9 November 2021
Dear Traffic Orders Officer
Re: Statement of Objections – TMOs and ETOs – references below
1. We, the Dulwich Alliance, write to object to the following proposed Traffic Management Orders (“TMOs”) published on the London Borough of Southwark’s website in notices dated 21 October 2021 (collectively, “the Notices”) made by the London borough of Southwark (“Southwark”):
(a) Dulwich Streetspace: Calton Avenue area TMO2122-015_DS Calton Avenue area (notice of intent to make experimental traffic order ETO permanent)
(b) Dulwich Streetspace: Champion Hill TMO2122-016_DS Champion Hill (notice of intent to make ETO permanent)
(c) Dulwich Streetspace: East Dulwich area TMO2122-017_DS East Dulwich area (notice of intent to make ETO permanent)
(d) Dulwich Streetspace: Melbourne Grove south TMO2122-018_DS Melbourne Grove south (notice of intent to make ETO permanent)
(e) Dulwich Streetspace: Timed bus, cycle and taxi only routes TMO2122-019_DS bus cycle taxi routes (notice of intent to make ETO permanent)
(f) Dulwich Streetspace: Melbourne Grove north TMO2122-EXP13_Melbourne Grove north (ETO)
(g) Dulwich Streetspace: Grove Vale Trial TMO2122-EXP14_Grove Vale Trial (ETO)
We will refer to the proposed TMOs as “the Notices”.
2. These objections relate to each of the Notices listed (a) to (e) above, which seek to introduce permanent traffic orders. Whilst we acknowledge that objections submitted in respect of this statutory consultation should normally be confined to proposed permanent traffic orders only, we also wish to include in our objections the two experimental traffic orders (ETOs) listed (f) and (g) above. In essence, we are objecting to the Dulwich Streetspace Scheme as a whole and, in our view, it would make no sense to fail to include our objections to these experimental orders which, in the words of the relevant Notices, are there “to complement the low-traffic neighbourhood measures in Dulwich”.
3. Notices (a) to (e) relate to proposed TMOs which, if made, will render existing ETOs permanent, with some modifications. The existing ETOs and the Notices give rise to so-called “Low-Traffic Neighbourhood” schemes, collectively known as the “Dulwich Streetspace Scheme”. We dispute whether the schemes will actually reduce the volume of traffic (rather than just displace it) so we therefore refer simply to the Notices, the preceding ETOs and the newly created ETOs as “the ETOs” or “the scheme”.
4. The effect of the scheme has been highly detrimental for the local community as a whole but especially detrimental for people from protected groups defined in the Equality Act 2010. The proposed mitigation measures do not address the intrinsic flaws in the scheme, which have been readily apparent for the entire duration of the ETOs.
5. In short, the scheme displaces traffic on to certain “strategic” and certain other roads without proper consideration of the consequences. Specifically, the impact on those who are car-dependent and those who are dependent upon visitors (e.g. those who receive social care) are disregarded. Moreover, the gridlock and traffic congestion the scheme has created has had indirect effects on many (e.g. some locum GPs are now refusing to serve the area because of the traffic impact, and many carers no longer wish to work in the Dulwich area for the same reason).
Grounds for Objection
The Scheme
6. The scheme restricts traffic from using certain roads at certain times and prevents traffic using routes that have historically been available. This concentrates traffic on to other roads, increases congestion and acts as a barrier, making it much harder to traverse across the borough, and in particular East Dulwich to West Dulwich and vice versa. The Dulwich community was previously a completely holistic one, but has now been cut in half by the imposition of a physical barrier to all motorised traffic in the heart of the Village.
The Consultation
7. Southwark purports to have consulted with the emergency services (ES) prior to publishing the Notices and to have consulted with local residents whilst the ETOs were operational between May and July 2021. Those consultations were flawed. First, in regular meetings with all three branches of the ES, the council was informed that failure to re-open the Village junction meant that there were lives at stake. Rather than act on the advice of the experts, the council has continued to drag its heels in relation to re-opening the junction. In addition, advice given by the London Ambulance Service that wider consideration is needed for non-emergency health and social care community providers and responders appears to have been overlooked.
