Our Healthy Streets ?Dulwich

[Jezza]

The council is seeking the views of residents, businesses and stakeholders on traffic volumes, road safety, air quality and walking and cycling issues affecting the East Dulwich and wider Dulwich area.

They have gathered data on air quality hot spots, traffic volumes, through traffic routes, traffic speeds, collision hotspots and feedback from previous engagements.

Have your say on possible solutions to explore with residents, agree/ disagree on comments made by others, pin your comments at a specific location on their engagement app.

This approach seems different from previous consultations by the council and aims to be open to potential approaches in relation to the issues that people identify.

The first phase of finding out more about issues that people face lasts until 7th June and can be found at:

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/roadworks-and-highway-improvements/street-improvements/our-healthy-streets-dulwich

[Otto2]

I am getting an error trying to add feedback to the map. I've registered.

[h3+]

Me too :-(

[Sally Eva]

Me too. Too many people posting at the same time I guess. I got two comments on and then error messages

[Penguin68]

You do all understand, I hope, that the objective of this exercise is to flood the area with 'concerns' about e.g. road safety to help justify ('public demand') whatever draconian and probably inappropriate 'traffic management' schemes they plan - more CPZs; more extended double yellows, less parking etc. etc. There will be no more buses, with no additional frequency (of course, as that's TfL not Southwark) let alone any improvements in the rail services. Every time you add a concern you add another nail in the coffin of cars in Southwark, the stated aim of the council.

[tiddles]

Thats exactly what i was thinking penguin! - they clearly don't give a stuff about what people actually think! Hugely expensive ?consultation? which then disregarded the responses followed by a shambolic public meeting! What on earth do we Think they are up to now....

[Sally Eva]

This is working again now.

[Abe_froeman]

Penguin, I've taken a leaf out of the book of that southwark cyclists special interest group page on the other thread and am flooding this consultation with comments that reflect my personal preferences and self interest.

So far I have expressed my grave concerns that removing all cars parked on the kerbside 1) increases the speed of traffic making the roads physically more dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians, and 2) encourages people to pave over their front gardens to use as car parks, thus increasing pollution a de-greening the area, which are causing yet more lung and brain damage to cyclists

[TheCat]

Perhaps in keeping with other threads on this forum, we could add some "Dog Shite" hotspots onto this map.....surely not having feaces smeared everywhere plays a part in having 'healthy streets'.....?

[El Presidente]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> You do all understand, I hope, that the objective

> of this exercise is to flood the area with

> 'concerns' about e.g. road safety to help justify

> ('public demand') whatever draconian and probably

> inappropriate 'traffic management' schemes they

> plan - more CPZs; more extended double yellows,

> less parking etc. etc. There will be no more

> buses, with no additional frequency (of course, as

> that's TfL not Southwark) let alone any

> improvements in the rail services. Every time you

> add a concern you add another nail in the coffin

> of cars in Southwark, the stated aim of the

> council.

Precisely what they are up to. It is right out of their standard playbook. They probably already know what draconian scheme they are planning, but will be sequencing the consultation to get the result they want.

[sonnyw]

I had problems with the site as well but I emailed Southwark about it and I eventually sorted the problem. It seems to have a problem with really old phones/browsers.

Email them on [email protected]

I just gave them a description of my problem, sent across a screengrab, what phone/PC I was using and the email address I registered with.

[Earl Aelfheah]

This is so tedious. If they really wanted to improve the health of the area then they would close some streets off to traffic in order to create cycle routes into town, invest in secure cycle parking at all tube stations, invest in local public transport. But they won't. They'll bring in CPZs, continue to approve drop kerbs and the concreting over of gardens and put in more and more speed bumps (adding to pollution). None of these things decrease local car ownership, or improve the environment.

