LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[slarti b]

Spartacus Wrote:

> They are strong at NOT consulting with all

> stakeholders !

To be fair, the Council and Councillors ARE strong at consulting with people who agree with them ;-)

[dulwichquine]

I cycled to work via Townley Road and onto Greendale yesterday. Shocked at traffic queues. Cyclists, including myself, are having to cycle in middle of road, weaving our way through till we reach the traffic lights. Far harder to cross the actual junction now, as well, given huge increase in traffic. Feels more dangerous than before.

[FairTgirl]

dulwichquine Wrote:

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

> I cycled to work via Townley Road and onto

> Greendale yesterday. Shocked at traffic queues.

> Cyclists, including myself, are having to cycle in

> middle of road, weaving our way through till we

> reach the traffic lights. Far harder to cross the

> actual junction now, as well, given huge increase

> in traffic. Feels more dangerous than before.

As a cyclist you should write to your coucillor and express this and go on to Streetspace and express your fears. Given that much of the road closures have been lobbied for by cyclist groups, as a cyclist it is important that if it is not safer or working for you that you let them know.

[KatyKoo]

FairTgirl Wrote:

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

> dulwichquine Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I cycled to work via Townley Road and onto

> > Greendale yesterday. Shocked at traffic queues.

> > Cyclists, including myself, are having to cycle

> in

> > middle of road, weaving our way through till we

> > reach the traffic lights. Far harder to cross

> the

> > actual junction now, as well, given huge

> increase

> > in traffic. Feels more dangerous than before.

>

> As a cyclist you should write to your coucillor

> and express this and go on to Streetspace and

> express your fears. Given that much of the road

> closures have been lobbied for by cyclist groups,

> as a cyclist it is important that if it is not

> safer or working for you that you let them know.

The next phase of measures are planned to go in in October - Townley Road will have Timed Restrictions to reduce traffic at peak hours. This should discourage rat-running. The Council predicted that further measures would be needed on Townley Road and Dulwich Village after putting the filters in at the Village junction. All boundary roads are being monitored so that will provide the evidence.

[slarti b]

KatyKoo Wrote:

"The next phase of measures are planned to go in in October - Townley Road will have Timed Restrictions to reduce traffic at peak hours. This should discourage rat-running. The Council predicted that further measures would be needed on Townley Road and Dulwich Village after putting the filters in at the Village junction. All boundary roads are being monitored so that will provide the evidence."

What this actually means is more traffic being diverted onto the main roads, ie Lordship Lane East Dulwich Grove, Half Moon lane etc. Though at the moment the timed closures affect only Northbound traffic on Townley.

You say that the boundary roads, ie EDG, Lordhip Lane etc are being monitored. Were they monitored before the road closure at the DV junction? My memory is that the they were not but happy to be corrected.

[northernmonkey]

Just out of interest when you say 'the junction' do you mean Dulwich Village - so coming from Townley towards Calton Avenue?

I'm asking because I noticed just over a week or so ago that a box junction had been painted onto Dulwich Village to address the issue of cars queueing across the junction. Does this mean that cars are stopping in the box junction and you're having to weave through them?

dulwichquine Wrote:

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

> I cycled to work via Townley Road and onto

> Greendale yesterday. Shocked at traffic queues.

> Cyclists, including myself, are having to cycle in

> middle of road, weaving our way through till we

> reach the traffic lights. Far harder to cross the

> actual junction now, as well, given huge increase

> in traffic. Feels more dangerous than before.

[KatyKoo]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> KatyKoo Wrote:

> "The next phase of measures are planned to go in

> in October - Townley Road will have Timed

> Restrictions to reduce traffic at peak hours. This

> should discourage rat-running. The Council

> predicted that further measures would be needed

> on Townley Road and Dulwich Village after putting

> the filters in at the Village junction. All

> boundary roads are being monitored so that will

> provide the evidence."

>

> What this actually means is more traffic being

> diverted onto the main roads, ie Lordship Lane

> East Dulwich Grove, Half Moon lane etc. Though at

> the moment the timed closures affect only

> Northbound traffic on Townley.

