LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Bicknell]

anyone been sent the link for thsi yet? i registered but havent got link

this afternoon 2 - 4

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/dulwich-streetspace-review-community-meetings-tickets-153435899907

[Otto2]

Oh Mr. Chicken I really love how you reinforce the stereotypes of all cyclists are lycra kings. Keep the good stuff going - blinder the eyes so we cannot see the children and mums and older folks riding and walking more - such a distraction. Thank you Mr. Chicken - you are my favourite mathematician for simplifying things and making it so much easier to understand. Perhaps you had inspiration to agree with those who despise LTN's in this glorious vision of Lycra Kings - so good you are coming to view things from the other perspective with such clarity.

[mr.chicken]

Otto2 Wrote:

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

> Oh Mr. Chicken I really love how you reinforce the

> stereotypes of all cyclists are lycra kings.

Oh thankyou! Unfortunately I am unable to claim credit for this particular piece of genius (it is in my opinion exceptionally witty): credit must go where credit is due to our very own heartblock.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> The infamous square will... if it stays, make it a

> no through for cyclists in case little Chlamydia

> or Epididymis is knocked over by a Lycra clad king

> of the road.

I also am delighted at the dig at the kid's names. They cannot have a valid use for roads because roads are for cars and they are too young to drive.

Unfortunately I am still at a loss to counter the nefarious cyclists' (is there any other sort) opinion on how allowing cars won't actually be beneficial to ambulances. Car drivers and especially SUV owners all seem to agree that having more cars on the road will help emergency vehicles, but I'm terrible at explaining why, so hopefully a One Dulwicher can help me out.

[alice]

Mr chicken should be ignored. His poor humour serves the weakness of his argument. I shall rename myself 3gearalice.

[Otto2]

Thank you good Alice - if you would like to post a list of those of whom you consider to be the most excellent on this topic I will direct my attention correctly.

[ab29]

We lost Malumbu and got Mr Chicken instead; no rest for the wicked ;)

alice Wrote:

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

> Mr chicken should be ignored. His poor humour

> serves the weakness of his argument. I shall

> rename myself 3gearalice.

[heartblock]

Yep FirstMate - the report to Southwark includes an ambulance delayed by the Calton Ave hard closure adding time to a Cat 2 call on Desenfans Rd and an inability to use Derwent Road because of a hard closure to avoid heavy traffic on Grove Vale responding to a Cat 1.

The report ends with a request to make changes due to 'previous feedback' and wonders about an 'update' as 'we still seem be experiencing delays, that are very concerning and leading to patient safety concerns'

I know that my paramedic students dislike the hard closures, they consider them to contribute to a higher risk to life.

[PollyGlot]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Hi @PollyGlot

>

> Unfortunately sales of new SUVs now outnumber

> electric vehicle sales at a rate of 37 to 1. See

> link to article "the trend towards purchasing

> bigger cars is threatening the UK?s attempts to

> reduce emissions from the transport sector"

> https://ukerc.ac.uk/news/suvs-sabotage-green-revol

> ution/

>

The article you refer to was written in 2019 and the stats therein were even older. Since then, the sales of electric/hybrid/alt fuelled vehicles has rocketed.

See

https://www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/Tipping-point-Alternative-fuels-outsell-diesels/8560

and

https://www.carwow.co.uk/news/4647/new-car-sales

Now the tipping point has been passed, the sales of electric/hybrid/alt fuelled vehicles will progress even faster. This trend will be further accelerated if EVs were permitted exemption from the LTN penalties.

> > 1. Traffic displacement rather than reduction.

> The idea behind the measures is that people will

> opt for active travel if it's safe for them to do

> so. There's been a significant increase in school

> children cycling in the area. I see lots more

> families cycling on the school-run now and it

> would be a shame if they all went back to using

> cars - which would just clog up the streets

> again.

Let have statistics please rather than just opinion.

If you are young and fit then you may cycle but for many others cycling is just not an option be it health, disability, age etc and a simple consideration of where to store the bike. Not every one has adequate space.

> > 2. Displaced traffic causing unacceptable

> increases in pollution.

> I would support any measures to improve congestion

> on main roads. Dedicated bus lanes, remove car

> parking blocking buses, 20 mph speed limits, ULEZ,

> road pricing, and more protected cycle ways to

> link up the safe routes.

I note that you did not mention EVs here. Why?

Also you fail to recognise that "congestion on the main roads" has been made WORSE by the additional displaced traffic. It's this displacement that is causing grief and additional pollution.

>

> > 3. Impact on local businesses.

> It's impossible to tell what the impact on

> businesses has been until we are back to normal

> after the pandemic.

> Claims that traffic measures have impacted

> business more than Covid seems highly unlikely to

> me.

Go and ask Callow the locksmiths why they are leaving! Ask the other businesses there and see how they feel about it.

>

> > 4. Emergency vehicles are being delayed

> Just everyday regular traffic congestion held up

> emergency services **8,841** times in 2017 -

You are avoiding the key point. It is the road closures that impede the emergency services. They cannot go direct to the incident. Plus because of the displaced traffic, they are held up even more trying to get there.

