LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Serena2012]

roywj Wrote:

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

> There is clearly significantly more traffic at a

> standstill during rush hours in Dulwich Village

> travelling towards the crossroads at Village

> Way/EDG/Red Post Hill. This will get worse when

> schools return and will increase pollution for

> Dulwich Infants, Dulwich Hamlet & JAPs schools.

>

> There is also clearly significantly more traffic

> at a standstill during rush hours on East Dulwich

> Grove looking to turn right into Townley Road.

> This again will get worse when the schools return

> and will increase pollution for JAGs.

>

> Both issues above can be clearly linked to the

> road closure on Calton Avenue. I understand that

> there was a traffic problem on Calton Avenue but

> closure of the road has created the problems above

> affecting pollution levels outside local schools.

I think in practice, it is highly likely the council will impose further restrictions on traffic through Dulwich Village (perhaps, for example by limiting movement northbound to buses; residents and bikes), so it may well be that come October (or whenever they are implemented), the impact on the village schools will be less.

There are however no plans to mitigate (or indeed, anything concrete) to monitor traffic on the A roads, so in reality the situation on EDG, Village Way and Half Moon Lane is only set to get worse.

[Spartacus]

And there's more to come , see the response from councillor Lemming to this tweet https://twitter.com/CleanAirDulwich/status/1296852181832937473?s=09 from clean air for Dulwich

Hold on for more problems !

[Serena2012]

Southwark are very much using the Streetspace initiative to bring the OHS proposals in via the back door, so in reality, we can expect to see all of those being implemented, plus some other pet projects (such as the totally self-serving 24/7 closures of Elsie, Derwent, Melbourne North and Tintagel Crescent in the Goose Green ward where school street closures would have sufficed).

What angers me the most is that unlike OHS which had a big budget, and plans to model traffic flows before implementation, and to carefully monitor and tweak these changes, this is being brought in on a shoestring. With no transparency or accountability and very little intention to monitor the impact on the boundary roads bearing the burden of these changes. These boundary roads being the roads that house the majority of the area?s schools.

The Village itself will ultimately be fine, but OHS was always about preserving an oasis in the leafy streets of Dulwich, by shifting the burden of pollution elsewhere.

It is a disgrace that the full results of the OHS consultation have not been published in circumstances where all its recommendations will soon be implemented.

[mr.chicken]

Well clearly the best solution is to eventually block off those roads as well. But it's not like the council can jump from the bad situation we had before the LTNs started to perfection in one go. They need to give time for people to adjust to the new situation, then they can adjust it a bit, let purple adjust and so on until they actually get to where we need them to get to.

Actually I think most people understand that perfectly but they just want to keep their cars and keep polluting no matter the consequences.

Serena2012 Wrote:

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

> Metallic Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Does anyone on here not feel at all guilty

> about

> > traffic displacement? That report on 11%

> > disappearing traffic is so out of date as to

> be

> > meaningless in the particular geography of our

> > bigger area. I feel guilty about Croxted Rd

> which

> > will have it all coming down on them, along

> with

> > Rosendale Rd. Or Lordship Lane.

>

> As a resident of one of the roads directly

> impacted (EDG) all I can say is that the traffic

> has increased significantly as a result of these

> closures. I am very concerned about what Autumn

> will bring (both in terms of further closures; the

> weather causing those who might otherwise travel

> actively to jump into cars, and the impact of the

> schools returning).

>

> Against this backdrop, the council?s seeming

> reluctance to commit to any form of detailed

> monitoring of the impact on the boundary roads

> seems utterly bewildering. I can only assume that

> this is because they wish to avoid the

> inconvenient truth, which is that all these

> schemes are doing is to shift the burden of heavy

> traffic and resultant pollution from one affluent

> part of the neighbourhood, where car ownership is

> very high, to its poorer streets. Poorer streets

> where car ownership is far lower, and where

> accordingly, many of the residents are not the

> source of the congestion, yet have to live with

> the life long health consequences. Poorer streets

> which house the majority of the area?s schools,

> and a significant proportion of the area?s social

> housing.