>

> You say that the boundary roads, ie EDG, Lordhip

> Lane etc are being monitored. Were they

> monitored before the road closure at the DV

> junction? My memory is that the they were not but

> happy to be corrected.

I would imagine Council / Tfl have baseline data for these roads as they are bus routes. The problem is which way round do you do it if you want to reduce car usage and pollution (particularly short car journeys that could be walked or cycled)? Do you close residential rat-runs first, then tackle main roads with wider interventions like ULEZ, cycle lanes and improved public transport... or do you close main roads first?? Can't see how that would work other than to push even more traffic onto residential roads.

[Rockets]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> KatyKoo Wrote:

> "The next phase of measures are planned to go in

> in October - Townley Road will have Timed

> Restrictions to reduce traffic at peak hours. This

> should discourage rat-running. The Council

> predicted that further measures would be needed

> on Townley Road and Dulwich Village after putting

> the filters in at the Village junction. All

> boundary roads are being monitored so that will

> provide the evidence."

>

> What this actually means is more traffic being

> diverted onto the main roads, ie Lordship Lane

> East Dulwich Grove, Half Moon lane etc. Though at

> the moment the timed closures affect only

> Northbound traffic on Townley.

>

> You say that the boundary roads, ie EDG, Lordhip

> Lane etc are being monitored. Were they

> monitored before the road closure at the DV

> junction? My memory is that the they were not but

> happy to be corrected.

....chasing the displacement...how the council can forge ahead with more phases when they admit that the first phase is causing issues is beyond belief. They need to halt all of these closures whilst they deal with the mess they have caused with the first Phase

Per Cllr McAsh's update the council have requested monitoring and there is no confirmation if the monitoring has been put in place. The council was not monitoring any of the roads prior to the DV closure and only put monitoring in on the roads they closed after the DV closure - yeah, go figure why! ;-) They have no base and, per Cllr McAsh's email update, will be guessing at traffic numbers by comparing with similar roads.

It's beyond a farce now.

Cllr McAsh's words on monitoring below:

LTNs - monitoring

Please can you tell us where the council is monitoring car numbers and pollution levels on streets other than those that have been closed?

In addition to the roads which have been closed, I have requested that there be monitoring on East Dulwich Grove, Lordship Lane, Grove Vale, Matham Grove and Zenoria/Oxonian Street. They are at various stages of monitoring. There are some data from pre-implementation but it is not comprehensive and it is difficult to identify the extent to which changes were caused by the LTN measures relative to city-wide traffic increases resulting from the evolving covid situation. The monitoring will therefore need to look at comparable roads as well as comparing figures before and after implementation.

[slarti b]

KatyKoo

"I would imagine Council / Tfl have baseline data for these roads as they are bus routes."

So that sounds like,despite promising they would carry out full monitoring of the effect of the DV junction closre, the Council did not monitor those roads onto which traffic would be displaced. If not why not?

The problem is which way round do you do it if you want to reduce car usage and pollution (particularly short car journeys that could be walked or cycled)? Do you close residential rat-runs first , then tackle main roads with wider interventions like ULEZ, cycle lanes and improved public transport... or do you close main roads first?? Can't see how that would work other than to push even more traffic onto residential roads.

As the council explained during the OHS consultation, the traffic they wished to divert onto main roads such as EDG and Lordship Lane, about 7,000 vehicles a day, was through traffic. This traffic is highly unlikely to evaporate so Southwark should have considered the impact.

You seem to suggest that roads such as Dulwich Village, Court Lane Towley Road and Calton Avenue are "rat runs" Is that correct?

Not sure why you are suggesting closing main roads, is this the council's next secret step?

[KatyKoo]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> KatyKoo

> "I would imagine Council / Tfl have baseline data

> for these roads as they are bus routes."

> So that sounds like,despite promising they would

> carry out full monitoring of the effect of the DV

> junction closre, the Council did not monitor those

> roads onto which traffic would be displaced. If

> not why not?

