FAQs on Goose Green LTN measures
Goose Green resident? Sign up to our newsletter here. Photo from Twitter: @LDN_LS
Here are some answers to frequently asked questions about the low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) measures in Goose Green. They cover the intentions behind the scheme, the process by which they have been implemented and the next steps. It is also an attempt to honestly acknowledge the mistakes and shortcomings on the part of the council, and indeed on the part of us Goose Green councillors.
I hope it’s helpful!
All about Low Traffic Neighbourhoods
What is a Low Traffic Neighbourhood?
Here is a helpful explanation I found online.
“Low traffic neighbourhoods” are groups of residential streets, bordered by main or “distributor” roads (the places where buses, lorries, non-local traffic should be), where “through” motor vehicle traffic is discouraged or removed. There’s lots of ways you can make a low traffic neighbourhood, but the main principle is that every resident can drive onto their street, get deliveries etc., but it’s harder or impossible to drive straight through from one main road to the next.
With through traffic gone, the streets in a low traffic neighbourhood see dramatic reductions in motor traffic levels and often speeds too. And it’s not just the passing traffic that tends to go down. While residents in a low traffic neighbourhood can still do all their journeys by car if they want or need to, some trips will be a bit more circuitous. This, combined with far quieter, safer-feeling streets, enables residents to switch to more healthy ways of getting around, particularly for short journeys."
What are they intended to achieve?
By dramatically reducing the number of cars on a given street, the road becomes much cleaner, greener and safer cyclists and pedestrians. If the scheme is successful then this leads to:
less pollution
lower collision rates
more community activity
more physical activity and better health
What about the nearby roads?
When a road closes and you can no longer drive the route you would normally, you're faced with two choices. If you take a different route this leads to 'traffic displacement' where traffic is moved onto other streets. But if instead you decide to make the journey a different way - by foot, by bike or by public transport - then this is 'traffic evaporation'. At first you'd expect much of this to be traffic displacement: people will try the old route, find out they cannot do that, and then follow the diversion. But as time goes on, the hope is that people decide that some of their journeys are better done by foot or by bike: the route has become safer and more pleasant, and it's not even much slower than taking the longer route by car. If the scheme is successful, not only will traffic reduce dramatically on the closed roads, in time it will reduce traffic overall.
Why now? Why during a pandemic?
During the spring lockdown, traffic plummeted and people began to walk and cycle a lot more. Over the summer it became clear that car-use was going to rise. We knew that more and more people would be returning to work, and that in September schools would re-open fully. Many fewer people are using public transport: capacity has dropped and people are understandably cautious about using it. So journeys that would have been made with public transport are instead being done by car, bike or foot. This was just a theory but it has since been proven true. With the exception of the city centre (which has lower traffic for obvious reasons), congestion in London has risen dramatically. On one day in September, it was 53% higher than the previous year. Meanwhile, interest in cycling has rocketed too: a record number journeys have been made on Santander cycles, demand for new bikes is 'unprecedented' and sales of Brompton bikes have increased fivefold. It's harder to measure but there is probably a similar trend for walking too. LTNs are an attempt by the government, by TfL and by local councils to respond to these new patterns of travel. Details of the government’s proposals are here.
If there's more traffic already, why would you further reduce capacity on the roads?
Some will read the paragraph above and see it as a reason not to introduce an LTN. If there is more traffic on the roads surely we need more capacity not less? This is true. But LTNs do not reduce capacity for all traffic: they increase capacity for bicycles and pedestrians. Cars are some of the most inefficient (in terms of both space and pollution) forms of transport. Removing them from a small number of roads means there’s more space for active transport. The measures are designed to create a network of safe routes for active travel. This is necessary because the majority (60% of households in Southwark) including many key workers, do not own a car. Also, if everyone who does own a car uses it, London will come to a standstill in any case. The goal is to reduce traffic overall, not just concentrate it on a few roads.
The majority of car journeys in London are short enough for most people to easily walk or cycle. The intention is that anyone able to make their journey without using a car will feel able to do so, leaving the limited space available for those people and journeys where modal shift is not an easy option.
Why not close the roads entirely?
We want to encourage active transport but some journeys will always need to be done by car. A key point to LTNs is that while they remove through-traffic from motor vehicles, they do not close roads entirely. Everyone can still drive to all the places they could before - it might just take a little longer.
All the points above are about LTNs in general. However, the devil is in the detail. The next points are about what is happening in Southwark, and Goose Green in particular.
LTNs in Southwark and in Goose Green
Where did Southwark’s proposals come from?
Over the summer the government released funding to implement traffic measures in preparation for the easing of lockdown. In London this was overseen by TfL. Southwark applied for funding to complete various LTN projects. These projects were identified from amongst existing unfinished or unstated projects, and from suggestions from the community submitted to the StreetSpace platform.
What about the projects in Goose Green?
The StreetSpace consultation led to a number of initiatives. Some were relatively small, like pavement-widening on Lordship Lane, but the biggest two were LTN measures on or around Melbourne Grove.
The first - the filter on Melbourne Grove south - was introduced in the summer. Initial plans were already in place for this as it had been considered as part of the (now-suspended) ‘Our Healthy Street Dulwich’ project. The objective is to stop this stretch of Melbourne Grove being used as a ‘rat-run’ between East Dulwich Grove and the southern section of Lordship Lane, and to turn it into a safe and pleasant route for cyclists and pedestrians.
The second - the filters on Melbourne Grove north, Derwent Grove, Elsie Road, and Tintagel Crescent - were implemented in September. These are also intended to reduce ‘rat-running’, this time between East Dulwich Grove and Grove Vale. No plans had been drawn up before the summer but the issue was on our radar: many local residents had raised the issue and we had approved a funding application to investigate the problem. There was particular relevance to these roads as they host two schools: Charter East Dulwich and Goose Green Primary School.