[Earl Aelfheah]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> This is so tedious. If they really wanted to

> improve the health of the area then they would

> close some streets off to traffic in order to

> create cycle routes into town, invest in secure

> cycle parking at all tube stations, invest in

> local public transport. But they won't. They'll

> bring in CPZs, continue to approve drop kerbs and

> the concreting over of gardens and put in more and

> more speed bumps (adding to pollution). None of

> these things decrease local car ownership, or

> improve the environment.

... oh, and completely fail to police commonplace, dangerous driving.

[Earl Aelfheah]

That said, at least they're trying to take an area wide approach rather than the usual 'he who shouts loudest' one.

[XDoc]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> You do all understand, I hope, that the objective

> of this exercise is to flood the area with

> 'concerns' about e.g. road safety to help justify

> ('public demand') whatever draconian and probably

> inappropriate 'traffic management' schemes they

> plan - more CPZs; more extended double yellows,

> less parking etc. etc. There will be no more

> buses, with no additional frequency (of course, as

> that's TfL not Southwark) let alone any

> improvements in the rail services. Every time you

> add a concern you add another nail in the coffin

> of cars in Southwark, the stated aim of the

> council.

exactly...

[first mate]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Penguin, I've taken a leaf out of the book of that

> southwark cyclists special interest group page on

> the other thread and am flooding this consultation

> with comments that reflect my personal preferences

> and self interest.

>

> So far I have expressed my grave concerns that

> removing all cars parked on the kerbside 1)

> increases the speed of traffic making the roads

> physically more dangerous for cyclists and

> pedestrians, and 2) encourages people to pave over

> their front gardens to use as car parks, thus

> increasing pollution a de-greening the area, which

> are causing yet more lung and brain damage to

> cyclists

Do follow the example set and try to call friends, even friends living out of the area and get them to participate in future plans for ED streets.

[wulfhound]

"If they really wanted to improve the health of the area then they would close some streets off to traffic in order to create cycle routes into town, invest in secure cycle parking at all tube stations, invest in local public transport. But they won't."

Given that Healthy Streets seems to be a brainchild of Will Norman (the Mayor's Walking & Cycling Commissioner), you would at least hope..

Investing in local public transport is challenging since (without wishing to make this political) Central Government removed all of TfL's grant. With Crossrail delayed, TfL are strapped for cash. Ideally you'd want two other routes to complement the P4 - one running roughly SE-NW (i.e. Sydenham/Herne Hill) and another SW-NE i.e. West Norwood to Peckham. Failing that you just need a LOT more P4s to connect up with existing routes running north and south of the Village.

[seenbeen]

I'm sick of speeding cyclists- they are silent, they speed around bends, I have had a couple of close calls and my sister has a permanent injury to her foot because of a cyclist who did not even stop after he mowed her down....

[goldilocks]

Just out of interest Seenbeen - how many people do you think have been injured by cyclists locally? Compare this to how many people you think have been injured by cars? Move on to consider the severity of injury in each scenario!

Yes there are stupid cyclists and yes, very occasionally, the results of this are tragic. Mostly though the 'fear' of being hit by cyclists seems to be just that - a fear or percieved risk. I suspect it has got worse in recent years as people either texting / playing games or listening to music step off the kerb and don't hear cyclists, but overall the number of pedestrians hit by cyclists is extremely low and when they are hit the comparative harm compared to being hit by cars is much lower.

What happened to your sister is obviously unacceptable but I think that you need to consider healthy streets in a much wider context. What would help us across the board is a construct like the Netherlands where the assumption of fault lies with the transport that can do most harm - ie in cars vs bikes this would be the cars and in pedestrians vs bikes, it would be bikes.

seenbeen Wrote:

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

> I'm sick of speeding cyclists- they are silent,

> they speed around bends, I have had a couple of

> close calls and my sister has a permanent injury

> to her foot because of a cyclist who did not even

> stop after he mowed her down....

[Earl Aelfheah]

seenbeen Wrote:

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

> I'm sick of speeding cyclists- they are silent,

> they speed around bends, I have had a couple of

> close calls and my sister has a permanent injury

> to her foot because of a cyclist who did not even

> stop after he mowed her down....

