LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[DulwichCentral]

peckhamside Wrote:

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

> Well said, I was thinking extending the congestion

> zone to south circular may be the answer, this

> would discourage through traffic from outside the

> ss while residents would only pay a small annual

> fee which anyone sensible would think was worth

> it.

Well said. If only everyone against the LTNs put their efforts into something constructive like this.

[Rockets]

It's funny isn't it - how many sensible ideas that have been put forward by residents since the LTNs went in? Makes you wonder why the council/TFL didn't think of some of them instead of putting all their time, money and energy into a policy so fundamentally flawed as the LTNs.

What I find incredible is that since the LTNs have gone in the council has done nothing to initiate any programmes to further facilitate active travel - the roll-out of cycle hangars has been shameful and other boroughs have created segregated cycle lanes. Southwark seems to have been a bit of a one-trick pony; it's LTNs or nothing. They have wasted 18 months on a glorified vanity project.

[alice]

Everything about blocking roads into the wealthiest, healthiest, greenest part of Southwark is against all I voted for. Playing with the data does not change that. Where are the improved bus routes? The bike lanes? The non idling coaches?

Maybe it was never about actual real active travel but more about creating a village in an urban area.

Butterfly effect gone mad.

[legalalien]

There is a small Thames Water hole in the road with a barrier around it on EDG eastbound and temporary lights at the nearby eDG/ Townley intersection and it?s causing significant tail backs from that intersection.

[legalalien]

?The job of an elected official is to cater to the needs of ALL their citizens, and I don't mean those who live in leafy mansions on Calton Avenue, I refer to those who are disadvantaged, disabled, young etc. Governance is not a question of who shouts the loudest on an internet forum or go marching around the streets on a Saturday. That means that sometimes they have to go against what is "democratic", to do what is *right*. In the case of creating safer streets for local children and poorer residents without cars, to walk and cycle on, is clearly the right thing to do. ?

I 100% agree with the first two sentences but not the last one. As regards the first I think they?ve failed spectacularly to do so. I would add to the second sentence, nor should it be a question of who has the most well organised lobby groups, given more information and able to influence councillors behind closed doors, or those who councillors instinctively feel are ?people like them?. I agree that sometimes the Council has to go against what the majority want, but I also think (and this is the purpose of consultation), that if the majority are telling you that something isn?t working (rather than just that they don?t like it), you need to take another long hard look at the data and see whether you might be missing something - particularly when the data is as flimsy - and as heavily modelled - as it is here. At least you could fulfil your promise to release raw data so that people can test it and see for themselves. In other words, the correct response is not ?this is not a referendum?, it?s ?why do so many of our constituents think that things haven?t improved for them in the way we intended / so many think that we have made things worse?? Otherwise it just comes across as treating constituents with contempt / as ?deplorables? whose views shouldn?t count. And history tells us that doesn?t end well.

To put it a slightly different way - the issue here is not (in most cases anyway) LTN opponents agreeing with the data but saying they?d prefer not to have closures, it?s people trusting their own eyes and, given the way data has been created and presented, not being convinced that the council?s analysis is correct - same applies to things like the Aldred hypotheses.

That?s what I think anyway.

Ps to head off the inevitable response, the reason I don?t agree with the last sentence is because of the words ?clearly right? - an aim may be clearly a good one viewed in isolation, but in reality that ?good? needs to be offset against the ?bads? that result from the means that you use to achieve it. Life is complicated.

[Metallic]

I am writing about the LTN row so this is the right page.

Isn't it horrid for the viewpoints to be so split? And here we are listening to news of another MP murdered. Passion runs so high, and some of the nastier comments I have read on here about the different angles of this very local row, seem to show a bit of simmering hatred for people who don't agree with you and who you think you can badmouth as you are anonymous.

So let's all be more respectful to each other, please. And that includes the Councillors who pay no heed to what their constituents say to them, or listen to that other viewpoint.

[Rockets]

This is fascinating: Kieron Williams talking on BBC Radio London - he gets asked about LTNs at 6.31....

So he admits there is increased congestion on some roads.

A lot of bluster and puff though.....

He says they are consulting on the proposed changes and residents will be responding over the next few weeks - does anyone know what that is - he is implying there is a consultation of the suggested changes from the consultation?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p09ynqjt

[KidKruger]

Could the transformation of Crystal Palace Rd into a 2nd Lordship Lane (only without the shops) be anything to do with the LTNs ?

It started when the LTNs were implemented, getting steadily worse so far, so I wonder if there?s a connection.

If there IS a connection. ie. one has caused the other, then how have LTNs ?worked? in this example ?

[alice]

Exactly KK. I have noticed similar changes on Underhill road.

[Rockets]

Metallic Wrote:

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

> I am writing about the LTN row so this is the

> right page.

>

> Isn't it horrid for the viewpoints to be so split?

> And here we are listening to news of another MP

> murdered. Passion runs so high, and some of the

> nastier comments I have read on here about the

> different angles of this very local row, seem to

> show a bit of simmering hatred for people who

> don't agree with you and who you think you can

> badmouth as you are anonymous.

>

> So let's all be more respectful to each other,

> please. And that includes the Councillors who pay

> no heed to what their constituents say to them, or

> listen to that other viewpoint.

It's probably the only thing all the contributors on here will agree with: it's divided a community.

[MCMC]

Well said. A group of wealthy residents creating their own ghetto is disgusting.

Stop them coming here to go to M&S for gin for a week and this nonsense will soon end.

#endthewealthghetto

#makedulwichgreatagain

[heartblock]

As much as I sometimes despair of politicians and feel annoyed when some abuse their position for personal gain, the fact that they expose themselves to so much in the process of public service can only be admired. I may fundamentally disagree with many policies implemented, but in the end at least these people did try to serve for the public good.