>

> They are doing so against the backdrop of a body

> of overwhelming evidence demonstrating the

> significant adverse impact air pollution has on

> children; in the knowledge that idling traffic is

> far more polluting than free flowing traffic, as

> well as evidence indicating that even a small

> increase in air pollution (of 1 microgram per

> cubic metre of pm2.5) significantly increases the

> risk of severe morbidity and mortality in the

> context of COVID-19. They are also doing so in

> full knowledge that the last census data shows

> that many of the streets set to bear the burden of

> these changes have a much higher BAME population

> than those that will benefit, in circumstances

> where evidence suggests that people from BAME

> backgrounds are more vulnerable to Covid-19. This

> in my view is utterly unconscionable.

[Spartacus]

Correct Mr clucking, people want to keep their cars so that they can get directly to places safely without worrying about the weather, over crowded public transport or how much they need to carry on their journey. After all they've paid for their cars, pay ved and other taxes so what's wrong with wanting to drive.

The big concern is that the council are implementing experimental schemes without consultation or proper monitoring of the before during and after metrics.

[hopskip]

Southwark have just published proposals on their next Covid ETMO measures in case you haven't seen it.

Decision page:http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgDelegatedDecisions.aspx?&RP=0&K=0&V=0&DM=0&HD=0&DS=0&Next=true&META=mgdelegateddecisions&DR=09/08/2020-23/08/2020.

Scroll down and look for the two links - Batch 2 and Batch 3 (top and bottom of list currently)

Here is the link?for the Area B/C Dulwich scheme additions:http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50023654&Opt=0

Jaw dropping mess and implications. Our Cllrs have obviously been supporting these for some time.....

[nxjen]

The bigger concern is the levels of pollution that arise because ?people want to keep their cars so that they can get directly to places safely without worrying about the weather, over crowded public transport or how much they need to carry on their journey [who believe that as] they've paid for their cars, pay ved and other taxes ... what's wrong with wanting to drive?

[mockingbird]

The impact of these extended proposals are immense. Just take a look at the displacement that this will cause.

Blocking off Townley to EDG, Dulwich Village from College Rd, Burbage and Turney.

hopskip Wrote:

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

> Southwark have just published proposals on their

> next Covid ETMO measures in case you haven't seen

> it.

>

> Decision

> page:http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgDelegated

> Decisions.aspx?&RP=0&K=0&V=0&DM=0&HD=0&DS=0&Next=t

> rue&META=mgdelegateddecisions&DR=09/08/2020-23/08/

> 2020.

> Scroll down and look for the two links - Batch 2

> and Batch 3 (top and bottom of list currently)

>

> Here is the link?for the Area B/C Dulwich scheme

> additions:http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssu

> eHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50023654&Opt=0

>

> Jaw dropping mess and implications. Our Cllrs

> have obviously been supporting these for some

> time.....

[Spartacus]

hopskip Wrote:

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

> Southwark have just published proposals on their

> next Covid ETMO measures in case you haven't seen

> it.

>

> Decision

> page:http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgDelegated

> Decisions.aspx?&RP=0&K=0&V=0&DM=0&HD=0&DS=0&Next=t

> rue&META=mgdelegateddecisions&DR=09/08/2020-23/08/

> 2020.

> Scroll down and look for the two links - Batch 2

> and Batch 3 (top and bottom of list currently)

>

> Here is the link?for the Area B/C Dulwich scheme

> additions:http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssu

> eHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50023654&Opt=0

>

> Jaw dropping mess and implications. Our Cllrs

> have obviously been supporting these for some

> time.....

Muppet's go on a bike crusade is my thoughts on this

Where is the public consultation

Where is the pre implementing monitoring and stats so that a post implementing comparison can be made?

The changes around the village are going to have far reaching ramifications on other roads with no monitoring or care by the council. I'm surprised that there hasn't been a legal challenge over the way the council is putting it's iron boot down !

[Penguin68]

For the sixth weekend running the Orange line through Honor Oak Park has been fully suspended, and TfL has closed numbers of tube stations daily outside rush hours.

And yet we are told to abandon our cars and walk or bicycle anywhere we need to go.

