LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[legalalien]

Raeburn I don?t understand why you can hold the ideas of it being unfair but still OK in your head at the same time. I assume you think magic fairies will swoop in and solve main road problems in a flash. But there?s no plan for that to happen, and the residents of boundary roads have been suffering for months with no end in sight.

Meanwhile a thought from Edmund Burke

?Whilst men are linked together, they easily and speedily communicate the alarm of any evil design. They are enabled to fathom it with common counsel, and to oppose it with united strength. Whereas, when they lie dispersed, without concert, order, or discipline, communication is uncertain, counsel difficult, and resistance impracticable. Where men are not acquainted with each other?s principles, nor experienced in each other?s talents, nor at all practised in their mutual habitudes and dispositions by joint efforts in business; no personal confidence, no friendship, no common interest, subsisting among them; it is evidently impossible that they can act a public part with uniformity, perseverance, or efficacy. In a connection, the most inconsiderable man, by adding to the weight of the whole, has his value, and his use; out of it, the greatest talents are wholly unserviceable to the public. No man, who is not inflamed by vain-glory into enthusiasm, can flatter himself that his single, unsupported, desultory, unsystematic endeavours, are of power to defeat the subtle designs and united cabals of ambitious citizens. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.

?Edmund Burke, Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents 82-83 (1770) in: Select Works of Edmund Burke, vol. 1, p. 146 (Liberty Fund ed. 1999).?

[first mate]

@Raeburn But meantime, you feel morally justified in imposing even higher levels of pollution on some sections of the community?

[Rockets]

The biggest worry to me is Raeburn seems to be repeating a narrative that we have seen Cllr McAsh begin to circulate when he moved from a stated position of any increase anywhere means the measures have failed to if there has been an increase on some roads that has to be weighed up - almost that A roads were built for more traffic. It's a very worrying development and may be the way the council is going to try to justify these flawed measures.

It's yet more obscufation and goal post moving from the supporters of LTNs. Oh and combine that with the...I haven't noticed any difference nonsense from Cllrs like Charlie Smith and you have the denial full house.

[SE22_2020er]

I really don?t like the personal nature that this tread takes - Raebern is more than allowed to have his/her views as are all of you, but everyone who has written today, please re-read what you?ve written and consider whether your posts are well balanced and likely to result in a positive discussion or whether you just want to live in your own echo chamber. It?s absolutely fine for other people to have different views than you.

Personally, I think that rockets, heartblock et al. are completely misguided and cannot see the bigger picture - and I do wonder why you chaps spend your time as keyboard warriors rather than getting out there with signs to ask people to turn off their engines whilst they queue along EDG. Oh and my view is that the queues along EDG have not changed over the last 5 years and this is coming from someone who cycles along the road twice a day.

Why are you people not angry at the car drivers making unnecessary car journeys and actually producing the pollution rather than a labour council trying finally to unwind the relentless invasion of our communities by cars over the last 30years. Thank the lord that we?ve got the ULEZ and probably the congestion charge coming in soon.

I am very supportive of the LTNs and my perception is seeing the significant switch to cycling that I have seen. I am thrilled that I have sold my car and made the commitment to either cycling, using a car club or public transport when I need to travel. This is because of the LTNs that I have done this.

Anyway, I?m going to leave you chaps to your echo chamber so you can continue in the same vein making the same point ad infinitum, only pausing to shout down people with views that are different to yours. But in the meantime, before I flounce off - can I please ask you to write to your councillors and MPs to ask them to support the removal of the parking on EDG and replace it with a segregated cycle lane (assuming you can find the time between your endless posts!)

[Otto2]

Thanks SE22.

[Rockets]

We are angry at drivers making unnecessary journeys, we just don't agree that you fix the problem in the way Southwark council have tried to.

In fact, I believe it is making things worse....and I would suspect the council does to because they refuse to monitor pollution levels.

