Turney Road closure scrapped

[Rockets]

Update from One Dulwich….interesting how negative respondents are cited for u-turn by council yet result was very similar to Calton closure responses yet they forged ahead with that….does this leave the council open to complaints about consistency?

 

Well done Dulwich for fighting this ludicrous idea….I wonder how much of our money was wasted on it….

 

Campaign Update | 17 May

Turney Road closure scrapped and Dulwich Village junction consultation postponed Southwark Council have announced that – having considered the responses to the consultation held in October and November last year – they have decided not to ban vehicle access along Turney Road from the Dulwich Village junction. This seems to confirm what many had suspected, that the proposal to close Turney Road was a “false flag” tactic designed to enable the Council to say that it has listened to feedback and to draw attention away from their failure to respond to the community’s wishes in relation to the Calton Avenue/Court Lane/Dulwich Village junction. It is not clear why, when 66% of those commenting on the proposed closure of Turney Road to vehicles objected to it, the Council have decided to retain vehicle access, but when 64% of Dulwich respondents in a previous consultation objected to the closure of the Calton Avenue/Court Lane junction to vehicles, the Council decided to ignore them. Council’s report shows majority against design objectives and proposals The Council says that “the feedback from the consultation was broadly supportive”. In fact, it shows the complete opposite. As the Council’s own consultation report states, “there was limited support for all three objectives”. When asked what other objectives should be considered, the key responses were: “displaced traffic”, “access for key workers”, “equality of access for disabled people”and “opposition to junction changes”. None of these have been addressed, despite Southwark Highways’ Dale Foden assuring One Dulwich on 30 October last year that he had “heard your aspirations” about allowing vulnerable car-dependent road users through the junction and that they were “currently working on means to give better access to blue badge holders, SEND transport and other groups”. Only one in three respondents supported the designs for the junction. When asked to comment, the most popular responses were: “don’t support children’s play”, “don’t support seating”, “don’t support public art”, “don’t support planting” and “waste of money”. Hardly “broadly supportive”. As the third anniversary of the junction closure approaches next month, the Council says the consultation on the redesign of the junction, promised for “early in 2023”, will now commence in Autumn 2023 and be implemented in 2024. Vulnerable residents and Helen Hayes MP After writing to our MP Helen Hayes in November last year asking her to help Blue Badge holders and other vulnerable road users to be allowed access through the Dulwich Village junction, we received a series of emails from her requesting the names of One Dulwich “activists” (see our 15 February Campaign Update) before she would correspond further – despite our having explained why this was inappropriate.  We have since asked Helen again if she will champion the needs of vulnerable road users through the junction but, so far, her support has not been forthcoming.

The One Dulwich Team

[Rockets]

Interesting note at the bottom of the council’s explanation for the u-turn. How will this work given  the cycle race track running through the middle of the Square, will they have to redesign it again…not sure public events and the speed some cyclists rattle down Calton Avenue towards the DV junction are good bed fellows.

 

In response to the feedback from the community and key stakeholders, we're seeking to gain permission from the Department for Transport to designate the highway and public realm of Dulwich Square for permitted public events. There will be a consultation in May with all interested stakeholders

 

 

[Insuflo]

In other news:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65602293

[elln]

Incredible to see how much different is the opinion if you own a car and if you don’t. Glad that children could have a voice in the consultation and they all support the change. They are quite vulnerable and spend their entire childhood with this constant need to pay attention to cars around them. 

[Rockets]

To be fair, the Turney Road closure made no sense at all and was incredibly flimsily created and just looked like local grandstanding councillors pandering to the usual local lobbyist voices. Thankfully, not even the council could justify following through with it - but one wonders how much money was wasted on it.

 

Let's be fair the biggest issue for children in that area now is from bikes as they eat, drink and play outside Au Ciel on their way home from school. It would have been far better for the council to focus on that than an absolute farcical folly project that was the closure of Turney - one wonders if that was a step too far for the Village councillors and now they are going to be forced to take a more pragmatic approach to future grand ideas. We know this council hates admitting they are wrong but this one must have caused some debate within the council for them to admit defeat and hopefully tempers their enthusiasm for more ill-thought out ideas.

[Spartacus]

It does strike me that all the posturing on "it is about the children and stopping them breathing in pollution" is a bit mad when a bigger threat to their health now and in the future is obesity caused by poor food choices and junk food.

If councils really are determined to make a difference to child health they should ban fast food outlets within walking distance of schools and transport interchanges, which in my opinion would have a far better long term health impact then banning cars which are all slowly turning green.

Active travel is important before anyone jumps up and down (good exercise 😄) but trying to remove one "bad" element without focusing on others that impact health is fairly pointless. 

I did read somewhere that in Anerica this is the first generation where parents are expected to outlive their kids due to obesity.

But I guess it's easier to demonise car drivers than make substantial changes to real life issues. 

[first mate]

On 17/05/2023 at 23:35, Rockets said:

Interesting note at the bottom of the council’s explanation for the u-turn. How will this work given  the cycle race track running through the middle of the Square, will they have to redesign it again…not sure public events and the speed some cyclists rattle down Calton Avenue towards the DV junction are good bed fellows.