I've see some inconsiderate cycling and some extremely dangerous driving. The latter clearly causes significantly more harm and represents a much more serious problem generally, though both are unacceptable. It is often the same individuals who behave badly whether they're travelling by bike or in a car of course.

[RichH]

If we want to make roads healthier/safer (especially for cyclists and pedestrians) then I'd suggest making Cycling Proficiency Tests (now called "Bikeability" I believe) compulsory and bring back The Green Cross Man (a Superhero that really did save lives.)

https://bikeability.org.uk/

If you're a driver or motorcycle rider that wants to improve their skills, perhaps consider undertaking some RoSPA training.

https://www.rospa.com/safety-training/on-road/advanced/drivers/

Now, how about some street signs advertising these worthwhile schemes? You know, signs that actually provide some useful information rather than just whatever suits the Council's political agenda at the time.

I infer that the 20mph speed limit is too slow. A simple deduction reached by observing that almost everyone exceeds it. This can't all be attributed to oft-repeated "bad driving". So, put the speed limit back to 30mph and take out all the speed bumps and similarly ridiculous obstacles (it's a road after all!) that force many vehicles to slow down to 10mph or less only to have to speed up again to prevent a queue forming behind them. That will allow vehicles to proceed at a steady and efficient pace thereby reducing what little pollution modern vehicles create.

Of course, more traffic policing (by which I mean proper, real Police) would help to reduce the few incidents of genuinely bad driving as well as catch the, even fewer, idiots. And of course an improvement in public transport wouldn't go amiss either.

And there you go, problem solved. Don't mention it!

...of course, it'll never happen :))

[snowy]

Because your suggestions are frankly stupid and have been proven not to work?

[RichH]

I suspect RoSPA and the Bikeability folk would disagree with you. Of course I can't be sure about the Green Cross Man. Teaching people to drive, ride and cross the road more safely is hardly stupid and doesn't work only for people of very low intelligence.

Roads worked perfectly well without obstacles in them for a couple of thousand years. Mind you, those Romans were a pretty daft lot too ;)

[rollflick]

There's a new consultation out for Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich, be quick though as it's open for less than a fortnight, closing on 24th - surely we'll see yet again the council realising that's too short and extending?

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/ohsdulwichphase2/

Public asks from the last exercise were to cut air pollution and deliver area wide traffic reduction. While there's lots of trendy graphics, I'm left feeling the consultation exercise is becoming like trying to pin the tail on multiple donkeys.

Key problems with the consultation process are:

- nothing being learned from the past: e.g. a focus is making junctions safe for walking and cycling, but two of the three junctions the public have just highlighted as the worst are the ones Southwark has just spent ??? on supposedly improving! Or all the traffic calming that hasn't made our streets safer in the last 6 years.

- no info about existing or proposed cycling & walking routes: as we've learned tackling junctions does not encourage people out of cars if the streets in between are rat-runs.

- nothing about how effective different options would be in delivering the clean air people so clearly want (plus is a legal requirement), or delivering the big reduction in emissions needed to address the climate emergency the council is claiming to take seriously. e.g. traffic calming often makes air pollution worse and in the age of satnavs simply doesn't discourage through traffic

48 different options is a lot but the results may be contradictory if people chose a combination that mean some streets are cut off. There are various half a dozen of one, six of the other options, like school streets, permeable closures and camera access filter. Meanwhile it's hard to see how the objectives would be delivered without better parking management, junction overhauls (not simply banning turns), new pedestrian crossings and protected cycle lanes.

Surely would be much better to have say three different packages proposed taking different approaches, e.g. with indications how much each would improve air quality by? That would help gauge relative support and possibly end up with some combination or variation. Then try things out then get feedback from people.

I'm left feeling the biggest problem is the way Southwark plans these schemes compared to the better boroughs north of the river.

[seenbeen]

we are now in the season for idling engines...there is a form to fill in anonymously on the Southwark website for 'idling hotspots' and smoking chimneys