LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Rockets]

Loads of green signs going up everywhere - looks like some folk aren't taking too kindly to them.

Nothing like a visual reminder of those who form the, ahem, small vocal minority...

[Rockets]

Latest update from One Dulwich.

Dear all,

Dulwich Review survey ? deadline 11 July

Since our last update, we have joined with other groups in the Dulwich Alliance to make a formal complaint to Southwark Council about the many and serious failings of the Dulwich Review survey. You can read our complaint here.

We are also sending out a leaflet from this weekend recommending that you choose ?Return to the original state? on the questions in the survey asking about the road measures themselves. You may find this surprising, given that we have throughout been pushing for ANPR timed restrictions as a reasonable alternative to 24/7 closures. But this survey ? despite reassurances from Southwark in February ? doesn?t offer this as an option for Dulwich Village junction (even though the 24/7 closure here is the cause of area-wide traffic displacement). No alternative measures (not even dedicated cycle lanes or school streets) are offered for any of the locations. Overall, the survey is so flawed, and so biased, that we believe choosing complete removal of all the measures is the only way to get the Council to listen to the local community and understand the valid reasons behind our objections. You can read our reasons for supporting this position by going to www.dulwichalliance.org/SurveyFAQs.

Majority of Court Lane doesn?t want 24/7 closure of Dulwich Village junction

One of the roads most directly affected by the closure of Dulwich Village junction is Court Lane. The residents? association has recently carried out a survey of the 189 households in Court Lane and Court Lane Gardens. In total, 155 households (81%) took part, with 34 households (19%) choosing not to respond. Of the 155 households that responded, 25 made no clear choices; but of the 130 households that did make clear choices 73% want to see the junction open (64% with timed restrictions and 9% with no restrictions at all), and 27% want the junction permanently closed.

[march46]

So their alternative is effectively a return to the past, unsurprising. If anyone needs a reminder of how that was see

Re ANPR timed restrictions not being listed as an option in the review, suspect it's because it isn't a practical or safe option - as was discussed during OHS consultation.

Interesting that only 9% of Court Lane residents want to see the junction re-opened to cars. Suspect if the survey had removed the unfeasible option of timed restrictions there would be significantly more wanting to see the current scheme made permanent.

[alice]

As Court lane has no schools, nurseries, health centres, hospitals etc there never was any justification for any closures.

[mr.chicken]

alice Wrote:

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

> As Court lane has no schools, nurseries, health

> centres, hospitals etc there never was any

> justification for any closures.

I pretty much agree: most of the justifications were pretty poor. On the one hand you have the SUV owners on Court Lane who quite rightfully want to drive their bought and paid for vehicles to where ever you want. All other justifications like the safety of the DV junction and the traffic by the school with the attendant pollution etc are quite unimportant by comparison. These people have expensive cars and should have the right to get value from their investments.

[legalalien]

Mr.chicken, grow up and stop treating this whole thing like a joke. It?s not a joke for many, many people, and I don?t think your tone is coming across quite how you envisage it might be. The current scheme causes more pollution for the schools in DV, I suspect, and in any case, as others have pointed out, some schools ought not to be more equal than others.

[flippit]

Yes, Chicken, it's worn a bit this now. Give it a rest.

[mr.chicken]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Mr.chicken, grow up and stop treating this whole

> thing like a joke. It?s not a joke for many, many

> people,

Indeed it is a very serious matter which is why I am taking the time to post. All I'm doing is following the opinions of the anti-LTN people to their obvious conclusions and enthusiastically agreeing. If you don't like that then perhaps you don't actually like the reasoning behind the opinions. If that's so then you're welcome to change yours: the other camp is right over there ---->

I'm sure they'd welcome you.

> and I don?t think your tone is coming

> across quite how you envisage it might be.

I can't really speculate on what your opinion on how you think I think what I say looks.

> The

> current scheme causes more pollution for the

> schools in DV, I suspect,

That's good enough me! We definitely need to reopen the road to more cars to reduce pollution.

> and in any case, as

> others have pointed out, some schools ought not to

> be more equal than others.