8. Second, the consultation with local residents had numerous flaws and is therefore unlikely to represent the true extent of the local community’s aversion to the scheme. These shortcomings are explained in the accompanying report prepared by Roger Gane, an independent specialist in market research, dated June 2021.
However, the key flaws are as follows:
(a) No attempt has been made to make sure the consultations are representative of the population impacted by the scheme at large. Indeed, the relevant population has not even been defined.
(b) There is no mechanism for validating responses.
(c) There is no systematic provision for encouraging participation.
(d) The questions are biased and leading.
(e) The questions do not consider behavioural impact and consist of general attitude responses which are impossible to disagree with.
(f) There is no attempt for participants to evaluate “trade-offs” involved in the scheme.
9. Mr Gane’s conclusion regarding the survey is clear; it is inadequate and requires substantial modification:
Such modification would, in essence, take the form of a high-quality sample survey, as a precursor to which there would need to be agreement on the various universes to be included in it. A balanced set of behavioural and attitudinal questions would be included, and there would be appropriate ‘routeing’ to ensure that participants are only asked to respond to questions relevant to them. There are professional market and social research organisations who could design and undertake such work.
10. Given that the recent guidance from the Government emphasises the importance of fair consultations, Southwark does not possess a sound basis to make a judgement about this scheme:
Consultation and community engagement should always be undertaken whenever authorities propose to remove, modify or reduce existing schemes and whenever they propose to introduce new ones. Engagement, especially on schemes where there is public controversy, should use objective methods, such as professional polling to British Polling Council standards, to establish a truly representative picture of local views […] Polling results should be one part of the suite of robust empirical evidence on which decisions are made 1
11. Despite the obvious flaws and biases in the consultation, it reveals majority resistance to the scheme. This is summarised in your own Equality Impact Assessment which states:
The public consultation exercise indicates significant dissatisfaction with the schemes with a smaller proportion of respondents reporting they have benefited from the schemes 2
12. Given the substantial impact of the scheme, this is unsurprising. If the consultation had not contained the flaws and biases we have identified, we believe that responses to the consultation would have identified even greater opposition to the scheme.
The impact of the scheme on main roads
13. Many of the purported benefits of the scheme are simply makeweight and, when weighted against the demonstrable adverse impacts (especially on those who are older, disabled, pregnant/with babies or from an ethnic minority), they do not justify this scheme. To take one example, the purported Air Quality positive impact is essentially non-existent as Southwark’s own survey demonstrates a statistically insignificant impact on mortality burden.3 This needs to be balanced against the substantial social cost as well as the physical and mental health cost discussed below.
14. There can be no doubt that the scheme has displaced substantial traffic on to roads which simply cannot bear the volume of traffic forced on them. This has had a severe impact on local residents and particularly the groups identified above.
Traffic increase
15. The report from the Head of Highways on the Dulwich Streetspace Review dated 17 September 2021 (the September Report) states that traffic is down 10% in the Dulwich area overall.4 Firstly, as the report states, this must be seen in the context of a general decrease of 8% in the borough as a whole, which means that the decrease that can be attributed to the scheme can only be 2%. Secondly, this is based on a comparison of traffic in June 2021 to pre-pandemic traffic. There is likely to have been a general increase in traffic since June 2021, as traffic overall continues to recover far faster than public transport use. Moreover, this generalised figure of a 10% reduction of traffic in the Dulwich area overall obscures substantial increases in the sheer number of vehicles on certain roads; East Dulwich Grove near Lordship Lane saw an increase of 2,762 vehicles per day (a 28% increase) and East Dulwich Grove near Dulwich Village saw an increase of 2,485 vehicles per day (a 17% increase). Some internal roads also saw large increases, notably an increase of 563 vehicles (an 18% increase) on Burbage Road north. In addition, certain junctions have seen substantial increases in traffic: East Dulwich Grove to Lordship Lane has seen an additional 819 vehicles (a 222% increase) 5 whilst East Dulwich Grove (West) to Townley Road has seen a 679 vehicles increase in peak hours (a 77% increase).6 This is unsustainable.
