LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Rockets]

n dulwich northerner Wrote:

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

> Southwark Council caused this congestion by

> closing Calton Ave and pushing the traffic along

> Dulwich Village north, then botching the northern

> end traffic lights by limiting the left lane to

> cyclists. Specifics, not banalities....

Spot on!

[march46]

Interesting how you blame the council, when there was always traffic there https://twitter.com/cleanairdulwich/status/1305975196436885504?s=21

Foggy-minded indeed!

n dulwich northerner Wrote:

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

> Thanks to Southwark's foggy-minded road closure

> schemes, this morning the tailback in Dulwich

> Village extended from the northern set of lights

> to those in the centre.

[Spartacus]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Thanks to too many people making journeys that

> could be made on foot or on a bicycle, this

> morning.....

Interesting, and you know that they ALL could use alternative methods to get to their destination how exactly ?

I'm hoping you knocked on every car window and asked how long / far their journey is and if they could use alternative methods but I expect it is the usual finger in the air scientific conclusion made on assumptions and lack of local and realistic baseline data ?

[exdulwicher]

People just don't sit in traffic like that if they could walk or cycle.

Oh they do!

We did some modelling work years ago on something similar and the actual inconvenience that an individual has to be subjected to to force change is quite incredible. This is part of the reason that LTNs and other traffic measures take months to bed in, not just a week or two.

This has been mentioned before in these threads but as with most things, there's a series of reasons, it's never just one.

For some people, they're in a warm comfy home entertainment centre on wheels and (especially if they're not paying fuel due to it being a company car or work vehicle or they view their car as a status symbol), they really don't care. Even if there are quicker ways to get from A to B, they'll take the car. "need" doesn't come into it. Sitting in traffic in your Aston Martin is simply an opportunity to show everybody else that you own an Aston Martin.

A surprising minority actually HAVE to drive - there is no other way they could complete that particular journey without considerable extra expense / inconvenience. The problem is that most people see themselves as being in this category - there's a related sub-category of people who don't know any other way. They've grown up being taken to school / the shops / leisure trips by car and they just continue that, it's their comfort zone, what they've always known. They'll find it inconvenient, they'll moan about traffic but it takes quite a lot for them to actually think "hang on, there must be an other way". Usually (not always), these people are the ones convinced that everyone else should drive less, thus freeing up the road for them.

There are people who WANT to do it by other means but they're scared (of traffic, usually) and there are plenty who have to use other options (public transport or active travel) because they don't own or have access to a car. Usually, the latter category have no choice other than to put up with conditions or not do [whatever].

I'm hoping you knocked on every car window and asked how long / far their journey is and if they could use alternative methods but I expect it is the usual finger in the air scientific conclusion made on assumptions and lack of local and realistic baseline data ?

A little over a third (35 per cent) of all car trips are shorter than 2 km, just under a third (32 per

cent) are between 2 and 5km and the remaining third are longer than 5km. Data from TfL: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-14-who-travels-by-car-in-london.pdf

Fairly obviously, not all of those journeys are people carrying a fridge or a double bass or returning from the shops with a new 60" TV. They're not all disabled, they're not all taking 3 kids to 3 different activities, they're not all carrying precious cargo that simply could not be done any other way. At least half of them fit into the first two categories above - the "don't care and will drive anyway" and the "I'm convinced I have to drive".

[Nigello]

👏💯

[Rockets]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> People just don't sit in traffic like that if they

> could walk or cycle.

>

> Oh they do!

> We did some modelling work years ago on something

> similar and the actual inconvenience that an

> individual has to be subjected to to force change

> is quite incredible. This is part of the reason

> that LTNs and other traffic measures take months

> to bed in, not just a week or two.

>

> This has been mentioned before in these threads

> but as with most things, there's a series of

> reasons, it's never just one.

>

> For some people, they're in a warm comfy home

> entertainment centre on wheels and (especially if

> they're not paying fuel due to it being a company

> car or work vehicle or they view their car as a

> status symbol), they really don't care. Even if

> there are quicker ways to get from A to B, they'll

> take the car. "need" doesn't come into it. Sitting

> in traffic in your Aston Martin is simply an

> opportunity to show everybody else that you own an

> Aston Martin.

