LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Metallic]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> I agree I think what the Dulwich Village RA stated

> was a very good plan and something that everyone

> could live with (although I am not sure Southwark

> would agree to area-wide resident permits as I

> think they think Dulwich residents are the

> problem).

>

> Nimbyism is a huge issue. Over the summer my wife

> met a friend for a drink in Gail's in the Village

> and the table next to her were talking very loudly

> about the closures. My wife described the people

> on the table next to her as "too posh to wash" and

> one of them stated very loudly "We pay a premium

> for our houses in the Village so why should we

> have to deal with the traffic". Unfortunately this

> is the view of many - happy to see their road free

> from traffic but not giving one jot for what

> happens at the end of their road.

That's awful. The trouble is there are too many people here for a shortish time, for schools, and the numbers of people who dig in for a long haul will dramatically decrease if this shut off goes ahead as a full scheme once the trial is over.

[Spartacus]

This is a news article from Lewisham showing how much their bus gates installed as part of their LTN make

https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18810571.lewisham-council-get-millions-lee-green-ltn-fines/

Once they are in here Southwark will find every reason under the sun to keep them after the 18 month trial has completed.

It's not just about reducing pollution and traffic IMHO , it's about revenue generation for the council as well.

[JohnL]

I'd rather a form of tax on those that break the law than tax everybody.

[Abe_froeman]

wow! They're making ?1 million a month from just 4 cameras!!

[JohnL]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> I agree I think what the Dulwich Village RA stated

> was a very good plan and something that everyone

> could live with (although I am not sure Southwark

> would agree to area-wide resident permits as I

> think they think Dulwich residents are the

> problem).

>

> Nimbyism is a huge issue. Over the summer my wife

> met a friend for a drink in Gail's in the Village

> and the table next to her were talking very loudly

> about the closures. My wife described the people

> on the table next to her as "too posh to wash" and

> one of them stated very loudly "We pay a premium

> for our houses in the Village so why should we

> have to deal with the traffic". Unfortunately this

> is the view of many - happy to see their road free

> from traffic but not giving one jot for what

> happens at the end of their road.

That's their right in a democracy - even if expressed in an obnoxious way.

We have to put up with leaving the EU in the hardest possible way on a 52-48 majority in the UK so why not let Dulwich residents make their own decisions at that level (not advocating it but at what point do you stop splitting up democracy if you think big a strategy (like pan europe) is bad).

[wallsend]

Gossip passing via someone outside Au Ciel - the cameras may be up and live from Monday so that will be a week to bed in before school return mayhem.

I've been enjoying these threads and so have decided to sign up to East Dulwich Forum. I will be one of the many trapped inside the zone unless I want to face a traffic jam journey back to my house. So we will have to wait and see.

[Bicknell]

Feels to me that im hearing a lot of anger about road measures in dulwich wherever I go now. Maybe the general public has woekn up to whats going on.

[malumbu]

I'm far more angry that we are f..king up the planet. You should all be too.

[Rockets]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> I'm far more angry that we are f..king up the

> planet. You should all be too.

...Our thoughts entirely which is why we are campaigning against these measures as they are actually making pollution worse.

[malumbu]

Then you should realise that as the masses will not break their habits tougher action is required. It will take a little time for these measures to have an effect but you have to make it more difficult for motorists to dissuade some of the unimportant journeys. Pollution is a short term and local issue, climate change will affect us for ever.

[legalalien]

This kind of sums up where we are.

On the one hand, we have a group who feel strongly about the need to address climate change / problems with air quality and who have lost faith in the ability of the democratic process to deliver solutions (at all or in the necessary time frame). Hence the need to take advantage of any opportunity to move at speed, briefing notes about how to capture councillors and the need to time things to avoid accountability in the electoral cycle; the idea that ?the masses? need to be kept out of the process (with the idea that they?ll be happy with the end result, they just can?t be counted on to make the right choices in the here and now). I don?t think it?s a coincidence that recent polling shows the younger generation has less faith in democracy generally.