 

In response to the feedback from the community and key stakeholders, we're seeking to gain permission from the Department for Transport to designate the highway and public realm of Dulwich Square for permitted public events. There will be a consultation in May with all interested stakeholders

 

 

You must admit though that despite Dulwich Park and other very large green spaces literally on the doorstep, there is a massive need in this location for a tarmac area for 'permitted public events' and an area where children can gambol and play on tarmac as well.

[DuncanW]

Hey Spartacus,

You don't really need to use quotation marks if you're not quoting anybody - ie no-one actually said that.

And your characterisation of concern for children's health as "posturing" is pretty revealing I must say.

 

[rollflick]

This is a shame as Lambeth is finally moving forward on extending the cycle route along Rosendale Road:

https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/better-fairer-lambeth/projects/healthy-route-brockwell-park-gipsy-hill

The Turney Road scheme would have created an appealing cycle route for all ages on the missing link between there, Dulwich, Green Dale etc. But now it's back to the drawing board, for a scheme that some vocal local drivers have been objecting to since 2015. In those eight years no one has come up with an alternative that would credibly meet the objectives of creating a coherent route, meeting safety standards and cutting motor traffic. Saying that we need a "better design" is not going to magically change the fact there is no alternative given the road's geometry. Unless you mean trying to drive the cycle route via the junction outside Herne Hill station instead, which would cause a lot more inconvenience for all due to the complex signal phases required.

The underlying problem here is that Southwark bid for £1.8m for this scheme from TfL, more than the rest of all other measures it bid for put together. Besides being yet another example of its terrible financial planning and prioritisation, officers haven't learned from the flaws of the first junction redesign, which demonstrated the importance of trialling measures with temporary materials first.

Also there is no need to apply to DfT to designate the road for public events and has not been since this case in 1999 clarified the public's right to use public highway: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990304/jones01.htm

[Earl Aelfheah]

'false flag' 🤪

[Angelina]

It is not at all about children's health.

it's about minimising the traffic but using children's health is a great cover.

[first mate]

2 hours ago, Spartacus said:

It does strike me that all the posturing on "it is about the children and stopping them breathing in pollution" is a bit mad when a bigger threat to their health now and in the future is obesity caused by poor food choices and junk food.

If councils really are determined to make a difference to child health they should ban fast food outlets within walking distance of schools and transport interchanges, which in my opinion would have a far better long term health impact then banning cars which are all slowly turning green.

Active travel is important before anyone jumps up and down (good exercise 😄) but trying to remove one "bad" element without focusing on others that impact health is fairly pointless. 

I did read somewhere that in Anerica this is the first generation where parents are expected to outlive their kids due to obesity.

But I guess it's easier to demonise car drivers than make substantial changes to real life issues. 

I also wonder how many of those focussed only on reducing car use also enjoy holidays and travel abroad and fly to their chosen destinations? How many have wood burning stoves and have loft conversions and side returns, all that building work is polluting and arguably unnecessary. What about the climate costs of technology, whether phones, computers or other gadgets? How many use Amazon and similar regularly? Visiting Peckham Rye yesterday I saw the huge energy consuming vehicles involved in building the Gala site, yet we are told this is a sustainable event, despite damage to the park each year?

 

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, rollflick said:

The Turney Road scheme would have created an appealing cycle route for all ages on the missing link between there, Dulwich, Green Dale etc.

I think this is the real motivation for the closure and "children's health" was the narrative the council created under pressure from cycle lobby groups to create a route to and from the Herne Hill velodrome. This is what has been wrong with so much of this planning from the outset - it has been way too focussed on appeasing the cycle community - this is why the DV junction has been such an abomination from the beginning - the changes weren't designed with all user-groups having equal weighting  - the priority was always cyclists and everyone else was an after-thought and had to be shoe-horned into the designs - it's why that junction can be so dangerous for pedestrians now - the council is aware of the issue but doesn't have the backbone to do anything about it.

[Nigello]

The “cycle community” is sometimes not community-minded, as can be seen by its members riding through those dinky bike-shaped red lights at the LTN junction and on the pavements in the Village, perhaps thinking because they have a nice panier or expensive cycling hardware they’re allowed to. 

[malumbu]

Oh stop the sweeping statements/generalisations Nigello.  I'm always surprised how many of the 'active' members on this site loath cyclists, and that includes some of you who cycle which is one hell of a paradox.

[Nigello]

I don’t loathe them. I said “sometimes” which softens the blow because it suggests at other times there is no such illegality. 
My points are factual and based on real-life witnessing of such events on a daily basis. 
Cyclists who ride responsibly are to be applauded. Those who don’t are not. 