Indeed, the goal is to make sure everyone breathes their fair share of pollution. We shouldn't do anything to reduce the total amount just in case the whole "fair share" thing gets temporarily unbalanced. I think we reached the ideal point in 2019 and should strive to return to that. After all, we tried the LTNs and they didn't seem to appeal to many people and there don't seem to be other credible plans.

[Droid]

According to a locally-based Twitter a/c a tweeter saw the phantom sign maker putting up signs on trees. He said he gave the delinquent the proverbial Malocchio. Just as well he left it at that, as the same perp has been done for GBH, twice!

[legalalien]

Perhaps you?ve failed (or refuse) to understand the reasoning behind the criticisms of the Dulwich schemes, which are based on specifics rather than the principles of LTNs?

I don?t like the idea of ?camps? tbh, I think that all the details of the schemes should be up for debate and we shouldn?t be talking about ?for? and ?against? when it comes to details of schemes. On the other hand, I think being for or against the way the process has been handled and the way the current consultation/ review process is being carried out is possibly a bit more binary. Whatever your view on the merits of the LTNs happens to be, it?s worth thinking about the process issues.

[first mate]

The chook's very obvious tactics- to hen peck posters into submission, so the thread and subject goes away- is best ignored.

[heartblock]

Bank Holiday Monday, how lovely to not have the school run traffic on ED Grove. Just had a lovely walk and the air smells so clean. The number 37 bus moving faster than me, which is not the case on a school day.

[legalalien]

I?m busy filling in the Dulwich Review Consultation. I now see what people mean about the loaded questions and language. Just got to the bit where it describes one of the closures as creating ?a pleasant place to sit and relax?.

[heartblock]

The Consultation document is anything but, it reads as a piece of propaganda. The whole debacle is such a lost opportunity for a well supported, fully consulted plan to reduce car use and traffic across Southwark, with a subsequent increase in public transport and cycling routes.

People who have supported greener travel are now split and people who needed convincing about car use reduction are now probably more entrenched in their views.

Poor politics, bad planning and has caused such a division in this area. I'm not sure it is possible to bring in a change in a more incompetent way.

[Rockets]

The review document is a joke, it's shameful in its brazenness - designed not to gauge local opinion but to prove the success of the project. It is no surprise that groups like One Dulwich are saying they are left with no option but to suggest that everything returns to normal.

This council is totally out of control and is clearly manipulating the review and the review process..but did we expect anything else from them?

[Nigello]

I have written to Alleyn's, Jags and Dulwich College to ask what they are doing to prevent congestion and associated noxious emissions from motorised travel to and from their site, and how they plan to improve on their current performance. So much congestion is caused by parents driving their children to these schools, or sending them there in taxis or in coaches (the latter being much more environmentally friendly than if they were travelling via car, granted).

[Droid]

Similarly, I have emailed the schools and the response received clearly established their position was sitting on the fence.

They said that they would leave it to parents to decide on if/how they wanted to tackle the issue because it effected different families in different ways.

Nigello Wrote:

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

> I have written to Alleyn's, Jags and Dulwich

> College to ask what they are doing to prevent

> congestion and associated noxious emissions from

> motorised travel to and from their site, and how

> they plan to improve on their current performance.

> So much congestion is caused by parents driving

> their children to these schools, or sending them

> there in taxis or in coaches (the latter being

> much more environmentally friendly than if they

> were travelling via car, granted).

[flippit]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> The review document is a joke, it's shameful in

> its brazenness - designed not to gauge local

> opinion but to prove the success of the project.

> It is no surprise that groups like One Dulwich are

> saying they are left with no option but to suggest

> that everything returns to normal.

>

> This council is totally out of control and is

> clearly manipulating the review and the review

> process..but did we expect anything else from

> them?

Agreed. Southwark must think folks will swallow their "consultation" survey. Such a primitive attempt to manipulate the result they want.

They are blinding themselves to the reality that such a strategy actually alienates local residents and motivates them to protest and demonstrate. There is already a strong up-swell of resentment and this will only strengthen.

Councillors Leeming and Newens should take note that their stance on this will not be forgotten.

