LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[cwjlawrence]

Hi Rockets,

Have you seen this video on the BBC? let me know your thoughts having watched it :-)

Best,

Chris

https://www.bbc.co.uk/ideas/videos/viewpoint-its-time-to-end-our-love-affair-with-car/p08s48hr

[Rockets]

Yes I have seen that video and my thoughts are this:

- yes it is terrifying what car pollution (and other types of pollution) are doing to the planet and we all agree something has to be done.

- that video is from Andrew Simms who is a well-known climate change activist and campaigner - so you wouldn't expect him to say anything other than what he does (and I do note that he rolls out the usual "London short-journey" stats from TFL).

The point I think you are missing is that you seem to be confusing my comments on the downside of LTNs with the need to reduce car usage.

My point is that LTNs are not going to reduce car usage sufficiently for it not to cause problems elsewhere from displacement.

Let me break it down further for you. Let's imagine this is smoking. Instead of saying "stop smoking" the campaign LTNs are running says "don't smoke cigarettes smoke cigars and don't smoke them in your house, smoke them in your neighbours".

You may smoke fewer of them, you don't inhale as much but they take longer to smoke, produce more smoke but that smoke now sits in your neighbours house not yours so they breathe it in rather than you.

Do you see the point now?

LTNs may reduce car usage but the knock-on effect of the remaining cars creating congestion and increased pollution clogging up the open roads means there is not a net reduction in pollution. That is the only solace I took from Cllr McAsh's note that if they will decide the future of the closures on the basis of net/net comparisons of pollution then they are doomed. And even the most ardent pro-closure supporter must be able to see that and the risk we all run is that the complete hash-job the council has made of the implementation of LTNs sets the pollution debate back years and leaves us all, and future generations, worse off.

So whilst Andrew Simms suggests putting health warnings on cars the surely LTNs should come with health warnings to which read: "May cause increased congestion and pollution in other areas".

[cwjlawrence]

Hi Rockets,

Thanks for your thoughts. I found the video quite thought provoking especially the sentence about every car being driven 500m causing a 1kg loss in polar ice. I like your LTN smoking analogy by way of reposte - although I think you're stretching it a little!

Of course I'm not missing any point of yours; don't worry I'm not suggesting that you're voting for an increase in pollution and a degradation in the quality of air through a desire to increase car usage. Or at least I hope that's not what you want - I doubt you're a metaphorical turkey voting for Christmas!

Whether any of us like it or not, I suspect that we're at the beginning of a journey (please excuse the turn of phrase) whereby driving cars with combustion engines in our city will be socially unacceptable.

However, my personal view is that our energy should be better spent thinking of ways to reduce pollution in our lovely part of London rather than trying to roll back to the previous status quo - which I'm not sure was nirvana.

So here's an idea - instead of our endless posting on this site (which I doubt has any effect to further our separate aims), why don't you and I get together and brainstorm some positive ways to reduce pollution. Just a few ideas off the top of my head now - why don't we work with Alleyn's and JAGs to put up banners on EDG asking drivers to turn off their engines whilst they idle. Or even a banner saying "Every car being driven 500m causes a 1kg loss in polar ice"!

I'll drop you a PM.

Best,

Chris

[heartblock]

Exactly Rockets...my street is nice because I don?t take a dump in my street. Instead I go to your street and take a big sh*t in you street... see low sh*t neighbourhoods ... sorted. Your street is now full of human poo 💩 but that?s ok that you have more 💩 than normal, because my street has less 💩

[KidKruger]

Yep, that pretty much sums-up how road closures have been done around here.

Take the shit off one road and put it somebody else?s road.

[Metallic]

I wonder when it is all going to kick off? There should already be warning notices up. The number of people who still go in to Court Lane and Calton Avenue, ignoring the road closed signs, somehow tells me it will not be believed until penalty notices come through the letterbox.

Talking of letterboxes, has anyone anywhere in East Dulwich and Dulwich EVER had a leaflet about all this rubbish since the first closures were announced for Melbourne Grove, Calton Avenue and Court Lane? Yes we have had a clean air one, and a couple from One Dulwich in my road, and Cllr McAsh posts on here, but I am talking about Southwark Council and/or our local councillors messrs. Leeming and Newens.

