LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[legalalien]

I?ve just had an ?eventbrite? message advising of the following meeting - similar to the one held re the East Dulwich closures today:

?Dulwich Village Streetspace Phase 2 Community Meeting

Tuesday, 15 December 2020 at 13:00?

Not sure of the exact link but if you go to eventbrite.co.Uk and search for the Southwark Community Engagement Team it should come up.

[holymoly]

What has happened to a Phase 1 meeting? Or is Dulwich Village junction being buried. It was a single initiative with its own period for objection.

[legalalien]

holymoly Wrote:

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

> What has happened to a Phase 1 meeting? Or is

> Dulwich Village junction being buried. It was a

> single initiative with its own period for

> objection.

No idea. Think the window for formal objections is still open for a couple of weeks?

[Rockets]

One Dulwich has a very good guide on how to register your objection under the objections part of their website.

https://www.onedulwich.uk/objections

But I think the window is closing soon as those closures have been in for longer.

[alice]

15th december theres a zoom council meeting for dulwich village ltns

[Bicknell]

@Alice @legalalien

Cant find zoom council meeting for dulwich ltns anywhere. Could you send link? Thanks

[legalalien]

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/dulwich-village-streetspace-phase-2-community-meeting-tickets-130809997223?utm_source=eventbrite&utm_medium=email&utm_content=follow_notification&utm_campaign=following_published_event&utm_term=Dulwich+Village+Streetspace+Phase+2+Community+Meeting&aff=ebemoffollowpublishemail

Hopefully this works..

Even if you don?t want to attend this one I?d recommend that people follow the link and ?follow? the Southwark Community Engagement team, they seem to have started using this mechanism to notify people of the various consultation meetings.

[Rockets]

Ex- you seem to be the only person on here qualified to understand the numbers thrown around about LTNs....what do you make of this?

https://oneealing.co.uk/co2-and-costs-analysis/?fbclid=IwAR2erTIY7FRPFoJQDYRs1tkRAJjPztnF_iO35HyQxD8UgQd1L1V1qCENfLw

[exdulwicher]

Rockets - give me a day or so to look through it and I'll get back to you. My views on Ealing are slightly tainted by the ever-so-leading "survey" that Ealing Conservatives sent to everyone they knew to be opposed to LTNs in order to produce a nice Twitter friendly graphic claiming that 95% of residents were opposed to LTNs (link below). I'm wondering if OneEaling are basing any of their figures on that but I'll have a look through it tomorrow or Monday. Astonishing though it may be, I do occasionally have better things to do on a Saturday night than look at traffic data!

https://twitter.com/SpacePootler/status/1332678583702212610?s=19

[Rockets]

Cheers Ex-, it wasn't an urgent request ;-) - enjoy your Saturday!

[Metallic]

rahrahrah

Actually walking along Court Lane or Woodwarde

> Road in the dark is not very pleasant when there

> is no passing traffic. Too quiet and just the

> kind of place for a person to hang about and see

> what they can steal off a passer by. Hardly

> Beirut but that is not what Abe meant."

You quoted me. I am nowhere near alone in feeling it is more threatening for older people to walk on closed roads.

[Rockets]

Not sure how many on here were able to join the council meeting on the ED LTN closures on Friday but a few things stood out and here is a quick summary:

- The meeting started with a summary of the council's activities to date and background on the closures

- There was then a presentation on the outcomes of the closures thus far

- Comments from ward councillors

- Q&A session

A few observations from both meetings:

- The council's presentation on the impact of the closures was, ahem, a little biased - focusing entirely on pictures of how awful things were compared to how brilliant they are now. What was interesting was that the pictures were the pictures we have all seen on the lobbyist twitter feeds - so the famous building delivery lorry as an example. That begs the question are the council using evidence they have gathered themselves or just those submitted by the lobby groups? Or are the council sending their own pictures to the lobby groups who then use them on twitter? The fact there wasn't a single photo used in the council's presentation showing the negative impacts, despite the council receiving lots from the general public, spoke volumes and does beg the question how balanced do the council want to be. There was no balance at all. It was an "Everything is awesome" moment.

- During the ward councillor comments Cllr McAsh did acknowledge that there had been some negatives associated with the closures. Cllr Smith talked about how it is was important to get traffic off side roads and onto main roads (was anyone else surprised by this given the social injustice element of this?) and how he goes to Goose Green/Lordship Lane regularly and has not noticed any increase in traffic, that these are experiments that we should all give time to bed in.

- During the first meeting Q&A the first questions/comment were exclusively from residents from Melbourne Grove and other closed roads heralding the new closures and thanking the councillors. Questions were being asked on a first-come-first served basis and it did seem odd that all the Melbourne Grove residents were on the "hands-up" button before anyone else - Cllr McAsh assured everyone on the chat there was no conspiracy. By the second meeting I think those who weren't there to praise the council got wise to this and the questions were much more balanced.

