LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[malumbu]

Government position on shared mobility is nothing new but their record is pretty poor to date. Most money being thrown at electric vehicles. Echoing the campaign New Labour, old danger, I'd say new Tory, same old Tory, as middle England don't get this yet (and it seems many in SE22).

But valid article, something I have banged on about for ages and done my own part too. I've got a lot of time for academics like Phil Blythe, ex DfT Chief Scientist, this presentation is worth a read: https://www.ciht.org.uk/media/10567/prof-phil-blythe-presentation.pdf (a little long...)

And a shorter presentation:

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Good bit on LTNs and the privatisation of public space by car owners in that notorious Bolshevik anarcho-greenie rag, the Financial Times.

https://www.ft.com/content/56929d0a-2375-40a1-872c-b7fb94d9003f

[geh]

eastdulwichhenry Wrote:

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

> I received an update on plans from the council

> today, and I opened it with some trepidation,

> thinking they might decide to just scrap the whole

> LTN based on the noisy objections like those we

> see here, reversing the gains we've made in ease

> of walking and cycling on Melbourne Grove/Calton

> Avenue, but apparently it's even better news than

> that, they've decided not to proceed with the

> Melbourne Grove south reopening. If I understood

> correctly, that's great news. Reopening that route

> as a LL to EDG rat-run would have reversed some of

> the fantastic gains that we've made due to the LTN

> - in particular the ability to go from ED station

> to the library along a largely traffic-free route.

yup, great news,

great for the businesses that have closed

great for those that are suffering

great news

[heartblock]

Maybe now the HTNs are a permanent feature, all the closed roads should have no street parking (with a few disabled parking places and some customer parking spaces where there are businesses) and have bike lockers installed, bike lanes and widened pavements to accommodate the enormous modal shift.

I am sure that all the pro-HTN people on here will be happy for this to happen on Elsie, Derwent, Melbourne, Gilkes, Calton and Court.

[Earl Aelfheah]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Maybe now the HTNs are a permanent feature, all

> the closed roads should have no street parking

> (with a few disabled parking places and some

> customer parking spaces where there are

> businesses) and have bike lockers installed, bike

> lanes and widened pavements to accommodate the

> enormous modal shift.

> I am sure that all the pro-HTN people on here will

> be happy for this to happen on Elsie, Derwent,

> Melbourne, Gilkes, Calton and Court.

Sounds wonderful.

[malumbu]

I'll second that, great to have you on board heartblock

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Great to see a bit of vision brought to the party. Sous?les?pav?s,?la?plage?! ✊

[heartblock]

I've never been anti any measures that reduce car use and traffic malumbu, quite the opposite, which is why I am against so called LTNs. You haven't been reading my posts if you don't yet understand that.

So good.. I'm sure you will all be writing to your local councillors to stop street parking in all closed roads within the LTN.

[SE22_2020er]

@Heartblock - I'm all over this too (your bike lane suggestion). It's a great idea - why don't you start an on-line petition - I'm sure you'll get a lot of support and I'll certainly sign it straight away.

A dedicated cycle lane (without parked cars) from Lordship lane, along EDG (all the way to Herne Hill) and also along the short stretch of Townley onto Calton Avenue and into the village is something that I'm sure will attract huge support. I think it should certainly need to be both ways to make it fully effective.

Do you know who is the right councillor for these streets? I think also a letter to our MP would also be a good idea. I wrote to her, the traffic department and also James McAsh about 12 months ago for this, but you're right - it needs a really concerted effort from multiple people.

I've never had any response back on the bike locker I requested for our road - a good prompt to chase up on it.

[alice]

The LTNs of Dulwich village were never about bikes.

[ab29]

They worry that reopening Melbourne South would dump more traffic on Esat Dulwich Grove? Why, hasn't the council's own Department of Magic trumpeted that the traffic has simply disappeared? Ergo there should be nothing to 'dump' so why the worry?

