LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Penguin68]

Around 70% of traffic going over Blackfriars bridge during rush hour is now people travelling on bikes, as a result of re-allocating a small amount of space for a segregated bike lane for example.

Routes into town are dramatically well served by public transport anyway - certainly during working hours. East: West routes in hilly SE London dramatically less well so. By virtually cutting off East Dulwich from areas West of it Southwark will be impacting the lives of pensioners and those with children for whom bikes may not be a real solution. If we are to rely solely on the South Circular (which can frequently be blocked and where traffic is regularly at a stand still locally) then many of our lives will be diminished and worsened. To keep traffic out of Oxford it created Park and Ride schemes - this is the same, but without the Park and Ride element of course.

[dbboy]

Were is your evidence that "Most people in Southwark don't own a car", because there seem to be lots of cars parked on Southwark roads, unless you are seeing some type of utopia.

This nonsense of driving at 20mph actually creates more pollution and is potentially dangerous. Gridlocks of traffic will create more, not less pollution.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> We always hear these arguements whenever anyone

> suggests measures to tackle issues with motor

> traffic. Yet we have seen some massive successes

> in London. Around 70% of traffic going over

> Blackfriars bridge during rush hour is now people

> travelling on bikes, as a result of re-allocating

> a small amount of space for a segregated bike lane

> for example. It is equivalent to the number of

> people carried by 64 full double-decker buses.

> There isn't the capacity to shift this many people

> in single occupancy vehicles even if you wanted

> to. The point is that we have limited space and we

> give the vast majority (around 80%)of it over to a

> very inefficient and damaging (albeit occasionally

> necessary) form of transport. Every time we try to

> re-balance the use of this scarce resource, we're

> told that it'll lead to gridlock. But this is

> almost never the reality once these schemes are

> introduced. I think it's worth experimenting a

> little. Something has to change if we're going to

> tackle climate change, local air pollution and the

> scandal of thousands of road accidents every year

> in London. Most people in Southwark don't own a

> car and so might reasonably question why so much

> of the public realm is organised around a minority

> activity with such damaging impacts.

[exdulwicher]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> And with the vehicles, the sports clubs, shops and

> restaurants may well also disappear.

>

> I suspect the schools may struggle too tbh. It

> will be hard to attract prospective parents from

> outside the area to send their children there when

> they have to travel by the public transport that

> is actually available to get to those streets

As rahrahrah says, everywhere this has happened (by accident or design), footfall (and spending) in shops increases, a significant percentage of vehicle traffic does disappear (replaced by foot, bicycle, scooter, car sharing, public transport) and, while any changes always require a settling in period, generally making places car-free (or "fewer cars" is an overwhelmingly positive move.

It's funny isn't it - people will go to a shopping destination like Westfields, Bluewater etc, park up - and then walk around a car-free environment because it's so much more pleasant. Many many shopping streets, high streets etc in the UK are pedestrianised, it's not an unusual sight. But suggest restricting vehicles in an area where that's not currently done and all hell breaks loose as people foresee all sorts of imaginary challenges which never actually materialise.

[sally buying]

Probably because the parking is free. Goods can be taken home in the car and you and purchases are not crushed into a dirty, sweaty space that is public transport.

Children can be transported in a safe manner and you do not have to worry that a traffic warden will give you a ticket for being 1 or 2 minutes late.

Also you can decided when you want to leave and not be left standing at a bus stop for a packed or non existent bus.

[Abe_froeman]

The second paragraph contradicts the first. Out of town shopping malls were the near death nell for many high streets until local councils realised they were turning towns into no go zones and started relaxing parking restrcitons.

[Rockets]

It doesn't take a traffic management genius to look at the plans the council are suggesting to realise they are fundamentally flawed and will cause a disaster for the other areas around it - unless of course you live in a car-free utopia dream world where your image of a modern city is a long way removed from reality and you believe people will suddenly stop using their cars for these journeys.

Lambeth's Loughborough folly proved that the utopia is a long way from reality....

Has Southwark presented any information on to where people are heading when they use that junction - do they know? If not, I think they should as that would be very telling and probably essential to assess the impact of the measure. But we all know they won't as they don't actually care for a proper consultation or review process as they demonstrated throughout the CPZ debacle.

[bels123]

Suggest reading the documents Rockets before predicting catastrophe.

This is phase 3 of the consultation, feeding back the solutions the local community chose to address the hotspots they identified. Not a top-down proposal being pushed by Southwark, they have learned from the past thankfully.

Traffic flows are all in there.

[Abe_froeman]

The car free utopia is laughable. The principal purpose, as far as very local residents are concerned, is to make it easier for the nimbys living in these streets to drive their own cars around and out onto other people's roads.

