LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[geh]

hypothetically, if I was a delivery driver heading towards DV, what should I do? Will there be a commercial vehicle exemption? Likewise, builders, scaffolders and other tradesmen? For a start, I'd be putting my price up dramatically for anyone in the exclusion zone. What about the pub/restaurants/convenience store/florist/post office etc? Perhaps the village is now an entirely self-sufficient enclave with no need for external trades and services?

[Rockets]

Yes good point, only emergency, refuse vehicle, taxis and bikes will be allowed through. No resident permits will be issued so residents will be prevented from using the gates too. Apparently the council said residents can only get permits when tied to a CPZ!

At a time more people are having to use home deliveries due to lockdown you have to wonder how popular this will be.

[KidKruger]

There we have it again. A confrontational approach towards motorists.

I don?t expect that to change, but it doesn?t really help.

How about an LTN across the whole of Southwark, so that everybody is affected equally?

heartblock Wrote:

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

> I love walking, cycling, running. I love trees and

> clean air. I love working with students, teaching

> cardio respiratory health. I don?t like my road

> becoming the dustbin of other people?s cars. If

> everyone in an LTN was banned from driving down

> EDG I?m sure they would soon think about a more

> effective, less divisive and rational plan to

> reduce pollution across the WHOLE borough.

[exdulwicher]

No you don?t need to make it less convenient for drivers, you need to create more options for drivers.

Why does every approach with motorists have to be confrontational.

Give them public transport options that are viable and reliable.

You think that wouldn?t make a difference ? Seriously ?

Not really.

We touched on this a few pages ago re buses and public transport.

In the last 15 years, public transport in London has far far outstripped anything else in the country, the investment and development has been staggering.

Capped (and heavily subsidised) fares, firstly on Oyster, now on contactless bank card. The Hopper fare so even when there isn't a direct bus, you still only pay one fare.

24/7 bus operation on a lot of routes, increased frequency of trains, buses and tube, hugely increased roll-out of the cycle hire scheme, the Overground (taking some train routes into TfL operation), construction of CrossRail...

And yet in spite of all that, between 2013 and 2019, the number of miles driven on Southwark's roads has increased by 69 million miles.

https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/local-authorities/103 (you can access all Local Authorities road use data via that).

So in spite of the vast improvement in public transport across London, it's not mitigated the use of private vehicles. Some of that is increased population - Southwark's population increased by 6.2% in the same period but the vehicle mileage increase is 13.5% so population alone doesn't account for it.

I accept that Dulwich itself isn't brilliant with E-W public transport in particular, the lack of a tube line, the fact that cycle hire only extends to Walworth etc comes up pretty regularly but it's far from "bad".

There is of course the other factor right now that Covid means public transport capacity has been slashed by about 2/3rds - the whole point of LTNs and related emergency measures was the Government realising that if everyone who used to use PT got into their cars, it'd be absolute gridlock and therefore attempting to come up with alternatives.

Obviously at such short notice of implementation, it's not going to be perfect first time round but it does give useful info as to what measures might work on a more permanent basis. Some sort of combination of LTNs, CPZ, camera-controlled gates (with resident permits), more / better bike lanes and more / better PT (as and when TfL might be able to afford things like that), and borough-wide enforced speed limits could all have a role to play in reducing vehicle use.

[Rockets]

Ex- it is bad. Here is a segment from Southwarks own report from April 2018.... https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Dulwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf

Some very telling info in that report...worth a read....

PTAL is a measure of accessibility used by TfL based on distance and frequency of public transport. The areas with a high level of public transport accessibility usually score 5, 6a or 6b on the PTAL scale, whilst areas with very low levels of public transport accessibility will score 0, 1a or 1b.

The Dulwich area has a low level of public transport accessibility. Areas around the main stations only reach a PTAL 3 and The Village a PTAL 2 whilst the main commercial area around East Dulwich has a PTAL 3. Other parts of Dulwich, particularly those where schools are located have a level 2 of accessibility translating into a higher use of car and coach for pupils outside of Dulwich.

Additionally it is interesting that the report you highlight on the increase in miles in Southwark, which I know is flavour of the month for the pro-closure lobby across London right now, but that report does actually show that the Miles peak was in 1999 (438m) and has been declining significantly until a few years ago it looks like it had declined by about 25% until 2013 (338m) and is now back up to 384m - is there any other data to support any conclusions as to why it is increasing - people seem to be happy to throw the stat around but there must be some rational behind it? Could this be around the time home deliveries became popularised?

