LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Abe_froeman]

Im actually still quote blown away that the council feel able to ignore such an overwhelming response from their residents.

Who do these arrogant ****s think they are supposed to be working for?

[Spartacus]

Interesting dulvilleres

On June the 7th (your last post) said

"As to where anti LTN support comes from, and how deep it is, I hope the consultation will shed some further light. What has dogged constructive debate around this divisive issue has been hard data. Even allowing for the fact that some people feel the consultation has limitations in it's terms of reference, it will still probably offer up some comprehensive insights for everyone."

Now the hard data about where the anti LTN support and how deep it is (basically the whole area) you now try and say that the consultation is in fact a fair representative of the views of local residents.

It's not.

[Rockets]

And even with all the cajoling the pro-LTN did to get the likes of LCC and Southwark Cyclists to have their say in tbe review the "remove them" share was still 55% of the overall total inputs received. They couldn't even manipulate that part of the review.

Which is why the council are grasping at the "these two roads want them" nonsense. It's all they have, everything else gives them a resounding no. The longer the publication went on was reflective of how much work they were doing to try and find a reason to keep them.

[Borderlands]

The proposed changes to Melbourne Grove restrictions are a nonsense. If deliveries and collections come from the other end, they will still have to do umpteen three point turns to change about and leave the road. This road in particular they should just open up again and keep an element of traffic dispersal for Grove Vale and Lordship Lane so things don't get so gummed-up for everyone.

And the stuff about Court Lane going into Dulwich Village is odd. The junction is awkward, but according to these ideas they are aiming for something picturesque that simply won't happen. It's the most major road between Dulwich and Forest Hill, and lots of the large houses are well set back from the road so apart from the junction what is the pollution issue here really?

Oh yeah, and I realise this is all about travel rather than about the environment as such, where are plans to replace the numerous street trees that have been removed in this area over the past few years by the council? Do they really prefer proliferating wheelie bins taking over the pavement rather than trees whose leaves need sweeping up in the autumn? Their current preferred street tree surgeons just hack away with not a care in the world as if all of them are large plane trees. Shocking.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> I'm not horrified at the prospect of the council

> making a decision that goes against the wishes of

> local residents - sometimes governments have to

> make unpopular decisions where they believe that

> it's in the best interest of their constituency -

> and if people don't like it, their remedy is the

> ballot box.

>

> I am, though, still concerned by the things that

> heartblock mentions, in particular the lack of

> data, the treatment of data that is available, and

> the overall lack of transparency throughout the

> process.

>

> Do people have views on how much improvement the

> proposed amendments will make e.g. moving the

> North Melbourne closure to the other end, reducing

> the times of closures, making Melbourne South

> timed? The latter two must help a bit with

> EDG/LL/ Croxted (it would be good if they could

> restrict them to term time as well, and exclude

> bank holidays?). I'm not sure what a timed school

> street in Townley would do in terms of traffic

> that currently heads south along that route - it

> presumably gets shunted to LL and DV - I don't

> know how much traffic we're talking about there?

>

> Presumably "Parallel work with TfL to make

> improvements to junction safety for cyclists and

> improve the flow of traffic at the junction of

> Village Way, Dulwich Village and Red Post Hill."

> means "putting in that cycle lane and restricting

> straight ahead and right turning traffic to one

> lane has been a complete disaster in terms of

> creating traffic congestion through the village".

> will watch that one with interest.

[first mate]

It is infuriating and extremely divisive.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> And even with all the cajoling the pro-LTN did to

> get the likes of LCC and Southwark Cyclists to

> have their say in tbe review the "remove them"

> share was still 55% of the overall total inputs

> received. They couldn't even manipulate that part

> of the review.

>

> Which is why the council are grasping at the

> "these two roads want them" nonsense. It's all

> they have, everything else gives them a resounding

> no. The longer the publication went on was

> reflective of how much work they were doing to try

> and find a reason to keep them.

[DulvilleRes]

I think you may be misreading my post. The Council can't get rid of LTN's, even if they wanted to, so a lot of the anti LTN anger is misdirected at them.

The point I was making is within this overarching framework that lies outside their control, the Council have made a number of changes that directly reflect the feedback they have been getting, presumably via the consultation and wider anti LTN campaigning. That feels like democracy in action to me.

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> Interesting dulvilleres

> On June the 7th (your last post) said

> "As to where anti LTN support comes from, and how

> deep it is, I hope the consultation will shed some

> further light. What has dogged constructive debate

> around this divisive issue has been hard data.

> Even allowing for the fact that some people feel

> the consultation has limitations in it's terms of

> reference, it will still probably offer up some

> comprehensive insights for everyone."