It's exactly the same as the motivation behind the CPZ around ED station and those barmy proposals to gate off Melbourne Grove (that seem to be resurrected by this scheme).

[Rockets]

Bels123 - I had read the documents to inform my decision but, as I am sure you will have noted yourself, the document doesn't say where the cars were going....it tells you the direction in which they are travelling not where they were going.....that last bit is pretty important (I learnt that bit in O level geography some years ago when doing basic road traffic management lessons)....because only then can the council, or local community, possibly make an informed decision on the impact of the measures they are suggesting i.e. are the majority of car movements school traffic, local traffic or through traffic? My personal feeling is that it is through traffic - hence my informed prediction of catastrophe.....;-) What do you think it is?

After the CPZ debacle do you actually trust the council to do anything other than force through what they want rather than what the community wants? Do you actually believe this is a consultation process?

If they push this proposal forward they will have to do something with Melbourne Grove as that would become the next logical route for people to take when Townley gets restricted and then they would need to deal with the left turn only onto Lordship Lane from ED Grove. But as with Loughborough junction councils tend not to worry about knock-on effect or consequences of their actions - they just do what they think is best for their objectives.

We've danced this merry dance before with the CPZ and we don't have to have soothsaying capabilities to determine where it is going to end up.......

[bels123]

P16 of the evidence pack shows high volume traffic routes - this should answer your initial question regarding where traffic using the junction is going. Not sure how they?d be expected to work out of school traffic v thru-traffic tbh. It?s info from ANPR cameras.

[@Woodwarde]

bels123 Wrote:

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

> P16 of the evidence pack shows high volume traffic

> routes - this should answer your initial question

> regarding where traffic using the junction is

> going. Not sure how they?d be expected to work out

> of school traffic v thru-traffic tbh. It?s info

> from ANPR cameras.

bels123 - how do you interpret page 16. I would be interested to hear what you understand from the columns, given the context presented (below). What does this mean over the 12 hour period and per hour in your view?

PAGE 16 text:

The tables below show all routes travelling through the area that have more than 50 motor vehicle journeys in a typical weekday 12 hour period. The figures show the total number of vehicle movements in that period, as well as the numbers for the morning and evening peaks.

This shows high volumes of traffic on many routes through the area ? particularly on Turney Road in both directions, and northbound routes through Dulwich Village.

The table below shows the total number of daily through journeys that would be affected by the measures proposed in Our Healthy Streets ? Dulwich: Phase 3. Potentially over 7000 journeys per day could be removed from the Dulwich Village area.

[Jakido]

Does the data show how many cars are estate agents driving to work...

[creditwheredue]

I?m glad Melbourne Grove is getting mentioned. It can often be difficult but the crossroads junction with EDG can often be an absolute nightmare. I do hope serious thought has been given to how this is going to be dealt with as even more traffic at this point is going to be hell.

[first mate]

And then you remember that the first phase of CPZ involved our scrupulously fair council deciding that residents around the railway station should have all day CPZ so they can park their cars. The council eager to get people out of their cars privileges those living closest to a transport hub.

[73jem]

Surely the main purpose of a parking scheme near , for example, the East Dulwich rail station, is to prevent people from outside the area driving in and parking for the day then taking the train, rather then travelling into London by public transport from where-ever they live. The ability to park near one's house is an incidental benefit, not the purpose of the scheme.

[Abe_froeman]

No the main purpose of it was to preserve parking spaces outside people's houses on Melbourne Grove, so that those people could get in their own cars evrey day, drive off to someone else's road and still have their parking space when they got home.

All documented on the "EDSTN Healthy Streets" twitter account

[Rockets]

Bels123 Slide 16 highlights the point beautifully....the council thinks people use Dulwich Village as a "short-cut" and they want to stop that from happening. If it is is being used as a short-cut that suggests that the cars won't disappear they will go another route - if it was purely school or local traffic you could lobby to say that these measures would force people to cycle or walk but it won't. These are through-journeys and those 7000 journeys will be forced along other routes.

This is a carbon copy of what happened at Loughborough Junction - they shut off car access to one part of the Lambeth and it caused chaos in another and it was a disaster of the highest order and cost the tax-payer a fortune.

Some of the more cynical amongst us might suggest that the improvement works Dulwich Village were deliberately designed to create congestion and increase pollution to allow them to accelerate their grand plan...a bit like the extension of double-yellows across ED to create parking chaos before the CPZ consultation...

[Metallic]

bels123 Wrote:

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

> Suggest reading the documents Rockets before

> predicting catastrophe.

>

> This is phase 3 of the consultation, feeding back

> the solutions the local community chose to address

> the hotspots they identified. Not a top-down

> proposal being pushed by Southwark, they have

> learned from the past thankfully.