On the other, people who place more importance on the democratic process / transparency/ bringing people along with you, ensuring long term solutions don?t deliver unacceptable (as opposed to inconvenient) short term effects. And possibly the idea that failing to achieve mass buy in puts the project as a whole at risk, because there will be a backlash from said masses.

Despite what some people are saying I think the debate on here is mostly about means rather than ends. Almost everyone is keen on traffic reduction/ improved air quality etc.

On that note, can I suggest everyone turns their thermostats down a couple of degrees as gas boilers are one of the biggest sources of air pollution, and even small adjustments will make a meaningful difference.

malumbu Wrote:

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

> Then you should realise that as the masses will

> not break their habits tougher action is required.

> It will take a little time for these measures to

> have an effect but you have to make it more

> difficult for motorists to dissuade some of the

> unimportant journeys. Pollution is a short term

> and local issue, climate change will affect us for

> ever.

[wallsend]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/indepth/car-wars-coronavirus-and-the-rise-in-traffic-cutting-schemes/ar-BB1akcvi?ocid=msedgdhp

[Rockets]

I drove down the A24 today and was really pleased to see how they have been able to put dedicated cycle lanes in place (with bollards) on what are some very busy stretches of road through Tooting and other areas. So nice to see a programme that allows all modes of transport to share the roadspace and live harmoniously together. Lots of people cycling and little disruption to those who drive - I can imagine that section of road would have been quite daunting prior to these measures. Now that is a pragmatic and sensible solution that benefits everyone. I think they have been rolling similar schemes out in west London through Kensington and as far out as Chiswick.

[Mrs D]

Rockets, I sometimes cycle on the a24 to work, and I agree - the now segregated bike Lane is great. Same bike Lane as before - just with some bollards to protect cyclists from traffic. Personally, the Dulwich LTNs don?t work form me, I travel a lot further so segregated bike lanes is much more helpful to me!

[legalalien]

Interesting to hear what the guy from One Lewisham has to say here (towards the end of the article) - he is pro-cycling but anti-LTN.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7aqj8/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-islington-protest?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

[Rockets]

Bicknell Wrote:

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

> Feels to me that im hearing a lot of anger about

> road measures in dulwich wherever I go now. Maybe

> the general public has woekn up to whats going on.

The discussions will go up a level next week when the council puts the cameras in and activates them on the new measures next week. Cllr Newens confirmed the DV ones are expected to go in and start operating next week.

At some point the council might actually start listening to their constituents I wonder when it might be though...

[legalalien]

As a complete aside, apparently local newspapers are significantly dependent on revenues from TMO publications (see this Commons briefing note https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06013/SN06013.pdf. Cost estimates are between ?1k and ?3k per order. Gosh.

[malumbu]

In an ideal world we'd be able to share road space. But we can't - Most drivers don't like cyclists (for a variety of reasons), most drivers don't take any notice of 20mph zones, the government neither wants to enforce such initiatives or promote a fundamental change in mindset. Mick Jones' criminal (allegedly) cousin, who happens to be Transport Secretary, states that active travel and public transport will be our default means of getting around. How hollow. Hence more draconian interventions. Didn't mention the local authority once. Go to the lounge to discuss increased cycling. I'd be interested in having your views. Thanks.

[Metallic]

I don't know, I go away for a few days and when I get back there are poles everywhere ready for the cash registers, sorry, camera warning. Read the piece about Lewisham, I'm sure Southwark thinks what not to like about millions coming in?

In the meantime the presentation to the cabinet which was very interesting, showed Dougie and Lianne putting the council in their place. Wonder if they have heard anything from the Cabinet member?

[Penguin68]

?People of Earth, your attention please,? a voice said, and it was wonderful. Wonderful perfect quadraphonic sound with distortion levels so low as to make a brave man weep.

