LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[rjsmall]

In the grand scheme of Southwark Council's budget ?3000 is not a great amount. That said when we have local councillors blaming central government funding cuts for Southwark services being reduced it seems they may be misreading the mood of the crowd by providing funds for such a divisive event.

[legalalien]

Agree. In light of the village ward councillor's comment last year that they can only fund what people apply for, probably timely to remind people that this year's neighbourhood fund applications close on Monday 11th October

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consultations/grants-and-funding/neighbourhoods-fund-2022.

[Metallic]

Maybe we should apply for funds for a Death of Democracy party, with some loud, dark band made up with frightening make up to scare the bejesus out of everyone.

Seriously, I cannot write that name. DS. All the years I have lived here, I have never been so disgusted by the behaviour of the councillors for our Ward. When so many people have strong feelings and basically you are met with an "Oh well....".

[ab29]

'Disgusting' is the word. To close a junction and pretend it is some sort of Italian piazza, waste money on 'performances' on the said junction, being clearly told by constituents it is wrong and yet showing the same constituents a middle finger and continuing...Southwark Labour councillors have clearly departed from real world.

How can they criticise Tories after something like this?

[Artemis]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> 'Disgusting' is the word. To close a junction and

> pretend it is some sort of Italian piazza, waste

> money on 'performances' on the said junction,

> being clearly told by constituents it is wrong and

> yet showing the same constituents a middle finger

> and continuing...Southwark Labour councillors have

> clearly departed from real world.

Told not only by constituents, but by the London Ambulance Service. Reckless and shameful.

>

> How can they criticise Tories after something like

> this?

[malumbu]

Good luck, I've posted elsewhere other groups who are heavily involved in air quality (as I have been for a number of years). I'll post the link later. I hope that you will be looking at ways of discouraging motorised road traffic, or more efficient use of it (I like high occupancy lanes where you need two or more people in a car, this is common in the USA but generally we don't have a second lane).

Another really useful piece of advice is on driving style, 95% of drivers do not know how to drive down traffic calmed roads - I could lecture for Britain on this - back off before you hit the speed bump, then slight acceleration over this. When open I could drive down Court Lane without stopping once, yet EVERY driver I have ever watched over the decades will accelerate towards the speed bump, brake, accelerate, brake - increasing fuel use, brake and tyre wear (and particulates) and increase the stress on the engine increasing NOx. All aspects of urban driving need better anticipation which in turn would lead to smoother journeys.

Anyone who doesn't agree should go and have an eco driving lesson. In fact all drivers should have such lessons. Smoother driving means less stress on both driver, passengers and other road users.

Finally it would be great if you could encourage greater respect between road users, and better sharing of the road. Principally aimed at car drivers, but some of this would be aimed at scooter and bike riders.

On your suggestions on buses hope you have contacted TfL, there may also be a community group (Dulwich Society or equivalent in SE22?). I was involved in a community group a few years ago not so far away, and we did a lot to lobby on transport and amenities. The value of this is that you are also not a single issue group which would therefore have more influence.

[Rockets]

P3girl - do keep us posted on the council's feedback to your budget submission - it will be very interesting to see how Southwark responds! Also refreshing to see a local interest group that doesn't block responses to tweets like your good friends at Clean Air Dulwich do!

I am getting to the point of exasperation with the council and might superglue myself to a cycle lane until the council starts taking note and addressing our concerns! The good thing about gluing ourselves to cycle lanes is we won't be blocking emergency services and putting lives at risk like Insulate Britain and Southwark council do in their efforts to deal with climate change ;-)

[northernmonkey]

Or grove reopen who block anyone disagreeing with them or clean air for all dulwich who cry ?misogyny ? if anyone dares suggest they say anything untrue you mean. Suspect this is more of the same, but if not brilliant. We need more people campaigning for clean air and genuine change!

[heartblock]

A cry of 'misogny'?