[first mate]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

I think this is the real motivation for the closure and "children's health" was the narrative the council created under pressure from cycle lobby groups to create a route to and from the Herne Hill velodrome. This is what has been wrong with so much of this planning from the outset - it has been way too focussed on appeasing the cycle community - this is why the DV junction has been such an abomination from the beginning - the changes weren't designed with all user-groups having equal weighting  - the priority was always cyclists and everyone else was an after-thought and had to be shoe-horned into the designs - it's why that junction can be so dangerous for pedestrians now - the council is aware of the issue but doesn't have the backbone to do anything about it.

Yes, I think this is it as well as prioritising the ticking of green boxes in order to trumpet what they have achieved.

I do note what you said about the narrow difference between those who voted no to this and to Calton etc.., which was pushed through. I know a consultation is not a vote but I'd love to know what prompted the u-turn exactly?

[CPR Dave]

Maybe it's because of this.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12111087/amp/Sadiq-Khan-admits-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-arent-perfect-need-REMOVING-London.html

There's a photo of Melbourne Grove in the rogue's gallery.

Hopefully they'll row back on some of the local ones here although I think the councillors are to proud to ever admit a mistake round here.

This is shameful, and presumably includes the roads in East Dulwich:

"The Times reported it had asked DfT to supply evidence that LTNs reduced distance driven but it could not provide any."

[first mate]

I think as soon as you hear weasel words like "evidence suggests" you know the evidence is probably somewhat lacking. 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

"the proposal to close Turney Road was a “false flag""

 

One Dulwich previously made friends and influenced people by adapting the anti-black slogan "All Lives Matter" as "All Streets Matter". Now it seems they're going full Q-Anon with their references to "false flag" operations. Will the next newsletter focus on the illuminati, the Gold Standard and ley lines?

[legalalien]

I actually wondered if the decision had something to do with DfT not funding LTNs in its latest active travel funding round

https://www.localgov.co.uk/LTNs-blocked-from-200m-active-travel-cash/56193

 

I saw a more detailed article about this a couple of days ago, will see if I can find it.

[rollflick]

The decision doesn't have anything to do with DfT funding, as there's a separate process in London. Rather, as I posted above, Southwark bid more from TfL for this scheme than for all schemes across the rest of the borough, so TfL rejected it. Read what you want into that about officers seeking to splurge on public realm to placate the shrill voices of Dulwich drivers over the needs of the rest of the borough.

Rockets makes bizarre assertions about this simply being a route to access the Velodrome, despite me pointing out this links to Lambeth's Rosendale Road cycle route, and also the so-called, alleged "cycling community". According to the latest DfT statistics, about 28% of Southwark residents cycle more than monthly and 20% more than weekly https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/walking-and-cycling-statistics-cw. Those figures would increase far more if conditions were safer by routes like this.

There is no driving community, walking community or bus riding community. Yes some people like car races, walking tours/marathons, bus magazines, and cycle races but they are a tiny proportion of people who regularly get about by these different means.

Given the lack of concern about children's health (or indeed futures) on here, the amount of whataboutism is hardly surprising. The facts are the problems of obesity, climate change and air pollution (increasingly now from tyre, brake & road wear) have grown so much that we need to use multiple tools. In any event motor traffic reduction is one of the most effective for all these

e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653522015624 on particulates

https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/walking-cycling-to-school-linked-healthier-body-weight/ on active travel reducing obesity

Does anyone actually have suggestions on making Turney Road appealing for all ages to cycle on, other than a road closure?

[Rockets]

Rollflick - if you are correct about your assertion that this was rejected because Southwark bid more for this single project than for all the rest of schemes across the borough - then does that not ring alarm bells? Are our councillors out of touch with reality? Were they not then trying to splurge public money on placating the cycle voices?  Or was this part of the bigger war being raged between our councillors and TFL following fallout from the allegations of bad treatment of TFL staff by council officials? 

 

It made no sense closing Turney Road to create a cycle route - and that is ultimately why it failed - because you don't have to close roads to create safe cycling routes but many in the pro-cycle lobby, and the councillors, have become so obsessed with that notion that it is their go-to position and they can think of nothing else. Turney Road is a quiet road, even at it's busiest and this is why so many people were shocked when the council suggested it needed closing and really exposes their lack of lateral thinking and hopefully signals an end of their blinkered, cycle-centric , view towards transport policy and policies.

[malumbu]

Your last line was almost poetic Rocks, took me back to seeing the great John Cooper Clark in the early days.  I challenge you to putting your views to verse!

[rollflick]

Rockets, attached is the TfL feedback off Twitter. TfL has previously criticised Southwark for multiple reasons, including in 2019 a total lack of governance and prioritisation. While pretty much all other boroughs had formal oversight from their cabinets / committees over their funding bids to TfL, there was no governance again in 2023 for Southwark's bid.

If there was any coherent or competent planning, it would have been obvious that there was no justification spending so much money (£1.8m) on a fancy junction redesign, especially after recent spending on the permanent concrete planters, and the major rejig of the junction a few years before that. It is cock-up rather than conspiracy - incompetent officers plus councillors that are incapable of holding officers accountable on behalf of their electors.

Rockets - still waiting for positive suggestions on how to make Turney Road attractive for all ages to cycle.