LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[DulwichCentral]

@heartblock you say 'between Melbourne and Townley... It was always a busy flow, but was never at a standstill.'

I've had to alter the wording slightly in this post because the admin says I've posted before - I know! its really tedious! I lived near Dog Kennel Hill 5 years ago and drove back and forth via EDG daily. Almost without fail at peak times I got stuck in traffic on the stretch between Melbourne and Townley.

Looking back, now that I don't drive those short journeys and cycle instead, it seems ridiculous I repeatedly got stuck in traffic day after day after day - furious with 'the traffic' which of course I was part of!

More needs to be done on EDG. But to say it **was never at a standstill** before the LTNs just isn't true.

[DulwichCentral]

Apologies for reposting - so admin let the first post go after all. This is probably about the 5th time I've made this point so hey ho! an extra time for good measure :)

[heartblock]

Driving down ED Grove, very different from living on ED Grove..and no it was never at a standstill for nearly 2 hours in the morning that was so bad it delayed buses by around 20 minutes.

This is due LTNs diverting traffic flow as measured by Southwark Council (buses delayed by 20 mins on ED Grove, when the London trajectory has been shorter transit times and 26-35% more traffic, when across London traffic has been reduced in areas with and without LTNs)

Anyway. I will continue to be gaslighted and told how untruthful I am, it?s not an accurate assessment, but obviously suits to promote the view that the extra traffic, pollution and bus delays are in my and my neighbours imagination, despite being backed up by Southwark?s own data.

[DulwichCentral]

It was at a standstill. That's my point. As opposed to your original comment 'never at a standstill'.

[legalalien]

Anyone else received a flyer for ?Harmony on the Square?? See attached.

Programme at https://friendsofdulwichsquare.co.uk/

How much is this costing the council - was it ?3k?

[ab29]

Would not put anything past Southwark council in their attempts to keep this vanity project alive.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Just looking t this month?s forward plan. It?s

> still showing a decision on the Dulwich

> experimental measures as due in September 2021.

> There?s also a new item called ?Determination of

> Objections? in relation to the measures, described

> as ? Consider objections made during statutory

> consultation for Dulwich Streetspace review

> measures?, due in November 2021.

>

> See

> https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgListPlanItems

> .aspx?PlanId=674

>

> Not quite sure how the two timeframes fit

> together. Surely the Council consider the

> objections before making the decision? It could be

> a reference to anticipated objections made after/

> in response to the September decision? But that?s

> not how it is worded?

[Metallic]

hpsaucey Wrote:

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

> Throwing this into the congestion mix - car super

> size me and road space attached.

Don't you have a couple of cars?

[heartblock]

Oh there are many cars owned by friends of Dulwich Square.

[Metallic]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Anyone else received a flyer for ?Harmony on the

> Square?? See attached.

>

> Programme at

> https://friendsofdulwichsquare.co.uk/

>

> How much is this costing the council - was it ?3k?

Yes it was ?3k for the four events.

On twitter there is a flyer for the first 'concert' with Margy Newens saying she can't wait to see them - Mozaika. The quote about their performance is from Edinburgh Festival 2004!

[hpsaucey]

Metallic Wrote:

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

> hpsaucey Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Throwing this into the congestion mix - car

> super

> > size me and road space attached.

>

>

> Don't you have a couple of cars?

No - no cars or other motorised vehicle.

You?

HP

[exdulwicher]

Oh there are many cars owned by friends of Dulwich Square.

Much as I had to divide people up like this, it doesn't matter if you're pro or anti LTN, the issue is not really about owning a car. it's about where and when you choose to use it.

Plenty of people are in a situation where they cannot just give their car up - maybe they're half way through a lease deal, maybe the car is so old that it's not worth anything to sell and it should just be kept until it falls apart... Many people genuinely do need a car for some journeys or circumstances.

The problem is that the "anti" group have two answers:

Pro LTN / own a car = you hypocrite! you give up your car first!

Pro LTN / do not own a car = lefty hippy eco-warrior who can't possibly understand what life is like for those who NEED a car!

It's not that simple - it's perfectly possible to own a car (and to need one occasionally) but choose not to use it to drive 500m to the school or half a mile to the gym. Being in favour of less traffic does not automatically mean "thou shalt never own or use a car again".

Such polarised views aren't helpful to the debate. Besides which, modal shift takes time to come through - that person who currently owns a car may be using it less and less to the point where, a year or so down the line they will realise it gets so little use that it's more economically viable to just hire one when needed.

https://findingspress.org/article/18200-the-impact-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-and-other-active-travel-interventions-on-vehicle-ownership-findings-from-the-outer-london-mini-holland-programme

(I'm sure that naturally, the fact it was written by Anna Goodman and Rachel Aldred will drag out the naysayers - however there's a good summary here with numerous other links in it: https://www.rapidtransition.org/stories/making-streets-people-friendly-the-rise-of-car-free-communities/ )

[heartblock]

Make ED Grove so horrible and polluted for the residents that people from other roads give up driving their car, doesn?t seem to be working, so ....keep going until it does. Is that the great plan?

As LTNs have not in any research been shown, with actual data, to reduce pollution and in one area where there is a much celebrated LTN the adult asthma A&E rate is the highest in London, then forgive me for not being a believer.

[slarti b2]

@Exdulwicher.

A couple of days ago you objected to the description of the measures at Dulwich Village/Calton Ave Junction as "Road Closures". You complained this is misleading and they are in fact "permeable filters".

