Why the Dulwich LTN won’t work

It’s time to look at facts and data instead of pushing ahead with a scheme that just displaces traffic.

The big idea behind an LTN is modal shift. If everyone stops using their cars for short journeys, the theory goes, traffic reduces, air quality improves, and we all become fitter and healthier from walking and cycling.

Southwark, unfortunately, didn’t look very closely at the data before they introduced an LTN in Dulwich. A report they commissioned in 2018 called the Dulwich Area Traffic Management Study shows that two out of every three short journeys in Dulwich are already done on foot – twice the Borough average.

Only 5% of journeys are by public transport, for the very obvious reason that provision is poor. Dulwich Village itself, for example, has just one bus service going north-south, nothing going east-west, and the lowest possible rating for public transport (Public Transport Accessibility Levels 1-2).

This means the scope for getting more people to stop using a car for short journeys is extremely limited – because so many people are already walking, and because those who can’t walk or cycle may find their journey can’t be made by public transport.

So how does travel in Dulwich compare to Southwark’s future targets?

In Southwark’s 2019 Movement Plan, the Council confirms that its “approach to traffic reduction is focused on short journeys” and that its aim is to reduce trips made by car/motorbike to 13% by 2041. On page 17 of this document, there are two bar charts (below).

These show the share of journeys taken by different modes of travel in Southwark in 2016/17 and what the Council wants the share to be in 2041.

There are no numbers given for 2041 but, assuming the charts are to scale, and knowing that “Motor vehicle” in the 2041 box is 13%, then other 2041 targets would appear to be:

• walking 50%;

• cycling 10%;

• motor vehicles 13%;

• bus/tram 13%; and

• rail/tube/DLR 14%.

We have a good idea of the current modal share in Dulwich because of London Transport Data Studies for 2010-2015 in the Dulwich Area Traffic Management Study. This shows that, as well as 65% of journeys on foot and 5% by bus, 3% are by bicycle, and 20% by car driver (plus 7% as a car passenger).

On this evidence, walking in Dulwich (65%) is already much higher than Southwark’s target for 2041 (50%).

The 3% modal share for cycling may not seem high, but is actually the same as the share for Southwark overall. If you combine walking and cycling in Dulwich (68%), this again is higher than Southwark’s combined target for 2041 (60%). Public transport (5%) by contrast, is just a fraction of the 2041 target (27%).

So if Dulwich is already exceeding Southwark’s 2041 target for walking, what else can be done to reduce car use?

We need to encourage more people to cycle, so that we increase the modal share from the current 3% to Southwark’s 2041 target of 10%.

But we also need to increase the modal share of public transport from the current 5% in Dulwich to Southwark’s 2041 target of 27%.

This is particularly important because of the well-known link between public transport and car use. As the chart below from TfL’s 2019 Travel in London Report 12 graphically shows, the poorer the public transport provision, the higher the proportion of cars owned by households. It also highlights that one of the best ways to reduce car ownership– and, thereby, car use – is to improve public transport.

What happens if public transport isn’t improved?

One of the most distressing consequences of Southwark’s experimental LTN in Dulwich is that those who can’t walk or cycle – such as residents who are unwell or disabled, both young and old – are now having great difficulty getting around at all. That is why it’s so callous when those in favour of the current closures talk about ‘inconvenience’: life for those who are fit and well is a million miles away from the daily experience of those who aren’t.

Southwark has announced it will exempt the Blue Badge holders who live within Dulwich Village from the timed restrictions. But this helps only a tiny fraction of people in the Dulwich area who are mobility-impaired or who have other disabilities that make them car-dependent. It also does nothing for those who, because of the 24/7 closure of Dulwich Village junction, are forced to make long detours to visit GP surgeries and vaccination centres, or to attend hospital appointments.

Ironically, all the increased traffic from the road closures, particularly on roads like Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove and Croxted Road, is causing delays to the vital bus services we all so badly need.

If TfL won’t improve bus services, what can we do?

One Dulwich believes that there can be no fair solution to the problem of too much traffic unless public transport is significantly improved. But if TfL is determined not to do anything about bus services in Dulwich, perhaps it’s time to develop creative solutions ourselves.

We’ve been talking for a while about finding a way of linking the main railway hubs (West Dulwich, East Dulwich, North Dulwich, Herne Hill) with health centres, hospitals and schools – a zero emissions bus service, perhaps, like the community-owned and run bus company ‘The Big Lemon’ operating in Brighton. This would benefit not only all the schoolchildren travelling around Dulwich, but also the elderly and less mobile, and the carers and health professionals who visit them.

Sadly, all the volunteers who would love to be involved in getting a project like this off the ground – perhaps in partnership with Dulwich schools, the Foundation Schools’ Coach Service and the Dulwich Estate – are spending all their time trying to get the Council to understand that the current scheme for an LTN in Dulwich is not only socially unjust but cannot deliver the low traffic neighbourhood everyone wants.