>

> The problem is which way round do you do it if you

> want to reduce car usage and pollution

> (particularly short car journeys that could be

> walked or cycled)? Do you close residential

> rat-runs first , then tackle main roads with wider

> interventions like ULEZ, cycle lanes and improved

> public transport... or do you close main roads

> first?? Can't see how that would work other than

> to push even more traffic onto residential roads.

>

> As the council explained during the OHS

> consultation, the traffic they wished to divert

> onto main roads such as EDG and Lordship Lane,

> about 7,000 vehicles a day, was through traffic.

> This traffic is highly unlikely to evaporate so

> Southwark should have considered the impact.

>

> You seem to suggest that roads such as Dulwich

> Village, Court Lane Towley Road and Calton Avenue

> are "rat runs" Is that correct?

>

> Not sure why you are suggesting closing main

> roads, is this the council's next secret step?

Before I answer your questions maybe you could answer the question I asked first? Which way round would you do it?

That is assuming you want to reduce motor traffic and pollution in Dulwich and elsewhere. If you were leader of Southwark Council what would you do? Genuinely interested to know.

[Rockets]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> KatyKoo

> "I would imagine Council / Tfl have baseline data

> for these roads as they are bus routes."

> So that sounds like,despite promising they would

> carry out full monitoring of the effect of the DV

> junction closre, the Council did not monitor those

> roads onto which traffic would be displaced. If

> not why not?

>

> The problem is which way round do you do it if you

> want to reduce car usage and pollution

> (particularly short car journeys that could be

> walked or cycled)? Do you close residential

> rat-runs first , then tackle main roads with wider

> interventions like ULEZ, cycle lanes and improved

> public transport... or do you close main roads

> first?? Can't see how that would work other than

> to push even more traffic onto residential roads.

>

> As the council explained during the OHS

> consultation, the traffic they wished to divert

> onto main roads such as EDG and Lordship Lane,

> about 7,000 vehicles a day, was through traffic.

> This traffic is highly unlikely to evaporate so

> Southwark should have considered the impact.

>

> You seem to suggest that roads such as Dulwich

> Village, Court Lane Towley Road and Calton Avenue

> are "rat runs" Is that correct?

>

> Not sure why you are suggesting closing main

> roads, is this the council's next secret step?

This does come down to what you might define a rat-run.

The dictionary describes one as:

a minor, typically residential street used by drivers during peak periods to avoid congestion on main roads.

I think most rational people's definition of a rat-run is not Dulwich Village, Court Lane, Townley Road or Calton Avenue. Melbourne Grove yes but the others not even close. Most of the aforementioned roads are part of a limited number of east/west routes across Dulwich and it was glaringly obvious what was going to happen when the roads were closed. As we have said numerous times before the best any LTN achieves is 11% traffic "evaporation" leaving the remaining traffic to find another route so it doesn't take a planning genius to have predicted what was going to happen.

The fact the council did not put any monitoring or pollution monitoring in on the displacement roads is the smoking gun that demonstrates they knew exactly what was going to happen.

[KatyKoo]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> slarti b Wrote:

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

> -----

> > KatyKoo

> > "I would imagine Council / Tfl have baseline

> data

> > for these roads as they are bus routes."

> > So that sounds like,despite promising they

> would

> > carry out full monitoring of the effect of the

> DV

> > junction closre, the Council did not monitor

> those

> > roads onto which traffic would be displaced.

> If

> > not why not?

> >

> > The problem is which way round do you do it if

> you

> > want to reduce car usage and pollution

> > (particularly short car journeys that could be

> > walked or cycled)? Do you close residential

> > rat-runs first , then tackle main roads with

> wider

> > interventions like ULEZ, cycle lanes and

> improved

> > public transport... or do you close main roads

> > first?? Can't see how that would work other

> than

> > to push even more traffic onto residential

> roads.

> >

> > As the council explained during the OHS

> > consultation, the traffic they wished to divert

> > onto main roads such as EDG and Lordship Lane,

> > about 7,000 vehicles a day, was through traffic.

>

> > This traffic is highly unlikely to evaporate so

> > Southwark should have considered the impact.

> >

> > You seem to suggest that roads such as Dulwich

> > Village, Court Lane Towley Road and Calton

> Avenue

> > are "rat runs" Is that correct?