Some women felt gaslighted or trolled when they talked about walking their children to school on a busy road for example. I have read some of the comments from accounts in reply to women who feel that LTNs have negatively impacted their lives, including some rather disgusting comments to Rosamund Kissi Debrah. In light of the current climate, I suggest thinking before posting.

[goldilocks]

Looking at the posts above - it is all very difficult.

Is there room in the discussion about EV / Hybrid to look at wider measures too?

[goldilocks]

Just to clarify - are you looking for people to join you to support the bus and get funding for that or for this educational programme around EVs and Hybrids? Or is it both? Just trying to work out what you are looking for support with.

Have you considered what funding you are looking to access too?

[goldilocks]

You did say that - but then you also said that you wanted to understand if there was support for the bus route before you contacted TFL so it wasn't 100% clear which you would be asking people to DM you in support of. Its clear now, and would have been without the caps and rudeness!

[redpost]

P3girl Wrote:

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

> I have not contacted TFL yet because the suggested

> routes are my first pitch to gauge support within

> the community.

>

> If you and others support the idea then we can

> take it to TFL.

>

> All interested, please get in touch and then we

> can take it from here.

>

>

>

> malumbu Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Good luck,

> >

> > On your suggestions on buses hope you have

> > contacted TfL, there may also be a community

> group

> > (Dulwich Society or equivalent in SE22?). I

> was

> > involved in a community group a few years ago

> not

> > so far away, and we did a lot to lobby on

> > transport and amenities. The value of this is

> > that you are also not a single issue group

> which

> > would therefore have more influence.

I can give you the answer from TFL now, they can't afford it

A new bus route would just cannibalise revenue from other bus services, those who drive will continue to drive and when challenged will just come up with some new excuse

Look at the 42 bus, minimal loading between sainsburys and herne hill

The only way to deal with congestion in aggregate, is road pricing and failing this LTN restrictions of available road space for cars

[ab29]

Dulwich LTN must go - peoples' health cannot be sacrificed in the name of this ridiculous idee fixe.

[redpost]

No, frivolous car usage must go

[ab29]

Dulwich LTN must go. It is utterly wrong to dump more air pollution and dirt on some roads while others have none, not to mention that it does absolutely nothing for the overall air pollution, on the contrary.

[alice]

The first step is a concerted call for court/ village to open.

[northernmonkey]

How does your group differ from any of the other anti LTN groups out there?

You seem to be trying to claim you're a new group but then calling yourself 'clean air for Dulwich' looks incredibly like you're trying to misappropriate the name of an established campaigning group so its difficult to see this as action taken in good faith.

I suspect that the venn diagram of your new group and 'One Dulwich' is a wholly encompassed circle!

P3girl Wrote:

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

> Metallic Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Maybe we should apply for funds for a Death of

> > Democracy party, with some loud, dark band made

> up

> > with frightening make up to scare the bejesus

> out

> > of everyone.

> >

> We have formed a group call "Clean air for

> Dulwich" which is applying for funding to

> Southwark to promote various means of lowering

> pollution in the following roads:-

> Lordship Lane

> East Dulwich Grove

> Dulwich Village

> Grove Vale

>

> We will run an awareness campaign about the

> detrimental effects of concentrated pollution.

> This will focus on electric and hybrid vehicle

> awareness and promote their use. It will also

> highlight the inequitable distribution of

> pollution on young and vulnerable residents as a

> result of LTN's. Plus the effects on local

> businesses and protected minorities.

>

> This will involve educational presentations and

> materials plus lots of other complimentary

> activities.

>

> You might say "they won't fund that" BUT if

> Southwark is sincere about democracy and fairness

> they cannot refuse - given that they funded the

> "performance$" in the $quare!

>

> If you would like to get involved with us please

> send a PM.