>

> A surprising minority actually HAVE to drive -

> there is no other way they could complete that

> particular journey without considerable extra

> expense / inconvenience. The problem is that most

> people see themselves as being in this category -

> there's a related sub-category of people who don't

> know any other way. They've grown up being taken

> to school / the shops / leisure trips by car and

> they just continue that, it's their comfort zone,

> what they've always known. They'll find it

> inconvenient, they'll moan about traffic but it

> takes quite a lot for them to actually think "hang

> on, there must be an other way". Usually (not

> always), these people are the ones convinced that

> everyone else should drive less, thus freeing up

> the road for them.

>

> There are people who WANT to do it by other means

> but they're scared (of traffic, usually) and there

> are plenty who have to use other options (public

> transport or active travel) because they don't own

> or have access to a car. Usually, the latter

> category have no choice other than to put up with

> conditions or not do .

>

> I'm hoping you knocked on every car window and

> asked how long / far their journey is and if they

> could use alternative methods but I expect it is

> the usual finger in the air scientific conclusion

> made on assumptions and lack of local and

> realistic baseline data ?

>

> A little over a third (35 per cent) of all car

> trips are shorter than 2 km, just under a third

> (32 per

> cent) are between 2 and 5km and the remaining

> third are longer than 5km. Data from TfL:

> http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-14-who-tr

> avels-by-car-in-london.pdf

>

> Fairly obviously, not all of those journeys are

> people carrying a fridge or a double bass or

> returning from the shops with a new 60" TV.

> They're not all disabled, they're not all taking 3

> kids to 3 different activities, they're not all

> carrying precious cargo that simply could not be

> done any other way. At least half of them fit into

> the first two categories above - the "don't care

> and will drive anyway" and the "I'm convinced I

> have to drive".

It would be interesting if we could map car usage onto PTAL scores. I suspect those who think they have to drive is driven, in large part, by access to public transportation - which we know is terrible in this part of London. It's why the council's own recommendation was to implement schemes in areas with high PTAL scores - Dulwich does not have high PTAL scores - in fact it has low PTAL scores, which is why lots of people have to drive.

[n dulwich northerner]

march46 Wrote:

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

> Interesting how you blame the council, when there

> was always traffic there

Of course, and because their attempts to improve things have been misconceived. While the N Dulwich traffic lights' new right filter may have mitigated the tailback the council caused by the Calton/Court Lane closure, they coupled the filter with limiting the left lane to cyclists (see any in the photos?) which means that vehicles heading for Village Way or Red Post Hill are stuck in the tailback.

[heartblock]

They are so tied to LTNs that it is like a cult.. no reasoned argument or proof of increased pollution will change their group-think. I imagine if people started dying or pollution related respiratory conditions it would be a case of ?bedding in? ?traffic causes traffic? or the latest sent to me on Twitter ?nonsense?.

[redpost]

There was a cycle lane before the barriers were put in, however being frequently blocked by drivers selfishness so it was necessary to put a barrier in.

n dulwich northerner Wrote:

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

> march46 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Interesting how you blame the council, when

> there

> > was always traffic there

>

> Of course, and because their attempts to improve

> things have been misconceived. While the N Dulwich

> traffic lights' new right filter may have

> mitigated the tailback the council caused by the

> Calton/Court Lane closure, they coupled the filter

> with limiting the left lane to cyclists (see any

> in the photos?) which means that vehicles heading

> for Village Way or Red Post Hill are stuck in the

> tailback.

[Rockets]

redpost Wrote:

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

> There was a cycle lane before the barriers were

> put in, however being frequently blocked by

> drivers selfishness so it was necessary to put a

> barrier in.

>

>

> n dulwich northerner Wrote:

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

> -----

> > march46 Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Interesting how you blame the council, when

> > there

> > > was always traffic there

> >

> > Of course, and because their attempts to

> improve

> > things have been misconceived. While the N

> Dulwich

> > traffic lights' new right filter may have

> > mitigated the tailback the council caused by

> the

> > Calton/Court Lane closure, they coupled the

> filter

> > with limiting the left lane to cyclists (see

> any

> > in the photos?) which means that vehicles

> heading

> > for Village Way or Red Post Hill are stuck in

> the

> > tailback.

Would you not agree that the barriers are now causing more congestion and pollution than there was before?

[redpost]

No i don't

rockets - I thought you were in favour of segregated cycles lanes down EDG? but fromt this I guess you're only in favour when it doesn't reduce car road space, which means nothing

[Spartacus]

Hi ExDulwicher

Can you publish the modelling work you did or share it on here ? if you are going to talk about it let others see it.