- On the first call people were asked to ensure their real names on the Zoom were used. By the second call this had changed to real names and the street you live on.

- After an hour Cllr Rose tried to call a halt to proceedings until someone told her the meeting ran for another 30 minutes. She did a great job managing the call and getting the finish time wrong was a legitimate mistake, and it was obvious it wasn't going to be an easy ride for the council but you could tell her disappointment that she had to take more questions - imagine a marathon runner crossing the line and being told they had another 10 miles to do!! I did, however, feel that during both calls there was a bit of indirect pigeon-holing of the anti-closure people on the call. There were plenty who made very well thought out points but each time they made them there was this gushing, thank you for putting your point so eloquently type response as if the presumption is that anyone who opposes the closures is some sort of ranting screaming lunatic.

- To tell the shopkeepers on Melbourne Grove to come up with their own ideas to help them deal with the fallout of the closures was a bit rich from one of the councillors.

- The chat function descended into a tit-for-tat slanging match with some on both sides doing themselves no favours at all. One of the most pro-closure lobbyists got very irate when someone from outside the ward was allowed to ask a question.

- It is clear the council is not prepared to do proper granular monitoring instead is going to rely on modelling and data from Waze to determine whether there has been displacement. A couple of people mentioned in the chat that Waze is predominantly used by Uber and delivery drivers so cannot be considered balanced and their usages skews the results.

It was great that the council finally is starting to face the public - but their approach, much like how they have handled these closures, is flawed, biased, lacks any substance and didn't provide any real answers. There was way too much focus on the benefit of those few people who live on the closed roads and whilst we all appreciate that for those residents who live on Melbourne Grove they must love it but we don't need to hear from every house on the street telling us how wonderful things are - we know that and we know turkeys don't vote for Christmas so what we need the council to do is spend more time focusing on the negative impacts of these closures and giving more priority to a proper balanced view of what the pros and cons of these closures are. The council's approach to these meetings on a ward-by-ward basis means that the pro-closure lobby will always dominate the discussion - it was clear on the first of the two calls that the pro-residents had received the notification and had come out in force - less so on the second - and what needs to happen is for there to be an area-wide consultation because the council has to realise that the impacts of these closures are being felt far beyond the streets that are closed.

[malumbu]

So what are the answers then? There is plenty telling us that the council has got it wrong. I few of us are more supportive. But I am still trying to find constructive alternatives

[Rockets]

Malumbu - many, myself included, have detailed many alternative ideas throughout the months on these forums so it's a bit unfair to suggest that there are no alternatives being put forward. At the macro level One Dulwich has been very clear what they would like to see and they have a lot of support for their suggestions.

Out of interest, what do you think should be done to resolve the issues these closures have created?

I personally think a programme of school streets across the area would have had a much more balanced area-wide positive impact on encouraging modal change. The council also has to do a lot more to support the infrastructure required to ensure modal shift is something everyone can engage with not just the most wealthy and those who can store bikes. The council also has to do a lot more to improve public transportation in the area - it is woefully lacking and it is no surprise so many have to rely on cars. The council also has to take a joined-up area wide approach to this and not just engage in local councillor vanity projects that negatively impact many more people than it benefits.

[Metallic]

Did we all get that inaccurate leaflet from Coalition4Dulwich? What did you all think?

[legalalien]

I didn't get a leaflet. What is it about?

[redpost]

more details rockets, not just hand waving about school streets and better public transport

which streets? times? where will the money come from for transport?

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Malumbu - many, myself included, have detailed

> many alternative ideas throughout the months on

> these forums so it's a bit unfair to suggest that

> there are no alternatives being put forward. At

> the macro level One Dulwich has been very clear

> what they would like to see and they have a lot of

> support for their suggestions.

>

> Out of interest, what do you think should be done

> to resolve the issues these closures have

> created?

>

> I personally think a programme of school streets

> across the area would have had a much more

> balanced area-wide positive impact on encouraging

> modal change. The council also has to do a lot

> more to support the infrastructure required to

> ensure modal shift is something everyone can

> engage with not just the most wealthy and those

> who can store bikes. The council also has to do a

> lot more to improve public transportation in the

> area - it is woefully lacking and it is no

> surprise so many have to rely on cars. The council

> also has to take a joined-up area wide approach to

> this and not just engage in local councillor

> vanity projects that negatively impact many more

> people than it benefits.

[JohnL]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Malumbu - many, myself included, have detailed

> many alternative ideas throughout the months on

> these forums so it's a bit unfair to suggest that

> there are no alternatives being put forward. At

> the macro level One Dulwich has been very clear

> what they would like to see and they have a lot of

> support for their suggestions.