> >

> > Not sure why you are suggesting closing main

> > roads, is this the council's next secret step?

>

>

> This does come down to what you might define a

> rat-run.

>

> The dictionary describes one as:

>

> a minor, typically residential street used by

> drivers during peak periods to avoid congestion on

> main roads.

>

> I think most rational people's definition of a

> rat-run is not Dulwich Village, Court Lane,

> Townley Road or Calton Avenue. Melbourne Grove yes

> but the others not even close. Most of the

> aforementioned roads are part of a limited number

> of east/west routes across Dulwich and it was

> glaringly obvious what was going to happen when

> the roads were closed. As we have said numerous

> times before the best any LTN achieves is 11%

> traffic "evaporation" leaving the remaining

> traffic to find another route so it doesn't take a

> planning genius to have predicted what was going

> to happen.

>

> The fact the council did not put any monitoring or

> pollution monitoring in on the displacement roads

> is the smoking gun that demonstrates they knew

> exactly what was going to happen.

Thanks. But I'm still waiting for Slarti b's answer. How would Slarti b reduce pollution and motor traffic in Dulwich and further afield if Slarti b was leader of Southwark council? Assuming that's what Slarti b wants to do.

Unless of course you have any solutions other than LTNs?

[Rockets]

Feel free to troll back through one of these threads as I posted my suggestions there a while ago after a pro-closure lobbyist asked me for my ideas. Needless to say that they didn't respond which leads me to believe that some of the ideas might not have been so outlandish! ;-)

There are a lot of ideas in the wider community, from One Dulwich's suggestion of timed closures all the way through to the e-petition to get them torn out. Not sure whether the council will listen to any of them but one thing I will confidently predict is that if the council goes ahead with the next phases, like Townley Road, then those lobbying to get them all removed completely will grow by more and more people and grow louder and louder. The more the council ignores the majority of their residents the more difficult it will be for them to rescue any of this. Of course, if Ealing and Islington's judicial reviews go against the councils every council will look to tear down the closures quicker than they put them in as they all know they will be deemed unlawful.

Probably best the council started engaging with their constituents.

[dougiefreeman]

If the planters have been put in illegally, then surely it would make more sense for residents to tear them out (and the signs etc). Then it's on Southwark to mount a legal case (rather than residents having to crowdfund and front huge costs to mount a case against the council), which presumably would fall through when it's revealed that they put them in illegally...

DISCLAIMER, this is not a suggestion! Just a thought... ;-)

[Nigello]

They?ve not been put in illegally. They?ve actually been put in thanks to a law. It?s argued the council didn?t advise residents or solicit opinion, either at all or not enough. That?s a procedural matter and one I think any legal adjudged may either not be concerned about or think that such a matter is less important than the measures put in place according to the powers Southwark has.

[KatyKoo]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Feel free to troll back through one of these

> threads as I posted my suggestions there a while

> ago after a pro-closure lobbyist asked me for my

> ideas. Needless to say that they didn't respond

> which leads me to believe that some of the ideas

> might not have been so outlandish! ;-)

I've had a quick scroll but can't find your suggestions on how to reduce motor traffic and pollution - would you mind posting them again please? Genuinely interested to see what other ideas there are on how to reduce cars and pollution other than what the council are doing.

[dougiefreeman]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> They?ve not been put in illegally. They?ve

> actually been put in thanks to a law. It?s argued

> the council didn?t advise residents or solicit

> opinion, either at all or not enough. That?s a

> procedural matter and one I think any legal

> adjudged may either not be concerned about or

> think that such a matter is less important than

> the measures put in place according to the powers

> Southwark has.

https://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/politics/threat-of-court-action-over-islington-people-friendly-streets-1-6871719

The claimants in legal proceedings happening in Islington over exactly the same situation believe differently.

Quote from the article:

"A 2018 High Court battle between Trail Riders and Fellowship and Wiltshire County Council set a precendent that consulatation is still necessary under ETROs." (Experimental Traffic Road Orders)

Erik Pagano (resident who brought the case) said:

"[ETROs} should only be used when the works are genuinely experimental and not just novel and certainly should not be used to circumvent the normal consultation process."