>

> NB Southwark will dish out funds for:-

> Hire costs ? Venue / Van / Play

> equipment / Generator /

> animals

> Sports equipment

> Radio / walkie-talkie

> Music equipment, PA equipment and

> sound equipment

> Portaloo / Bunting/Marquee/barriers

> Other

> Sessions/ workshops

> Volunteer expenses

> Stationery

> Food and Refreshments

> Publicity

> Events ? promotion /

> Tents / Stalls / Gazebos etc

> Removable goal posts and small training

> equipment

> Small hand held gardening tools

> Consultants/professional fees

> Tutors /trainers/consultancy

> fees / sports coaches ;

> Artists / performers

[Rockets]

redpost Wrote:

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

> No, frivolous car usage must go

Given the LTNs were designed to eliminate frivolous car use, after 18 months of them being in I think we can safely assume that either 1) there wasn't much frivolous car use in the area or 2) they don't eliminate frivolous car use.

Either way there is a strong argument for removing them and starting again with something far more fit for purpose.

[Asset]

No Way should Court/Village open, it's so much better for the schools and pedestrians now.

With roads it is a case of open them/build them and they'll fill with cars, close them and cars go away. simple. Once the drivers who do short unnecessary journeys realise it's not worth it, the surrounding roads will be clear for the people who do need to use their cars.

[Rockets]

18 months in and there is not a sign that what you say happens is happening. In fact, there isn't an LTN anywhere that has not displaced traffic from one set of roads to another - the traffic doesn't evaporate it displaces.

LTNs are failing. That much is abundantly clear.

[johnhinton]

Asset, I live on DV and disagree that LTNs are better for schools or pedestrians, let alone worth the congestion and increased pollution on other roads. Perhaps there aren't as many short, unnecessary journeys as you think or have been led to believe.

The traffic on DV still bunches up from RPH to Turney Road. When there is a bit less traffic on DV - midday or evening - vehicles still speed by at 30mph or so. Non-local drivers have no reason to care about the people living on the roads they pass through, especially if they believe the residents are as selfish, entitled or hypocritical as the pro-lobby wants everyone to believe. We're not, and still suffer from the downsides imposed by the ill-thought LTNs.

[DulwichCentral]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> 18 months in and there is not a sign that what you

> say happens is happening. In fact, there isn't an

> LTN anywhere that has not displaced traffic from

> one set of roads to another - the traffic doesn't

> evaporate it displaces.

>

> LTNs are failing. That much is abundantly clear.

The Southwark Council data shows traffic down 10% across the area - 16,000 vehicles less per day across the area.

Maybe One Dulwich and their various off-shoots have got secret ways of measuring traffic they think are more sophisticated and accurate than the council's 24/7 monitoring strips on all roads in the area. I do recall seeing one of their members standing by the roadside with a pen and a clipboard. Maybe he is their source of information.

[Rockets]

DC - two things:

Firstly, the council stated in their interim monitoring report that traffic was down 12% across Southwark. So are we actually running at a 2% increase compared to the borough average?

Secondly, and perhaps more damning, is that the council's monitoring data is incomplete - no monitoring data has been shared or included for Underhill Road, which, I am sure you realise, is one of the key displacement routes for traffic trying to cut the corner from Lordship Lane to avoid the Grove Tavern/A205 daily traffic jam. Anyone can see that Underhill's traffic has increased hugely since the LTNs went in and it was vital that monitoring should have been included in the "area-wide" monitoring numbers the council produced.

The council didn't add them - I wonder why not? The council was forced to add monitoring to Underhill by irate residents who had seen they were planning not to count there during the review and promised to include the data in the review. I wholly suspect that once Underhill is included in the council's data that the 10% reduction quickly evaporates and turns the area-wide decrease into an increase.

[legalalien]

I think it would be easiest for everyone if the council and TfL just put ALL the raw data that they have out there in an "uninterpreted" form. Sure, it would result in loads of people trying to spin the data in their own different ways, but that's better than the council being selective and inviting suspicion. The fact that there were representations that more data would be released than has been released has just compounded the problem.