Jump to content

Recommended Posts

New data reveals huge success of Dulwich traffic measures

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, a genuinely cross party project –  initiated by Conservative national government and implemented by a Labour local authority – are once again shown to be hugely successful, and clearly achieving their objectives.

Here’s a quick summary of the newly released monitoring data.

Motor traffic has reduced

The top level figure is a 16% drop in traffic across all roads. That’s 24,000 fewer vehicles polluting our air.

Breaking this down, there has been a massive drop on traffic on the roads where modal filters have been installed (81% on Calton Avenue; 68% on Court Lane, 88% on Melbourne Grove).

Also, very significantly, there have been reductions in traffic on main roads: down 22% on Lordship Lane, down 14% on Croxted Road, and down 16% on Half Moon Lane. So don’t listen to the scare-mongers, as with many other schemes across London, LTNs lead to a reduction of traffic on main roads too.

One road did see some growth, East Dulwich Grove South recorded 14,922 vehicles in April 2021 – an increase of 14% from September 2019. This is why we are calling for a joined up cycle network including cycle tracks on main roads like East Dulwich Grove. Not only is it important for safety, but it would also reduce traffic levels: A TFL analysis suggests 68% of car trips could be cycled. So while not everyone may be able to cycle, more than 14% of people currently driving could cycle, and thereby bring traffic back down to below 2019 levels.

Staggering cycling growth 

As predicted, the story for cycling has also been incredible: a 74% increase across the area. A whopping 103% around Dulwich Village, 29% in East Dulwich and 19% on Champion Hill.

More to do to achieve cycling potential

While we should celebrate the success of the schemes, the data also shows another story: that cycling levels across the area are still far too low.

Lordship Lane for example, with a densely populated residential area and key shopping destination is recorded as having only 325 people cycling, or less than 30 bikes per hour at peak times; similarly Turney Road, which has been identified as a strategic cycling route, only recorded 618 people cycling a day. Half Moon Lane, another natural high priority cycling route only had 611 people cycling (as of Sep 2019). East Dulwich Grove has even fewer, only 458 people cycling recorded on the Eastern Count, with only 369 by Townley Road.

The potential to increase cycling in the area is phenomenal. The recent schemes have shown that if cycling interventions get built, people will use them.

Southwark needs to build on the momentum, and introduce additional measures: more 24/7 modal filters, coupled with cycle tracks on main roads.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/356709-update-from-southwark-cyclists/
Share on other sites

Earl, thank you, thank you, thank you..... the funniest thing with that post is that it was actually a "campaign" post that Southwark Cyclists put out to try to encourage its members to respond to the Dulwich LTN consultation after Southwark extended the consultation response period (because they had way too many people saying no!!!). I mean the Southwark Cyclists post actually took people to a page to spoon feed them on how to respond...

 

Of all your own goals this is by far the most impressive!!! The gift that just keeps on giving and a timely reminder of the lengths the cycle lobby went to manipulate the Dulwich consultation process.....DOH!!!! Where's that facepalm emoji....

https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/new-data-reveals-huge-success-of-dulwich-traffic-measures/

 

 

Respond to the consultation here! The deadline has been extended until Sunday 18, July.

No Comments

 

This month, three schemes in the Dulwich area are being consulted on as part of a big review. At Southwark Cyclists, we think there is a lot to love about the schemes, with some of the measures leading to amazing increases in walking and cycling. But for the schemes to be considered really successful in achieving the council’s worthy aims, certain tweaks are needed, and more measures need to be introduced.

If you’d like to read more about our thoughts on the scheme, read our blog post here.

Respond to the consultation and prioritise answering question 2 under each measure. Our responses are as follows:

  1. Traffic filter in Dulwich Village
    • Select “Option B: Retain it as it is”
  2. Timed closure at junction of Dulwich Village/Burbage Road with College Road/Gallery Road 
    • Select “Option 😧 Retain the measure, but modify/ reduce the hours of restrictions”
    • Add:
      • Make the camera on Dulwich Village operate 24/7 and in both directions, so it becomes what in other parts of London is called a “bus gate”.
      • Replace the camera on Burbage Rd with a 24/7 modal filter so it becomes no through route for motor vehicles but full access for walking and cycling. Install additional planting and seating.
      • Introduce additional modal filters in the area, in particular on Red Post Hill to create a longer, safer, north south cycle route
      • Install cycle tracks on all main roads
  3. Timed closure at junction of Turney Road and Burbage Road 
    • Select “Option 😧 Retain the measure, but modify/ reduce the hours of restrictions”
    • Add:
      • Replace the camera with a 24/7 modal filter so it becomes no through route for motor vehicles but full access for walking and cycling. Install additional planting and seating.
      • Introduce additional modal filters in the area, in particular on Red Post Hill to create a longer, safer, north south cycle route
      • Install cycle tracks on all main roads 
  4. Timed closure at junction of Townley Road with East Dulwich Grove 
    • Select “Option 😧 Retain the measure, but modify/ reduce the hours of restrictions”
    • Add:
      • Make the camera on Dulwich Village operate 24/7 and in both directions, so it becomes what in other parts of London is called a “bus gate”
      • Introduce additional modal filters in the area, in particular on Red Post Hill to create a longer, safer, north south cycle route
      • Install cycle tracks on all main roads
  5. Traffic filter on Melbourne Grove (South) 
    • Select “Option B: Retain it as it is”
  6. Traffic Filters on Melbourne Grove (North), Tintagel Crescent, Elsie Road and Derwent Grove 
    • Select “Option B: Retain it as it is”
  7. Northbound traffic filter on Champion Hill 
    • Select “Option D, Retain the measure, but modify/ enhance it with other features”
    • Add:
      • Make the filter operate in both directions so it becomes no through route for motor vehicles but full access for walking and cycling. Install additional planting and seating.
      • Introduce additional modal filters in the area, in particular on Red Post Hill to create a longer, safer, north south cycle route
      • Install cycle tracks on all main roads

Respond to the consultation today!