Furthermore, this report contains no reference to, or measure of, the traffic on Dulwich Common, the southern boundary road of the Dulwich LTN, even though the Interim Monitoring Report promised an analysis of “Telematics data, to assess changes along Dulwich Common”. We impute no motive for this omission other than simple human error but we say that including traffic data from this road would be likely to show an overall increase in traffic for the scheme as a whole, and not a decrease as reported.
Bus times
16. The impact of the scheme on traffic is evident in the duration of bus journeys. Although the September Report does not go into detail, the underlying data reveals that the duration of bus journeys has increased considerably on certain roads. Regardless, the analysis used in the September Report is rudimentary and cursory as, first, there is no quantitative data in the analysis and, second, there is no appreciation of lost passenger minutes since purported gains on one road are off-set against demonstrated losses on other roads, and there is no consideration of how many passengers are actually affected. The bus routes affected are all busy and all serve as key arterial routes; these are the South Circular (formally the A205), East Dulwich Grove, Northbound on Croxted Road and Southbound on Red Post Hill.
(a) The South Circular (formally the A205), which is on any measure a vital bus artery, has seen a substantial increase in bus times. For Westbound journeys, journey times have been “abnormally high” since June 2021. It is useful to put “abnormally high” in context; the average journey time has tripled from just over 2 minutes a km to 6 minutes per km on some days. 7
(b) For Eastbound trips on the South Circular, the situation is equally bleak. Since June 2021, journey times have reached a new “peak”. Again, the commentary obscures the true significance: journey times have doubled from a baseline measure of 3 minutes per km to 6 minutes per km. Ultimately, the journey times on the Eastbound route have increased above baseline measures for all periods when lockdown measures were not in place since the start of the pandemic. 8
(c) East Dulwich Grove, which is an A road and therefore a strategic artery, has also seen a substantial increase in journey times. For Westbound journeys on East Dulwich Grove, journey times have increased above baseline data for all periods since the full scheme has been introduced and restrictions have been in place. Journey times are now consistently above the “upper threshold” of journey times; where journeys typically took just over 4 minutes per km, they are now approaching 5 minutes per km (a 25% increase). 9
(d) For Eastbound journeys on East Dulwich Grove, journey times have consistently been above baseline times since the most recent lifting of restrictions from April this year.10
(e) Croxted Road is another vital transport corridor as an A Road which serves West Dulwich and Herne Hill stations, The Old Dairy GP surgery, Brockwell Park and a number of schools and nurseries; here journey times in the Northbound direction have effectively doubled since the most recent lifting of restrictions.11
(f) Red Post Hill, which is a vital transport corridor serving North Dulwich station, James Allen’s Girls’ School, Charter School North, Charter School East, Dulwich Hamlet, Dulwich College as well as Dulwich Village Church of England Infants’ School, has also seen a substantial increase. Since March 2021, journey times in the Southbound direction have consistently risen above the “upper threshold”.12
17. The September Report observes that there has been a decrease in Northbound traffic on Red Post Hill and Southbound on Dulwich Village. However, according to the standard deviation on Northbound traffic on Red Post Hill, this decrease, which is presented as comparable to the increases on the roads above, actually amounts to a reduction from 3 minutes, 25 seconds per km to 3 minutes, 10 seconds per km. With regards to Dulwich Village, the underlying data reveals an upward trend in journey times Northbound and considerable fluctuation, suggesting it is unreliable to draw any conclusions about the trend regarding Northbound traffic on Red Post Hill.
18. Moreover, the graphs concerning Half Moon Lane (both directions) and Lordship Lane (both directions) show bus journey times increasing above or approaching the “upper threshold” of pre-Covid journey times since May 2021.
19. Given that the lifting of pandemic restrictions are only now “bedding in”, there is only so much inference that can be drawn from the traffic survey. For example, the data in the September Report finishes in June 2021, whilst traffic patterns have substantially changed in the last four months. By your own admission, any traffic results are indicative.13 Moreover, the Ultra-Low Emission Zone has just come into force up to the South Circular and this may reduce overall traffic levels, reducing the need for the scheme in the first place.
20. As the summary above demonstrates, the impact on bus journey times has been substantial and is only likely to increase (especially in peak times). We note that the aims of the scheme, set out on page 1 of the September Report, are to reduce car use, reduce carbon emissions, reduce the amount of cut-through traffic (from cars), reduce parking pressure for local residents, encourage people to shop locally to support local businesses and reduce car use, improve air quality and to reduce pollution and noise levels. Those aims would all be assisted by an increase in the use of buses.