?This is Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council,? the voice continued. ?As you will no doubt be aware, the plans for development of the outlying regions of the Galaxy require the building of a hyperspatial express route through your star system, and regrettably your planet is one of those scheduled for demolition. The process will take slightly less than two of your Earth minutes. Thank you.?

The PA died away.

Uncomprehending terror settled on the watching people of Earth. The terror moved slowly through the gathered crowds as if they were iron filing on a sheet of board and a magnet was moving beneath them. Panic sprouted again, desperate fleeing panic, but there was nowhere to flee to.

Observing this, the Vogons turned on their PA again. It said:

?There?s no point acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years, so you?ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it?s far too late to start making a fuss about it now.?

The PA fell silent again and its echo drifted off across the land. The huge ship turned slowly in the sky with easy power. On the underside of each a hatchway opened, an empty black square.

By this time somebody somewhere must have manned a radio transmitter, located a wavelength and broadcast a message back to the Vogon ships, to plead on behalf of the planet. Nobody ever heard what they said, they only heard the reply. The PA slammed back into life again. The voice was annoyed. It said:

?What do you mean you?ve never been to Alpha Centauri? For heaven?s sake mankind, it?s only four light years away you know. I?m sorry, but if you can?t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs that?s your own lookout.

?Energize the demolition beams.?

Light poured out of the hatchways.

?I don?t know? said the voice on the PA, ?apathetic bloody planet, I?ve no sympathy at all.? It cut off.

© Douglas Adams - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

[legalalien]

Assuming the recommendations to the South multiward meeting on 25 Feb were approved (I can't find the decision / minutes anywhere), Southwark are actually funding Clean Air for Dulwich to campaign in favour of LTNs, out of the Neighbourhoods Fund.

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6618/Public%20reports%20pack%20Tuesday%2025-Feb-2020%2019.00%20South%20multi-ward%20forum.pdf?T=10

You could squeeze clean air campaigning into the criteria at a push (maybe, it's not really the same as getting volunteers for a local clean up) but generally campaigning groups haven't been included before as far as I know, and certainly not funded to advocate specific council policies!

[Rockets]

That is really interesting. Can someone tell us whether this is unusual, especially given one of the stated aims of Clean Air for Dulwich in their submission to the council for money was to campaign for LTNs (see below)?

Isn't this a little incestuous, using tax-payers money to fund a group that you then use as a lobby group to help push through your own proposals?

Makes me wonder, in the application of balance and fairness, whether the council would fund a group to investigate how they handled the implementation and consultation of the LTNs.....;-)

Clean Air for Dulwich Council Funding Submission

Work to improve air quality for all, encouraging active travel, directly addressing causes

of air pollution via targeted campaigns and promotion of low traffic neighbourhood.

Needed targeted campaign on air quality specifically rather than as part of a wider

remit as air quality continues to worsen especially with independent school traffic.

Our campaign is to work more directly on this targeted issue and with the community

as a whole rather than just via the schools network. Those affected by pollution aren't

limited to people in schools and therefore getting wider engagement will be critical to

changing this quickly.

We will also work to campaign for low traffic neighbourhoods, building awareness

amongst local residents for the benefits that can be gained through this approach.

[Rockets]

Fascinating data that LegalAlien is uncovering that requires further scrutiny.

These excerpts are taken from the Scrutiny Report Air Quality FINAL found here:

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89830/Scutiny%20report%20air%20quality%20FINAL.pdf

The council admits that public transport links in Dulwich are not good.

As an inner-city borough, levels of public transport provision (as evidenced by PTAL

ratings8

) is very good in certain parts of Southwark, particularly the north and around

central Peckham, Camberwell and Rotherhithe.

TfL has more work to do, however, to create a borough where it is easy to move

around by public transport everywhere. More investment is needed along

Southampton Way, Canada Water, Surrey Quays, the Camberwell/Peckham borders

and Nunhead and Dulwich.