The TfL London Travel Demand Survey you shared was for 2011 /12 and is made up of 8,000 responders therefore it is 8 years out of date and only represents 8,000 ( https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/planning-for-the-future/consultations-and-surveys#on-this-page-1 ) out of 9,304 million Londoners (2020 figures) which means the survey represents approximately 0.086% of the total London population ? that?s worse than a Loreal advert that tells you 85% of 120 women prefer it?

If the survey was done with a realistic sample then it would represent the views of Londoners, however with such a small survey there is a chance that (for example) 1,000 parents questioned on their way to take little Johnny to football could easily bias the results.

The data is a) out of date and b) not a large enough sample to produce the full conclusion of 35% of all car journeys are less than a mile (2km)

To use this survey in a meaningful way in this debate you would need to ensure it covers at least (modelling finger in the air) 5% of all Londoners (465,200 Londoners or half a million for ease of counting) which would provide better objectivity and a more reliable outcome.

I agree, for some people the creature comfort of driving rather than waiting in the cold and wet is better than using busses / trains but a lot of the journeys undertaken would involve multiple changes or long awkward journeys (when I was younger I used to commute, not by choice, to Kent on a daily basis which was only practical by driving as an example.)

Remember this area is a through route to other places (Kings College Hospital, the South Circular and so on) so a lot of drivers in this area (not SE22 resident's) are possibly doing more than local short journeys.

God I would love to own an Aston Martin as I suspect 99.99% of all drivers would, but two points to mention here, there are not that many Aston Martins in Dulwich and as much as I would love to say ?Bond, James Bond? sadly motability cars don?t offer an Aston Martin as an option 😆

To follow up on your comment, you need to think that a lot of cars in the area are owned by families with kids who need to carry them and other things in the safest and quickest way from A to B (cycling, walking and Public transport often doesn?t offer an option.)

The concept that people still drive company cars is also a bit out of date, over the past 20 years tax advantages of doing so have been eroded so now the number of company car drivers is very low compared to 2000 or 2011.)

The issues with the scheme needing to bed in over months (as you point out) would be true if there was a limited number of LTNs but that?s not the case as they are virtually everywhere in London now so traffic can?t evaporate to other roads as they are also blocked hence demand is forced into ever decreasing bottlenecks pushing pollution in certain areas even higher.

I will accept that some journeys are unnecessary but until you provide the following I can?t put any faith in your stock answers as a lot of people actually do need to drive but the pro-active travel lobby are making life hard for them and increasing (not reducing) pollution as a result..

1. A copy of the modelling work / or link to it with the base date behind it.

2. A current 2019/20 London Travel Survey (preferably with a good respondent group to ensure that small deviations can?t skew the data.)

3. Local data on drivers in and around East Dulwich including those who pass through.

4. A pre implementation traffic and pollution survey for all roads in the area to show either the overall improvement or the displacement to non LTN roads.

[heartblock]

EDG could easily have a widened pavement and cycle lane, so also could the junction, it is just very badly planned, if the island moves over a bit of course a cycle lane works. We are not against less traffic and cycle lanes we are for less traffic and good planning. Southwark planning is useless and causes more pollution.

[Spartacus]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> EDG could easily have a widened pavement and cycle

> lane, so also could the junction, it is just very

> badly planned, if the island moves over a bit of

> course a cycle lane works. We are not against less

> traffic and cycle lanes we are for less traffic

> and good planning. Southwark planning is useless

> and causes more pollution.

Agreed

[exdulwicher]

...they coupled the filter with limiting the left lane to cyclists (see any in the photos?)

Still photos prove nothing (to either side of the pro / anti LTN argument).

I could repeat that picture above for road, ferries, airports showing either total congestion or absolutely empty and none of it would prove anything either way.

A picture of a traffic jam does not mean LTNs or a cycle lane are to blame; a picture of an empty road does not mean no vehicles ever use it.

There was a short video on Twitter the other day demonstrating the principle. It started with 4 seconds of a completely empty cycle lane and then (as the lights behind where the camera-person was standing changed), a stream of cyclists passed. A still shot of either anytime in the first 4 seconds (empty) or anytime after that (very busy) would have been incomplete and misleading.

