LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Earl Aelfheah]

'Hastily abandoned low traffic schemes could cost councils funding' :https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/bike-blog/2021/jul/30/hastily-abandoned-low-traffic-schemes-could-cost-councils-funding

[alice]

isnt the author the guy who lobbied to get his own street made into an LTN, wrote about it in the Guardian, then deleted the article?

[Earl Aelfheah]

No idea, but the quotes from the PM and other ministers seem fairly clear.

[heartblock]

Well if Boris and Grant say that hastily enforced LTNs reduce traffic and pollution then it must be true and must be working. The rise in pollution and traffic on my residential road (26% and more as measured by Southwark) must just be leftish propaganda. I?m sure Peter is enjoying his gated community as much as thingy-bobs Mum and that nice lady from planning and those two nice people from CAD.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Not suggesting they're right or wrong, just pointing out their comments about funding.

[heartblock]

What about hastily planned....although ?planned? isn?t really a description of the debacle and mesmerising double talk as exposed by FOI?s.

[exdulwicher]

What about hastily planned....although ?planned? isn?t really a description of the debacle and mesmerising double talk as exposed by FOI?s.

Government told councils to put in emergency schemes as a response to Covid and in order to prevent or at least mitigate a car-led recovery - even the current lot could forecast that a mass reduction in usage of public transport due to a mix of capacity issues (social distancing) and people being uncomfortable about returning to crowded environments would be a disaster if everyone started driving.

However that instruction was given before there was any guidance or funding allocation in place. So when the backlash came from drivers, DfT sat there and let councils take the blame. Now however they're realising that by and large the schemes work and are popular (general rule across everything that's been put in is about 6 in favour for every one against albeit that the "against" tend to be far more vocal).

So now DfT are complaining about councils removing schemes too hastily (fair enough, some councils have been an utter disgrace over this - notably Wandsworth and Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea) but they're also trying to take credit for it when it was councils taking most of the risk and doing most of the work. Not saying that the work was perfect but it was done with the best intentions and on limited guidance from Government while also able to be amended where required.

As for hastily planned, most of it wasn't. Most councils have a variety of schemes on the back burner, awaiting funding or consultations or other planning stuff to align. A lot of the Dulwich stuff was an evolution on the existing Healthy Streets plan, modified to fit what was requested at the time.

[heartblock]

Healthy streets as dictated by LCC and a few key stakeholders.. but not residents of Croxted, Vale, Grove or Lane.. but you know, if you are in you are in....and if you are not in the 'in crowd' then you deserve traffic and pollution...meanwhile let's sell of any Council Housing in 'posh' areas and build on the green spaces on those poorer estates.....

[Rockets]

I do chuckle when I continually read the continued de-positioning narrative on this small vocal minority of people against LTNs....they are such a small vocal minority in Dulwich that the council had to extend the review by a week and engage in an urgent panic-led door-to-door canvassing programme to try and counter said small vocal minority......;-)

The problem is we have some councils pulling out perfectly good solutions (like the ones in RBKC) and other councils like Southwark digging their heals in around terrible solutions like the one in Dulwich. Somewhere in the middle there is the sweet spot but both aforementioned councils are examples of the very worst practice on both sides.

[malumbu]

Good heavens, RBKC are awful. You really can't defend them. Get in the way of cross London cycle routes. Old school Tory of the worst type. Obviously you have posted that as a wind up. Got me there.

This thread is about the rights and wrongs of what Southwark are doing (and by inference our actions too). I don't know the detail like some of you do, and I am interested in the big picture. Climate change strategy is important to me and I posted elsewhere the review of the UK carbon budget by the Climate Change Committee. We have this enshrined in law, but agree with others this should not be a distraction for both the authorities and individuals taking action. Any one complaining about China should have a look in their own wardrobe.

Finally a plea for everyone, whatever your views are, please avoid using pejorative terms such as 'idiots' - it comes over all knee jerk and Daily Mail, and you lose the moral high ground. By all means describe the actions and behaviors you are concerned about. Notice I didn't call RBKC idiots, evil Tories, whatever I may think.