[legalalien]

Out of interest - has anyone heard of or been engaged in Southwark's Phase 1 consultation about its Climate Change Strategy?

If you look here - http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=7130 - you can see the Cabinet decision made in July, it seems that original plans for consultation were amended, but there had still been an online consultation on common space, the outcome of which is set out in one of the Appendices.

Unsurprisingly all of the feedback (which covers the first 100 respondents) is in one direction - is that perhaps because no-one outside the bubble had any idea at all that this consultation even existed? This is becoming more and more of a joke, I'm afraid. The online consultation is now closed, in case anyone is wondering...

" 3.4.Transport and travel Individual level: Respondents outlined how individuals can change their transport behaviour to include more active transport and fewer trips by car. These recommendations were straightforward and included walking, cycling, and taking public transport, in addition to driving less and flying less. Respondents wanted to see individuals encourage their neighbours to do the same and join campaigns that fight for air quality improvements. A few respondents called on individuals to consume less to decrease delivery transport needs.

Borough and city level: Transport was the most commented-on topic area amongst the first 100 respondents, i.e. the highest proportion of respondents gave suggestions on this topic, and within this topic area, local authority action received the highest number of suggestions. Responses here were also more specific than in any other topic area. For example, respondents told Southwark Council precisely where bike storage and lanes were needed, and what features they want these lanes to possess. Comments supported active and public transport and asked local authorities to disincentivise car use through taxes, low emissions zones, and outright car bans. Respondents saw car bans on certain road as an opportunity to reallocate space and pedestrianize streets. Respondents connected these transport changes to decreased air pollution and improved public health. Respondents also called on local authorities to influence national infrastructure projects by openly declaring opposition, e.g. oppose HS2 and the Heathrow Expansion."

Edited to add: and then in October the Environmental Scrutiny Commission says this:

"The draft climate change strategy is currently going through a full engagement programme and consultation which started in March 2020. The initial phase of online engagement ran from March to July which fed into the draft strategy that came to cabinet in July. This initial phase of engagement was not sufficient to deliver a final strategy due to the impact

that COVID-19 had on our ability to have in depth conversations with residents. Since the draft strategy has been published, we have continued to ask residents for their views which will feed into a final strategy that wewill look to publish by the end of the year. As lockdown regulations have been eased, we have been able to run socially distanced consultation events in public spaces to gather these views directly."

.. and then a recommendation to work to engage young people/ school councillors and groups who are not digitally engaged. But what about ordinary people who are digitally engaged? I am sure I've never had any kind of communication at all about this - is it just me?

[Rockets]

I thought the council was pretty much furloughed during the first lockdown.

I think what you are exposing here is how the council has been playing the system, talking to the lobbyists only and railroading things through without any sort of proper consultation.

What is happening now, due to the great work people like you are doing, is that more people are getting engaged which will force the council to be more accountable and transparent. They have been getting away with murder for years. If nothing else this will level the playing field a little and they may find that getting stuff done without broad agreement will become more difficult. They have made this bed and now they have to lie in it.

[Serena2012]

Can someone, ideally with greater brain capacity than me, summarise the practical impact of the next phase of changes in Dulwich on the following hypothetical scenarios. I just want to make sure I?ve understood correctly.

This might help me figure out where the displacement will occur:

1. Someone living on Woodwarde Road wanting to get to their GP on Burbage Road during the timed restrictions (i.e. how would they get there and back once restrictions are implemented v. how would they have done so previously?)

2. Someone living on Boxall Road whose year 2 child has a broken leg and so realistically needs to be driven to and from DPL in West Dulwich?

3. An elderly disabled person living on the stretch of Turney Road between Burbage and Croxted needing to get to King?s for a 9am appointment? How will they get there? If by some disaster it?s a lengthy gig and they?re not released from King?s until 3.30. How do they then get home?

[legalalien]

My guesses:

1. via Eynella or dovercourt / townley etc )LL/ EDG/village way/ half moon lane. Alt is south circ / croxted/ herne hill? But norwood road is already a car park in the morning so would be crazy to go that way.

2. Turney/ burbage/ gallery / alleyn park / alleyn road IF its possible to exit burbage onto the Burbage road roundabout about and turn right? I think you can based on the drawing? But you'd have to do the return trip a different way - probably via park hall road / croxted road - and then park your car somewhere in turney or burbage until restrictions ended. Not much parking around there though.