I am not sure that being misguided that's being sanguine...;-)

[mr.chicken]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> We are angry at drivers making unnecessary

> journeys,

We definitely are. I mean I am. All those people clogging up the road makes it much harder for me to drive. What should be based on distance a 5 minute drive is sometimes 15 minutes sitting in traffic! At that rate it would be quicker to walk which seems pretty unacceptable to me.

I'm sure school buses will fix all the problems.

[ab29]

Raenurn, SE22 at al - would you like all this traffic to sit in front of your homes? Would you then bo oh so philosophical about it? You are simply happy with sacrifising peoples' health (both physical and mental) in the name of a very dubious experiment - it is wrong.

[DulwichCentral]

SE22_2020er Wrote:

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

> I really don?t like the personal nature that this

> tread takes - Raebern is more than allowed to have

> his/her views as are all of you, but everyone who

> has written today, please re-read what you?ve

> written and consider whether your posts are well

> balanced and likely to result in a positive

> discussion or whether you just want to live in

> your own echo chamber. It?s absolutely fine for

> other people to have different views than you.

>

> Personally, I think that rockets, heartblock et

> al. are completely misguided and cannot see the

> bigger picture - and I do wonder why you chaps

> spend your time as keyboard warriors rather than

> getting out there with signs to ask people to turn

> off their engines whilst they queue along EDG. Oh

> and my view is that the queues along EDG have not

> changed over the last 5 years and this is coming

> from someone who cycles along the road twice a

> day.

>

> Why are you people not angry at the car drivers

> making unnecessary car journeys and actually

> producing the pollution rather than a labour

> council trying finally to unwind the relentless

> invasion of our communities by cars over the last

> 30years. Thank the lord that we?ve got the ULEZ

> and probably the congestion charge coming in

> soon.

>

> I am very supportive of the LTNs and my perception

> is seeing the significant switch to cycling that I

> have seen. I am thrilled that I have sold my car

> and made the commitment to either cycling, using a

> car club or public transport when I need to

> travel. This is because of the LTNs that I have

> done this.

>

> Anyway, I?m going to leave you chaps to your echo

> chamber so you can continue in the same vein

> making the same point ad infinitum, only pausing

> to shout down people with views that are different

> to yours. But in the meantime, before I flounce

> off - can I please ask you to write to your

> councillors and MPs to ask them to support the

> removal of the parking on EDG and replace it with

> a segregated cycle lane (assuming you can find the

> time between your endless posts!)

Well said. Some here and on Twitter are obsessed with LTNs as 'The Enemy'.

The Croxted group, the Grove reopen group, and of course One Dulwich incessantly attack LTNs with ZERO mention of unnecessary car journeys.

No mention of queues of single occupancy cars.

No mention of SUV sales cancelling out the benefit of EV sales.

No mention of reduced capacity on public transport.

No mention Covid damaging businesses.

No mention that normalised traffic congestion held up London Fire Brigade 8,841 times in 2017.

No mention that the Ambulance delays reported in the anti-LTN Telegraph represent 0.01% of calls. (LAS get 6,000 calls per day. Across 8 months that?s approximately 1,440,000 calls. 159 occasions represents 0.01% of calls)

No mention of 'legacy LTNs', bollards, cul-de-sacs that have been in place for decades or new estates built as LTNs.

And no mention of urgently reducing emissions or climate change.

In their rhetoric congestion is all caused by LTNs.

So it seems reasonable to suspect that in some cases it is those who are actually making the unnecessary car journeys who are anti LTN; precisely the people who are most resistant to behaviour change and feel entitled to drive wherever they want whenever they want, and their demonising Southwark Council is a distraction.

[ab29]

I don't own a car and have never done so. Going back to my question Dulwich Central - would you like the displacement traffic to sit in front of your home all day long? It is a simple yes or no question.

[DulwichCentral]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> I don't own a car and have never done so. Going

> back to my question Dulwich Central - would you

> like the displacement traffic to sit in front of

> your home all day long? It is a simple yes or no

> question.

No. Which is why I support LTNs and any measures to reduce unnecessary car journeys.

[Rockets]

And, in the fairness of balance, some on here are obsessed with LTNs being "the solution".