>

> > 5. Increase in crime (as stated by Cressida

> Dick)because Police cannot gain access because of

> the barriers.

> See (4) and Cressida Dick stated that 'on occasion

> it's harder for our officers to get down streets'

> and that she was in conversation with TfL to

> address any difficulties.

Yes, because of the displaced traffic

>

>

> 'Overall, the introduction of a low traffic

> neighbourhood was associated with a 10% decrease

> in total street crime.

The decrease in crime in the last 18 months was due to Covid as the "dealers" stood out more during lockdown. Then it reduced because pubs and clubs were shut.

>

> In a previous post you mention that 'Southwark is

> clearly spending millions on a problem that

> receding fast'.

>

> Another ten years until petrol cars are phased out

> is not imho fast enough. Nor will EV's solve

> problems as outlined above.

It's only 8 years until the ban and between now and well in advance of then, the %age of EV's will clearly exceed petrol and diesel cars and SUVs.

[Metallic]

Anyone watching the Scrutiny Committee would have seen the paramedic called Darren saying that ANPR cameras were their preferred style of closure and that permanent barriers are not. Watch it, it is still on Youtube.

Frankly it is so obvious, move the flipping planters, get a camera, get a school street type hours and see how it goes. It cannot be any worse than the hell the people in Croxted Rd and East Dulwich Grove are suffering.

[first mate]

It is interesting to see the various methods adopted by some of the more extreme pro LTN supporters- denial of available evidence, persistent attempts to derail and obfuscate/ trolling on threads, trying to stifle views/ claiming there are too many threads, and now defacing posters displayed that are objecting to the current incarnation of LTNs. It just doesn't feel very adult, democratic or like there is a willingness to face the flaws and have a rethink.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Yep FirstMate - the report to Southwark includes

> an ambulance delayed by the Calton Ave hard

> closure adding time to a Cat 2 call on Desenfans

> Rd and an inability to use Derwent Road because of

> a hard closure to avoid heavy traffic on Grove

> Vale responding to a Cat 1.

> The report ends with a request to make changes due

> to 'previous feedback' and wonders about an

> 'update' as 'we still seem be experiencing delays,

> that are very concerning and leading to patient

> safety concerns'

>

> I know that my paramedic students dislike the hard

> closures, they consider them to contribute to a

> higher risk to life.

[ab29]

Heartblock, was this FoI request? Are there any official stats?

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Yep FirstMate - the report to Southwark includes

> an ambulance delayed by the Calton Ave hard

> closure adding time to a Cat 2 call on Desenfans

> Rd and an inability to use Derwent Road because of

> a hard closure to avoid heavy traffic on Grove

> Vale responding to a Cat 1.

> The report ends with a request to make changes due

> to 'previous feedback' and wonders about an

> 'update' as 'we still seem be experiencing delays,

> that are very concerning and leading to patient

> safety concerns'

>

> I know that my paramedic students dislike the hard

> closures, they consider them to contribute to a

> higher risk to life.

[mr.chicken]

first mate Wrote:

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

> It is interesting to see the various methods

> adopted by some of the more extreme pro LTN

> supporters- denial of available evidence,

> persistent attempts to derail and obfuscate/

> trolling on threads, trying to stifle views/

> claiming there are too many threads, and now

> defacing posters displayed that are objecting to

> the current incarnation of LTNs. It just doesn't

> feel very adult, democratic or like there is a

> willingness to face the flaws and have a rethink.

Absolutely, those awful Lycra-clad roadkings just keep posting here. We know their opinions are wrong and the democratic thing for them to do is just pipe down and let the rest of us repeat anti LTN points unobstructed. I am still shocked that they have the gall to have opinions that differ from the majority on this thread. It's like they're trying to pretend there are valid opinions for the LTNs. Absurd, I'm sure you agree. As far as I can see the only way to counter them is to join anti-LTN folks in a name calling campaign, to shame the cyclists for being lycra clad road kings and those dreadful children playing in an area denied to cars with silly names like Chlamydia or Epididymis. Their names alone should be enough to disqualify them from any consideration.

I mean honsetly. As you so rightly pointed out the fact that none of those pro-LTN folks came onto the forum between 8:30pm and 9 the next morning to rebut your point means they simply don't have valid opinions and everything you say is completely correct by default.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Yep FirstMate - the report to Southwark includes

> an ambulance delayed by the Calton Ave hard

> closure adding time to a Cat 2 call on Desenfans

> Rd and an inability to use Derwent Road because of

> a hard closure to avoid heavy traffic on Grove

> Vale responding to a Cat 1.

> The report ends with a request to make changes due

> to 'previous feedback' and wonders about an

> 'update' as 'we still seem be experiencing delays,

> that are very concerning and leading to patient

> safety concerns'

This just proves my point! Having more cars on the roads helps ambulances. No one has reported not being delayed by lack of enormous rush hour queues along Dulwich Village (the fact that there's no mechanism and no one's checked anyway is immaterial) just proves that more cars helps ambulances. That's why we shouldn't open the junctions for emergency access, we should allow all cars.

