LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Spartacus]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> Oh we are talking about the cabbies. They've

> opposed everything on roads and the environment.

> And measures to open up their sector which is

> considered sacrosanct. I remember the opposition

> to closing the road in front of the National

> Gallery. They are hardly a barometer of a

> progressive modern country.

Interestingly enough, black cabs are leading the charge on converting to new electric vehicles and in the past they had electric cabs before internal combustion engines were in regular use

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/august-1897-london-electrical-cab/

I seem to have a vague recollection that there were some electric cabs made around the same tine three wheeler electric milk floats were produced but can't find a link.

So the dear old London cabbie has been at the leading edge of technology for over a century.

Here you won't guess who was in the back of one ... only that geezer Elon 😱😂😂

[Abe_froeman]

I think she just trolling us all now Rockets.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Those you want to encourage more rat running by removing the LTNS - do you want to replace them with anything?

[Penguin68]

Those you want to encourage more rat running

'rat running' - which is a pretty vile term, by the way - generally refers to commuters, in rush hours, travelling through an area and using side and suburban streets to avoid traffic queues. I suggest that now, and even before the last full lock-down, there are far fewer through commuters - and this is likely to continue as work patterns change irrevocably in the future. 'Rat runners' were understood to be non-locals - and thus of course to be despised.

Other than e.g. deliveries and service vehicles (which are to our benefit) the majority of traffic being caught by these restrictions is very possibly local, or pretty local, to Dulwich. So less, perhaps, rat runners than our close neighbours. Obviously not living in our lovely streets which must be protected from such trash, but still our neighbours.

Or are our neighbours, but not of course living in our lovely and gated streets, rats?

[Spartacus]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Those you want to encourage more rat running by

> removing the LTNS - do you want to replace them

> with anything?

A proper consultation on what's needed is the first thing 😃

Especially as LTNs force traffic to bottle neck and thus people use other roads as rat runs to avoid it ..

For every action, there's a reaction and the council needs to consult and then work with the many not just the few

[KidKruger]

Yeah there?s a few roads in ED that are now main rat runs compared to previously, the problem?s just moved to other people?s streets since the LTNs.

[Penguin68]

Yeah there?s a few roads in ED that are now main rat runs compared to previously, the problem?s just moved to other people?s streets since the LTNs.

If you close off most east west traffic and funnel it all into the South Circular you will find that this traffic has to use very few roads to get to the South Circular - hence Underhill - where I live - is now regularly jammed in the evenings (when we aren't in lock down). This isn't about 'rat runs' - its about intentional funnelling of traffic into very few (and by no means arterial or main) roads. If anything, these are 'local councillor runs'.

[ab29]

Hear hear.

To everyone who doesn't understand it and suffers from a COMPLETE LACK OF EMPATHY like rahrahrah here: move in to a flat/house on Lordship Lane - and see for yourself how it feels. Would you like it on your road 24/7?

And multiply this by a hundred as it is quieter now because of the lockdown.

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> Yeah there?s a few roads in ED that are now main

> rat runs compared to previously, the problem?s

> just moved to other people?s streets since the

> LTNs.

[Rockets]

...and then you look at the council's plans for the LTN review area and you see that they are trying to prevent people who have to live with the displacement away from the closed roads from having a voice in the review - it's sickening the way they are trying to manipulate the review to their advantage.

Meanwhile in Sutton (where they have just announced they are pulling the LTNs out) - the SOuthwark Way clearly differs massively from the Sutton Way!:

Transport Chair, councillor Manuel Abellan, said: ?Since the recent High Court ruling on the Mayor of London?s Streetspace schemes, there has been no clear guidance on what councils should do next.

"In light of this, I will be recommending to councillors that we remove all the existing trial schemes.

?In future, the council will do things very differently - the Sutton way - for any area traffic improvements.

"There will be full consultation of the residents and businesses affected before schemes are launched with support for any ideas or schemes.