On a other subject I am very heartened to see so many of the End 24 hour closure posters going up in windows throughout Dulwich Village. Maybe the councillors will now start to understand the level of opposition even amongst those households within the area benefitting most from the LTNs. How much longer can they pretend not to hear from their constituents?

[DulwichCentral]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> And, in the fairness of balance, some on here are

> obsessed with LTNs being "the solution".

>

> On a other subject I am very heartened to see so

> many of the End 24 hour closure posters going up

> in windows throughout Dulwich Village. Maybe the

> councillors will now start to understand the level

> of opposition even amongst those households within

> the area benefitting most from the LTNs. How much

> longer can they pretend not to hear from their

> constituents?

Ah yes the posters up in houses with 3 cars? Yes roads closed to cars must be annoying when you've spent hundreds of thousands on cars.

[ab29]

And yet you are happy for others to suffer. This overzealousness is scary.

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> ab29 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I don't own a car and have never done so. Going

> > back to my question Dulwich Central - would you

> > like the displacement traffic to sit in front

> of

> > your home all day long? It is a simple yes or

> no

> > question.

>

> No. Which is why I support LTNs and any measures

> to reduce unnecessary car journeys.

[legalalien]

Some here aren't obsessed with LTNs as "the enemy" and don't have a driving licence.

I'd just like an answer to the question of whether, IF it can be shown to be true that there is a significant increase in congestion and pollution being caused on local boundary roads, and that this is being caused by the new traffic restrictions, those supporting the Dulwich scheme think that is a price worth paying in the interests of fixing the overall problem of too many cars on the road. Noone seems to want to answer that.

The problems in the way Southwark council and its councillors operate is a bigger issue and something I have concerns about independently of the LTN thing, the more I read about.

[DulwichCentral]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> And yet you are happy for others to suffer. This

> overzealousness is scary.

>

>

>

> DulwichCentral Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > ab29 Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > I don't own a car and have never done so.

> Going

> > > back to my question Dulwich Central - would

> you

> > > like the displacement traffic to sit in front

> > of

> > > your home all day long? It is a simple yes or

> > no

> > > question.

> >

> > No. Which is why I support LTNs and any

> measures

> > to reduce unnecessary car journeys.

I am not happy for others to suffer. That is an assumption you have made to support an emotive and illogical argument.

I want more measures to reduce car usage.

[Rockets]

So DC you must then be concerned by the displacement being caused by the LTNs and the impact it is having on local residents?

What other measures are you suggesting and when can we expect them to have sufficient impact to improve conditions for those living with the displacement?

And remember, no LTN has ever delivered enough reduction in car use to not have a displacement impact.

[Rockets]

Or maybe, just maybe, they can see the negative impact these closures are having on their fellow Dulwich residents.

[Rockets]

Duplicate post.

[DulwichCentral]

Reduce on-street parking to remove pinch points / dedicated Bus lanes to prevent cars obstructing buses and cause delays. Protected cycle lanes (ie EDG) on main roads and more infrastructure to enable safe active travel (fear is one of the main reasons many people who could cycle don't). ULEZ. Road-pricing. Higher tax on SUVs. Increase fuel duty. Improve public transport where possible - which takes time and money.

Do more not less.

[ab29]

The scheme has been in place for almost a year and made absolutely no difference - I see it from my windows every day. The summer in particular was hell as had to open the windows; this one looks to be even worst as people are going crazy after the lockdown.

So how much longer do you think I should be in this situation DC for you to decde it is a success or a failure? Is another year acceptable according to you? Or 2? 3?

I work in a nearby hospital - does this rise my stakes and cut the sentence? You may want me around if there is another wave of covid.

[first mate]

One of my greatest fears when cycling is actually other cyclists. I've had way more near misses with cyclists than cars. How would you address that? In terms of cycle lanes, slower cyclists can frustrate those on a speed mission.

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Reduce on-street parking to remove pinch points /

> dedicated Bus lanes to prevent cars obstructing

> buses and cause delays. Protected cycle lanes (ie

> EDG) on main roads and more infrastructure to

> enable safe active travel (fear is one of the main

> reasons many people who could cycle don't). ULEZ.