Actually on rereading your post Rocks, you weren't defending them. There is another lesson, (for me at least), don't jump to conclusions.

[northernmonkey]

With the exception of East Dulwich Grove all those streets saw falls in traffic post LTN.

The East Dulwich Grove data needs more work and more monitoring as have seen analysis showing that its possible that the amount of traffic between MG and Townley actually fell since the last monitoring. More detailed monitoring needed on EDG to understand what is happening.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Healthy streets as dictated by LCC and a few key

> stakeholders.. but not residents of Croxted, Vale,

> Grove or Lane.. but you know, if you are in you

> are in....and if you are not in the 'in crowd'

> then you deserve traffic and pollution...meanwhile

> let's sell of any Council Housing in 'posh' areas

> and build on the green spaces on those poorer

> estates.....

[exdulwicher]

I do chuckle when I continually read the continued de-positioning narrative on this small vocal minority of people against LTNs....they are such a small vocal minority in Dulwich that the council had to extend the review by a week and engage in an urgent panic-led door-to-door canvassing programme to try and counter said small vocal minority...

Well on the one hand there have been continued calls for more engagement and more consultation amid accusations that councillors are invisible / hiding / not listening and when that happens, you jump on it as a cynical desperate measure to drum up support... 🤷‍♂️

Healthy streets as dictated by LCC and a few key stakeholders.. but not residents of Croxted, Vale, Grove or Lane..

The original OHS plan had three phases of open consultation and included many comments from those streets:

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/our-healthy-streets/our-healthy-streets-dulwich

OK, the original OHS plan was suspended but what is in place now isn't too dissimilar and it certainly shares the same overall aim.

But you can't have it both ways - can't complain that there was no consultation and then that the consultation was extended or that only key people were allowed to voice an opinion.

The thing is with a lot of the active travel and disability groups is they're very used to campaigning because for decades they've had to do so to get even the merest crumbs of infrastructure or recognition so generally they're geared up to respond to this sort of stuff pretty well. Individual residents who largely don't know or care what the council does so long as their bins are collected and they have a free parking space tend to be less interested in regular interactions with councils. Hence the door-to-door stuff which also picks up on people who may not have access to the internet. Personally I'd rate it as a good thing - I can imagine if there hadn't been any door-to-door, you'd probably complain about that too!

[Artemis]

But surely Rockets? point is that the ?door-to-door stuff? only happened AFTER the consultation was meant to have ended?

[hedgehog]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

Hello, hello! Who do we have here? Is that you Margy?

Looks like it. It apparent that you are very well informed or, more appropriately misinformed as the case may be. The detail and breadth of your recent posts leaves little doubt.

We, the humble public, expect the holders of public office use their real names rather than an alias when posting in this forum. Two who use their real names. Take a leaf out of James Barber's book.

If you are Margy, kindly stop trying to leverage your position in office to bring pressure to bear (from other services) on others who do not agree with your stance. And don't believe everything you hear.

>

> No just pointing out your ridiculous attempt to

> equate:

> - oil poured on planters, spray paint on road

> signs, fly-posting on all roads in the area,

> personally insulting stickers placed on people's

> front doors and elsewhere on their private

> property - naming them! - personally insulting

> posters on lampposts revealing private addresses -

> and naming again! - repeatedly destroying plants

> from planters..

> ..with some **CHALK HEARTS** or a couple of

> incidents of 'stop ltn' signs being pulled down.

>

> And I wonder who cut the traffic monitor strips?

> Because I doubt it was people who support the

> scheme.

>

[Rockets]

Artemis Wrote:

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

> But surely Rockets? point is that the

> ?door-to-door stuff? only happened AFTER the

> consultation was meant to have ended?

Exactly.

Before the consultation was extended no-one (bar the LCC or Southwark Cyclists of course) had heard anything from the council or councillors on LTNs (bar a couple of Zoom calls that you sense they were doing through gritted teeth). The consultation period is extended by a week and then miraculously, during that week and weekend, Dulwich is buzzing with swarms of councillors/Labour activists who are touting the council's interim data as proof the LTNs are working and encouraging residents to respond to the review; we didn't see that many councillors/activists door knocking during the general election.