Let's be kinder.

[Metallic]

MCMC Wrote:

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

> Well said. A group of wealthy residents creating

> their own ghetto is disgusting.

>

> Stop them coming here to go to M&S for gin for a

> week and this nonsense will soon end.

>

> #endthewealthghetto

>

> #makedulwichgreatagain

Except it seems very few people in Calton Ave and Court Lane, in the bigger number of them, wanted this closed off area. I know I didn't, and people in Woodwarde, Court Lane, the Village certainly didn't. Your comment fans the division. You don't know who and how many you are actually slagging off.

[march46]

Not sure where you are getting your facts from Metallic. If you look at the council?s consultation report it shows 67% of Calton Ave respondents and 53% of Court Lane respondents wish to RETAIN it as it is / RETAIN the measure but modify/enhance with other features.

Metallic Wrote:

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

> Except it seems very few people in Calton Ave and

> Court Lane, in the bigger number of them, wanted

> this closed off area. I know I didn't, and people

> in Woodwarde, Court Lane, the Village certainly

> didn't. Your comment fans the division. You

> don't know who and how many you are actually

> slagging off.

[Rockets]

Well done Dulwich - a superb turnout and well done to all the excellent speakers who attended.

[ab29]

I was there too :)

I was rather shocked to find out that London Cycling Campaign is a charity - a charity! "The ends justify the means" certainly should be their motto.

[Chris_1]

Really awesome turnout, well done Dulwich. Speakers & marshalls did an excellent job. So encouraging to see people from all over the area coming together.

[MCMC]

I completely accept your point. I do see the signs and know it?s not popular and spent one hour in traffic (electric car) driving in and out of Herne hill today via Dulwich Grove. No offence intended.

For the people living inside the Dulwich wealth ghetto I do think it?s fair to say none of them lay down in front of the flower box delivery vans.

I?m currently fighting a fine for accidentally driving through the zone at the wrong time of day and Southwark are completely unable to explain exactly how my case differs (it doesn?t) from the one that won at the London Tribunal.

This zoning already has precedent for being illegal and Southwark are burying themselves deeper in an already terrible decision.

Watch this space for the erection of water fountains for people that live inside and outside of Dulwich Village

#freerocca

[heartblock]

The LTN fundamentalists would call you car journey 'unnecessary' MCMC. The only necessary car journeys are undertaken by people living in 3 million pound houses in Calton Ave in a Range Rover or Ocado/ Flower Box Company delivering to their home via stinky 'ole ED Grove.

I say keep the LTNs, but anyone living on Melbourne, Else, Court, Calton etc. is banned from driving on ED Grove and Croxted - a ?500 fee for setting a wheel on my road.

[ab29]

Good idea - ban them from driving on LL too. It should help to ease the traffic on LL beyond the Dulwich Library, which has been truly horrendous ever since thr LTNs were introduced.

[Spartacus]

I'm curious

Were any councillors or council officers there to see the level of protest going on ?

[march46]

See the offensive 'All Streets Matter' posters by Dulwich Alliance are still being used. Graffiti on the road signs too, classy.

[Rockets]

march46 Wrote:

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

> Not sure where you are getting your facts from

> Metallic. If you look at the council?s

> consultation report it shows 67% of Calton Ave

> respondents and 53% of Court Lane respondents wish

> to RETAIN it as it is / RETAIN the measure but

> modify/enhance with other features.

>

>

> Metallic Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Except it seems very few people in Calton Ave

> and

> > Court Lane, in the bigger number of them,

> wanted

> > this closed off area. I know I didn't, and

> people

> > in Woodwarde, Court Lane, the Village certainly

> > didn't. Your comment fans the division. You

> > don't know who and how many you are actually

> > slagging off.

March - the council are desperately hanging on to these measures on the basis of the results from Calton and Court Lane as they are the only streets that have not resoundingly voted against any measures. But this isn't just about Calton or Court Lane it is about the impact on the whole area (but saying that the fact there is so much opposition on Calton and Court Lane is a strong sign that these measures are not as popular as you, or the council would like). You are amalgamating three categories to get your percentage (do you perhaps work for the council?).

Bottom line is today hundreds of Dulwich residents gathered to protest against unjust measures that the majority of Dulwich residents have told the council they do not want. You can pontificate all you like but I was so heartened to see a community uniting against a council that continues to treat the views of constituents with utter contempt. The small vocal minority is anything but and the tide is finally beginning to turn.

[Rockets]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> I'm curious

>

> Were any councillors or council officers there to

> see the level of protest going on ?

I very much doubt it. Someone did shout out where is Helen Hayes and someone close to me suggested she disappeared at the same time the ATM did that Margy claimed to have saved and whether that was a coincidence! ;-)

[legalalien]

I suspect Helen (and Cllr Simmonds) will have spent a big chunk of this summer (and will

have to spend quite a bit of time going forward) on the electoral boundary review process and who stands in the new seats if the current dissection of her existing seat goes ahead ( more info at https://www.helenhayes.org.uk/helen_s_response_to_the_boundary_commission_for_england_consultation_on_new_parliamentary_constituency_boundaries and https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/guide-to-the-2023-review-now-published/).

Interested to see that Helen?s ability to address traffic problems in Croxted Road are included (in her August submission) as a reason not to change boundaries there:

?As the local MP, I am currently convening a working group officers and councillors from Lambeth and Southwark and Transport for London to explore potential solutions to this issue.?

Has this working group happened yet?I I think I heard that Lambeth councillors are keen to engage?