LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Rockets]

alice Wrote:

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

> Yes if they were based around school streets it

> would be fairer and more logical. Short closures

> work well for schools.

Agree... A far more rational and pragmatic solution to the problem....but does anyone know if Southwark Cyclists or the LCC support such a plan?

[alice]

You are absolutely right hb. The repercussions of the initial blocking of east west routes at court/dulwich village has led to the chaos of now.

[Jenijenjen]

A further comment regarding the percentage of those who responded to the consultation. This is from the Council report:

?A consultation newsletter was posted to 19,729 postal addresses in May. We also notified 3,339 people by direct email, after they had registered in the previous phase. 576 paper surveys were posted to people who had requested them.

We received 7,542 responses to the survey. Of these 209 were voided as being duplicates (people providing more than one response). Of the remaining 7,333, some 5,538 identified themselves as living or working on streets within the consultation zone.?

a) The consultation newsletter was sent to 19,729 addresses. Clearly many of these will have multiple occupiers so the number of residents it reached will be much higher.

b) The consultation was for local residents and 5,538 identified as living or working on streets within the consultation zone. It would have been only these responses which were included in the consultation results.

These two factors bring down the response rate far below the 37% which a previous poster has quoted. I?m quite prepared to accept this figure but I should like to know how it was arrived at.

[Penguin68]

a) The consultation newsletter was sent to 19,729 addresses. Clearly many of these will have multiple occupiers so the number of residents it reached will be much higher.

Whilst you cannot 'know', it does seem possible at least that some responses may have been made on a 'household consensus' rather than just an individual basis, at least at times (ours was) - so a single response may represent more than one resident.

b) The consultation was for local residents and 5,538 identified as living or working on streets within the consultation zone. It would have been only these responses which were included in the consultation results.

Is this stated anywhere? They say that 209 were voided as being duplicates - but do they say that the ones from those not living or working in the area were voided?

You assumption that the %age response was less than 37% is based on responses only being on a wholly individual basis and that the ones from outside the area were actually excluded. Both of these are I think assumptions but not necessarily facts.

[Jenijenjen]

OK, looking at more detailed figures it seems the findings were based on the responses of the higher figure of 7,333. Still think the figure of 19,729 when calculating the percentage of responses should be treated with caution

[heartblock]

So why did Southwark consult? Surely to understand what residents wanted...also Southwark actively encouraged cycling lobby groups and non-residents to respond....why?

It's all very well dismissing the results because it doesn't fit into your need to keep your LTN on your road, but it isn't about having a quiet road at the expense of increased pollution, due to idling displaced traffic on many other roads.

Just assuming stuff, to make an very 'individualistic' argument feel better is just that, trying to make one's standpoint feel better.

[Jenijenjen]

Now who?s making assumptions. Wow, you?re totally barking up the wrong tree.

[redpost]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> So why did Southwark consult? Surely to understand

> what residents wanted...also Southwark actively

> encouraged cycling lobby groups and non-residents

> to respond....why?

> It's all very well dismissing the results because

> it doesn't fit into your need to keep your LTN on

> your road, but it isn't about having a quiet road

> at the expense of increased pollution, due to

> idling displaced traffic on many other roads.

> Just assuming stuff, to make an very

> 'individualistic' argument feel better is just

> that, trying to make one's standpoint feel better.

They consulted to seek opinions on modification to the scheme. It was not a referendum.

The policy of restricting road space to cars was initiated by the government, it's the job of the government to make hard and unpopular decisions for the long term benefit of society and the planet ... although todays budget which continues the 12 year freeze on fuel duty and cuts APD wouldn't seem to indicate that.

If you disagree, then vote for a party with an anti-LTN policy in the next general and local elections.

[Artemis]

I think it?s a feasible position to hold that you are not anti-LTN if specific LTNs work and reduce pollution/improve air quality. But perhaps the one in Dulwich isn?t fulfilling that aim. There seems to be a very simplistic argument going on - you are either pro-LTN or anti-LTN as a general principle. However each needs to be looked at in the context of the particular configuration, the local public transport options, the local/specific displacement of traffic etc., surely? I would be pro-LTN if I thought they fulfilled their objective. In Dulwich, I don?t think they work. But that doesn?t mean I don?t think they are in principle a bad thing - they might work if they are better thought out, consider local pinch points/transport options/variables (such as schools with large catchment areas). On Twitter, people who have clearly never been to Dulwich are wading in and saying that LTNs are inevitably a good thing. But if they haven?t been properly thought out and cause more pain than benefit, maybe they aren?t working in that particular area. To have a ?pro-LTN/anti-LTN? stance should surely be decided on a case by case/area by area basis? They aren?t inevitably a good thing or a bad thing in my view - it?s where they are and the nuances of a particular area and the particular restrictions implemented that make the difference.

[Metallic]

I agree with Artemis. I would be much more pro if only the council would not dismiss the reasons people have for being a bit anti.

[heartblock]

I'm not anti any policy that reduces traffic, pollution and noise.

Unfortunately the LTNs 'designed' in Dulwich and East Dulwich do not reduce pollution, but do increase traffic and pollution on already polluted roads that have schools and high density residency.

They only appear to make a few non-school roads with huge houses, with huge gardens and multiple car ownership quiet enclaves for the fit and wealthy (as the less mobile and disabled residents feel kettled in the LTNs) and to help increase the value of houses already worth millions.