>

> Now the hard data about where the anti LTN support

> and how deep it is (basically the whole area) you

> now try and say that the consultation is in fact a

> fair representative of the views of local

> residents.

>

> It's not.

[Spartacus]

Actually Dulvilleres, the council can get rid of them however they have to justify why to Grant Shapps and if not backed up by local consultation evidence, then they face loosing future funding for such schemes.

Overall the consultation asked for the schemes to be removed and the council have their fingers in their ears saying "LA LA LA can't hear you"

It's not a case of can't, it's more of a case of shan't !

[heartblock]

Of course they can remove them, the EqIA gives grounds for removal.🙄

[Spartacus]

Also p3girl put your objections into the proposed scheme:

Email your response on the published report to [email protected] by the 27th September

[malumbu]

I stopped myself posting this morning as that could pour gasoline on the fire. But two of you have been brave enough to post some alternative views. The question that I was planning to put out earlier - there has been some movement from Southwark, surely there are some elements that are acceptable to some of you?

I'd value a measured response to this rather than abuse. Thanks in advance.

[DulvilleRes]

The test for a Council to remove the schemes looks tough to me. The Secretary of State for Transport says in an open letter to local authorities:

"Over the last year, cycling has risen by 46%. In 2020, we saw the highest level of cycling on the public highway since the 1960s, and the greatest year- on-year increase in post-war history. Many people have started cycling for shorter journeys, saving appreciable amounts of pollution, noise, CO2 and traffic danger. In some cities the delivery bike has become as normal a sight as the delivery van. Even after these remarkable rises, according to one leading retailer, a further 37 per cent of the population now wants to buy a bike.

These things have been made possible, in part, by hundreds of school streets, pop-up cycle lanes, and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods implemented under the Government's Emergency Active Travel Fund (EATF) and under statutory Network Management Duty guidance. For all the controversy these schemes can sometimes cause, there is strong and growing evidence that they command public support

I do know that a few councils have removed, or are proposing to remove, cycle schemes installed under the fund, or to water them down. Of course I understand not every scheme is perfect and a minority will not stand the test of time, but if these schemes are not given that time to make a difference, then taxpayers? monies have been wasted. Schemes need time to be allowed to bed in; must be tested against more normal traffic conditions; and must be in place long enough for their benefits and disbenefits to be properly evaluated and understood. We have no interest in requiring councils to keep schemes which are proven not to work, but that proof must be presented. Schemes must not be removed prematurely, or without proper evidence and too soon to collect proper evidence about their effects"

I take a couple of things out of this

1. Southwark couldn't do anything now to remove the LTN's - simply not enough time has elapsed to assess them

2. If the evidence shows that cycling is up, and car use is down in the long term, I can't see how Southwark could challenge the LTN's.

In its latest set of proposals it looks to me like Southwark has listened to local feedback, and wants to make some sensible adjustments. The level of anger directed at them and the councillors seems misplaced.

[Rockets]

But why they did they have a review based on get rid of them, keep them as is or alter them?

Malumbu - the suggested changes are diversionary kite-flying from the council so they can say - we're making changes...

I don't see anything in their suggestions that will change the chaos they have created. And to Legal's point the biggest issue is the DV junction and they are doing nothing to solve that problem - seemingly at the behest of a few dozen people who live on Court Lane and Calton.

[Abe_froeman]

The tests are quite easily passed in our area. The schemes they have put have neither increases cycling nor reduced traffic.

They have failed dramatically.

Residents siffering the consequences of thst failure have made that very clear to the council. The council has even acknowledged the failure becuase they are pretending to make changes to the schemes.

[Administrator]

To those who have flagged the previous posts, I don't believe they mean "go to war", phrases such as "winning the battle not the war" are common and not encouraging actual fighting.

Do correct me if I'm wrong P3girl, and you are inciting violence.

[Spartacus]

The first rule about LTN fight club is ... 😱😂

[heartblock]

Really ...people complained about this post inciting violence? Good grief.

Dear I love my LTN that has made my house worth more and my nice road traffic free people.

I do understand that people living on ED Grove, Croxted, LL in a gardenless flat, who depend on public transport to keep their job, who are upset because their road that was busy, but is now full of idling traffic are irritating when they remind you that your ability to buy a nicer house in a nicer street, which is now even nicer, comes at the cost to others...I do understand that deep down you may feel a tingle of shame that despite the EqIA from Southwark, showing how disabled, elderly people feel trapped, disenfranchised and negatively impacted that the LTNs and the square of shame remain.

It isn?t language I would necessarily use, but do let people take a moment of true despair that the consultation was a sham and their lives have been made a little more s**t.

So no need to make faux complaints of ?disgusted of Calton? or ?shocked of Melbourne? or ?terrified of Elsie? when someone uses the word ?battle? or ?war?.