It is therefore perverse that:
(a) the very measures intended to meet those aims make bus travel more onerous, less desirable and, for some groups, impossible; and
(b) the very measures intended to encourage less car use and more bus use were introduced in the full knowledge that, for so many, the former was not possible because the latter was not available. As the council knows, there is no east-west bus service across the centre of Dulwich Village, which has a low PTAL rating of 1 – 2. As TfL data shows, where bus provision is poor, car ownership is high. Dulwich already has a very high level of walking and cycling (68%) for local journeys before the scheme went in, but only a 5% bus use. 14 Car usage will only decline when bus routes and services improve substantially. This is one of the gaping holes between the council’s aims and its approach.
The proposed mitigations
21. Whilst largely replicating the ETOs, the Notices include some amendments to the ETOs. We understand that Southwark has included the amendments in an attempt to mitigate against the worst effects of the ETOs. However, the proposed mitigation measures will have only a marginal effect:
(a) Whilst Southwark has narrowed the timed restrictions, 24/7 restrictions will still operate at the junction with Court Lane, Dulwich Village and Calton Avenue, and the timed restrictions will still operate at peak hours.
(b) The exemptions are not sufficient: first, with regards to health workers, they are limited to “rapid response” health workers. This term is subject to consultation with the NHS but, as yet, has no precise meaning, so any benefits from this exemption are speculative at best. Moreover, assuming “rapid” means only those responding to a health emergency, this “exemption” provides no exception for locum GPs trying to attend their surgeries and nor does it provide an exemption for GPs, community nurses, midwives or social care staff trying to access residents’ homes. The exemptions do not assist hospital transport for cancer patients. Second, the exemption for taxis only applies to “Hackney Carriages” so mini cabs and Uber cars, which provide vital transport for those on more modest incomes, are excluded. Third, the exemptions will not apply to the junction at Calton Avenue, Dulwich Village and Court Lane. We believe this is discriminatory.
(c) Great weight has been placed on the Blue Badge exemption; its impact is limited, however, as the process for applying for a Blue Badge is prolonged (taking up to three months), convoluted and demanding, and applicants have to demonstrate that they “have an enduring and substantial disability that prevents you from walking, or makes walking very difficult”.15 Indeed, Transport for All’s “Pave the Way Report” suggests that about half of those with disabilities do not have Blue Badges.16 Crucially, the Blue Badge exemption does not assist those who are obviously frail but do not meet the exacting Blue Badge criteria. In addition, the Blue Badge exemption does not assist those who are dependent upon receiving care by staff travelling by car. Finally, the Blue Badge exemption is useful only within the scheme, which completely fails to address the issue of longer journey times caused by increased weight of traffic on roads outside the scheme.
(d) Furthermore, the Blue Badge exemption applies only to Southwark residents. It does not apply to all Blue Badge holders, even those who live in adjacent roads in Lewisham and Lambeth, and therefore discriminates against those Blue Badge holders who need and wish to visit close family living within the Dulwich LTNs. We believe this infringes their right to have and to enjoy a family life.
22. Importantly, none of these so-called “mitigation” measures will address the underlying issue that is preventing access to people’s homes and vital services: gridlock and increased congestion on the strategic roads caused by displaced traffic.
The day-to-day impact of the scheme
23. The consultation responses described in Southwark’s Consultation Report dated August 2021, and which the September Report attempts to summarise, reveal the day-to-day impact that the scheme has had; these views should carry especial weight as they are based on the direct impact of the ETOs and are not speculation:
(a) Increased “inconvenience” as journey times are longer for both people within the area directly affected and those travelling through the area.
(b) Increase in bus journey times.
(c) Reduced access to local shops and businesses.
(d) Increased congestion.
(e) Safety risks for pedestrians trying to cross congested roads and sharing space with assertive cyclists.
(f) A reported increase in pavement cycling which many, particularly the elderly and the vulnerable, find unsafe, frightening and intimidating.
(g) “Stress” from timing journeys and appointments to avoid restricted hours.