[Rockets]

The key here is the use of experimental. Can something be experimental when you had been planning for them under an existing programme (OHS)? A legal review could well determine they are not experimental and the ETRO was used to circumvent normal due diligence and review. Legal precedent could be important here and the 2018 case could be significant.

[Bicknell]

KatyKoo Wrote:

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

> I've had a quick scroll but can't find your

> suggestions on how to reduce motor traffic and

> pollution - would you mind posting them again

> please? Genuinely interested to see what other

> ideas there are on how to reduce cars and

> pollution other than what the council are doing.

I dont know Katy Koo but is this what they call Sealioning.

[Rockets]

KatyKoo Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Feel free to troll back through one of these

> > threads as I posted my suggestions there a

> while

> > ago after a pro-closure lobbyist asked me for

> my

> > ideas. Needless to say that they didn't respond

> > which leads me to believe that some of the

> ideas

> > might not have been so outlandish! ;-)

>

> I've had a quick scroll but can't find your

> suggestions on how to reduce motor traffic and

> pollution - would you mind posting them again

> please? Genuinely interested to see what other

> ideas there are on how to reduce cars and

> pollution other than what the council are doing.

Here you go. Sept 29th. Let me know your thoughts.

There definitely needs to be a middle-ground but it requires a more sophisticated approach than the one the council is taking. Everyone recognises that encouraging people out of the car is urgently needed but carpet bombing road closures has never been the solution - that has been obvious to anyone with a small amount of common-sense who could see what was going to happen. The council also needs to be open about their own analysis on displacement as they would have known what was going to happen when they modelled the closures.

Additionally:

1. There needs to be proper analysis that starts by weighting all transportation modes equally and is not biased against one form or another (the council starts with an anti-car sentiment and skews everything to their advantage and if you want a true picture of what is happening you have to start neutral).

2. That analysis needs to drill down very specifically what the biggest problem is (we all know this is going to be car use but the council needs to identify exactly where these cars are going and what they are doing)

3. Is the problem commuters? Is the problem school traffic? Is the problem shoppers? Is the problem delivery vehicles or Ubers? Why do people choose cars over public transport. The council does not ever try to ascertain this so has no idea what they are trying to fix. The solution needs to know the problem.

5. The council then needs to implement measures that a) encourages other use beyond the car b) invoke solutions that don't create more problems than they solve c) properly monitor the congestion and pollution impact (good and bad) so there can be transparency during the review d) implement measures that are timed for when they are needed most.

4. Can the council work more closely with schools in the creation of school bus services for all schools? Perhaps the council could divert funds from doing bizarre end of year projects like re-paving streets around East Dulwich to working on a school bus service for each school. I know the US is very different but they have a very effective school bus service.

5. Bottom-line is the council and councillors need to listen to everyone not just the vocal few in their own echo-chamber

[Rockets]

Katykoo - I would also go further and suggest that the DV closure gets lifted at the earliest opportunity as that is the one causing the most problems at the moment. But I know, as you told us you live in Area B when you came on here in June to lobby against One Dulwich, that you won?t be happy with that as you are no doubt one of the lucky ones benefitting from the closures whilst a much larger number of people have a negative impact.

May I also ask you whether you think that implementing programmes which, at the absolute best (during non-COVID times) deliver a maximum 11% evaporation of car traffic is the best way to deal with the problem of pollution? What is good for road A becomes a much bigger problem for road B - don?t you agree?

[undergran]

Underhill Road is now effectively a ?main? road with much heavier traffic trying to avoid Lordship Lane so rejoining the south Circular at the south end to get to Forest Hill or Sydenham and using Melford Road to rejoin close to the Grove junction to Dulwich Common. Traffic monitoring on Lordship Lane is close to Court Lane so does not count this traffic.

[slarti b]

KatyKoo Wrote:

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

"Before I answer your questions maybe you could answer the question I asked first? Which way round would you do it?

That is assuming you want to reduce motor traffic and pollution in Dulwich and elsewhere. If you were leader of Southwark Council what would you do? Genuinely interested to know.