Part of the reason they installed such visible counters on Embankment cycle lanes was to show clearly and obviously, the number of people using it, even though there were lots of stills circulating of empty cycle lanes and to get away from the accusations of biased / made up numbers.

Edit: sort of agree with the comment above, that traffic island needs to come out to make the cycle lane work properly but then the lights need re-phasing to accommodate a complete walk across rather than a 2-stage walk where the pedestrian stops at the island half way so there's pros and cons (to drivers and pedestrians!)

[richard tudor]

exdulwicher

May I ask a direct question to you and I am not being rude.

Are you furloughed as you do seem to have a great deal of time to respond with quite long and detailed answers or putting forward point of view which seems to imply the car must be tamed.

Perhaps those shopworkers would welcome people using their cars, which they have paid all the expenses to allow them to do so, which would save their jobs by making shopping a pleasant experience and not forcing people to buy online because of the constant war against the car.

Carrying purchases and bags of shopping on public transport is not a pleasant experience.

[malumbu]

Had a lovely cycle today, the sun shone if a bit chilly, lots of people out in the parks and cafes open for takeaways. Roads really quiet, wow I thought this LTN business is working a treat. Then I sadly realised we were in lockdown.

Looking at the post above I went to a talk about wouldn't it be wonderful not to have cars - this was from the connected mobility/ mobility on demand where we would have a choice of connected means to get around, eg car club, autonomous pod, active travel and the current forms of public transport. Instead we have streets full of parked cars that are used for a few percent of the time.

I've posted many a time on the lounge about the fundamental need to change our car culture if we are to tackle climate change and air quality. This challenges the right to drive what we want, when we want, where we want, and how we want. Sadly voluntary behaviour change will not deliver this as shown on this and related threads, and for twenty years since Blair's bloody nose (fuel protests) respective governments have not been properly prepared to take on the driver lobby through fiscal means - fuel duty but preferably a road charging scheme (fairer for most). Instead we have blunt/clumsy interventions, but I am looking forward to the occasional older diesel vehicle being off the streets come ULEZ #2.

I'll be posting some views for discussion on the lounge. Happy to debate there rather than have rocks thrown at me here. As I am not in power you wont be able to protest or take me to the courts.

[Rockets]

redpost Wrote:

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

> No i don't

>

> rockets - I thought you were in favour of

> segregated cycles lanes down EDG? but fromt this I

> guess you're only in favour when it doesn't reduce

> car road space, which means nothing

I am in favour of segregated cycle barriers where they make sense - and I talk as someone who is a cyclist and has done long commutes across London on a daily basis. It makes no sense having cycle barrier for that short section of road - unless, of course, they are purposefully designed to throttle traffic flow through the junction. I do wonder whether the council got wind that the cameras weren't going to go in at the DV roundabout so decided to create a bottleneck.

Your comment that you don't think the new measures are causing more congestion is exactly why so many people get so frustrated with the pro-closure/pro-cycle cult - you can't view the world beyond your own myopic gaze. As long as you are catered for and happy then damn everyone else.

[Rockets]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> ...they coupled the filter with limiting the left

> lane to cyclists (see any in the photos?)

>

> Still photos prove nothing (to either side of the

> pro / anti LTN argument).

>

> https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/106586987-15

> 92830070587gettyimages-1069298836.jpeg?v=159283030

> 4&w=678&h=381

>

> I could repeat that picture above for road,

> ferries, airports showing either total congestion

> or absolutely empty and none of it would prove

> anything either way.

> A picture of a traffic jam does not mean LTNs or a

> cycle lane are to blame; a picture of an empty

> road does not mean no vehicles ever use it.

>

> There was a short video on Twitter the other day

> demonstrating the principle. It started with 4

> seconds of a completely empty cycle lane and then

> (as the lights behind where the camera-person was

> standing changed), a stream of cyclists passed. A

> still shot of either anytime in the first 4

> seconds (empty) or anytime after that (very busy)

> would have been incomplete and misleading.

>

> Part of the reason they installed such visible

> counters on Embankment cycle lanes was to show

> clearly and obviously, the number of people using

> it, even though there were lots of stills

> circulating of empty cycle lanes and to get away

> from the accusations of biased / made up numbers.

>

> Edit: sort of agree with the comment above, that

> traffic island needs to come out to make the cycle

> lane work properly but then the lights need

> re-phasing to accommodate a complete walk across

> rather than a 2-stage walk where the pedestrian

> stops at the island half way so there's pros and

> cons (to drivers and pedestrians!)