?The council has heard very clearly residents? concerns about the Mayor of London?s mandated process to bring in experimental schemes.?

[Siduhe]

Just to add to Penguin68's comments - as I understand it, the review area for the Dulwich Village LTNs will not include Underhill, Melford, Wood Vale or the Lordship Lane Estate - all of which were experiencing material impacts from the closure of Court Lane and the failure to adjust right filter at the South Circular lights to allow for the additional traffic - up until the point that Thames Water started digging up the road and put in place three way lights for twelve weeks which has given us all a bit of relief.

This is notwithstanding residents being told to use Commonspace to register our concerns, which many of us have done - and where the feedback is clear, consistent and from multiple residents. I'm still trying to get a formal confirmation why but the informal feedback is that our roads are not close enough to be considered directly affected, and the review area will only focus on the area of the LTNs and the immediately adjacent roads. Which is next to useless when the roads experiencing displacement are not immediately adjacent.

As I've said before, I don't think any of my neighbours or me are particularly opposed to LTNs or even necessarily to the Court Lane closure, but we'd like a proper assessment of the impacts of the displacement on our local roads - which are less safe for cyclists and more polluted for pedestrians - and the fact that many of us don't live in ?2m+ houses or have access to large gardens like Court Lane resident do (although to be fair, some on Underhill and Wood Vale do!) ;-)

[Spartacus]

Whilst it's a spoof, something like the attached wouldn't surprise me 😱

[legalalien]

Meanwhile, over in Ealing, according to Twitter the Council has sidestepped the court case by cancelling its experimental orders and replacing them with new ones (presumably now backed by an equality assessment etc)... not a good look

[Rockets]

Siduhe Wrote:

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

> Just to add to Penguin68's comments - as I

> understand it, the review area for the Dulwich

> Village LTNs will not include Underhill, Melford,

> Wood Vale or the Lordship Lane Estate - all of

> which were experiencing material impacts from the

> closure of Court Lane and the failure to adjust

> right filter at the South Circular lights to allow

> for the additional traffic - up until the point

> that Thames Water started digging up the road and

> put in place three way lights for twelve weeks

> which has given us all a bit of relief.

>

> This is notwithstanding residents being told to

> use Commonspace to register our concerns, which

> many of us have done - and where the feedback is

> clear, consistent and from multiple residents.

> I'm still trying to get a formal confirmation why

> but the informal feedback is that our roads are

> not close enough to be considered directly

> affected, and the review area will only focus on

> the area of the LTNs and the immediately adjacent

> roads. Which is next to useless when the roads

> experiencing displacement are not immediately

> adjacent.

>

> As I've said before, I don't think any of my

> neighbours or me are particularly opposed to LTNs

> or even necessarily to the Court Lane closure, but

> we'd like a proper assessment of the impacts of

> the displacement on our local roads - which are

> less safe for cyclists and more polluted for

> pedestrians - and the fact that many of us don't

> live in ?2m+ houses or have access to large

> gardens like Court Lane resident do (although to

> be fair, some on Underhill and Wood Vale do!) ;-)

You are correct - the review zone Cllr Rose shared on the Dulwich Hill ward meeting went no further east than Lordship Lane so none of those roads are included in the review so the views of residents in those areas will be discounted. Which is ludicrous.

[legalalien]

So - Twitter. Reporting Elm Lodge surgery no longer supporting Dulwich Alliance as it?s possible to get there outside the closure hours. Fine. But then this comment about how everyone in Dulwich can afford a taxi anyway (see attached).

[alice]

From what I understood at the Dulwich Hill meeting was that the review area would be enlarged to include the displacement roads.

[Metallic]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> So - Twitter. Reporting Elm Lodge surgery no

> longer supporting Dulwich Alliance as it?s

> possible to get there outside the closure hours.

> Fine. But then this comment about how everyone in

> Dulwich can afford a taxi anyway (see attached).