Apologies for delay in replying, was cooking dinner. In terms of your question, it is not an either or.

First I would acknowledge that this is a London wide problem that can not be addressed by an individual Council making point decisions. Then, look at the background; despite a large increase in population and journeys over the last 20 years, both London and Southwark are showing absolute and relative decreases in car traffic. The big increase is in trips has been taken up public transport, cycling has increased but is still a very small proportion of journeys and will not take up the slack. Furthermore the ULEZ will be extended to South Circ in Oct 2021 [?] which will reduce pollution and probably also a certain amount of traffic.

I would analyse the traffic to find out what it is doing and where it is going, people commuting to Southwark or passing through, parents taking children to school and, if so, where they are coming from, people who need cars for work, deliveries, carers, builders, repairers etc.

I would also accept that a large proportion of those journeys will not "evaporate" if roads are closed. The oft quoted 11% is a very flawed figure but, even if accepted, still leaves a large amount of existing traffic that will be displaced onto other roads.

So, within that context things that could be done include:

1) Improve public transport. Dulwich has very PTAL scores and this is likely to prove the most effective way of encouraging people to stop using their cars, if they are able to make that choice. Unfortunately, whenever this is raised the local Councillors complain they can't control it directly so don't consider it as an option. As council leader I would work with TfL to try and achieve that.

2) Travel to school

Set up school streets and LTN's to encourage children (or rather their parents) to walk\cycle to school rather than drive. However this is not a panacea, it does not stop parents driving as close as possible, parking and then walking the last 100 metres. These only need to be for limited school hours, eg 7.30- 9.00, 3.00 - 4.30 pm as I would recognise traffic being displaced

Within Dulwich there is a wider problem that schools are the local industry and this brings significant extra traffic, both from pupils and staff. This is specially true of the Private schools who have a catchment area across much of South, and even North London and a high proportion of pupils coming by car.

So, as well as the carrot of school streets I would consider if there are any sticks. Witholding planning permission for expansion ( though that bird has rather flown), introducing CPZ's so staff and pupils are discouraged from travelling by car, for state schools making a condition of entry that parenst do not bring children by car (may be difficult to enforce legally but worth a try!)

3) LTN's Generally

I would be cautious about these, one person's LTN is another persons' gated community. If the traffic previously going through the area is merely diverted onto surrounding "main" streets this is just moving the problem, increasing congestion and making pollution worse on the "main "streets.

4) Cleaner travel

As council leader this is not fully within my control but anything I could do to encourage greener travel options, eg electric vehicle, bikes,scooters delivery vans etc. Maybe work with major on-line providers and delivery companies, DHL, Amazon, Post Office etc, to encourage them to move to electric vans by providing better recharging facilities etc?

5) Improving cycling facilities

This is a nice to have but is not likely to have a major impact in terms of reducing traffic. On the other hand, if implemented poorly, it is likely to actually increase congestion and pollution.

6) Edited to add that I would also work with local residents and RA's, listen to and respect their opinions and knowledge of the local traffic patterns. I would make sure any data and statistics used to inform my decisions are accurate and have not been manipulated to support a particular viewpoint.

Finally what I would NOT do is impose a large number of point road closures while ignoring the impact on the local residents and the wider community and in particular those who have the misfortune to live on the "main" roads onto which the traffic is displaced.

[nxjen]

Bicknell Wrote:

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

> KatyKoo Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I've had a quick scroll but can't find your

> > suggestions on how to reduce motor traffic and

> > pollution - would you mind posting them again

> > please? Genuinely interested to see what other

> > ideas there are on how to reduce cars and

> > pollution other than what the council are

> doing.

>

>

>

> I dont know Katy Koo but is this what they call

> Sealioning.

No

[KatyKoo]

Firstly in response to ?Bicknell? I?m asking these questions because the ?Southwark Council are a totalitarian dictatorship? rhetoric seems to be getting a bit hysterical. Objectors suggest shouting ?louder and louder? ? but I couldn?t see any actual alternative solutions being put forward.

