> transport will not benefit wide public health.

And it is only during certain hours, not 24/7. Although the longer evening traffic levels suggest that there should be more attention to be paid to this. The pollution levels are just as high long in to the evening.

[exdulwicher]

alice Wrote:

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

> Are there not computer programs that can model the

> effects of different road closures?

Yes although it's quite complex to program it and then extrapolate. The challenge is that you don't move every single vehicle from Road A to to Road B. Some of that traffic will just disappear - the car journey done by bike, on foot or just not done at all.

You can see similar on the Hammersmith Bridge closure. Some of the traffic has been displaced elsewhere, some of it has simply stopped being car traffic (the bridge is still open to cyclists and pedestrians). So modelling it relies a bit on assumptions, data from previous similar schemes etc. Asking to see the actual modelling isn't necessarily helpful - there's a reason they employ statisticians, data analysts and computer programmers to do this work and then present a report of findings.

There's a decent basic summary of some of the methods, modelling, assumptions etc here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_simulation

[Penguin68]

I have already said, somewhere above, but I will say it again - the ULEZ is about to impact Dulwich (inside the S Circular) - either this will have an impact on the 'healthiness' of the streets - in which case might it not be worthwhile actually measuring that impact - or it won't, in which case why is it being imposed on us?

The actual air quality in London has actually improved in the last few years anyway (despite more diesel vehicles) - whilst it isn't yet good, the trajectory (and this is before ULEZ implementation) is broadly positive https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/news?view=238.

And the regular breaching of air quality standards, whilst deplorable, should perhaps be understood in the context of standards being (quite properly) raised.

This action by the council is far more about their war being waged on the use and ownership of private vehicles - which they think is politically wrong - than it is about improving the air quality for anyone - as it clearly won't for all those living and walking in the areas which will have far more queuing and slow moving traffic imposed on them from just one leafy suburb than before.

Can I just say that there is nothing morally wrong with having a private vehicle - particularly in a hilly area with little effective public transport - just look at the threads about advice in getting anywhere once the few train lines or down. As TFL hits more financial troubles it will cut services to us in SE London further - and we can be clear that our council has neither the clout, nor the interest, to object. And the 'permits to move' around Dulwich, once a right to London Citizens, will not come free, or, over time, cheap.

[@Woodwarde]

1. School Street design - new terminology not in the Southwark consultation documents.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/school-street-road-closures?chapter=2&article

The presentation on Saturday described the environment aimed for at Townley Road as a School Street - at least at the ED Grove/Townley access junction. This would be an enhancement for Alleyns but not yet for the State schools within the consultation area. I see from the link that there is a trial at Harris East Dulwich if anyone has knowledge of that?

The controls described at the meeting on Saturday for extended access restrictions for all vehicles (I am not clear if this excludes coaches as the information given by Southwark is non specific) at the EDG junction with Townley were also described as a School Street closure.

2. CPZ

The Consultation documents describe permitted access to the affected Areas A, B and C via camera control. However the A5 pamphlet (page 7) and the presentation on Saturday also advocates CPZ parking controls. Looking at the design for Area B, this seems an inevitable imposition, as the access controls operate only at the Townley Rd access point and anyone wanting free parking for Alleyns will now be encouraged to enter via Court Lane and work their way around to any space on Court lane, the D Roads, Woodwarde, Dovercourt or Beauval.

[Romnarz]

Did the Dulwich Society ask it?s 1000 plus members before responding ?

[first mate]

Romnarz Wrote:

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

> Did the Dulwich Society ask it?s 1000 plus

> members before responding ?

Someone else commented on this and suggested members were not consulted.