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Indeed, here?s the final report for those who

> haven?t seen it

> https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s1035

> 97/Report%20Determination%20of%20Objections%20Dulw

> ich%20Streetspace%20Review.pdf

>

> Melbourne South closure being retained under a

> temporary traffic order ( under officer delegated

> power), apparently due to a concern that reopening

> would dump more traffic on East Dulwich Grove. ( I

> assume that?s an order under section 14 of the

> Act, can?t really see how that?s justified under

> the statutory wording but let?s wait and see the

> order.

> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/secti

> on/14). Not letting regulatory requirements get in

> the way of a good scheme seems to have been

> something of a theme so far.

>

> Apparently Sept data shows a continued reduction

> in traffic on boundary roads?

>

> Updated equalities assessment suggests ?that the

> groups who are car dependent because of their

> protected characteristic should be assisted by the

> Council to mitigate any disadvantages they may

> suffer. Officers are cognisant of these groups,

> however on balance the benefits of the Dulwich

> Streetspace schemes outweigh the harm that these

> may cause.?

>

> First time I?ve seen rain gardens mentioned - I

> reckon susdrains are coming our way.

[heartblock]

They started with 'the traffic will evaporate - there is 'research' that shows this is true' but changed their message when they realised this was utter rubbish and now its 'these roads were built for cars so they can take the extra traffic'

As these roads were there before the invention of the internal combustion engine, I think they may also be talking utter rubbish on the second point too.

It really doesn't matter anymore that closing roads does not decrease pollution, does not reduce idling traffic, does not make a modal shift to walking and cycling, yet does interfere with public transport efficiency. Like any fundermentalist movement any proof that their belief is incorrect or misjudged has been ignored.

We are stuck with them unless they are voted out.

[Rockets]

One Dulwich update below. Helen Hayes is encouraged because there are fewer objections...well that's a sign of the times and a sorry reflection of how much contempt our elected representatives treat these processes....what she probably meant to say is "I am glad our manipulation of the democratic process is paying dividends, I believe if we continue to ignore the will of the majority we will prosper eventually. Comrade councillors keep up your fantastic work ignoring your constituents...the party is proud of you."

One Dulwich

Campaign Update | 12 Dec

Dear all,

Respond to Southwark AGAIN: deadline 15 December

The full text of officers? responses to comments received during the 21 days of the statutory consultation on the permanent traffic orders can be found here.

As you can see, 2,095 ?valid? representations were received (273 were discounted for various reasons). Overall, 435 were in support, and 1,660 objected.

The result? Southwark continues with the scheme (although changing the timed closure of Melbourne Grove south to a 24/7 closure). We are, however, invited to make formal representations on the officers? report by emailing [email protected] by Wednesday 15 December 2021.

Repeatedly asking people whose views are consistently ignored to comment yet again (for the fourth time? We?ve lost count) on proposals that do nothing to improve air quality but still

discriminate against those who are elderly, frail and disabled;

displace traffic on to residential roads with schools and health centres; and

damage the viability of shops and businesses

is obviously just a cynical attempt to show that opposition is fading away. (As our MP Helen Hayes wrote to so many of us recently, after Southwark asked for our views on the minimal changes published in September, ?Although I have not seen the results, I understand that they show a significant decrease in the number of objections which is good to hear.?)

Because this seems to be the game that Southwark is playing, please email [email protected] by Wednesday 15 December to put on record that the Council has not addressed your objections to the scheme, and is repeatedly ignoring the views of the majority. Southwark has given us no guidance on how to do this (perhaps in the hope that all emails can be discounted and declared invalid), so please feel free to forward your original objections with a covering note saying that Southwark has failed to provide adequate evidence that your comments have been properly considered.

Age Speaks protest at Tooley Street

Thanks to all who supported the Age Speaks protest and deputation to Southwark Council?s cabinet meeting on 7 December. There was good coverage in both Southwark News and the South London Press.

With thanks and best wishes,

The One Dulwich Team

[Earl Aelfheah]

The latest data shows a further fall in traffic. Across all count sites traffic has decreased by 12% compared to before the scheme.