How would you normally consult on measures like these?
Normally when the council considers changes to the roads it consults in three broad stages
Informal consultation to identify areas where measures are needed (this is through funding applications, emails to councillors and the highways department, discussions with local residents and stakeholders).
Consultation to decide whether to go ahead with a suggestion. This is the broadest part of the consultation and essentially asks residents and stakeholders if they want the measure to be implemented. This is where you would expect the highest response rate.
Specific consultation to decide how to implement the proposal. This is specific to those directly affected and concerns the details of the measure.
For example, the Controlled Parking Zone in East Dulwich followed this process. First we councillors received requests to introduce controlled parking. Second we asked residents and businesses across East Dulwich whether they wanted controlled parking on their street, and identified the ‘best fit’ area to include as many of those who wanted it as possible, whilst excluding the bulk of those who did not. Third, the council consulted with those living in the proposed zone to decide the final details.
But how did you consult on the LTN measures?
The LTN measures did not follow the process above. The funding criteria for the Streetspace programme includes strict deadlines for implementation meaning that there is no time for prior consultation, although as temporary measures the intention is that the consultation is a live process.
The first stage happened: we already had some proposals which seemed relevant, and more came through the StreetSpace platform mentioned above. The third stage happened too: once the proposals were approved there were some limited discussions about the exact placement of the filters. But the biggest part of the consultation process - the second stage - did not happen at all..
In large part, this was a product of the situation we were in. Reduced staff capacity and limitations created by the lockdown and social distancing rules made it hard to run a wide consultation effectively. And, in this case, there was a need to act quickly before the lockdown lifted. So most councils, including Southwark, opted to implement the measures as ‘emergency’ orders. This means that they can be in place for an (absolute) maximum of 18 months. A full consultation will take place before a decision is taken on whether to remove, amend or make permanent.
We councillors tried to make the best of it. The council could not launch a formal consultation but we could try to put feelers out locally. We circulated a survey online. It only reached a couple of hundred residents, and these were predominantly from the roads with closures, but the response was overwhelmingly positive. You can see the results here. This survey led to the proposals being altered slightly, and Tintagel Crescent being added to the scheme.
The mistake we made was in not reaching out to the local businesses on Melbourne Grove. We should have done and we did not. It was an honest mistake but I know that that is no excuse. I apologise unreservedly.
What about the LTN measures outside Goose Green?
We have received many emails from Goose Green residents concerning the changes to roads near to - but outside the boundaries of - Goose Green ward. The most common example concerns the changes in Dulwich Village, which many feel has displaced traffic into Goose Green on East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane. Another example is the upcoming changes to Peckham Rye, which may see changes to traffic flows on East Dulwich Road.
Up to now, the measures have mainly been implemented on a ward-by-ward basis. This has meant that the councillors in Goose Green have had much less input into the proposals on neighbouring wards. With hindsight I think we should have done this differently. Our road system is, by definition, interconnected so we need to take a holistic approach.
I would like to see the evaluation process consider the measures across ward boundaries and include all voices.
Next steps
How can we measure the impact of the LTNs?
We have to acknowledge that the council’s ability to measure changes to air pollution and traffic volume is limited. This is for a few reasons. First, the changes to traffic levels across London (outlined above) make it hard to identify what has been caused by the LTNs and what has been caused by London-wide trends. Second, the council’s baseline data is very patchy: the period before the schemes were implemented had record-low levels of traffic due to the lockdown, so the data collected then would not have been representative.
However it should be possible to identify some general trends. I have requested that monitoring take place on East Dulwich Grove, Lordship Lane, Grove Vale, Matham Grove and Zenoria/Oxonian Street. We can compare measurements from these with those from comparable streets elsewhere to estimate the impact of the LTNs.
What does success look like?
In my view, we need to look at the effects across the whole area but also on individual streets.
The two key criteria are air pollution and traffic volume. Put simply, if these two measures are not reduced across the whole area then the scheme has failed. It is not enough to displace the traffic - we want to reduce it overall.
But even if air pollution and traffic volume decrease across the board, it matters how it is distributed. I want to see a social justice approach to the analysis. No matter what we do there will inevitably be some pollution and traffic. I want this to be shared equitably: protecting schools, nurseries and hospitals above all else; and not allowing the negative effects of air pollution to fall on those least able to bear them.
We have a new Leader of the Council, Cllr Kieron Williams, and this approach is already reflected in his leadership team. Instead of creating a post for ‘Low Traffic Neighbourhoods’, he appointed Cllr Radha Burgess as Deputy Cabinet Member for ‘Low Traffic Southwark’. The shift in emphasis is important: we want to reduce traffic across all of Southwark, not segregate ‘low traffic’ and ‘high traffic’ neighbourhoods. (To be clear, this is not the intention of LTN measures, but if they do not work properly this can be the outcome).
What next?
I have spoken to Cllr Rose and Cllr Burgess (the Cabinet and Deputy Cabinet members with responsibility for this area) to request that these measures be evaluated as soon as we can. I have further requested that the evaluation considers the following factors:
Overall levels of pollution
Overall levels of traffic
The ‘social justice’ implications of how pollution and traffic are distributed (i.e. who lives on the more polluted streets?).
We will learn more from this evaluation process but here are my initial thoughts:
Local businesses on Melbourne Grove, Grove Vale, Lordship Lane and elsewhere need support from the council: there should be a joined-up approach between councillors, the highways team and the local economy team.
Matham Grove and Zenoria/Oxonian Street are clearly experiencing problems which can and should be remedied, probably fairly cheaply.
The junction between East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane has long been a problem, and this has only got worse.
Nurseries, schools and hospitals should be considered ‘vulnerable hubs’ which we prioritise for protection from pollution.