3.croxted / / norwood road / herne hill (actual Herne Hill, the road). There was at one point a petition for a time closure on turney at the croxted end, if that happened I imagine you could get out but not back in..

[heartblock]

They haven?t considered disability or poverty in their assessment, just middle class cycling lobby groups, from wealthier areas and I speak as a middle-class cycle owner (need to cycle more, but EDG just scares me!), who has driven a car about twice in the last 10 years.

[Rockets]

I think it is clear the long term plan is this.

Put the timed closures in. Residents complain. Council offers them permits if they agree to a CPZ.

[legalalien]

But surely the residents are most likely to be the ones with the 2km journeys to school that we?re supposed to be stopping? Plus in our Leafy LTNs, most people have off street parking? More likely to charge them a reduced per journey fee?

[Serena2012]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> My guesses:

> by

> 1. via Eynella or dovercourt / townley etc )LL/

> EDG/village way/ half moon lane. Alt is south circ

> / croxted/ herne hill? But norwood road is already

> a car park in the morning so would be crazy to go

> that way.

>

> 2. Turney/ burbage/ gallery / alleyn park / alleyn

> road IF its possible to exit burbage onto the

> Burbage road roundabout about and turn right? I

> think you can based on the drawing? But you'd have

> to do the return trip a different way - probably

> via park hall road / croxted road - and then park

> your car somewhere in turney or burbage until

> restrictions ended. Not much parking around there

> though.

>

> 3.croxted / / norwood road / herne hill (actual

> Herne Hill, the road). There was at one point a

> petition for a time closure on turney at the

> croxted end, if that happened I imagine you could

> get out but not back in..

Thanks Legal. I had been under the impression that Turney was getting planters at its junction with Croxted, but it may be that that plan has been scrapped (not least because residents would struggle to return home in that scenario). The council are very lucky that we?ll be in lockdown when these changes go in as it?s going to be absolute mayhem.

[legalalien]

I haven?t seen anything concrete to that effect but will keep an eye out - it is pretty difficult to keep track even when you are actively trying to do so. You?re right that planters there would potentially create a lock in...

[KidKruger]

Aren?t Southwark showing a single map with all planned / in situ traffic controls on their website ?

A map like that, where you can zoom-in on a particular road would be most useful.

Especially if it is maintained real-time so we can all see current road controls as they stand now.

Perhaps it is too much to ask of a local borough in 2020.

[Rockets]

I am not sure such a thing even exists at the council! ;-) Each of the councillors seems to be working autonomously of the other focussing on keeping their own ward happy no matter what the impact is for everyone else.

It was amazing that the councillors on the recent Environmental webcast didn't seem to know that the emergency services don't like planters and want removable bollards yet this had been published some time ago on the Peckham Rye Phase 4 (I think) recommendation documents, which subsequently got scrapped. Seems like there is no overall planning or oversight from anyone in the council, each councillor pursuing their own local vanity project to appease a handful of pro-closure and cycle lobbyists.

[legalalien]

So, on the basis that democracy and transparency are well and truly dead in Southwark, this would seem to be the best place to work out what will happen next may be https://www.healthystreetsscorecard.london/. I?m predicting segregated cycle lanes on EDG and LL and much worse (if possible) traffic as a result... any other guesses?

[dulwichfolk]

I just wonder how the councillors of wards outside of DV are happy to accept all the pollution and cars that these measures will bring.

We might as well have a big tip in the middle of lordship lane for the DV resident to throw any of their excess rubbish in, and they might as well make some the parking spaces available to DV residents only. Why stop there how about a speedy bus service which cuts out all the inconvenient stops outside of DV.

Makes you wonder why some people take up the position in the first place and how the transport planners if they have any say are happy to go along with this form of social inequality.

[first mate]

It is nothing short of scandalous that in a pandemic emergency services have not been properly involved in the consultation process.

[legalalien]

The irony is, though, that most of the residents of DV that you speak to are equally unhappy about the situation. I'm actually starting to come away from the view that this is being driven by the DV ward councillors as a vanity project - they may however have been willing to turn a blind eye to the deficiencies in process in an effort to satisfy some of their more vocal constituents. I think maybe it's more driven by the "coalition" of interests referred to at healthystreetsscorecard above (sustrans, london/southwark cyclists/ mumsforlungs/ livingstreets et al with Rachel Aldred advising them, coupled with a highly inadequate (some might think deliberately) consultation process, designed to effect a bigger cyclist/ climate emergency agenda before the ordinary person in the street realises what is happening.

