LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Spartacus]

Could this be a taste of the results ?

https://twitter.com/RM_Leeming/status/1376891237324754951?s=19

Whilst inside the LTN, you can claim walking and cycling has gone up (against which baseline is a question to ask) it doesn't talk about the surrounding streets where traffic has gone up.

[bonaome]

Interesting. So if I am interpreting those results correctly, the evidence is incontrovertible that if all the people who've ever cycled or walked or skipped or scootered (non-electric) or swam (when the floods were on) through the Herne Hill underpass, had in in fact done that at the same time, each person in their own individual articulated stretch lorry, the queue would have gone all the way to JAGS and back and therefore it's just as well those people who keep cycling up and down Melbourne Grove have nothing better to do.

I think I've got it. The LTNs are here to stay.

[alice]

Many Southwark ltn will stay. Dulwich no. Let?s see.

[Nigello]

I am betting on either Calton or Court being reopened. Having both closed and the restrictions at morning and afternoon school peak hours in the Village itself are super-serving. One measure could be enough and then, if they really want to turn up the pressure, introduce another later. Also, a bus along Court Lane (electric, so quiet) would be great, especially if it were hail-and-ride to take folk from Herne Hill to LL.

[Trevor Moore]

As to ?Richard or whomever's 'packed out meetings', not sure if they mean Phase 2 or Phase 3, but for Phase 3 they would have been the ones at which no minutes were taken, questioners were randomly selected/ignored by a councillor who did nothing to stop shouty 'pro' hecklers; and there were pointless 'Pin a Post-It!' breakout rooms where sharpest elbows and loudest voices prevailed. No record/report back was made for public consumption. Transparent?

There seems to be a glossing over of how Phase 2 OHSD morphed into Phase 3 OHSD (no results of the latter published). The important point about the Phase 2 report was that it said 'You' told us you wanted radical action. That led to the 24/7 closure proposal.

Well, it turns out that 'You' comprised all of 122 people in the Phase 2 consultation in favour (the Council itself said those responses were all that could be relied upon) https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/who-closed-dulwich-village-junction). Out of 11,000+ in Dulwich Ward alone. So someone failed to explain what the Council and its advisory group (made up of lobbyists) had in mind. Just to take Court Lane, with around 200 houses on it, only 5 people responded. And many of the dots on the Phase 2 map are from well outside the area. Speaks for itself.

We can only hope for a properly run, democratic process going forwards, with independent scrutiny.

[alice]

Yes paint it green and call it the village bus.

as long as it still goes brixton-lewisham

[DulwichCentral]

Trevor Moore Wrote:

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

> As to ?Richard or whomever's 'packed out

> meetings', not sure if they mean Phase 2 or Phase

> 3, but for Phase 3 they would have been the ones

> at which no minutes were taken, questioners were

> randomly selected/ignored by a councillor who did

> nothing to stop shouty 'pro' hecklers; and there

> were pointless 'Pin a Post-It!' breakout rooms

> where sharpest elbows and loudest voices

> prevailed. No record/report back was made for

> public consumption. Transparent?

>

> There seems to be a glossing over of how Phase 2

> OHSD morphed into Phase 3 OHSD (no results of the

> latter published). The important point about the

> Phase 2 report was that it said 'You' told us you

> wanted radical action. That led to the 24/7

> closure proposal.

>

> Well, it turns out that 'You' comprised all of 122

> people in the Phase 2 consultation in favour (the

> Council itself said those responses were all that

> could be relied upon)

> https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/who-closed-dulwich-

> village-junction). Out of 11,000+ in Dulwich Ward

> alone. So someone failed to explain what the

> Council and its advisory group (made up of

> lobbyists) had in mind. Just to take Court Lane,

> with around 200 houses on it, only 5 people

> responded. And many of the dots on the Phase 2 map

> are from well outside the area. Speaks for

> itself.

>

> We can only hope for a properly run, democratic

> process going forwards, with independent scrutiny.

So you admit there were meetings and a consultation process. Good. Thats a start.

I attended all the meetings Trevor - and the only heckling I witnessed was from people shouting out 'we'll be kettled!!'. Since that is clearly not true - because every residence is accessible by car - One Dulwich have attempted to escalate their complaints in a number of different ways ever since - each one lacking in evidence.

And many of the One Dulwich 'dots' are outside the area too - so how do you explain that?

[Rockets]

I think the council has to reopen the DV junction and Townley - the displacement roads clearly cannot handle the increased volume of traffic due to two major east/west routes being closed for much of the day. Perhaps they will have to tinker and make them one-way but something has to give as it's just not working (and doesn't look like any length of bedding in will make it work). I think Melbourne Grove will stay.

[sally buying]

alice Wrote:

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

> Lyndhurst one way has just completed this looks

> good.

Alice, I live on Chadwick Road, can you explain what your comment refers to please. There does not seem to be any change that I can see.

Thanks

[alice]

The one way but has been split with a dedicated bike lane.

I?ll just check my road names.

[northernmonkey]

Chadwick hasn't got any changes that I'm aware of but the segregated cycle lane on Lyndhurst starts near the bottom of chadwick and then goes under the bridge almost to Holly Grove. Its lovely whilst its segregated.