[Rockets]

I don't think the council has done anything other than push out a survey during lockdown (and no doubt encouraged their supporters on Melbourne Grove to fill it in). The only non-emergency or public utility service group that has been consulted during this process is Southwark Cyclists. There has been zero effort to engage with the majority of residents who are impacted by these changes.

[Metallic]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> I don't think the council has done anything other

> than push out a survey during lockdown (and no

> doubt encouraged their supporters on Melbourne

> Grove to fill it in). The only non-emergency or

> public utility service group that has been

> consulted during this process is Southwark

> Cyclists. There has been zero effort to engage

> with the majority of residents who are impacted by

> these changes.

I bet we hear from all of them when 2022 dawns and local elections loom.

[legalalien]

I believe there have been some socially distanced consultations /discussions about the council's Climate Emergency planning (this report is also on today's agenda). http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s91295/Report%20Second%20Environment%20Scrutiny%20Commission%20report%20on%20the%20Climate%20Emergency%20Strategy.pdf

Not sure who with.

Interesting that in the climate emergency context there's a clear focus on the need to map deprivation date and overlay this with emssions data to ensure that the more deprived are not hardest hit by any solutions.

[Spartacus]

Also recommendation 8

Adopt a local target to halve petrol and diesel road journeys by 2025, and by 90% by 2030, and encourage London Councils and the Mayor to do likewise.

The LTN implementation will do that but what happens when we all go electric , will there be any roads left to use ? 🤔

[malumbu]

I love the view that councillors of a different political persuasion would have acted differently. Tory councillors under a Tory government? And Lib Dems are tree huggers last time I looked. Glad someone has mentioned the term 'climate emergency'. Yes.

[first mate]

It?s why we need some decent independents.

[legalalien]

So - where do we think the traffic displaced by the next round of Dulwich Village closures will end up? As an aside, I hadn?t appreciated that there was now a bus gate at the Burbage/ Gallery intersection - don?t think that appeared on the maps that accompanied the Southwark decision but is included in the traffic order?

[exdulwicher]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> As an aside, I hadn?t appreciated that

> there was now a bus gate at the Burbage/ Gallery

> intersection - don?t think that appeared on the

> maps that accompanied the Southwark decision but

> is included in the traffic order?

It's on Page 8 of the document here:

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/traffic-orders-licensing-strategies-and-regulation/traffic-management-orders?chapter=5&article

Hopefully that link should work, if not it's the LSP Dulwich Trail phase 2 link on Southwark's TMO page. The map for the southern village junction (Burbage / Gallery) is page 8.

[JohnL]

first mate Wrote:

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

> It?s why we need some decent independents.

I'm not sure most people have time to do politics. It's always those who make a career in it who get elected.

[legalalien]

Yes, spotted it there this morning but it seems to have popped up after the batch of documents that accompanied the decision notice at http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50023654&Opt=0 which is where I had been looking... it?s not mentioned in the table to the report that is approved in the decision notice either as far as I can tell. Surely it can?t just be randomly added into the TMO having not been included in that decision process? Is there a supplementary decision?

[Rockets]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> So - where do we think the traffic displaced by

> the next round of Dulwich Village closures will

> end up? As an aside, I hadn?t appreciated that

> there was now a bus gate at the Burbage/ Gallery

> intersection - don?t think that appeared on the

> maps that accompanied the Southwark decision but

> is included in the traffic order?

It depends where it is going and of course the council does not know this - although it is clear from their own monitoring during OHS that a lot of traffic is coming down Gallery and College Road trying to head north. I would hazard a guess that Croxted, Herne Hill and Lordship Lane will take the brunt of it - it's basically creating a traffic free island (during large parts of the day) across the whole of Dulwich Village.

[legalalien]

Rockets, that?s what I thought - which means the traffic will now go past Rosendale School, into the massive traffic snarl that currently exists in Norwood Road , or put more down LL. That?s insane.

Any idea about the additional bus gate referred to in my post above?