(h) Reduced air quality.
24. However, phrases such as “inconvenience” and “stress” fail to convey the intense impact this scheme has had on residents’ lives, particularly those from protected groups. To provide just a few examples, one elderly resident living east of the Dulwich Village junction, who has cancer and who has to make regular and frequent visits to her GP, health centre and hospital outpatients for treatment, all of them west of the junction, has to sit for hours in traffic on the South Circular, constantly concerned she will not reach her medical providers in time. This is an intolerable change to her daily life, making her physical condition and mental health much worse. Others have been unable to receive home visits from their GPs or from carers, and even from family members, because of the traffic problems. Many feel trapped in their homes and denied access to their friends, family and church, leading to loneliness and social isolation. The impact of the scheme could not be more significant.
Impact on certain groups
25. We understand, under Equalities law, that Southwark is required to think about reducing inequalities for protected groups such as disabled people, older people, ethnic minority groups and those who are pregnant or have recently had a baby, and consider the importance of eliminating obstacles for those groups when making decisions. The Consultation Report confirms that the “overwhelming majority” of people from protected groups oppose the scheme. We strongly believe, and the evidence shows, that, despite this clear opposition, the needs of particular groups have not been adequately thought about and the scheme actually exacerbates challenges for these groups rather than removes them.
Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic residents
26. Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic residents who are business-owners spoke of difficulties in accessing their businesses.
27. Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic residents commented that they were more likely to come from outside Dulwich Village – from East Dulwich and Peckham, for example. Therefore, they are more likely to have experienced the negative impacts of the scheme, i.e. greater weight of traffic and increased journey times, rather than its localised benefits.
28. Equally, Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic residents commented that they were more likely to provide vital services, as key workers in health care; GPs, for example, reported that the congestion was having a severely detrimental impact on their ability to access work.17
29. The effect, therefore, of the scheme is to exacerbate obstacles particular to Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic residents rather than remove them.
Women, Pregnancy and Maternity
30. Pregnant women and parents are more likely to be car-dependent. In addition, a woman in labour or having complications during pregnancy may need urgent access to a community midwife. The EqIA wrongly reports the results of the consultation with regards to pregnancy and maternity, stating that “the majority of pregnant women and those with new babies felt they were positively impacted by the changes” even though the pie chart on page 20 shows the exact opposite, namely that a significant majority are negatively affected by the changes.18 Moreover, women and parents with multiple caring responsibilities are more likely to “trip-chain” where they drop off children at nursery and school, visit shops, and visit elderly parents, as well as attending work. Given the variety of trips, they are more likely to be car-dependent since the public transport network is designed primarily for commuters travelling in and out of central London. Despite these obvious points, there is no consideration of the specific obstacles and needs of women (especially pregnant women). On that basis, there has been a complete failure to consider a key group.
Older People
31. With regards, to older people, the Equality Impact Assessment dated 15 September 2021 reveals that the impact of the scheme has been severe.
(a) Generally, car use is essential to them; and for those who are dependent upon their car (the overwhelming majority) it needs to be available at all times to ensure that they can visit urgent health appointments and live independently.
(b) Many have attempted to eliminate their private car use, but the only potentially affordable alternative is car-hire or minicabs. However, as a result of the scheme, some residents are reporting that minicabs and car hire companies are struggling or refusing to access streets within the scheme.
(c) The other alternative to private car use, buses, were slower and unreliable (as proven by the evidence above) meaning that older people did not feel that this was a viable alternative.
(d) For many older people, cycling and walking extended distances was simply not viable.
(e) Access to visitors who travel by car, such as community nurses, social care staff, pharmacists and GPs, is equally essential. Similarly, these health and social care professionals need to be available at all times to provide care and deliver prescriptions.
(f) For obvious reasons, older people are dependent on GPs; however, GPs are reporting that it is more difficult to access homes, and their surgeries, and that it is getting substantially harder to get locum GPs to attend local surgeries.19
32. Cumulatively, older people describe the impact as severe; as well as the obvious health impacts caused by struggling to access services, they spoke of being kettled-in or cut-off from their friends and family. This is summarised in the letter from Age Speaks, a group of 80 car-dependent older people in Dulwich:
“The road closures and restrictions affect not just physical but mental health. The difficulties in visiting or meeting friends, or having friends and family to visit, has increased the social isolation of some of our members. Members have reported losing contact with friends as a result of the restrictions placed on them by the LTNs.