Unfortunately just under the bridge the segregation ends as the road narrows and it spits you out on a bit of road that isn't actually wide enough for a lane of traffic and a cycle lane, but because its painted on cars pass and its stressful.

The contraflow on Highshore is quite nice too - its just the bit in the middle that isn't.

[alice]

That?s the kind of thing that would work well on Court Lane - will space for the bus lane too.

[sally buying]

"Its lovely whilst its segregated."

Until the refuse lorries arrive on Wednesday and traffic is backed up along Bellenden as no road is available for other users.

It was wider and traffic flowed before this very expensive alteration. It is no different to before but half the road is now closed with the alteration.

Unfortunately common sense is missing when this was done. Dogma took over.

If cyclists could not use the old road system they should not be on the road.

[alice]

Many Southwark ltn will stay. Dulwich no. Let?s see.

[alice]

The one way but has been split with a dedicated bike lane.

I?ll just check my road names.

[Trevor Moore]

Whataboutery, par excellence. Face facts.

[slarti b]

@DulwichCentral

Is this the news flash from OneDulwich you were complaining about earlier? https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/why-was-dulwich-chosen-for-an-ltn

In that article One Dulwich claims:

- there was an informal working group set up to "help run the OHSD consultation process? consisting of local councillors, Safe Routes to School, Living Streets, Dulwich Society and Calton Ave residents Association

- the working group was provided with the confidential interim results of the phase 3 OHSD survey, results that have still not been published.

- the working group helped review and suggest changes to the presentation put forward at the Phase 3 meetings (where the discredited claim of a 47% increase in traffic was used repeatedly)

I can see why you are upset; if any of these claims are true it would totally undermine the whole OHS consultation process, faith in (current) local councillors to represent their constituents and indeed, confidence in any consultation carried out by the Council.

So which of those claims are disingenuous, devious, or deceitful? really looking forward to your response.

edited to say I am really, really, really looking forward to your response. Or are you just trying to discredit an organisation with over a 1000 supporters in the OHS consultation area?

[Metallic]

My memory of the two consultations I attended for OHS involved not being called by Cllr Simmons at Alleyn's even though my hand was up for the whole of question time, and at the Church one, being harangued by people I had never met before for having the cheek to ask where the traffic would go, off a main commuter/business route that would essentially foul up the entire area (Mums for Lungs people, apparently. Well I was almost proved correct but my vision was totally underestimating the reality we have been left with:

Businesses at risk.

People's health and safety being at risk.

Other nearby communities ruined by pollution from stationary displaced traffic or drivers forced on to these roads

because of a few cameras which I learn made Southwark ?1.4 million in a few weeks.

You couldn't make it up , could you?

[Earl Aelfheah]

I am completely supportive of Carlton Avenue and Court Lane being filtered, but do not understand the rationale for Dulwich Village road being closed at certain times of day? This is a high street / main road, not a side street being used as a cut through.

[first mate]

Can you imagine the fuss if the all powerful of Dulwich Village were made to bear the brunt of overflow traffic from the impacts of the scheme elsewhere? No, for reasons of political expediency, they are protected. Our Labour councillors are complicit.

[heartblock]

It?s so people who paid a lot of money for their property can pretend they live in a village in the countryside instead of a city, but also have all the advantages of living in a city and being able to drive where and when they wish. Although many will actually have a second home in the ?real? countryside. The Labour council know that they will lose their seats to LibDem or Tory if they take out LTNs that are not reducing traffic, just piling it on LL, EDG and Croxted.

Of course people in these areas with traffic diverted on them by LTNs, have historically voted in Labour for ever, so probably will again. As Rosamund Kissi Debrah, clean air campaigner, anti-LTN and mother of a child who sadly died of asthma say?s .... councils like Lambeth are one-party states and don?t need to think about the core vote. Same in Southwark, only the areas that have historically been more difficult to win matter.

They really don?t give two ****s about the rest of us.

[slarti b]

rahrahrah Wrote:

> I am completely supportive of Carlton Avenue and Court Lane being filtered, but do not understand the rationale for Dulwich Village road being closed at certain times of day?...

Rahrah, are you one of those nimby's from Calton who voted to close their own street to traffic but didn't want closures elsewhere? Since you can't spell Calton properly, maybe not. :-)

Closing Court Lane and Calton by themselves will just divert traffic onto Dulwich Village, EDG and Lordship Lane, as we saw last year. All of these have schools and many pupils walking on the pavement. On the other hand it is great for Alleyns, presumably why the private school dominated SRS people are so keen on it.

To avoid this massive displacment along the boundary Roads any clsoures need to be timed to protect school children and for a minimal amount of time. That is what One Dulwich supports and first put forward 4-5 years ago during the QW7 consultation.

[Trevor Moore]

Whataboutery, par excellence. Face facts.

[northernmonkey]

@Trevor Moore - you keep posting the same non-sequitur. Did you get stuck?

[Bicknell]

@Northernmonkey

think trevor is trying to get @DulwichCentral to answer. which he hasnt so far.