Honestly....

[Rockets]

Oh my, there does seem like there has been a concerted effort to get the thread closed for some time.

So very sad and, increasingly, desperate......

A lot of LTNs are being removed by councils who realise their residents don't want them and the displacement they bring. Not sure why Southwark deems itself exempt from listening to their constituents.

[heartblock]

Same reason they build on parks... fingers in ears like a child crying ?not listening? ?not listening ? or was that Gollum in Lord of the Rings?

[Metallic]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Really ...people complained about this post

> inciting violence? Good grief.

>

> Dear I love my LTN that has made my house worth

> more and my nice road traffic free people.

>

> I do understand that people living on ED Grove,

> Croxted, LL in a gardenless flat, who depend on

> public transport to keep their job, who are upset

> because their road that was busy, but is now full

> of idling traffic are irritating when they remind

> you that your ability to buy a nicer house in a

> nicer street, which is now even nicer, comes at

> the cost to others...I do understand that deep

> down you may feel a tingle of shame that despite

> the EqIA from Southwark, showing how disabled,

> elderly people feel trapped, disenfranchised and

> negatively impacted that the LTNs and the square

> of shame remain.

>

> It isn?t language I would necessarily use, but do

> let people take a moment of true despair that the

> consultation was a sham and their lives have been

> made a little more s**t.

>

> So no need to make faux complaints of ?disgusted

> of Calton? or ?shocked of Melbourne? or ?terrified

> of Elsie? when someone uses the word ?battle? or

> ?war?.

>

> Honestly....

A brilliant, brilliant post.

[first mate]

Indeed, another deplorable attempt to shutdown the thread.

Metallic Wrote:

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

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Really ...people complained about this post

> > inciting violence? Good grief.

> >

> > Dear I love my LTN that has made my house worth

> > more and my nice road traffic free people.

> >

> > I do understand that people living on ED Grove,

> > Croxted, LL in a gardenless flat, who depend on

> > public transport to keep their job, who are

> upset

> > because their road that was busy, but is now

> full

> > of idling traffic are irritating when they

> remind

> > you that your ability to buy a nicer house in a

> > nicer street, which is now even nicer, comes at

> > the cost to others...I do understand that deep

> > down you may feel a tingle of shame that

> despite

> > the EqIA from Southwark, showing how disabled,

> > elderly people feel trapped, disenfranchised

> and

> > negatively impacted that the LTNs and the

> square

> > of shame remain.

> >

> > It isn?t language I would necessarily use, but

> do

> > let people take a moment of true despair that

> the

> > consultation was a sham and their lives have

> been

> > made a little more s**t.

> >

> > So no need to make faux complaints of

> ?disgusted

> > of Calton? or ?shocked of Melbourne? or

> ?terrified

> > of Elsie? when someone uses the word ?battle?

> or

> > ?war?.

> >

> > Honestly....

>

> A brilliant, brilliant post.

[Abe_froeman]

Well after their success shutting down the roads, they need to look for more things to shut down...

[heartblock]

I think the next will be businesses that don't fit into the nice road and bring the place down and security to remove the unwanted or any strangers from the anti-homeless hostile-architecture benches and parklets.

Only fragrant, clean and middle-classes allowed in this road.. no riff-raff or loud urban music.. just nice guitar music or a bit of that nice tune they play on antiques road show (isn't it by some famous composer?) - just to show how worldly we are - how about some Tango? what's that...what's that????????

invite a Skate Tingz event? oh no...no...no... not the sort of thing we want to encourage in our lovely square/ road/parklet/mummy coffee area.....we are more children halloween nights and nice cucumber sandwiches...ooooh not roller skating and that loud music.

[ab29]

Ha ha, that's a good one - well done Admin for displaying a common sense

Administrator Wrote:

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

> To those who have flagged the previous posts, I

> don't believe they mean "go to war", phrases such

> as "winning the battle not the war" are common and

> not encouraging actual fighting.

>

> Do correct me if I'm wrong P3girl, and you are

> inciting violence.

[ab29]

P3girl: not sure if those complaining about your post actually know what 'metaphor' is.

In a meantime, the 'Stop the road closure' sign near my place has been damaged (after being already vanalised a few times) - talking about 'inciting violence'...

[malumbu]

Heartblock - you have been reading too much Viz

https://viz.fandom.com/wiki/Category:The_Modern_Parents_Characters

And another character comes to mind

http://viz.co.uk/category/millie-tant/ although perhaps not politically correct, apols

Just a bit of light humour

Edited to add a link to modern parents for those who don't know this cartoon - which reminded me of Heartblock's description in his/her post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Modern_Parents

And edited to add a definition of humour, as one of you appears to have no sense of one. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sense-of-humour Credit to the use of an emoji though.