They also make a series of recommendations when implementing LTNs - many of which the council in our area seem to be ignoring or overlooking (interesting background our part of the borough has some of the worst PTAL ratings and the highest car ownership levels - Dulwich Village has the highest car ownership rate in the whole borough yet seems to be getting more LTNs and measures than the rest of the borough put together!)

Recommendation 14: Introduce a borough wide programme of Low Traffic

Neighbourhoods. These should be implemented:

 Over a wide enough area in order to realise the benefits of traffic evaporation,

which has been shown to take place when there is a significant reduction of

short journeys by car under 2km.

 As a priority in areas with high levels of public transport (high PTAL ratings),

poor air quality, lower levels of car ownership, in areas of deprivation and

where the programs would impact positively on local schools and hospitals.

 Where traffic may be displaced onto main roads, the council must monitor the

impact on air quality, and mitigate negative effects in advance of

implementation, possibly by widening pavements and creating cycle lanes,

managing traffic to reduce vehicle idling time and introducing green screening

programmes.

 In conjunction with the introduction of CPZ and a reduction of parking so the

kerbside can be utilised for active travel and public realm improvements (such

as pocket parks and cycle parking).

 In conjunction with improvements to Public Transport and other work on

adjacent main roads to increase cycling and other forms of active travel.

The Conclusion section is the most damning when applied through the LTN fiasco optics:

It can no longer be acceptable for any transport schemes to be developed which

cause increases in traffic volumes on other roads, particularly where there are

vulnerable populations like schools and hospitals, and when we know those living in

poverty, BAME populations and residents in areas of existing poor air quality are

least able to cope with the effects of diseases like COVID-19

We must be driven with a proper scheme design: modelling the likely impacts of

traffic interventions, understanding the communities who benefit and those who

benefit least. This would mean an expansion of air quality monitoring throughout the

borough with clear-eyed analysis of the outcomes. We need a proper understanding

of where traffic is generated, who generates it and how it can be reduced; an

understanding of car ownership volumes and consumption of street space. In all

cases we need to gather sex-disaggregated data.

You have to ask why the council are ignoring their own recommendations in Dulwich - what is the motivation behind that? Political opportunism perhaps? Many of us have felt that some councillors saw this as an opportunity to good to turn down and one wonders whether the money being spent on these changes would have been more beneficial in the areas stated in the aforementioned report as needing to be the priority.

Of course the report also contains regurgitated "facts" from the Living Streets lobby groups, the cursory statement of "All is great in Waltham Forest" and the usual overloading and overweighting on inputs from the cycle lobby groups.

[Bicknell]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Assuming the recommendations to the South

> multiward meeting on 25 Feb were approved (I can't

> find the decision / minutes anywhere), Southwark

> are actually funding Clean Air for Dulwich to

> campaign in favour of LTNs, out of the

> Neighbourhoods Fund.

>

> http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6618/

> Public%20reports%20pack%20Tuesday%2025-Feb-2020%20

> 19.00%20South%20multi-ward%20forum.pdf?T=10

>

> You could squeeze clean air campaigning into the

> criteria at a push (maybe, it's not really the

> same as getting volunteers for a local clean up)

> but generally campaigning groups haven't been

> included before as far as I know, and certainly

> not funded to advocate specific council policies!

whens the next round? One Dulwich could apply. they are after all campaigning for cleaner air on roads like East Dulwich Grove, and for the council to monitor pollution (which hasnt happened so far)

[legalalien]

I think the current round of applications has now closed 12 https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consultations/grants-and-funding/neighbourhoods-fund-2021.

Watching the last Environmental Scrutiny meeting. Instructive. Not much dissent, a little bit from the chap who I?ve just realised is the Lib Dem in the room (highlight - telling people that they shouldn?t try and eat the whole elephant at once).

Led me to read this prophetic article

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/end-road-looms-formal-traffic-decision-making-community-councils-according-southwark-council-plans/

There?s an interesting issue about getting hold of and comparing data about parking on estates and off street parking and a ward by ward comparison. Will see if I can figure it out.