LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Rockets]

LTN Boo Hoo:

You said: An arbitration exercise is not what I?m suggesting. What I?m suggesting is a team of professional experts who can look at an area and make recommendations on how to make things better for everyone. Eg where the blockages are occurring and how to make adjustments to ease them.

Surely the council should have engaged with said professional experts (if they do not have the capability internally to do this) BEFORE implementing these measures? You have registered recently but if you look back you will see that many on here were predicting exactly what has happened (in terms of negative impacts) of these measures.

If people on this forum could predict what was going to happen then why could the council not - that is, after all, what they are paid to do?

Anyway, to your point on making changes I don't know if anyone else is but I am hearing rumours that they are coming due to the untenable congestion being caused by these closures across Dulwich and the realisation that they are not working and causing far more issues than they solve. I suspect the council are seeing the data and from the monitoring and not liking what they are seeing.

Re: Goodrich, ah so the school wasn't informed as the council went for a yellow-line land-grab again....you would have thought the council would have told the school these were in-bound....I sense some tensions between Goodrich and the council.

[heartblock]

The council seems to only be advised by 5-6 people running ?local campaigns?, 50 residents on Calton/ ex- councillor on Melbourne and a road planner who works for the council and the Conservative Government?s cash 💴💰...time to ask Private Eye to investigate

[slarti b]

@LTN,

You are right that my comments about C'llr Newens reaction to Darren Farmer were a bit flippant. I am afraid it was late, I was bored after rewatching the video several times and the "little finger to corner of mouth" moment sent my thoughts straight to Austin Powers:-).

I have edited my post suitably and it now reads "by this stage C'llr Newens was looking pretty concerned as Darren confirmed what many people have been saying and she had been denying". Is that OK?

But lets get to the substance of your posts. Darren from London Ambulance confirmed that emergency vehicles are being delayed by the road closures and an inordinately high proportion of the London wide delays are ocurring in Southwark. But you accuse OneDulwich of "falsehood" when they say the same thing. Do you think Darren is lying?

You avoid my question about the deception that there has been a massive, 47% increase in traffic through the DV Junction. Used prominently in the consultation meetings by our Counillors and touted on social media and local activists such as SRS. It is not true; a lie of Trumpian proportions.

And you ignore my question why permits for locals are fine when proposed by Councillors but not when proposed by OneDulwich. I guess you just can't answer it.

Milo\Gilkes were closed during the Court Lane road hump fiasco back in the late 80's. I remember being assured by council officers at public meetings that those road humps would not displace traffic onto neighbouring roads - he was wrong. The council tried to show traffic had not increased on those roads by doing a traffic survey during the summer school holidays; locals had to commission their own survey to get realistic figures. Remember the one way scheme on Woodwarde (which was why Milo had to be closed?) It took several years to get traffic calming measures across the whole area which is what residents had suggested at the start. And of course Southwark completely screwed up buying the pre-fabricated Court Lane humps which started the whole fiasco! Nothing much has changed it seems.

[heartblock]

Southwark announce changes to Great Suffolk Street Low Traffic Neighbourhood after concerns were raised by emergency services about access and local residents concerned about increased journey times

https://gssstreetspace.commonplace.is/news/changes-to-great-suffolk-street-low-traffic-neighbourhood-29th-april-2021

[Nigello]

Re Goodrich - maybe the school was not notified, but the contractor put up at least five, yellow signs with clear writing at eye level for most adults on trees and posts on that stretch of road at least a week before the lines were painted. One teacher came out halfway through and moved it. 0/10 for observation. The conctractor said he was not obliged to put so many up but he wanted to give as many people as possible a heads up and, kindly, his colleagues carefully moved cars and painted bit by bit so that they would not get ticketed (explaining that a traffic warden was on their way). Win for Conway (this time, at least).

[malumbu]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> I'd be in favour of a tax regime that hit delivery vehicles, in particular non- food deliveries. The whole business of ordering clothes online / trying on/ sending back in particular strikes me as a complete waste of resources. Call me old fashioned :)

Some pretty heavy posts on this thread in recent days. To pick up on the point above - interesting to debate, you could argue (well I could argue) that the public should be making better decisions on the environmental impact of their purchases. Try to combine purchases when buying on line for example. I see that Amazon Prime are advertising their green credentials by their move to an electric fleet. It would be far greener if they didn't encourage us to buy so much on line, including the 'must have it now'. I have to beat myself up when I feel forced to use them (there are times when it is difficult not to, although I do try to use e-bay in preference, hopefully a little better).

Being in a consumerist society government should not be intervening, but who knows about his lot, particularly as we are hosting 'COP' and now have America at the table.

The reliance on on line purchases is a whole separate thread.