But, of course, this is all just co-incidence, those councillors and activists were just at a loose-end and thought "I know what (comrade) lets go and chat to the good citizens of Dulwich this weekend. We haven't spoken to them for years". "But what (comrade) should we speak to them about?" "I have a great idea (comrade) let's go and chat to them about LTNs, I have this handy data sheet that was sent to me by the LTNs Are Brilliant Bureau". "What a fantastic idea, let's go (comrade); but only this weekend mind as next weekend I have other very important plans and we are only allowed to engage with the good citizens of Dulwich once every two years".....

Or perhaps I am wallowing in yet another conspiracy theory.....;-)

[hedgehog]

@Rockets

You summed it up very well. I would also add that the extra week extension coincided with the foundationschools closing so that they could include a week od reduced traffic stats .

The cynicism and hypocrisy of the the Labour Councillors is quite incredible. They are taking us for mugs.

[Spartacus]

It's alright Rockets, mankind didn't actually land on the Moon either... 😱😂

Oh hang we did and I don't think you're far off the mark with the above.

[ab29]

Lordship Lane did not see fall in traffic. Unless you have lived on LL long enough to be able to compare the before and after, you are indulging in fantasy while in reality people have to put up with consequences of this ridiculous experiment.

Go to LL, knock on peoples doors, ask in the shops - you will see what people really think,

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> With the exception of East Dulwich Grove all those

> streets saw falls in traffic post LTN.

>

> The East Dulwich Grove data needs more work and

> more monitoring as have seen analysis showing that

> its possible that the amount of traffic between MG

> and Townley actually fell since the last

> monitoring. More detailed monitoring needed on

> EDG to understand what is happening.

>

>

>

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Healthy streets as dictated by LCC and a few

> key

> > stakeholders.. but not residents of Croxted,

> Vale,

> > Grove or Lane.. but you know, if you are in you

> > are in....and if you are not in the 'in crowd'

> > then you deserve traffic and

> pollution...meanwhile

> > let's sell of any Council Housing in 'posh'

> areas

> > and build on the green spaces on those poorer

> > estates.....

[ab29]

In fact, this is one of the most disturbing aspects of it all - that some people are perfectly happy to sacrifice others' health and wellbeing in the name of some sort of idee fixe.

[ohthehugemanateeLTN3]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> I do chuckle when I continually read the continued

> de-positioning narrative on this small vocal

> minority of people against LTNs...

You've been spending far too much time on the forum, where pro LTN people seem to vanish from the threads (I've been banned twice already!). Out in the real world, the majority is in favour.

> they are such a

> small vocal minority in Dulwich that the council

> had to extend the review by a week and engage in

> an urgent panic-led door-to-door canvassing

Do you have anything approaching evidence, or is they another anti-LTN conspiracy theory? Actually, I say "another", it's more like one of the 3 or four that you keep warming over and rehashing.

> programme to try and counter said small vocal

> minority......;-)

Is there something wrong with your eye? You keep winking weirdly all the time. Either get some eye drops or see your doctor.

[northernmonkey]

Not indulging in fantasy. Quoting the monitoring data to date. When then next lot is released I?ll then look at that data too!

ab29 Wrote:

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

> Lordship Lane did not see fall in traffic. Unless

> you have lived on LL long enough to be able to

> compare the before and after, you are indulging in

> fantasy while in reality people have to put up

> with consequences of this ridiculous experiment.

>

> Go to LL, knock on peoples doors, ask in the shops

> - you will see what people really think,

>

>

> northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> -----

> > With the exception of East Dulwich Grove all

> those

> > streets saw falls in traffic post LTN.

> >

> > The East Dulwich Grove data needs more work and

> > more monitoring as have seen analysis showing

> that

> > its possible that the amount of traffic between

> MG

> > and Townley actually fell since the last

> > monitoring. More detailed monitoring needed

> on

> > EDG to understand what is happening.