So thank you Rockets and Slarti B for taking the time to write what your solutions might be. Clearly we don?t agree on everything but I hope you agree it?s good to focus on ways forward. Apologies for any repetition in my reply but I?ve tried to reply to both of you here.

ROCKETS:

?Everyone recognises that encouraging people out of the car is urgently needed? agree.

?Proper analysis weighting all transportation modes equally? Agree an equitable approach is needed. The Council recorded an increase in cycling during and since lockdown ? as has happened across London - as people avoid public transport. It is equitable to provide infrastructure for these road users too. As vulnerable road users particularly safety is key.

?Anaylsis to drill down specifically exactly where these cars are going and what they?re doing?. The council have been monitoring traffic in Dulwich throughout the OHS consultation and previous consultations in the area over the years. What they have found is an increase up to 80% on some residential roads. Why do people choose cars over public transport? ? in current circumstances because they are understandably scared of catching covid on public transport. So emergency measures were brought in.

?The council then needs to implement measures a) b) c) and d)? Agree, except that 'timed restrictions only' don?t address off peak traffic which is also high.

?School bus services? the foundation buses for private schools already exists and public transport buses for state school pupils. TfL have offered free bus usage for schoolchildren as part of the Covid transport measures ? something I believe One Dulwich opposed?

?Councillors need to listen to everyone? I believe there were 6 public meetings for the OHS consultation, leafleting, street stalls and both online and hard copy feedback forms along with online commonplace feedback maps. What else do you think they could have done to engage with the community?

?You are no doubt one of the lucky ones benefitting from the closures?. Not in terms of exactly where I live. But I benefit in that there are some safe routes for walking and cycling now which there weren't before. And I support the measures because I believe the Council has to start somewhere..

?Implementing LTNs programmes? I think behavior change is necessary to get people out of cars and the only way to achieve that is to provide the safe infrastructure for active travel ? so more or less what you outlined in your point (5). With reduced capacity on public transport urgent change is needed. The council and TfL are working with limited budgets in a crisis situation.

LTNs are a start ? reduce traffic on residential roads, encourage local active travel as an alternative to car use, tackle main roads with TfL (who are responsible for public transport routes).

SLARTI B:

?London wide problem? ? individual councils across London are implementing these measures. A network of LTNs with cycleways to link them up. It?s happening in most European cities. The biggest impediment to people cycling is fear ? with safer routes more people cycle.

?Decrease in car traffic? In 1991 there were 20million registered vehicles on UK roads, in 2020 38.3million ? and 40million predicted for 2022.

?ULEZ? Agree ULEZ will help to reduce pollution ? but it won?t change infrastructure to provide safe routes for active travel. That has to be designed and built into our cities.

?Traffic Analysis? ? see above in response to Rockets.

?Improve Public Transport? ? agree but as far as I know Council work with TfL where they can, but TfL are responsible for public transport.

?Travel to School? - Agree set up school streets and LTN?s to encourage children / parents to walk & cycle to school. Isn?t that what Southwark are trying to do?

Traffic in Dulwich is heavy outside peak hours and weekends too ? how would it be safe to cycle during these times if restrictions are limited to peak hours only?

?Withold schools planning permission and introduce CPZs? ? agree. However I think if the council made it a condition of entry that parents do not bring children by car the accusations of ?dictatorship? would go through the roof? But ? agree it would be good if they could.

?LTNs Generally? Traffic worse on main streets ? tackle that too in conjunction with TfL. The whole process can only be done step by step.

?Cleaner travel? ? agree ? and encourage people to use collect plus. But switching all vehicles to electric isn?t problem free (brake dust & tyre pollution, lithium mining) nor does it change infrastructure ? cities will still be built around cars not active travel.

?Improving cycling facilities?. Interesting you see the one form of entirely clean transport other than walking as merely a ?nice to have? but ?unlikely to have a major impact? and ?likely to increase congestion?. As hypothetical leader of Southwark Council in a climate emergency that seems a bit defeatist? and strange as you have advocated school run congestion could be reduced by enabling cycling.

?Work with local residents?. See above.

Hope you'll agree its good to think about solutions.