>

> Traffic flows are all in there.

Except it is not clear how they obtained the 'destination' figures. They certainly didn't stop every driver as they approached this area to ask: where are you going? Yet they seem to know how many people drive through who are onward travellers.......

[tiddles]

I understand the business owners in the village are far from happy......

[first mate]

If that were really the case CPZ for a couple of hours a day would have done the job, yet the council insisted on all day? The necessity of locals closest to the station to be able to park was stated many times as the reason why CPZ had to be implemented.

73jem Wrote:

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

> Surely the main purpose of a parking scheme near ,

> for example, the East Dulwich rail station, is to

> prevent people from outside the area driving in

> and parking for the day then taking the train,

> rather then travelling into London by public

> transport from where-ever they live. The ability

> to park near one's house is an incidental benefit,

> not the purpose of the scheme.

[Penguin68]

Even the council's favourite paper (well, other than the Morning Star) doesn't hold up much hope of the anti car policies delivering... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/11/how-london-got-rid-of-private-cars-and-grew-more-congested-than-ever

[exdulwicher]

Metallic Wrote:

>

> Except it is not clear how they obtained the

> 'destination' figures. They certainly didn't stop

> every driver as they approached this area to ask:

> where are you going? Yet they seem to know how

> many people drive through who are onward

> travellers.......

You don't need to ask people. It's a mix of ANPR / CCTV data and modelling.

Organisations can buy anonymised data from census, insurance, mobile phone tracking etc. Strava (the fitness tracking app & website) sell anonymised data in the form of heatmaps to cities to help them model cycle routes: https://www.strava.com/heatmap#12.50/-0.03041/51.44512/hot/ride

Google Maps is a live version of basic tracking data and it's usually clever enough to work out if you're in a car, on a bus or train, cycling or walking.

Uber do a public tracking service too to analyse traffic speeds: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/14/18623149/uber-movement-average-car-speed-data-cities

[@Woodwarde]

There are 2 consultations going on simultaneously and both are related and worth sending in your response:

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dogkennelhill-1/

Closure date 15th March 2020

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

29th March 2020

At their heart, they constitute the ongoing desire for the Quietways 7 implementation that Southwark has proposed over the past 5 years. That is, to connect Champion Hill through to Townley Road and across the Village to Turney Road. The proposal to close off Eynella Road is to enable the connectivity of cycling between Barry Road/Crystal Palace Road to travel down Woodwarde Rd and Court Lane through Dulwich Village.

Champion Hill access restrictions were trialled, so it?s worth noting that Southwark can do that although not clear how reversible the Champion Hill changes are and whether it was a trial in name only. Of note, the results of the road traffic monitoring for Champion Hill show marginal gains for cyclists but they do show traffic diverted through East Dulwich Grove.

The proposals for Dulwich Healthy Streets have not so far shown how all parts of our community benefit. On the contrary they are divisive, pitting age, mobility, health and income against schools and cyclists. Any agreed scheme should not split our full community, disadvantage strata of our community nor resulted in penned in areas.

Southwark have not articulated their analysis of the complex cluster of factors that make it difficult for people living and working in affected areas to maintain positive outcomes.

Southwark have yet to provide adequate details regarding the anticipated road restrictions, who is allowed into which areas and the mechanism for that. This is needed to respond to the consultation and so that the consultation is meaningful.

Upcoming community sessions on 29th Feb and 4 March. There was inadequate time to discuss the closures and impacts at the first community meeting on Feb 8th. Far too much time was spent by our Councillor requesting questions only about statistics (akin to filibustering). Approx 2 hours were spent requesting questions on stats and very limited time left to take questions from residents in A, B and C. A reversal for the next meeting could be requested, so that questions can be raised.

It would also be helpful to know how many meetings have been held by Southwark with which groups during the various consultations up to this point.

There are still many residents only hearing of the proposals and the distribution of leaflets seems patchy with some not receiving them. Dulwich Library although holding leaflets does not have posters up and one of the staff acknowledged yesterday they did not know about the consultation.

[intexasatthe moment]

Woodwarde thank you for that . I'm embarassed to say that I haven't looked at all the documentation on line ,I find maps hard to read .Is there a proposal to restrict motor traffic on Eynella ?

[seenbeen]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> Woodwarde thank you for that . I'm embarassed to

> say that I haven't looked at all the documentation

> on line ,I find maps hard to read .Is there a

> proposal to restrict motor traffic on Eynella ?

From what I saw they are going to almost pave over the top of Eynella by the library so that only cyclists and pedestrians have access. It's a bit of a worry because the cyclists around here are reckless in my experience and they are silent....