> >

> >

> >

> > heartblock Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Healthy streets as dictated by LCC and a few

> > key

> > > stakeholders.. but not residents of Croxted,

> > Vale,

> > > Grove or Lane.. but you know, if you are in

> you

> > > are in....and if you are not in the 'in

> crowd'

> > > then you deserve traffic and

> > pollution...meanwhile

> > > let's sell of any Council Housing in 'posh'

> > areas

> > > and build on the green spaces on those poorer

> > > estates.....

[ohthehugemanateeLTN3]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> In fact, this is one of the most disturbing

> aspects of it all - that some people are perfectly

> happy to sacrifice others' health and wellbeing in

> the name of some sort of idee fixe.

And others want to sacrifice the health and well being of an entire city to make unnecessary car journeys a few minutes shorter. Do those people *not* *care* about poisoning children? Do YOU?

Do you think such hyperbole is useful to the discussion?

[ohthehugemanateeLTN3]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Healthy streets as dictated by LCC and a few key

> stakeholders.. but not residents of Croxted

Well the LTN can't be both anti-poor and anti-rich. So, which is it? Those ?1.5 million pound houses on Croxted aren't cheap you know.

[Rockets]

ohthehugemanateeLTN3 Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I do chuckle when I continually read the

> continued

> > de-positioning narrative on this small vocal

> > minority of people against LTNs...

>

> You've been spending far too much time on the

> forum, where pro LTN people seem to vanish from

> the threads (I've been banned twice already!). Out

> in the real world, the majority is in favour.

>

> > they are such a

> > small vocal minority in Dulwich that the

> council

> > had to extend the review by a week and engage

> in

> > an urgent panic-led door-to-door canvassing

>

> Do you have anything approaching evidence, or is

> they another anti-LTN conspiracy theory? Actually,

> I say "another", it's more like one of the 3 or

> four that you keep warming over and rehashing.

>

> > programme to try and counter said small vocal

> > minority......;-)

>

> Is there something wrong with your eye? You keep

> winking weirdly all the time. Either get some eye

> drops or see your doctor.

Manatee?..

July 9th Council publishes interim monitoring data

July 9th Council announces review extended to July 18th

July 10th??

On July 11th another group of councillors/activists also mustered outside Saucy to canvass?.they were carrying printouts of the interim report flyer?.how do I know this, because I walked passed them and saw them and have spoken to a number of friends whose doors the councillors knocked on? All of them lifelong Labour supporters who told the councillors exactly what they think of the LTNs??must be the small vocal minority again?.

Any other evidence you need?..;-)

I am not sure where in Dulwich you live but did they knock on your door per chance?

[ohthehugemanateeLTN3]

Rockets Wrote:

> Manatee?..

>

> July 9th Council publishes interim monitoring

> data

> July 9th Council announces review extended to July

> 18th

Well, we wouldn't want too many people to have their say would we?

> July 10th??

>

> https://twitter.com/SuecharlieSmith/status/1413842

> 640269885441?s=19

>

> https://twitter.com/Jasmine_Ali/status/14138346382

> 80249346?s=19

two pictures of people with some Labour paraphernalia?

> On July 11th another group of

> councillors/activists also mustered outside Saucy

> to canvass?.they were carrying printouts of the

> interim report flyer?.how do I know this, because

> I walked passed them and saw them

They had a report? With evidence in? That's awful.

> and have spoken

> to a number of friends whose doors the councillors

> knocked on? All of them lifelong Labour supporters

> who told the councillors exactly what they think

> of the LTNs??must be the small vocal minority

> again?.

You do realise that your friends don't represent an unbiased sample, right? People tend to be friends with those with similar views.

I assume your lazier friends may now be inspired to put in their views against the LTN? If so, what's wrong? Surely having as many people put in their views as possible is better.

> Any other evidence you need?..

Yep.

> ;-)

Seriously what's with the weird winking?

> I am not sure where in Dulwich you live but did

> they knock on your door per chance?

I can't prove they didn't knock while I was out, but no.