Well, nuts to that. Whilst an integrated transport policy isn't apparently possible (as Southwark and TfL operate to entirely different agendas) and whilst we in the south of the borough are so poorly supplied with public transport options (weekend closures of lines are always with us) I find it completely insulting that I should be harangued by the car hating brigade (many of whom do not apparently live locally and may well live in those flat parts of London well supplied with public transport not regularly suspended).

[Spartacus]

I guess if the council want to segregate businesses in the Village from customers then it can only be good for places like Lordship Lane and Northcross road. Both excellent places to shop !

[ed_pete]

So, with these new restrictions that are basically preventing any non-bus (bus presumably includes Foundation School coaches), non-taxi, non-cycle traffic flowing north to south through Dulwich Village, or from Lordship Lane to EDG, what happens to deliveries ? I don't see any exemption for delivery vehicles so does that mean that will also be forced to sit in the inevitable jams too ? No Uber Eats or Deliveroo during those hours (OK not peak hours for food delivery I accept) but say you were having a new sofa or a washing machine or building supplies ?

[Abe_froeman]

It's a shame for all those sports clubs on burbage road. We cancelled out family membership of one of them over the summer in anticipation of the healthy streets programme being forced through without consultation and now drive to another sports club that is less painful to get to.

[TheCat]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/22/exclusive-councils-forced-humiliating-u-turn-grant-shapps-disastrous/

[Spartacus]

That's subscriber only content tc

Can you screen grab and post it or find another way of sharing it ?

[TheCat]

Exclusive: Councils reverse street closures after backlash to 'green' scheme

The Government's ?250m plan to close roads to cars has increased congestion and hurt businesses, say residents

By

Izzy Lyons

and

Dominic Penna

22 August 2020 ? 5:02pm

Councils have been forced to perform a humiliating U-turn on Grant Shapps? green roads policy, after residents across the country revolted against the street closures.

The Transport Secretary unveiled a ?250 million scheme this summer which gave local authorities extra powers to close roads to cars and expand cycle lanes without running consultations.

But ?furious? residents from Brighton to Edinburgh protested against the ?stupid? changes, saying it has led to increased congestion, impacted local businesses, and created problems for emergency service vehicles.

The growing backlash has this week led to numerous councils reversing the road closures, including Harrow in north west London, which abandoned proposals for four low-traffic neighbourhoods.

One councillor said the plans amounted to ?using a sledgehammer to crack a nut? and that there were fears the lanes would cause ?absolute chaos? when schools reopen in September.

Cllr Paul Osborn, the leader of Harrow Conservatives, said the suggestions ?had not been particularly well thought through? and pointed to an online consultation that attracted 1,192 comments from concerned residents.

?There?s no real demand from residents. Lots are, in fact, against the schemes. So they just end up being taken away anyway, and wasting a lot of money in the meantime,? he said.

Welwyn high Street

Grant Shapps was forced to contact a council in his own constituency to complain that the one-way system and barriers were 'not suited to the old layout of Welwyn' CREDIT: Geoff Pugh

Elsewhere, Sheffield City Council confirmed on Thursday that the city?s A61 inner ring-road will return to a two-lane capacity in each direction after a reduced traffic measure was implemented without consultation in July.

Cllr Bob Johnson said that it was ?time to end the trial? as the summer holidays came to a close.

In Herefordshire, feedback from businesses and the public has led to the council postponing plans to reduce two city centre streets to one lane.

In Brighton and Hove, a petition of no confidence in the Green Party-run council - which has been signed by more than 2,700 residents - said proposals for more cycle lanes were ?stupid ideas? that will ?inevitably destroy local businesses and the town in general.?

Residents in Edinburgh are ?furious? at plans to expand the number of cycle lanes, according to Liberal Democrat councillor Robert Aldridge.

?People are absolutely livid, I?ve had 400 emails from individuals and there?s been a petition of about 1,500 people,? he said. ?It?s a really quiet neighbourhood and it?s highly unusual for people to be this exercised, but they are furious. They feel patronised and insulted.?