Well I took some photos and, as you can see, it looks like Southwark COuncil seem to think they are indeed road closures (most of these signs have been there over a year).

Personally, unless you are a cycling activist or a traffic engineer, I think the phrase permeable filters is much more misleading. During the OHS consultation last year several of my neighbours thought it meant that residensts could drive through, especially in the context of the residents permits the council was proposing at the time.

I think the description "cycle only access" would be much clearer, what do you think?

[Artemis]

slarti b2 Wrote:

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

> @Exdulwicher.

> A couple of days ago you objected to the

> description of the measures at Dulwich

> Village/Calton Ave Junction as "Road Closures".

> You complained this is misleading and they are in

> fact "permeable filters".

>

> Well I took some photos and, as you can see, it

> looks like Southwark seem to think they are indeed

> road closures (most of these signs have been there

> over a year).

>

> Personally, unless you are a cycling activist or a

> traffic engineer, I think the phrase permeable

> filters is much more misleading. During the OHS

> consultation last year several of my neighbours

> thought it meant that residensts could drive

> through, especially in the context of the

> residents permits the council was proposing at the

> time.

>

> I think the description "cycle only access" would

> be much clearer, what do you think?

If you?re an ambulance driver trying to get to someone having a stroke or a heart attack, I think you?d be justified in describing the Dulwich Village/Calton Avenue Junction as a road closure. Although a cyclist probably wouldn?t.

[Rockets]

Ex- what you and the rest of the pro-LTN lobby fail to acknowledge, perhaps deliberately, and the point many of us have been making since the outset of this disastrous programme, is that there isn't an LTN that has delivered anything more than minimal permanent modal shift. And so those people who have to make car journeys get forced down fewer roads thereby increasing congestion and pollution for those who have to live, work or be educated on them. The "any modal shift is worth it" narrative is so blinkered and self-centered that it becomes laughable. So does the...it takes time to bed in nonsense we hear all the time....how long are people supposed to give them to actually deliver on what was promised..5, 10, 15 years - I thought by then it's too late?

I just came back from London in a cab and the drivers father lives just off the Essex Road in Islington and he said his dad was having to live with awful levels of increased pollution so others in the area could live with less. Yet another council forcing the same issues on groups of people who live outside the LTNs. I just don't understand how these measures ever saw the light of day - they were flawed from the beginning and instigated by supposed experts who we should now be asking if they are fit for the job. If us mere mortals could work out what was going to happen why the hell couldn't they?

The council, and others, have wasted 18 months doggedly pursuing a flawed policy that is failing to deliver on its objectives (no matter how much the council and supporters try to position it and dress it up).

In years to come I suspect people will look back on this and write papers on..."the great LTN scandal - it did the opposite of what was intended - what the hell were the council and the lobbyists thinking?"

[Metallic]

hpsaucey Wrote:

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

> Metallic Wrote:

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

> -----

> > hpsaucey Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Throwing this into the congestion mix - car

> > super

> > > size me and road space attached.

> >

> >

> > Don't you have a couple of cars?

>

> No - no cars or other motorised vehicle.

> You?

> HP

i have driven about 30 miles in the last 18 months.

[Bicknell]

anyone know why council still hasnt published air quality data? promised end july.

[ab29]

Because it doesn't support so-called LTN?

[Earl Aelfheah]

The IPCC?s report on the worsening climate emergency should be a wake up call.

Amongst other things, we absolutely need to reduce car use. This simply will not be done by opposing schemes that make driving less convenient and active travel safer and easier.

The Government?s Independent Climate Committee are clear that moving to electric cars (whilst an important), is not enough. We need to cut down on car miles travelled and particularly on short local car journeys. We also need to stop the growth of SUVs https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2021/04/20/we-must-cut-car-use-to-save-the-planet-agrees-uk-government/

[heartblock]

I still not sure how making car journeys longer and increasing the amount of time both cars and buses idle on East Dulwich Grove decreases NOx and particulate pollution. Could you explain. Also could you provide the data that pollution decreases as a result of LTNs. By data I mean long term, statistically significant data, outside of any other confounding factors.

[heartblock]

Oh and agree about car use, but as Europe is working this out by increasing public transport and transport link investments, including trams, I do wonder if Boris?s LTN plan is just to divert attention away from a lack of any real public transport plan for the future... I do believe this plan has worked with a bit of help from Labour Councils and the chattering classes who want a gated road.

Boris has fooled you all.

[heartblock]

UN target

Target 11.2: By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons

[Earl Aelfheah]

The evidence so far is that traffic has dropped across the wider area, and active travel has increased significantly. EDG is the exception and one of the few perimeter roads where there does seem to have been an increase in traffic. That needs to be addressed - but the evidence on the Dulwich LTN, and on LTNs more generally, is that they reduce car use and increase active travel. I also expect (and again, evidence from similar, longer standing schemes would support the expectation) that modal shift will continue over time - possibly even pick up momentum. I know a number of people (myself included), who have changed their behaviour since the introduction of LTNs and further encouraged by the pending ULEZ extension, are looking get rid of their cars altogether. Of course this is anecdotal, and time will.

What will definitely not improve upon the previous situation is returning everything to the previous state. By definition.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Out of interest, do those who oppose the efforts to reduce car use locally, support the ULEZ extension?

[Earl Aelfheah]

BTW - in positive news, the electric Lime hire bikes have recently extended their operating zone to cover most of Dulwich and Peckham. Unfortunately it doesn't yet include Herne Hill (for the station), but is great for getting to Peckham or Brixton tube.