When I voted Labour I expected so called Socialists to bring in policies that reduce pollution, increase the local PTAL, help the poorest, help those with reduce mobility, sadly they have had the wool pulled over their eyes by a Tory Government and have been made fools of.

[Jacqui5254]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> I'm not anti any policy that reduces traffic,

> pollution and noise.

>

> Unfortunately the LTNs 'designed' in Dulwich and

> East Dulwich do not reduce pollution, but do

> increase traffic and pollution on already polluted

> roads that have schools and high density

> residency.

>

> They only appear to make a few non-school roads

> with huge houses, with huge gardens and multiple

> car ownership quiet enclaves for the fit and

> wealthy (as the less mobile and disabled residents

> feel kettled in the LTNs) and to help increase the

> value of houses already worth millions.

>

> When I voted Labour I expected so called

> Socialists to bring in policies that reduce

> pollution, increase the local PTAL, help the

> poorest, help those with reduce mobility, sadly

> they have had the wool pulled over their eyes by a

> Tory Government and have been made fools of.

COMPLETELY agree!

[legalalien]

YY I agree with Artemis. I'm not anti LTN in principle, but I do think they can only work if they are properly /well designed (and that this inevitably requires local input, an engagement process that is not broken, and actual, local data rather than reliance on generalised studies). And also that the process/ speed of change needs to bring people along with it.

[tiddles]

Agree with Hearblock 100%

[Nigello]

Agreed - they were brought in hastily (though a fair-minded person can place that in context) and were therefore not well thought through. Part-time restrictions coupled with other measures (such as pressuring schools to do much more to get staff and - more problematic - kids' parents to not drive there) would be more welcome.

[Rockets]

I agree completely - I believe the measures on Melbourne Grove (for example) make sense but they don't at the DV junction and it is the DV junction that is causing the problems across Dulwich and the council stedfastedly refuses to acknowledge that fact.

[heartblock]

That junction used to have a reasonable free flow of traffic as did ED Grove.

Southwark redesigned the ED Grove Townley rd junction and the Court-Calton - Village junction at a huge cost and messed up both so badly that they became dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists and increased idling traffic.

Both junctions are dreadful examples of town planning, so I think the solution Southwark came up with was to just close these junctions either 24\7 or timed to try and hide the incompetence of failed design and didn?t even think of the consequences of displaced traffic on residential and school roads. It shows a supreme lack of thinking, planning and understanding of traffic flow.

My natural belief in Socialism as a way to make a fairer society and my support of the Labour Party is truly tested and in the local elections I will not be voting for any Councillor that supports these ridiculous pollution creating LTNs.

[heartblock]

That junction used to have a reasonable free flow of traffic as did ED Grove.

Southwark redesigned the ED Grove Townley rd junction and the Court-Calton - Village junction at a huge cost and messed up both so badly that they became dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists and increased idling traffic.

Both junctions are dreadful examples of town planning, so I think the solution Southwark came up with was to just close these junctions either 24\7 or timed to try and hide the incompetence of failed design and didn?t even think of the consequences of displaced traffic on residential and school roads. It shows a supreme lack of thinking, planning and understanding of traffic flow.

My natural belief in Socialism as a way to make a fairer society and my support of the Labour Party is truly tested and in the local elections I will not be voting for any Councillor that supports these ridiculous pollution creating LTNs.

[Metallic]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> That junction used to have a reasonable free flow

> of traffic as did ED Grove.

>

> Southwark redesigned the ED Grove Townley rd

> junction and the Court-Calton - Village junction

> at a huge cost and messed up both so badly that

> they became dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists

> and increased idling traffic.

>

> Both junctions are dreadful examples of town

> planning, so I think the solution Southwark came

> up with was to just close these junctions either

> 24\7 or timed to try and hide the incompetence of

> failed design and didn?t even think of the

> consequences of displaced traffic on residential

> and school roads. It shows a supreme lack of

> thinking, planning and understanding of traffic

> flow.

>

> My natural belief in Socialism as a way to make a

> fairer society and my support of the Labour Party

> is truly tested and in the local elections I will

> not be voting for any Councillor that supports

> these ridiculous pollution creating LTNs.

Totally agree.

[Metallic]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> That junction used to have a reasonable free flow

> of traffic as did ED Grove.

>

> Southwark redesigned the ED Grove Townley rd

> junction and the Court-Calton - Village junction

> at a huge cost and messed up both so badly that

> they became dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists

> and increased idling traffic.

>

> Both junctions are dreadful examples of town

> planning, so I think the solution Southwark came

> up with was to just close these junctions either

> 24\7 or timed to try and hide the incompetence of

> failed design and didn?t even think of the

> consequences of displaced traffic on residential

> and school roads. It shows a supreme lack of

> thinking, planning and understanding of traffic

> flow.

>

> My natural belief in Socialism as a way to make a

> fairer society and my support of the Labour Party

> is truly tested and in the local elections I will

> not be voting for any Councillor that supports

> these ridiculous pollution creating LTNs.

Totally agree.

[alice]

Absolutely agree.

[alice]

Absolutely agree.

[Glemham]

Completely agree. The Council was warned that the changes wouldn?t work and offered an alternative scheme drawn up by an independent planner financed by ?4,000 crowdfunded from local residents. As now they weren?t interested.

[Glemham]

Completely agree. The Council was warned that the changes wouldn?t work and offered an alternative scheme drawn up by an independent planner financed by ?4,000 crowdfunded from local residents. As now they weren?t interested.

[SpringTime]

I am so angry with Southwark it actually worries me.