Edited by Rockets
  • Haha 1

Nah...i think you scored a massive own goal with that one...but thanks for reminding everyone the lengths Southwark Cyclists and the council went to to try and, desperately, garner support for their measures. 

Honestly, did you not bother checking the article before posting? I mean why choose to post that one.....

🤣 I’m drawing a direct parallel with your One Dulwich missives. 

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

that post is that it was actually a "campaign" post that Southwark Cyclists put out to try to encourage its members to respond to the Dulwich LTN consultation

Yup. That’s the point. Separate threads for all organisations campaigning on LTNs. It’s called satire

How is Southwark Cyclist encouraging people to express their views on a consultation, different to ‘One Dulwich’ doing the same 🤔 

Not a little hypocrisy going on  today. Multiple threads and campaign literature on LTNs ok, but only if it’s from Rocks?

  • Thanks 1
On 20/01/2025 at 22:58, Earl Aelfheah said:

How is Southwark Cyclist encouraging people to express their views on a consultation, different to ‘One Dulwich’ doing the same 🤔 

Because the majority of OneDulwich email subscribers are from the Dulwich area. Southwark Cyclists clearly not and it reminds us how much the cycle lobby tried to influence local consultations by any means necessary. Southwark Cyclists claim to be the largest urban cycling group in the world with over 9,000 members....one wonders how many of them tried to influence the Dulwich consultations. 

So thanks! 😉

Edited by Rockets

As I've said numerous times join Southwark Cyclists on a Saturday rude and then comment.  You are making sweeping comments based in your own interpretation. SC are generally nice community minded people.  Those campaigning against anything that may impact on your 'right' to drive are very much in it for themselves.  Based on those that I have across at public meetings. I'm taking activists here rather than most of the pro car lobbying this forum. The last sentence was a light hearted one.  Of course you could join Southwark Cyclists and look to get them to change their position.

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Because the majority of OneDulwich email subscribers are from the Dulwich area. Southwark Cyclists clearly not and it reminds us how much the cycle lobby tried to influence local consultations by any means necessary. Southwark Cyclists claim to be the largest urban cycling group in the world with over 9,000 members....one wonders how many of them tried to influence the Dulwich consultations. 

So thanks! 😉

Do One Dulwich provide guides on how members of its affiliated groups living in other boroughs can contribute to and affect consultation results on road design and traffic management at local level? Does it provide detailed guidelines on how to harness social media at local level to get the 'right' messaging out and quash dissenting voices. Does it advise how to lobby councillors and takeover/ 'invade' lical groups with political clout? Maybe it already does, if not, perhaps it should, just to balance things.

  • Haha 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Sorry, not having a dig at Southwark for that.   I'm just shocked that next door they've chosen to abandon such an institutional community / family event so they can keep pumping out commercial stuff instead.   I suppose the same could happen here next although we don't really have any longstanding family events like that one.
    • No doubt the schools in Harrogate are being discussed on the East Harrogate Forum or whatever. Dulwich College is being discussed because it's local. Saying "ooh, there were loads of schools mentioned" is a bit dismissive. It was Dulwich College that referred sex abuse allegations about pupils to the police and Dulwich College that used the spectre of the police to suppress dissent. 🤔
    • Hi, I was just wondering what experiences any of you have had in relation to an Independent Panel review relating to the Permanent Exclusion of a SEN child. 1. General experience Any experiences, positive or negative, in general? 2. Clerks Associates UK Any experience of this entity acting as an "independent clerk" to an Independent Review Panel in a matter involving a Permanent Exclusion of a SEN pupil, also involving discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. There is limited publicly available information with regards to this "independent clerk"; however, I can see from their Annual Report & Accounts at Companies House that they are a small, privately owned organisation.   I am very concerned that there is a clear and material risk that they are highly dependent for their revenues and cash flow from the business that they receive from the school and its parent Trust (which has 9 schools in total under its management) who have appointed them. I also note that the Trust has a material employee relations dispute with their staff over underpayment of maternity pay whilst materially increasing the salaries of the highest paid Trust executives and other highly paid staff (presumably the Head Teachers). https://southwarknews.co.uk/news/community/teachers-at-six-charter-schools-walk-out-in-first-of-four-strike-days-planned-for-this-month/ Given the current situation, we have no choice but to engage in this process of an Independent Panel Review; however, we are concerned as to various elements including this one which is a key role in providing independence. 3. Independent SEN expert We have the right to an independent SEN expert to review the matter and provide their opinion to the Independent Review Panel. The concept is that this person is supposedly acting "independently" and also solely in respect of the SEN elements of the matter. We do not however know who this person is, their experience or level of independence. The last information that I can find in the public domain about the effectiveness of an Independent SEN expert is a UK govt report from 2014 which portrays a very mixed experience for parents. Hence, we are seeking to understand if anyone has any more recent experience of an Independent SEN expert in relation to an Independent Panel Review. Many thanks for any thoughts that you have based on your experience. For reasons of confidentiality, it is perhaps better to send any replies to me directly. Many thanks
    • Hang in there, friends. Most of us appreciate that you're trying you best and these companies are a nightmare!
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...