LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Artemis]

I imagine the westernmost point is Croxted Road as the report was commissioned by Southwark, and the area to the west of Croxted Road is in Lambeth. The current consultation is concentrated on the area covered in the map (as Southwark has no influence/power over Lambeth), so these figures seem relevant to the current discussion.

[Metallic]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> On the section of ED Grove between RPH and Townley

> I struggle to think of a house that doesn't have 3

> cars on the driveway.

> The Dutch estate, rather than being the social

> housing enclave people like to claim for this

> argument has extensive (and free) off street

> parking for residents plus garages. The amount of

> cars parked there is massive.

>

> Then you have the section on the bend where every

> frontage bar one is paved over and has 2 cars on

> it, behind which is a mews with yet more off

> street parking. The houses on the right have

> full residents parking outside them.

>

> Not sure where this 'East Dulwich Grove low car

> narrative comes from really.

>

>

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> > As far as I know...ED Grove residents group is

> > unaware of this meeting and as the road with

> low

> > car ownership and an increase of 25-37% traffic

> > and NOx off the acceptable scales..this is a

> huge

> > injustice.

> >

> > Yet again the Council acts like a feudal

> > endeavour...we are just serfs...

I know at least one house at the lower end by RPH that has only one car, and some houses that do not have drives either so you can't possibly know, however you are impossibly nosy.

[Metallic]

northernmonkey. Please tell us the road you live on, and whether you have one or more cars?

[heartblock]

I live on ED Grove..with my partner, it?s a two bedroom flat. I have one car, it has been driven 3 times this year and 5 times last year. I have lived here for 30+ years.

See it?s easy when you know how.

How about boohooLTN.. I guess....Gilkes or Calton

Northern I guess Calton or Melbourne....see This is fun!

[Rockets]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> The map that you have pointed out has as its most

> westernmost point, croxted road. Even the most

> Dulwich village centric of people couldn't

> consider that to be West Dulwich. So my point is

> that journeys from Dulwich Village to say west of

> croxted road would be considered non local,

> similarly with any journeys beyond Forest Hill

> Road to the East.

>

> These figures are based on a 5 year dataset on a

> london wide survey - so not Southwark's monitoring

> data, rather its using a subset of a much wider

> study.

>

> I don't doubt that of the people who are

> responding, over 60% of local journeys within the

> area defined on the map are walked, but there are

> many more which are slightly longer that could

> represent walked / cycled or multi modal trips -

> eg its not only the remaining 40%

But Northern I am really struggling to see what point you are actually trying to make. The council published a report in 2018 that stated that 68% of internal trips (within the 3 wards considered Dulwich) were made by active travel (of which 65% were by foot and 3% by bike). It doesn't matter where the boundary ends and whether Joe Smoe from Dulwich Village considers Croxted Road the end of Dulwich or the beginning of Dulwich - those are boundaries that the council considered Dulwich and stated that 68% of internal journeys were by active travel.

The report also sheds a lot of light on the people of Dulwich's travel habits beyond internal journeys and the high proportion of journeys that go beyond neighbouring boroughs.

So there are a number of conclusions we can take:

1. Dulwich was already doing a lot of active travel internal journeys (more so than any other part of Southwark)

2. Dulwich residents own cars because of the poor PTAL scores (especially east/west) and their need to travel beyond neighbouring boroughs

3. When Dulwichites do leave the area they are going beyond neighbouring boroughs (it seems lot of people travel beyond neighbouring boroughs for education and work)

4. Those travelling inbound to Dulwich are often travelling from non-neighbouring boroughs for work, social and education

It all adds up to a perplexing situation....why did Southwark think Dulwich was a good place for LTNs or, more to the point, who convinced them Dulwich was a good place for LTNs.

[heartblock]

Well............https://betterelephant.github.io/blog/2013/04/09/report-uncovers-corruption-at-the-elephant/ and https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=55835 also

Peter Walker....local resident of an LTN cyclist and Guardian Jounalist... ?He advocated reducing endless consultation and getting more changes done faster? note...the no consultation.

