LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[slarti b2]

Metallic Wrote:

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

I'm calculating if the turnout for this stupid Festival, continues apace, it will be costing us tax payers approximately ?25 a "ticket" for a vanity project started by two people who took a profit and moved to Sussex as soon as their house value went up

You could also mention the former chair of the Calton Ave RA who helped rewrite Southwark's presentation for the OHS consultation during the secret meeting with our local councillors. Took advantage of Calton becomning a gated community to sell up and move away.

[malumbu]

I posted a little earlier about keeping your argument rational rather than reactionary. Sadly many of you still do the latter. Councils will fund many projects that don't meet the Daily Mail test. Even Tory Mayors could be considered to have wasted some of your money. Can you not just keep your discussion to the scheme rather than snipes about other people and organisations. It can come over as 'chip on your shoulder'.

Edited for clarification

The Daily Mail test is what the public sector refer to on new policies ie how the tabloids would react. The maming reflects that many in this sector detest the Mail, but could equally be called the "Private Eye Test" particularly in terms of tax payers' money.

Comment on 'chip on your shoulder' was in the third person ('one' could see as a chip...).

[alice]

To those that have shall be given.

[alice]

LTNs have failed in Dulwich, the ?chip on shoulder? comment shows you know that. Patronising.

[first mate]

malumbu, stop it!

[legalalien]

I?m happy for the council to stop funding other things that most people would consider ?nice to have? rather than necessary at a time when by their own admission things are tight financially. I don?t think expressing a preference for money to be put into food banks and schools rather than spent on relatively high brow concerts in the leafy part of the borough has any ?chip on shoulder? overtones at all. Perhaps your sneering at Daily Mail readers says more about you, together with earlier comments about they type of people who live in Bromley...

[ab29]

Hear, hear!

first mate Wrote:

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

> malumbu, stop it!

[Administrator]

This is getting closer and closer to being Lounged.

I appreciate there needs to be an LTN thread, but this one just turns into people/council/vehicle/festival/object/noun bashing which isn't very useful. We just need someone to come in and blame a certain class or the Nazis and be done with it.

Please take this as a polite reminder to stay on topic and keep it useful.

[DuncanW]

The Nazi thing has already happened on this thread 😬

[first mate]

The pavements are in a terrible state in places. No point having LTNs if areas of pavement are a trip hazard.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> I?m happy for the council to stop funding other

> things that most people would consider ?nice to

> have? rather than necessary at a time when by

> their own admission things are tight financially.

> I don?t think expressing a preference for money to

> be put into food banks and schools rather than

> spent on relatively high brow concerts in the

> leafy part of the borough has any ?chip on

> shoulder? overtones at all. Perhaps your sneering

> at Daily Mail readers says more about you,

> together with earlier comments about they type of

> people who live in Bromley...

[hpsaucey]

Re:

'first mate Wrote:

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

> The pavements are in a terrible state in places.

> No point having LTNs if areas of pavement are a

> trip hazard.'

What a bizarre statement. How is this any different from saying the roads are in a terrible state in places. No point having them if areas of road are a hazard?

But great to flag up some pavements need sorting. Would be good if they were fixed as part of LTN planning.

HP

[first mate]

Potholes in roads are less likely to cause pedestrians to trip and injure themselves, isn't the idea of LTNs to increase walking?. Glad you agree pavements need fixing and this is probably a better use of council funds than are other ventures, mentioned in earlier parts of the thread. Fixing does not need to be part of LTN planning is should be belt and braces.

[heartblock]

My point about our healthy streets in terms of LTNs and increased traffic (as measured by Southwark) on ED Grove up by at least a quarter and on its other measurement a third, is that Melbourne Grove in an LTN has had it?s road resurfaced about 3 times and it?s pavements upgraded. The last resurfacing after the barriers went in. Meanwhile East Dulwich Grove with far more pedestrian, cycling and car traffic/ activity has not been properly resurfaced for over 20 years and the pavements not upgraded as a whole for the same period.

If ED Grove is a school road, residential area, bus route, health centre road, why is Southwark not providing this road with the same attention as Melbourne?

Are some residents a bit more important than others?

[hpsaucey]

first mate Wrote:

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

'> Potholes in roads are less likely to cause

> pedestrians to trip and injure themselves, isn't

> the idea of LTNs to increase walking?.'

Yes - but the point of my comparison stands in that its not an argument against having LTNs - which I assumed is what you were trying to say?

Re:

'Glad you

> agree pavements need fixing and this is probably a

> better use of council funds than are other

> ventures, mentioned in earlier parts of the

> thread.'

Yes pavements need fixing but please don't use this to misinterpret my words as saying this would be a better use of funding than 'other ventures'.

'Fixing does not need to be part of LTN'

> planning is should be belt and braces.

Of course - but identifying problem areas would be a good part of planning an LTN wouldn't it - whether road or pavement.

HP

[exdulwicher]

There's a bit of a catch-22 in that though - the busier the road the more likely it is to need repairs / resurfacing simply due to the wear and tear it's getting but the more difficult it is to do it due to the disruption (not just to traffic but to residents not being allowed to park there for a long time, maybe not having direct access to their house for a bit, noise etc).

That's not EDG in particular, it's any major route. You end up in a cycle of patchwork repairs which are quick and easy to do without causing days/weeks of disruption. But they do have the downside of being very reactive - pothole appears, gest worse very quickly and then needs urgent patching but without addressing the underlying issues such as water ingress or subsidence that caused it in the first place.

There are funding aspects to it as well. And yes, there's a long debate that you can have about the long-term costs of constantly doing minor repairs vs doing a large-scale job once...

[heartblock]

Open the LTNs...close ED Grove..repair ED Grove then..keep the LTNs open anyway 😁 sorted.