“Stress caused by the LTNs includes worrying about being late for medical appointments, the length of journeys, carers being delayed, the strain of planning journeys around the restrictions and anxiety about getting fined. Our members talk about how they fear the increased effect of the LTNs on their lives as they get older, even those who do not currently have any physical impairment.” 20
Disabled People
33. The experience of older people is matched by disabled people, but there are particular challenges:
(a) Cyclists pose particular challenges to those who have a hearing impairment and those not mobile enough to get out of the way of cyclists riding on pavements.
(b) Local shops may not be a viable alternative for those with certain disabilities because of the need for disabled toilets.
(c) Accessing school for disabled children has become exceptionally difficult with journeys that should take a maximum of 15 minutes now taking 45 minutes.21
34. The consideration of those who are car-dependent has been wholly unsatisfactory. At paragraph 44 on page 20 of the September Report, consideration is given to “difficulty accessing essential services”. This misstates the problem. The problem is the near impossibility of accessing essential services. Once the problem is properly stated, the speculative mitigation measures (discussed above), minor adjustment to the hours of operation and additional street seating, are exposed as grossly inadequate.
35. Given that Southwark is required to think about the impact of these schemes on protected groups and remove obstacles that prevent protected groups participating in society, Southwark has failed to meet its duty since it has failed to make any effective mitigation for those who are largely or wholly car-dependent and whose mobility has been drastically reduced or removed by this scheme. Cumulatively, the scheme exacerbates obstacles for protected groups rather than removing them. These obvious disadvantages, explained in exacting detail in the Consultation Report and Southwark’s own Equality Impact Assessment, are completely discounted in the September Report which comments that:
Bearing these considerations in mind, and the mitigations considered, paragraph 46 of the report confirms that the implementation of the proposed measures in Dulwich Village, East Dulwich and Champion Hill is not considered to have a disproportionate effect on any particular community individual or group. It is therefore the view of officers that the proposals do not affect persons with shared protected characteristics.
36. Accordingly, we are concerned that Southwark has failed to properly consider either the needs of protected groups, as its PSED requires, or the feedback from its own consultation. Regrettably, we have formed the view that the consultation and Equality Impact Assessment were cosmetic exercises and not a genuine attempt to reach out to or consider the needs of different groups.
Conclusion
37. For the reasons set out above, we object to the Notices in the strongest possible terms and ask that you reverse your decision to make the ETOs permanent given the impact on local residents, local businesses and, in particular, those in protected groups. At the same time, we also ask that you remove the two new ETOs in Melbourne Grove North and Grove Vale as they are part of the same failed scheme. We urge Southwark to recognise that this experiment has thus far failed and to show its courage by not ploughing on with an obviously divisive, detrimental and unsuccessful scheme that fails to fulfil its aims.
Yours faithfully
The Dulwich Alliance
References and links to sources referred to in the text
2. Appendix E, page 5, para. 1
3. Ranges from -0.1 to -0.2 life years lost, page 57 of Appendix C (7), Table 9.2
4. Paragraph 22 (iv)
5. Misleadingly, the September Report describes these as “notable” (page 8, viii), however, when there are decreases of smaller percentages in paragraph (vi), these are described as “large”.
6. Paragraph 22 (vii) and (viii)
7. Appendix C (5), page 2
8. Appendix C (5), page 3
9. Appendix C (5), page 8
10. Appendix C (5), page 9
11. Appendix C (5), page 5
12. Appendix C (5), page 16
13. September Report, page 13
14. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/transport-policy/monitoring-and-evidence-base/evidence-base page 5 (9/62 pdf page count); Source: LTDS data
15. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/disabled-parking/blue-badge; other equally demanding application criteria apply.
16. https://www.transportforall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Pave-The-Way-full-report.pdf page 9
17. Appendix E, page 23
18. Appendix E, page 4/page 20
19. Appendix E – page 24 to 25
20. Appendix E – page 25
21. Appendix E – page 27, point 7