[ab29]

For anyone who hasn't seen this - Dulwich Alliance is raising money to fight the permanent road closures:

www.gofundme.com/f/help-end-road-closures-in-dulwich

[heartblock]

Actually the temporary emergency closures that are being made permanent without consultation of residents on boundary roads. I?m still waiting for Southwark Council to officially inform me and my neighbours by letter. For any permanent road change that may adversely impact residents, Southwark has a duty to inform and consult. Support the legal fund as Southwark has failed to consult you.

[malumbu]

Are there not better things to donate your money to? National or local charities, environmental groups including Client Earth who challenge government on meeting air quality standards or if you want a decent local challenge the proposed developments at Brenchley Gardens and Sydenham Hill.

[heartblock]

Rosamund Kissi Debra - "Asked why I don?t support LTNs? Bcos its slowly poisoning my kids & thousands more due to daily exposure to toxic air. I?m a mum of 3 & love them equally never choose. Supporting such a scheme means you support #lungapartheid. If your rd is clear, congestion has moved elsewhere"

[smooch]

I am in total agreement with Geh, and I am afraid I find Malumbo's interjections tiresome if this person does not actually live here and see first hand the chaos that has been created.

The purpose of the LTN's was to create cleaner air - the result is a few streets have been shut off (with the majority of residents against) and horrendous congestion on all the other roads. Emergency vehicles ARE being delayed no matter what those in support say, and there are just too many people who have been significantly negatively impacted. I have never voted anything but Labour my whole life but the mind set of the current council incumbents are making me look around (I could never vote conservative but I am looking at other candidates)

I fear I am not alone

[Rockets]

I think a lot of our local Labour councillors are doing a fine impression of Tory councillors during this debacle.

[heartblock]

Smooch. You are not alone. I agree with your post.

[alice]

Duplication

[alice]

Labour all my life. But the current councillor blindness is astounding.

[Abe_froeman]

Can't agree woth that Rockets, if anything the last twelve months have seen the Tories do numerous volte faces when they see they don't have public support.

This refusal to accept that an experiment has not worked in this format (even though it could still be corrected) is unique to a certain clique in the modern labour party who see any form of comment that is not wholly supportive as a treachorous betrayal. It's completely irrational.

[smooch]

Amazing footage of protests in Ealing and Brixton - sign me up (fully masked of course) if we can organise anything similar here!!!

[Raeburn]

I can never understand how they make their point ....by closing off the road, and showing how nice it is for everyone to enjoy the road, without traffic, noise and pollution.

Seems like a great demonstration for less vehicle dependency?

[smooch]

no I think the point was they were trying to show, en masse, how many people were angry at the pollution and congestion that they are being subjected to - and not consulted with.

[Raeburn]

Exactly - it showed how nice those areas can be, for people from all walks of life, without being burdened with traffic. Maybe they should make it regular, shut the street one day a week, let people enjoy it without the fumes.

[Nigello]

I think the idea of closing off a street for one day is good but it is not the answer. Seeing the large number of vehicles - mainly cars with one occupant, or one + child - thsi morning hammers home that a few people are responsible for a lot of emissions. I saw plenty of cyclists, which is great (apart from the yuppy daddy on the pavement with kiddies in tow, obviously as a get-out-of-jail-card to him) and lots of pedestrians but my main takeaway was that DV and EDG are full of school runners.

[Raeburn]

Totally agree Nigello. I stood and watched the LL traffic for a few minutes this morning. Predominantly school run, or single-occupancy private vehicles ...all massively oversized/powered for what was needed. Saw a huge Mercedes SUV with one person, unable to get around a bus at a stop, because it (& opposing traffic) took up so much space, clogging up the lane.

- comment on closing a street once-a-week was sort of in jest, but if it meant people would explore alternatives for ?nipping to the shops? or dropping the kids to violin lessons, it might prompt a change bigger than one-day a week.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> I think the idea of closing off a street for one

> day is good but it is not the answer. Seeing the

> large number of vehicles - mainly cars with one

> occupant, or one + child - thsi morning hammers

> home that a few people are responsible for a lot

> of emissions. I saw plenty of cyclists, which is

> great (apart from the yuppy daddy on the pavement

> with kiddies in tow, obviously as a

> get-out-of-jail-card to him) and lots of

> pedestrians but my main takeaway was that DV and

> EDG are full of school runners.

According to TFL only around 40% of adults have household access to car in Southwark. And I'm fairly sure that of those that do, many don't drive regularly.

[Spartacus]

Maybe as a borough rahrahrah,that's true with virtually no car ownership in the north part and possibly multiple cars per house in the south.

But if you break it down to areas then around here the percentage would be closer to 80 or 90% as we aren't in central London nor do we have as much public transport

Quoting a figure of 40% for a whole borough is misleading when it comes to local Dulwich issues.

[Rockets]

Dulwich car ownership is at over 60% in the Dulwich area - driven (no pun intended) by the larger percentage than other boroughs of those under-19 and those over 65 and the poor public transport links in the area.

It's all in here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Dulwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf

Which, when you read it, makes the decision to puts LTNs even more baffling.