Of course, it will make no difference to those opposed, but encouraging for anyone interested in the reality of what?s happening.

[eastdulwichhenry]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> The latest data shows a further fall in traffic.

> Across all count sites traffic has decreased by

> 12% compared to before the scheme.

>

> Of course, it will make no difference to those

> opposed, but encouraging for anyone interested in

> the reality of what?s happening.

Indeed. It's encouraging stuff, and fantastic that East Dulwich is finally becoming a place that's genuinely friendly to non-car-users.

[eastdulwichhenry]

Well I'd think the logic there is that if you close roads, traffic disappears. And if you then reopen them again, that same traffic will reappear. People who've moved to cycling/walking/bus will gradually start using their cars again if they find driving along Melbourne Grove easy again.

The theory that building more roads increases traffic appears to be long-attested, and you only need to look at a city like Los Angeles, with its vast network of wide motorways, all choked with traffic, to see evidence of this. Presumably the opposite is true, that reducing the amount of road space reduces the amount of traffic overall.

ab29 Wrote:

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

> They worry that reopening Melbourne South would

> dump more traffic on Esat Dulwich Grove? Why,

> hasn't the council's own Department of Magic

> trumpeted that the traffic has simply disappeared?

> Ergo there should be nothing to 'dump' so why the

> worry?

[northernmonkey]

The latest data is really encouraging. What?s even more clear is that in the section of east dulwich grove where there is charter east dulwich / children walking to school, traffic has actually fallen 20 % year on year. This really is excellent and shows how much difference the measures have made.

[ab29]

And what about people living on boundary roads and now treated with extra pollution, dirt and noise? Disturbing to see how pro LTN folk are happy to sacrifice others in the name of a vanity project with no shred of a real evidence that it actually works.

eastdulwichhenry Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > The latest data shows a further fall in

> traffic.

> > Across all count sites traffic has decreased by

> > 12% compared to before the scheme.

> >

> > Of course, it will make no difference to those

> > opposed, but encouraging for anyone interested

> in

> > the reality of what?s happening.

>

> Indeed. It's encouraging stuff, and fantastic that

> East Dulwich is finally becoming a place that's

> genuinely friendly to non-car-users.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> The latest data shows a further fall in traffic.

> Across all count sites traffic has decreased by

> 12% compared to before the scheme.

>

> Of course, it will make no difference to those

> opposed, but encouraging for anyone interested in

> the reality of what?s happening.

Where is this data coming from - who is claiming a 12% reduction?

[heartblock]

They appear to do something like this to make an average.

Closed road no traffic so that equals a drop of 100%. Open road 28% more traffic (EDG)- so the average is a 72% drop.

The figures are also from all over the place - before LTN a combination of 'modelling' and various counts from various years - so 2018,2019 and various months in Winter, Spring and Summer

The nonsense statistics used in the Councils report is a complete joke. 200% more cycling for instance could be 3 cyclists rather than 1 - so using percentage rather than actual numbers. So they trumpet 3 cyclists as 200% more but if instead of 3000 cars there are 4000 - so 1000 more it is only 33% more.

Then their argument is that a rise of 200% shows it works because traffic only rose by 33%. If they put down actual numbers - a rise of 2 cyclists at a cost of 1000 cars is obviously not a drop in polluting cars it is a rise - no modal shift at all.

I do think they think we are all very stupid.

[legalalien]

Latest summary from council https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review

Link to monitoring info at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review?chapter=4

[Earl Aelfheah]

The latest monitoring data https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/77420/Infographic-report_Dulwich-Streetspace_Sept-2021.pdf

[Earl Aelfheah]

Sorry cross posted

[Earl Aelfheah]

That?s not what they?ve done btw Heartblock. Take a look at the link above

[Earl Aelfheah]

Active travel (cycling and walking) up. Bus times generally down. Traffic down. Pretty successful by any objective measure.