And that's not to say that such an agenda is not well-meaning/ well founded / well-justified. But the plan seems to be to impose it on a kind of "means justify the ends" basis. And that's where I have a problem. I'm wondering where the "opposition" Lib Dem councillors sit in all this, given the "Dem" part stands for democracy....

dulwichfolk Wrote:

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

> I just wonder how the councillors of wards outside

> of DV are happy to accept all the pollution and

> cars that these measures will bring.

>

> We might as well have a big tip in the middle of

> lordship lane for the DV resident to throw any of

> their excess rubbish in, and they might as well

> make some the parking spaces available to DV

> residents only. Why stop there how about a speedy

> bus service which cuts out all the inconvenient

> stops outside of DV.

>

> Makes you wonder why some people take up the

> position in the first place and how the transport

> planners if they have any say are happy to go

> along with this form of social inequality.

[Metallic]

geh Wrote:

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

> hypothetically, if I was a delivery driver heading

> towards DV, what should I do? Will there be a

> commercial vehicle exemption? Likewise, builders,

> scaffolders and other tradesmen? For a start, I'd

> be putting my price up dramatically for anyone in

> the exclusion zone. What about the

> pub/restaurants/convenience store/florist/post

> office etc? Perhaps the village is now an

> entirely self-sufficient enclave with no need for

> external trades and services?

The people in the Village will be able to feed off the food from the shops that are part of chains: bread, tiles, clothes, etc because the one shop businesses just will not survive. Tiles are delicious I hear.

[Metallic]

"their more vocal constituents...........sustrans, london/southwark cyclists/ mumsforlungs/ livingstreets et al". You got it! Not forgetting Dulwich Safe Routes to School and the Transport and Environment committee of the Dulwich Society.

[Rockets]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> The irony is, though, that most of the residents

> of DV that you speak to are equally unhappy about

> the situation. I'm actually starting to come away

> from the view that this is being driven by the DV

> ward councillors as a vanity project - they may

> however have been willing to turn a blind eye to

> the deficiencies in process in an effort to

> satisfy some of their more vocal constituents. I

> think maybe it's more driven by the "coalition" of

> interests referred to at healthystreetsscorecard

> above (sustrans, london/southwark cyclists/

> mumsforlungs/ livingstreets et al with Rachel

> Aldred advising them, coupled with a highly

> inadequate (some might think deliberately)

> consultation process, designed to effect a bigger

> cyclist/ climate emergency agenda before the

> ordinary person in the street realises what is

> happening.

>

> And that's not to say that such an agenda is not

> well-meaning/ well founded / well-justified. But

> the plan seems to be to impose it on a kind of

> "means justify the ends" basis. And that's where

> I have a problem. I'm wondering where the

> "opposition" Lib Dem councillors sit in all this,

> given the "Dem" part stands for democracy....

>

>

>

> dulwichfolk Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I just wonder how the councillors of wards

> outside

> > of DV are happy to accept all the pollution and

> > cars that these measures will bring.

> >

> > We might as well have a big tip in the middle

> of

> > lordship lane for the DV resident to throw any

> of

> > their excess rubbish in, and they might as well

> > make some the parking spaces available to DV

> > residents only. Why stop there how about a

> speedy

> > bus service which cuts out all the inconvenient

> > stops outside of DV.

> >

> > Makes you wonder why some people take up the

> > position in the first place and how the

> transport

> > planners if they have any say are happy to go

> > along with this form of social inequality.

Therein lies part of the problem - there is no opposition. It is a one-party state and the council have abused that position over the years.

Unfortunately, one of the ex-Lib Dem councillors for the area (James Barber) is, or has been, a senior figure in Southwark Cyclists so you won't find much support for the majority view of the world from him in this debate!

[first mate]

Not to mention an early advocate of mass CPZ

[Rockets]

We have to hope candidates emerge for the next council elections who will stand to represent the majority of residents. Maybe then the council might finally drop the narrative that opposition is coming from a small vocal minority!

This council desperately needs some opposition and some councillors who will hold them accountable. At the moment it's a bit like meetings of the Politburo.