And some LCC action with Disgraced....Simon Still

[legalalien]

The things that google leads you to. I found this blog really interesting, was reading it this morning. https://southwarknotes.wordpress.com/. I don?t necessarily agree with everything but the commonality / links regarding council engagement with residents in this different context were instructive.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Well............https://betterelephant.github.io/b

> log/2013/04/09/report-uncovers-corruption-at-the-e

> lephant/ and

> https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=55

> 835 also

>

> Peter Walker....local resident of an LTN cyclist

> and Guardian Jounalist... ?He advocated reducing

> endless consultation and getting more changes done

> faster? note...the no consultation.

>

> And some LCC action with Disgraced....Simon Still

[heartblock]

Indeed.

[Rockets]

E-scooters being talked about on Newsnight tonight following the death of the 17 year old boy in Bromley and the incident in Myatts Fields involving the 3 year old girl who was hit by one on Monday.

I didn't realise Copenhagen trialed them and have subsequently banned them from the city.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Low traffic Neighbourhoods halve number of road injuries study finds:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/23/low-traffic-schemes-halve-number-of-road-injuries-study-shows

[Earl Aelfheah]

Fewer cars, increases in active travel and reduction in road injuries. I know, all the data / research is biased. The lack of any counter evidence just shows how far the conspiracy goes.

[northernmonkey]

The report shows that Low Traffic Neighbourhoods not only halve the number of road injuries but also show no apparent increase in danger at their boundaries.

This together with monitoring locally that shows a fall in traffic both inside and on most monitored roads.

Its also worth noting here that Croxted Road where the congestion had been severe especially in the morning peak (and yet volumes on the monitoring data were confusingly down overall) I saw yesterday that TFL had confirmed that back in November they had adjusted the traffic lights phasing to allow longer on Norwood Road to address the Herne Hill Bridge works. It explains why the situation improved towards the end of term as this phasing had been addressed.

[Rockets]

Peter Walker, Anna Goodman, Rachel Aldred......surprise surprise - funny how no-one else ever writes about this stuff or publishes this type of research! ;-) I will come back to that later...returning to my conflict of interest question you have never answered Rahx3.

But all joking aside, of course, this is a brilliant part of LTNs - that they reduce road accidents reported by police - of course they do - that's pretty obvious they would do that - alto.

But I would caution your enthusiasm for it as it doesn't look at boundary roads beyond 25 metres from the closure and that there is no change on those boundary roads. So, the accident I witnessed near the junction of Overhill Road and Lordship Lane that was caused by congestion caused by the LTNs and led to life-changing injuries for a motorcyclist would not have been considered as it was more than 25 metres from the closures - it would be very interesting to understand what that would mean in Dulwich - which roads were considered boundary roads - would it be Court Lane, Woodwarde etc or Lordship Lane, Croxted Road or the A205.

Now, I looked at the report and I saw that Anna Goodman and Rachel Aldred have flagged the conflict of interest, and I quote...:

Some of these LTNs were funded by the Department for Transport (DfT) via the Active Travel Fund. AG, RA and JF have been awarded DfT funding to evaluate the Active Travel Fund programme as a whole, although this study does not form part of that work. DfT had no input into this article.

So, Rachel Aldred is getting DfT funding to evaluate the LTNs - LTNs that she spent many years lobbying for in her role as head of policy for the London Cycling Campaign.

Rahx3 - surely that is a conflict of interest?

[dougiefreeman]

Newsflash

?Closed road has less road related injuries?

Perhaps now they could run the same study on the roads taking all the strain -

LL, EDG etc.

[first mate]

Quite, in a pandemic, when most people are working from home, not using cars and staying local.

[Earl Aelfheah]

dougiefreeman Wrote:

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

> Newsflash

>

> ?Closed road has less road related injuries?

>

> Perhaps now they could run the same study on the

> roads taking all the strain -

> LL, EDG etc.

They did. There was a decrease in road related injuries within the LTNS and no change on exterior roads. Injuries went down overall.

[Rockets]

Rahx3 - I am not sure they did. Per the question I posed earlier they appear to have limited the survey of boundary roads to within 25 metres of the LTNs - in Dulwich that doesn't take in, Lordship Lane, for example.