[exdulwicher]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Yes, spotted it there this morning but it seems to

> have popped up after the batch of documents that

> accompanied the decision notice at

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHo

> me.aspx?IId=50023654&Opt=0 which is where I had

> been looking... it?s not mentioned in the table to

> the report that is approved in the decision notice

> either as far as I can tell. Surely it can?t just

> be randomly added into the TMO having not been

> included in that decision process? Is there a

> supplementary decision?

It was definitely in there when the document went live on 15th October although I admit I only scanned the text and concentrated more on the maps.

[dulwichfolk]

The extra burbage gate wasn?t in the original proposals.

There were various complaints on Twitter and I assume in person when the select few get consulted that the changes would mean traffic would go down gallery/college road and then burbage and left at Turney causing another ?rat run?.

I assume as turney is a cycle highway/etc (has schools they actually care about) they wanted to prevent this, or at least attempt to get some residents on side.

[legalalien]

I?ve worked it out - it wasn?t included in the original decision on 1 Sept but has been hidden in the small print of another decision relating to other parts of Southwark Batch 4 on 30 Sept. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s91050/Report%20-%20C19%20Post%20lockdown%20highway%20schemes%20Batch%204.pdf. This also includes one of the Peckham b

Rye bus gates.

How on earth any ordinary person is supposed to keep track of what?s going on is beyond me...! It doesn?t inspire confidence.

[Rockets]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> I?ve worked it out - it wasn?t included in the

> original decision on 1 Sept but has been hidden in

> the small print of another decision relating to

> other parts of Southwark Batch 4 on 30 Sept.

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s91050

> /Report%20-%20C19%20Post%20lockdown%20highway%20sc

> hemes%20Batch%204.pdf. This also includes one of

> the Peckham b

> Rye bus gates.

>

> How on earth any ordinary person is supposed to

> keep track of what?s going on is beyond me...! It

> doesn?t inspire confidence.

The ordinary person isn't supposed to - that's the way all councils get things through. They don't want public scrutiny because the public has an opinion and opinions get in the way of "progress"! ;-)

Think back to the council's happier times of the CPZ and OHS consultations when they could pretty much do what they want. Now people like your good selves are scrutinising everything they do or say - councils hate that as it makes them accountable!

[legalalien]

Well I?m now going to have to read all the recent decisions as a matter of principle.

This one http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=7190 is going to put double yellow lines in a number of Dulwich streets (subject to the formal TMO process) and also provides for experimental traffic orders for a number of School Streets, including Alleyns Junior School, the charter school in Melbourne Grove and Harris Girls, among others, as I read it... something else that had passed me by... due it?s incredibly informative title... Non-strategic Traffic and Highway improvement projects (20/21 Batch 1)

[Metallic]

I think the Burbage Road camera 2 was an after thought probably because the Burbage residents are split in two about extra traffic, with one end protected by the original plan, leaving the Village end taking the brunt of the traffic that has nowhere to go.

I'm appalled by the nimbyism and would gladly have gone along with the idea that Dulwich Village RA set out in the meeting, at least it shares the pain out and helps the traders, whereas this plan is going to see the end of yet more businesses. I bet the estate agents do well, everyone will be putting their houses on the market to get out of here, and fast. Coupled with the TfL announcements and Khan being under orders to make more money from us Londoners, this leaves us all very much out of pocket if it all goes through. Congestion, extra rates tier, ULEZ and these cameras, what's not to like about living in fortress Dulwich where we can't afford to go anywhere outside it for anything.

[Rockets]

I agree I think what the Dulwich Village RA stated was a very good plan and something that everyone could live with (although I am not sure Southwark would agree to area-wide resident permits as I think they think Dulwich residents are the problem).

Nimbyism is a huge issue. Over the summer my wife met a friend for a drink in Gail's in the Village and the table next to her were talking very loudly about the closures. My wife described the people on the table next to her as "too posh to wash" and one of them stated very loudly "We pay a premium for our houses in the Village so why should we have to deal with the traffic". Unfortunately this is the view of many - happy to see their road free from traffic but not giving one jot for what happens at the end of their road.