[KidKruger]

They don?t care whether the consultation ?conclusions? are swallowed or not, anyone not convinced and wishing to take action will have a formidable project ahead of them to disprove/balance the findings and they believe no-one?s up for that.

[ab29]

I am up for the fight.

I sincerely hope the labour will be trashed in the next local elections - they are asking for it.

It will be down to people like councillors Leeming and Newens.

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> They don?t care whether the consultation

> ?conclusions? are swallowed or not, anyone not

> convinced and wishing to take action will have a

> formidable project ahead of them to

> disprove/balance the findings and they believe

> no-one?s up for that.

[flippit]

march46 Wrote:

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

> Re ANPR timed restrictions not being listed as an

> option in the review, suspect it's because it

> isn't a practical or safe option - as was

> discussed during OHS consultation.

>

I'm fascinated by this assertion. It was raised during the consultation but the response from Cllr Dale Foden was thoroughly disingenuous. He said it wasn't feasible and that Southwark could not access the DVLA database.

He said that the council camera operatives viewed snapshots of the all vehicles contravening the timed restrictions. So if it was say a bus which was exempt then they would ignore it. If it was a private vehicle they would record the number plate and process the fine. In this technological age this manual process is slow, costly and prone to error.

Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) can do this automatically by accessing the DVLA database. Foden said it was not possible to access the DVLA database. The reality is that Southwark and other London boroughs do so already. Google for LSP Dulwich trial Phase 2 (notice dated 15 Oct 2020).pdf. Think also of ULEZ etc

In fact any member of of the public can make access the database and check Make, Model, Specification etc, etc etc of any vehicle by entering the registration number.

This was a blatant attempt to mislead the public by a senior Southwark official. It is a serious offence for a public official to deliberately mislead the public.

There is no justifiable reason why they cannot use ANPR to give exemption to users of zero emission vehicles. There would be a fast uptake of these and the reduction in pollution would be significant.

https://motorbreaker.co.uk/news/low-emission-zone-ulez-and-lez-zones-explained

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ulez_six_month_evaluation_report_final_oct.pdf

https://www.ageas.co.uk/solved/your-car/new-charges-for-london-drivers-how-the-ulez-will-work/

http://www.transport-network.co.uk/Invisible-filters/15786

[legalalien]

If that?s true that?s shocking. I?m assuming they must be using ANPR now in order to issue the number of fines that they have - either that, or half of their workforce have been diverted to the manual processing of LTN bus gate fines (I wouldn?t rule that out given references in various documents / the internal audit report to deficiencies created by staff being involved in COVID related activities: I guess fining people inadvertently driving through bus gates and dealing with related appeals might be regarded as a COVID related activity). I feel another FoI request coming on. If I put one in now I might get an answer by Christmas.

[dulwichfolk]

According to this the bus gates allows any vehicle with 9 seats or more through without a fine....so I can imagine the Southwark council officers zooming in and counting the number of seats.

https://dulwichvillagestreetspace.commonplace.is/about

What exemptions are provided by the timed closures?

Bus gates allow exemptions for buses, taxis (hackney carriage licenced), cycles, scooters, emergency vehicles, waste collection services, and any vehicle with 9 seats or more, including coaches. The timed restriction prohibits all other motorised vehicles including motorcycles.

[johnie]

I'm sorry if this point is a distraction, but I've seen retractable bollards all over the country that only allow buses through. Surely it is not too difficult to adapt these, with ANPR to open and close for the allowed vehicle? The fines seem predatory and unjust, and the supposed monies raised adequate to now cover any costs (I am thinking in particular of that one on the mini roundabout in Dulwich Village).

I haven't been a fan of the closure of streets to traffic that I've seen since the mid-eighties. My opinion (note, opinion) is percolation rather than concentration. London has done exceptionally well in reducing private transport by spending lavishly on public transport. If we could follow that trajectory rather than this newer one, we shall do well. Unfortunately, I wish I had a better brain, but I don't, so there you are. *sips wine, enjoys last sunshine of the day, retires*

[alice]

j. they tried retractable bollards on rye lane a few years back. ripped the chassis of a couple of cars and got shelved. All at great expense.