[Spartacus]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Open the LTNs...close ED Grove..repair ED Grove

> then..keep the LTNs open anyway 😁 sorted.

Never a truer word said in jest 😂

[northernmonkey]

Thought this article might be useful for those who have suggested that EV take up / ulez will be the answer:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56748346?fbclid=IwAR3rz2S5QTsyDH-2XwHE7xPbzynmn0LT1OMMCpVQtx60tWSOT3Bc9XoKzNQ

[first mate]

No, HP not an argument against LTNs per se but that using limited funds to routinely fix poor paving may be a better use of money than some other projects associated with LTNs, also noting that if LTNs are to work properly you need pavements that are not trip hazards, especially for the elderly and those less physically robust/mobile.

hpsaucey Wrote:

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

> first mate Wrote:

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

> -----

> '> Potholes in roads are less likely to cause

> > pedestrians to trip and injure themselves,

> isn't

> > the idea of LTNs to increase walking?.'

>

> Yes - but the point of my comparison stands in

> that its not an argument against having LTNs -

> which I assumed is what you were trying to say?

>

> Re:

> 'Glad you

> > agree pavements need fixing and this is probably

> a

> > better use of council funds than are other

> > ventures, mentioned in earlier parts of the

> > thread.'

>

> Yes pavements need fixing but please don't use

> this to misinterpret my words as saying this would

> be a better use of funding than 'other ventures'.

>

>

>

> 'Fixing does not need to be part of LTN'

> > planning is should be belt and braces.

> Of course - but identifying problem areas would be

> a good part of planning an LTN wouldn't it -

> whether road or pavement.

>

> HP

[Abe_froeman]

NM the start t that problem is to end the council's ridiculous ban on building car parking. For instance the new housing that will be built on Greendale could easily have accommodated sufficient underground car parking for the whole estate but the council made it a planning condition that no car parking whatsoever would be provided for the 250 homes to be built there.

End that stupid policy and the problem disappears.

[oimissus]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> NM the start t that problem is to end the

> council's ridiculous ban on building car parking.

> For instance the new housing that will be built on

> Greendale could easily have accommodated

> sufficient underground car parking for the whole

> estate but the council made it a planning

> condition that no car parking whatsoever would be

> provided for the 250 homes to be built there.

>

> End that stupid policy and the problem disappears.

Seriously? There?s a new estate being built with no car parking provided?

That?s . . . insane.

[malumbu]

The case for private car ownership gets less and less each year, particularly as car/ride sharing takes off and with the move to autonomous vehicles. Maybe Southwark are ahead of the game. Perhaps some will decide to ditch their cars if they move to the new estate. Anyway lounge talk but here's an article of interest

https://www.smarttransport.org.uk/opinion/with-car-ownership-on-the-decline-what-does-the-future-hold-for-personal-mobility

And another on Venice that is car free (geography plays a part too)

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191011-what-happens-when-a-city-bans-car-from-its-streets

[legalalien]

So... moving to cars as a service would presumably reduce the number of cars in existence, as each car would be used more each day. Which would free up on road space currently used for parking. But in the absence of improved public transport, would it reduce miles driven, or increase them ( with eg Uber the number of miles increases presumably as the vehicle has to drive to the pick up destination - the journey is no longer a door to door journey, there are extra miles). Similarly in areas with poor public transport does banning private car ownership lead to an increase in reliance on home delivery services? Once consumers become more used to requesting home deliveries, do they start to use them for increasingly local deliveries / to purchase items that they would previously have walked to collect? I have a suspicion that the answer to the latter is yes, given increased availability of deliveries of small grocery items during lockdowns etc.)p - and look how successful deliveroo and just eat are.

I am guessing we don?t know the answer to this yet and it?s a question of trying to predict behavioural change?

[Spartacus]

malumbu Wrote:

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

>

> And another on Venice that is car free (geography

> plays a part too)

>

So reading between the lines here, we need to all keep on driving and producing pollution so that the planet warms up enough to flood London so we can then ditch our cars in favour of Gondolas

Bit extreme 😱

[malumbu]

You are into climate change strategy Legal. And moving into Lounge territory. There will be others much better than me in modelling all of this, you cannot consider measures in isolation and there will always be unintended consequences.

But... as you posed a few questions - better vehicle utility (ie use) will free up parking space. There would then need to be a decision what you did with that space. If left to motorised vehicles including buses that would reduce journey times. But ultimately autonomous vehicles could replace buses when a pod can be called on demand. And authorities may decide to use that freed up space for other uses - linear parks, pavements or separate lanes for e scooters and the like (which we will need to accommodate).

The 'on demand' deliveries is something that frustrates me. No matter how much green washing Amazon does they are part of the problem. In the early days of Amazon Prime neighbours would tell me how wonderful it was if they needed a widget or a large item immediately and could have it in hours. And there is me thinking why not think of this in advance.

We are now getting smaller companies getting in on the act so if you need a pint of milk or some cat food you can get it pretty swiftly. A nice niche for some green deliveries but not great if we all think of that (this is from a person who has just cycled into town and back making five stops on the way for various errands, of which two (single items) could have been delivered).

A fascinating subject and lets see what the government comes up with in the run up to COP 26. Society rarely bans things but how will they encourage us all to buy less, make good use of what we buy, reuse/upcycle etc etc? And where we source our products from (local or global).

Spartacus makes a good point on better use of the rivers. Well I think she/he was intending to make that point. I look forward to Gondolas on the Ravensbourne.

Much detail is in the Transport Decarbonisation Plan - although I fear this is mainly about technological advances in terms of zero emissions rather than reduced demand. Disappointing. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/transport-decarbonisation-plan