People living in the south London suburb of Bromley, which is next to Croydon, this week received a letter from Conservative councillor Colin Smith informing them that he has begun legal proceedings seeking to force Croydon Council to remove various planters and barriers blocking roads.

?I can confirm that Bromley has this week initiated the first tentative legal steps to try and have the barriers removed by order if commonsense isn?t deployed and their street paraphernalia removed swiftly ? as we would clearly far prefer,? he wrote.

A Croydon Council spokesman said: ?This temporary scheme, welcomed by many local residents, is already encouraging more walking and cycling for all people in the area, and addressing the issue of reduced capacity on public transport resulting from Covid social distancing measures.

?We are confident in our use of the emergency powers. Feedback is very important to us; we have already made improvements based on local input, and we remain keen to work closely with Bromley to resolve any concerns.?

Harrow?s deputy leader Cllr Keith Ferry said: ?Making changes can be scary. However, we need to make sure it is safe and possible for people to travel around the borough - especially as car journeys are now back to pre-Covid levels with more people going back to work.?

[Metallic]

A friend sent me the proposals. Woodwarde will be quieter in rush hour but the number of drop off and three point turns many are about to experience in front of their homes in Calton, Court, College, lower Turney, upper Burbage will be huge.

The councillors have sat with their fingers in their ears saying la la la la like kids do, when they don't want to hear the truth from us residents. As for the Estate - absent as usual from helping the doomed shops deal with this debacle and non existent support for residents who all live in a pretty Conservation area now blighted by cameras and probably warning notices of the bans.

[Abe_froeman]

The difference between those councils and ours is that they have some opposition councillors where as we just have labour councillors.

[Spartacus]

So sounds like some sort of petition or opposition needs to be brought into play along with support from our MPs to add weight to the argument.

I'm sure large numbers of people would object to the unaccountable schemes being implemented without proper consultation or need. And before someone cry's "pollution issues" that's what the ULEZ is going to tackle and these schemes are just making it worse in other roads as people will still drive but are now prepared to sit in traffic whilst they do it. It's akin to raising duty on cigarettes to deter smoking, people will stretch their finances to buy them as they want / need them, which whilst it's comparing apples to porcupines is still how drivers and families will look at their cars and journeys especially when the weather starts getting worse.

[Metallic]

I'm of the opinion that the councillors for Dulwich Village Ward don't expect to be re-elected so are going for broke. I doubt Helen Hayes MP will intervene unless there is a big threat to rebel somehow.

[Spartacus]

Then let's rebel and see what happens !

I predict a riot, I predict a riot 😆

[mockingbird]

Check appendices 1-4

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50023654&Opt=0

The correct holistic picure is shown on Burbage and Turney. Townley and DV are incorrect as they omit the Turney and Burbage closures (must have been an earlier version).

So Areas B and C are truly kettled.

[JohnL]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> It's akin to raising duty on

> cigarettes to deter smoking, people will stretch

> their finances to buy them as they want / need

> them, which whilst it's comparing apples to

> porcupines is still how drivers and families will

> look at their cars and journeys especially when

> the weather starts getting worse.

Taxing smokers was one of the best policies ever - saved so many lives.

[Spartacus]

You are correct johnl it did , but a large proportion of smokers just swallowed the cost and carried on.

The introduction of alternatives (electronic cigarettes) has actually been the biggest modal shift to change habits of smokers not punishing taxes and in that vein the fact that no credible alternatives are being offered (better transport infrastructure for example) that suits everyone, not just the young and fit (cycling and walking) is why people are wed to their cars and these schemes will just lead to congestion and pollution on other local roads.

If the mayor, council and government were serious then they would be implementing total solutions including public transport improvements , new railways, more bus routes and other modes of transport before impacting car journeys. It's got to be a total solution not tinkering at the edges and it needs to be in conjunction with residents to understand their local needs / requirements and not just based on a few people's comments or the councils perceptions.

[nxjen]

A strong public health campaign warning of the dangers of smoking to health which led to many, many people giving up was the driver that changed smokers? habits, not any ?modal shift?. Turned out people weren?t so wedded to their cigarettes: I too can see a parallel here.