I suspect Elm Lodge has been got at by the lovely twitter trolls that make life so difficult if you dare to say what you think and believe. You all know who you are and now we have one or two new ones on twitter just to make life more difficult. And why is my councillor liking the fact the Elm Lodge Surgery has withdrawn its name? He is the councillor for all of his constituents whether or not they voted for him, isn't he? Maybe he should be neutral in these twitter comments? editing this as I've just seen our other councillor has liked this too. How inappropriate of them to behave in this way. Presumably their constituents don't matter in the bigger scheme of things they have planned for Village Ward.

If this was my surgery I would be saying a good deal about this basic bullying behaviour by people who should know better.

[northernmonkey]

..

[hopskip]

Appalling behaviour on Twitter towards a Health Centre and those less able. Unacceptable post and pressure. Perhaps this link with Southwark?

http://www.greerpritchard.com/projects/southwarkDesignReviewPanel.asp

role design manager for Southwark Council

GreerPritchard director established and managed Southwark's Design Review Panel in 2006. Southwark is a Thameside borough in central London.

The Panel provides advice and enabling services in relation to major urban development projects and is highly respected in its own right. Appointed to the panel in 2010 and is currently serving for a second term.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> So - Twitter. Reporting Elm Lodge surgery no

> longer supporting Dulwich Alliance as it?s

> possible to get there outside the closure hours.

> Fine. But then this comment about how everyone in

> Dulwich can afford a taxi anyway (see attached).

[mockingbird]

What about our local Ward Councillor who has clearly taken a view and is not representing all constituents? Quote from twitter feed: Other cities that Dulwich isn't, Copenhagen, Oslo etc

Since when did Dulwich become a city?

https://twitter.com/search?q=richard%20leeming&src=typed_query

[Rockets]

"Most Dulwich residents can afford a taxi".....honestly every time Julie Greer opens her mouth or tweets something it further exposes how myopic and self-centred the pro-closure lobby is. If I was a Labour councillor I would be distancing myself from them and their bizarre views of life through their bizarre village-lens but, of course, many are neighbours of certain local councillors so probably they share the same bizarre views of life beyond Dulwich Square.

I am actually starting to think that the Dulwich Village ward councillors are trying to create a modern day Trmupton.

[legalalien]

"Village-lens"? Rest assured that there are large numbers of people living in the Village Ward who oppose the measures and who are wondering what on earth has happened to representative democracy.

ETA: article in the Times today about LTNs and house prices: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/low-traffic-zones-force-cars-into-streets-where-poorer-people-live-6svsbck3k?shareToken=aa4f58f43d9a69d35a1c20f43b802d7e

[mockingbird]

Listening to Maajid Nawaz LBC London this afternoon. Length session on LTNs with many callers giving their views.

Replay should be on catch up later

https://www.globalplayer.com/catchup/lbc/uk/b8FPiKG/ between 3-4pm

[Rockets]

Why is it that this article has a photo, headline and opening para referencing LTNs (which are built around road closures) yet all the quotes (and seemingly the rest of the article) talk exclusively about cycle lanes? Hmmmmmm......

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/13/covid-bike-and-walking-schemes-do-not-delay-ambulances-trusts-say?__twitter_impression=true

[legalalien]

Hard to tell without seeing the underlying Q and A. For example, "no such schemes were implemented without the relevant trust?s knowledge" is different from saying that the statutory obligation to consult the trust was discharged - they could eg have been emailed the day before and informed of the closure.

For the Dulwich ones, the specific FoI requests already made show the LAS view. I remain of the view that we need to stop generalising about LTNs and consider each on its merits (although some of the process flaws involving DfT /TfL are generic and it makes sense to comment on those generally). Not all LTNs are necessarily bad just as they are not universally good...

[ab29]

"Low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) are being introduced in wealthier streets at the expense of poorer neighbouring roads".

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/low-traffic-zones-force-cars-into-streets-where-poorer-people-live-6svsbck3k