[heartblock]

I suppose if traffic is at a standstill then there would be no major traffic accidents to report to the police. As I know to well..outside of the School run weeks of idling traffic Hell that lasts for 2 hrs in the morning and 2 in the evening...LTNs on Calton, Melbourne and other gated communities do not prevent serious accidents on residential roads outside of LTNs.

Also they are not boundary roads or ?external? roads as Anna and Rachel like to call them. They are residential roads with people, schools and health centres.

We are sacrificed for the benefit of our better off neighbours.

What with infilling green spaces on estates, while selling off council housing to private developers and ?encouraging? the poorest to move out by offering an increased rent accommodation...along with ?othering? residents on Croxted, LL and ED Grove as outsiders, this Council is an utter disgrace to the once Socialist principles of the Labour Party.

[first mate]

One of the early pre-pandemic suggestions from a cycling lobby rep was that unless you worked locally/ could cycle, walk or use PT to get to work, you should really consider moving out of the area!

[Rockets]

What's also interesting is that cyclist casualties within the LTNs didn't drop as pronounced as the other categories:

Pedestrian casualties dropped from 30 to 3, car driver or passenger from 21 to 6 yet cyclists only from 18 to 17 - anyone have any idea what is going on there? Surely you would expect a similar big drop for cyclists? Also the London mean for cyclist injuries went up - is this just because of the increase in cycling?

[Earl Aelfheah]

All the research on LTNs suggest they lead to fewer cars, increases in active travel and reduction in road injuries. It?s crazy how it is all biased. The lack of any counter evidence is startling. It just shows how far the conspiracy goes.

Surely there must be at least one brave academic who isn?t willing to falsify research or manipulate data to hide the truth... Which is *checks notes* that encouraging cars onto more roads reduces car use and encourages active travel.

[Earl Aelfheah]

first mate Wrote:

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

> One of the early pre-pandemic suggestions from a

> cycling lobby rep was that unless you worked

> locally/ could cycle, walk or use PT to get to

> work, you should really consider moving out of the

> area!

Cool story

[first mate]

Does that mean you condone it or you think I am making it up?

[northernmonkey]

I think even you managed to get to a point where you admitted that your 2 hours in the morning and 2 in the evening was false.

Mornings 8-8:45 busy, evenings slightly longer as 2 peaks.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> I suppose if traffic is at a standstill then there

> would be no major traffic accidents to report to

> the police. As I know to well..outside of the

> School run weeks of idling traffic Hell that lasts

> for 2 hrs in the morning and 2 in the

> evening...LTNs on Calton, Melbourne and other

> gated communities do not prevent serious accidents

> on residential roads outside of LTNs.

> Also they are not boundary roads or ?external?

> roads as Anna and Rachel like to call them. They

> are residential roads with people, schools and

> health centres.

>

> We are sacrificed for the benefit of our better

> off neighbours.

>

> What with infilling green spaces on estates, while

> selling off council housing to private developers

> and ?encouraging? the poorest to move out by

> offering an increased rent accommodation...along

> with ?othering? residents on Croxted, LL and ED

> Grove as outsiders, this Council is an utter

> disgrace to the once Socialist principles of the

> Labour Party.

[Chris_1]

There was a comment earlier about traffic count on Croxted Road - and how confusingly it looks down. We looked at TfL SCOOT data just for the direction that?s actually impacted by the LTN - eg heading north towards HH, and at the timings that roughly coincide with timed closures (data 7-10am) vs timed closures 8-10am.

Traffic is up over that period - I don?t have the stats in front of me but something like 3-5% in each of Feb/May and up north of 10% in April.

Obviously fair pushback would be that I?m cherry picking the worst of it to look at - my comment would be that this is the problem time so it makes most sense to look at that.

I think the data presented in the council report was all day and both directions - the road is pretty quiet outside of peak times (outside of timed closures times too), and there?s no impact southbound from the LTN. Suspicion is that south is down a LOT, north is

Flat-to-up depending on whether you look at peak or all day.

Congestion is way up, can see that thru the same scoot data set.

Would have been helpful if the council had broken out the data in a few different ways, I try hard not to be a pessimist but it does appear like at least for our street a fair picture has not quite been painted.