> Road-pricing. Higher tax on SUVs. Increase fuel

> duty. Improve public transport where possible -

> which takes time and money.

>

> Do more not less.

[heartblock]

ab29...they don't care, because they live in an LTN. They are very happy.

There is no data published that shows LTNs reduce pollution. Traffic has not increased at the rate quoted in many 'research' papers, the small increase was mainly due to how data was collected and categorised.

If LTNs did reduce pollution I would happily support them, but they very obviously increase idling traffic, make journeys longer and only have an impact within the actual LTN.

LAS have LTNs on a DATIX risk register as causing a possible catastrophic event.

Yes, do invest in local low emission transport, do have timed school streets, school cycle lanes and training for pupils, LTNs are a waste of public money, they do not work and they increase pollution.

[Rockets]

DC I agree with many of the items on your list but how many of them are in play or anything more than a long term wishlist?

It highlights what many of us have been saying that LTNs will never work in isolation, they need to be part of an area wide approach to traffic reduction. The council has had 18 months to work out what they could do but put all bets on a couple of LTNs, which are actually making things worse.

What are we supposed to do, sit tight and live with the displacement and increased pollution for 10 years before they work out what the rest of their plan is?

The LTN experiment has been a complete failure and it is time the council admits it - but we all know they won't as taking responsibility for their actions doesn't come easily to Southwark.

[exdulwicher]

I'd just like an answer to the question of whether, IF it can be shown to be true that there is a significant increase in congestion and pollution being caused on local boundary roads, and that this is being caused by the new traffic restrictions, those supporting the Dulwich scheme think that is a price worth paying in the interests of fixing the overall problem of too many cars on the road. Noone seems to want to answer that.

To flip that around, what are the options?

From reading this, it seems to be a very binary picture - "In my opinion, LTNs aren't working, therefore rip them all out". It's an either / or. There's been no specific options given (other than vague "holistic solutions that benefit everyone" phrases) to address it. How do you fix the existing problem that there is too much traffic, especially too many short journeys? Waiting 25 years until the queue of traffic is electric vehicles is also not an option by the way.

And in case anyone has missed it in previous posts, I'll state it again: LTNs are not perfect.

BUT - they are a key tool in the armoury of traffic reduction measures when used properly. That means with proper monitoring, consultation, adjustment and a certain amount of community buy-in, tied in with complementary measures such as increased/better cycle storage facilities, bus lanes that are properly managed with timed restrictions, work done with schools to encourage and enable safe walking and cycling (that can also include things like specific drop-off zones).

Ripping them out is just going to return the streets to the gridlock that was seen previously. It'll remove at a stroke all the safe® cycling / walking options that have been created forcing people back into cars, it'll increase overall pollution and it'll go directly back to the "I'll just jump in the car" mentality that has become the default over the last 30 years or so of transport policy / government planning.

Surely the correct campaign here is "this part of this particular LTN is not working as advertised, let's look to address it on a road-by-road level" ??

Bits of it won't be perfect first time out but you can't judge that in the space of a few months, especially a few months where we've had lockdowns, complete changes in working patterns, massively altered traffic patterns and so on.

I'm not suggesting there's going to be one answer that will magically fix everything but I can categorically state that one answer that will NOT fix anything is "rip them all out". Some of what is being proposed by various posters on here about road charging, higher fuel tax, trams etc is Government policy and completely out of the control of local councillors. Some of it however (parking restrictions, alterations to LTNs, cycle lanes) IS within their control and should be used alongside LTNs as part of the solution.

One of my greatest fears when cycling is actually other cyclists. I've had way more near misses with cyclists than cars. How would you address that? In terms of cycle lanes, slower cyclists can frustrate those on a speed mission.

One of my greatest fears when driving is actually other drivists. I've had way more near misses with drivists than cyclists. How would you address that? In terms of car lanes, slower drivists can frustrate those on a speed mission.

Fixed that for you. ;-)