The ideas are valid but they would have to be consulted on also if adopted ?

[malumbu]

The difficulty is Mr/Ms Rockets is that most of your posts are tinged with inferred or direct criticism of Southwark. Bringing the posh people into DV into the equation doesn't add to your argument either. And then laying into Southwark Cyclists and similar lobbies. When I moved to the area many years ago you'd use Dulwich as a reference point to explain to those outside of SE London where you lived as most people had heard of it. I remember thinking that whilst the houses and green space were lovely, it was a traffic jam for many hours of the day so why would you want to live there? As was and is much of London. Congestion is nothing new.

Me? I've also given my views in this thread before. It's sometimes difficult keeping up with the posts, and easy to lose interest. Loose summary of where I come from 1. For many you need tough measures to wrench them out their cars. 2. Broadly in support of LTNs acknowledging, like the ULEZ and extension rather a clumsy measure and I'm not familiar enough with the affected roads to suggest alternatives. Believe it or not I am affected too, but then have been affected by many changes to the road network since moving to London. 3. Road pricing is the best way to reduce road traffic, pollution, congestion etc 4. No silver bullets on public transport - highly fragmented much of it being a product of unregulated expansion in the Victorian times, and needs huge amounts of money thrown at it, which just isn't there anymore. Noting that it is far more joined up than say 15 years ago, the transformation that the Oyster card/contactless brought in, joining much of SE London with the tube network through the Overground, the eventual benefits of crossrail etc. 5. Even I get grumpy about some of the changes, for example traffic management at the Elephant and Castle, and anything else that delays buses for example some of the infrastructure around Blackfriars and the Faringdon Road.

I'm not particularly irate as you suggested I am interested in learning more. At times it does feel like the posts are being repetitive and I have no idea if you represent the masses, you may just be more vocal.

I gave up becoming seriously grumpy about local authorities in the 00s - another local authority and over planning. We lost that one years ago and don't consider a Judicial Review unless you have serious funding. We went down that route.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Metallic Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah

>

> Actually walking along Court Lane or Woodwarde

> > Road in the dark is not very pleasant when

> there

> > is no passing traffic. Too quiet and just the

> > kind of place for a person to hang about and

> see

> > what they can steal off a passer by. Hardly

> > Beirut but that is not what Abe meant."

>

> You quoted me. I am nowhere near alone in feeling

> it is more threatening for older people to walk on

> closed roads.

So encouraging more traffic is a safety issue?

[DulwichCentral]

Metallic Wrote:

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

> Did we all get that inaccurate leaflet from

> Coalition4Dulwich? What did you all think?

I saw a copy of the leaflet. Seemed quite reasonable to me.

[alice]

Hmm interesting wonder which streets got it?

[legalalien]

I have leaflet FOMO now. Who or what are Coalition4Dulwich? I'm assuming it's not shorthand for OneDulwich? Haven't had anything from them recently although have had one or two cards through the letterbox, historically.

[Rockets]

Redpost - pretty obvious where school streets could be implemented quickly and efficiently and would be a lot less disruptive than closing 2 of 4 East/West routes across Dulwich as we have now.

My posts are laced with council criticism because I feel the council are laying themselves open to criticism with the way they have been handling the LTNs. I am not alone in that and the council need to be criticised by their constituents if the constituents don't like what they are doing. I know that doesn't make life easy for the council or the pro-closure lobbyists but in a democracy that's what constituents are supposed to, and entitled to, do. I am not critical of Southwark Cyclists per se, I am sure they are a lovely bunch of people, remember I am a cyclist myself, but the relationship between the council and Soutwark Cyclists clearly steps over a line in terms of balance and impartiality. There is no way Southwark Cyclists should be given more weighting and priority in consultations than those people who live in the area affected by the measures (which has happened repeatedly).

JohnL - more than happy to have a consultation on any ideas - that's all many of us want - dialogue with the broader community not just a small minority. If there had been a proper consultation over the LTN closures I can guarantee we would not be in the mess we are now and the council would not be under so much scrutiny from many in the community.

More generally, what is the leaflet from the Coalition4Dulwich? I have the FOMO too!!!! ;-) Are they for or against the closures?

[Bicknell]

Coalition4Dulwich is the usual suspects - Living streets, Safe routes to schools, Clean air Dulwich, southwark cyclists and "Better Streets for Southwark" which is a new one I hadnt heard of before. all the lobby groups the council likes in one handy leaflet with very tiny print.

It says "some are wrestling with how to adapt" Too right. If the solution is wrong (which it is, in my view), alot of people will be wrestling for a long time. Unless the council starts to listen.