Ex - I very much appreciate your input on this subject as you come from a position of knowledge and your contributions are much more valuable than some of the purple-minion responses we get from some of the pro-closure lobby on here but all across Dulwich traffic is desperately trying to find a way around these closures and is inflicting problems on a much larger percentage of the population than those who are benefiting from them.

Anyone who takes a walk through Dulwich can see it. Ask anyone who lives on Underhill Road what it is like now, ask anyone who shops on Lordship Lane, ask anyone who lives on East Dulwich Grove, in fact ask anyone beyond the pro-closure cultists and you will hear that no-one is happy with what is going on. Yet the council repeatedly paints the residents who have concerns as a vocal minority. They refuse to engage in any sort of debate and just push forward with their poorly designed and implemented plans. The DV bike wands are a classic example. To be honest, after watching the council meeting last night it is clear they have not got the first clue how they should be doing this and are just guessing - and we, the residents of Dulwich, are living with the consequences.

[first mate]

Rather reminds one of tactics going on over the pond right now! Divide and rule, fake news, lies and disinformation.

[Rockets]

Update from OneDulwich tonight.

Our councillors tell us that Phase 2 (camera-controlled restrictions on Dulwich Village, Turney Road, Burbage Road and Townley Road) will be going live in the week beginning 16 November. Local residents will be receiving letters alerting them to the changes.

The Experimental Traffic Order that closed Calton Avenue and Court Lane to motorised traffic will be reviewed after six months. Formal objections must be lodged with the Council before Christmas. We believe there are good reasons why the Council?s actions can be challenged, and will send out information shortly about how and when to make objections.

In the meantime, One Dulwich is working with a network of different groups across Dulwich, all asking the Council to modify the current traffic orders. Please get in touch via our main email hub [email protected] if your group would like to join this initiative.

Finally, we now have more than 1700 supporters. Please remember that anyone over 18 can register ? you?re not limited to one per household. The more of us there are, the more we can make our voices heard.

[ab29]

How on earth they can be pushing ahead with the phase 2 is simply beyond me. As First Mate pointed out - pure Trumpism.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Update from OneDulwich tonight.

>

>

> Our councillors tell us that Phase 2

> (camera-controlled restrictions on Dulwich

> Village, Turney Road, Burbage Road and Townley

> Road) will be going live in the week beginning 16

> November. Local residents will be receiving

> letters alerting them to the changes.

>

> The Experimental Traffic Order that closed Calton

> Avenue and Court Lane to motorised traffic will be

> reviewed after six months. Formal objections must

> be lodged with the Council before Christmas. We

> believe there are good reasons why the Council?s

> actions can be challenged, and will send out

> information shortly about how and when to make

> objections.

>

> In the meantime, One Dulwich is working with a

> network of different groups across Dulwich, all

> asking the Council to modify the current traffic

> orders. Please get in touch via our main email hub

> [email protected] if your group would like to

> join this initiative.

>

> Finally, we now have more than 1700 supporters.

> Please remember that anyone over 18 can register ?

> you?re not limited to one per household. The more

> of us there are, the more we can make our voices

> heard.

[legalalien]

Just had this letter from Southwark hand delivered through the letterbox (see pics)

[legalalien]

It does seem that the monitoring is to be quite limited ie traffic counts (including of pedestrians so they must have people doing them?) - no air pollution monitoring mentioned.

[Metallic]

redpost Wrote:

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

> There was a cycle lane before the barriers were

> put in, however being frequently blocked by

> drivers selfishness so it was necessary to put a

> barrier in.

>

>

> n dulwich northerner Wrote:

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

> -----

> > march46 Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Interesting how you blame the council, when

> > there

> > > was always traffic there

> >

> > Of course, and because their attempts to

> improve

> > things have been misconceived. While the N

> Dulwich

> > traffic lights' new right filter may have

> > mitigated the tailback the council caused by

> the

> > Calton/Court Lane closure, they coupled the

> filter

> > with limiting the left lane to cyclists (see

> any

> > in the photos?) which means that vehicles

> heading

> > for Village Way or Red Post Hill are stuck in

> the

> > tailback.

There has always been a cyclist area at the front of the lights too. Most make their way to it, even now. I yesterday watched three do this while I was waiting to cross east Dulwich Grove.