Can you help me with some logic to back up? None of the lycra-clad road-kings you so rightly despise seem to buy my arguments. Can you help me firm them up a bit?

[ab29]

"claiming there are too many threads" - you are absolutely right Firstmate, arrogant and selfish individuals like rahrahrah or Dulwich Central.

first mate Wrote:

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

> It is interesting to see the various methods

> adopted by some of the more extreme pro LTN

> supporters- denial of available evidence,

> persistent attempts to derail and obfuscate/

> trolling on threads, trying to stifle views/

> claiming there are too many threads, and now

> defacing posters displayed that are objecting to

> the current incarnation of LTNs. It just doesn't

> feel very adult, democratic or like there is a

> willingness to face the flaws and have a rethink.

>

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Yep FirstMate - the report to Southwark

> includes

> > an ambulance delayed by the Calton Ave hard

> > closure adding time to a Cat 2 call on

> Desenfans

> > Rd and an inability to use Derwent Road because

> of

> > a hard closure to avoid heavy traffic on Grove

> > Vale responding to a Cat 1.

> > The report ends with a request to make changes

> due

> > to 'previous feedback' and wonders about an

> > 'update' as 'we still seem be experiencing

> delays,

> > that are very concerning and leading to patient

> > safety concerns'

> >

> > I know that my paramedic students dislike the

> hard

> > closures, they consider them to contribute to a

> > higher risk to life.

[mr.chicken]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> "claiming there are too many threads" - you are

> absolutely right Firstmate, arrogant and selfish

> individuals like rahrahrah or Dulwich Central.

Quite right ab29! The sheer volume of anti LTN posts proves the point. If people were actually in favour of them they would be tirelessly posting the same points on as many threads as they could. We can therefore conclude there is no support for LTNs and so any opposition to the removal is anti democratic.

[heartblock]

FOI ab29. If you are interested a simple google will be able to produce all the requests. I also have contacts in LAS through my profession, but not able to post anything which is not in the public domain. But this is, as an FOI for the scrutiny committee Emergency Services ? Southwark Experimental Transport Measures

16/07/2020

London Ambulance Service ? London-wide these measures are happening and

they are not joined up. Our fleet is very fluid and not from a fixed location. The

nearest ambulance to the emergency wil be called up to attend. Planters are not

showing up on Satnavs.

The measures are creating delays responding to calls. Not against principles of

scheme just conscious of how it may cause slower response times. ANPR cameras

are the best measures and these work for us. Width restrictions are also a problem.

Ambulances are more likely to use neighbouring roads.

Metropolitan Police ? Pan-London units wil have similar issues with SatNavs.

London Fire Brigade (Old Kent Road) ? We have a 6-8 minute attendance time.

Must be mindful of width restrictions. Fire brigade can also come from further afield

and these measures can have a big impact. We are heavily under the microscope

due to previous issues.

Metropolitan Police ? We have had to add these measures in to our risk register.

If you read through all the DATIX then there are delays due to physical barriers, one being a paediatric cardiac arrest.

I suppose it is upsetting for me, as someone who used to be part of the on call primary PCI team to imagine the frustration paramedics and first responders feel when delayed.

Very much in favour of reducing car use and encouraging active travel, but doubt LTNs achieve either. Seems to causing chaos for many and increased house prices for the few.

[mr.chicken]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> I also

> have contacts in LAS through my profession, but

> not able to post anything which is not in the

> public domain.

Well that evidence is good enough for me! Clearly we must be rid of LTNs.

> Southwark

> Experimental Transport Measures

> 16/07/2020

Well we can't expect anyone to update their maps within a year. I think this is strong evidence, or at least anecdotes that we can never change anything ever.

[first mate]

It helps to have someone who knows what they are talking about. Thanks for sharing Heartblock. Does there seem to be resistance to replacing planters with cameras, or perhaps S'wark plan to use money made from cameras in DV to fund them elsewhere?

heartblock Wrote:

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

> FOI ab29. If you are interested a simple google

> will be able to produce all the requests. I also

> have contacts in LAS through my profession, but

> not able to post anything which is not in the

> public domain. But this is, as an FOI for the

> scrutiny committee Emergency Services ? Southwark

> Experimental Transport Measures

> 16/07/2020

>

> London Ambulance Service ? London-wide these

> measures are happening and

> they are not joined up. Our fleet is very fluid

> and not from a fixed location. The

> nearest ambulance to the emergency wil be called

> up to attend. Planters are not

> showing up on Satnavs.

> The measures are creating delays responding to

> calls. Not against principles of

> scheme just conscious of how it may cause slower

> response times. ANPR cameras

> are the best measures and these work for us. Width

> restrictions are also a problem.

> Ambulances are more likely to use neighbouring

> roads.

> Metropolitan Police ? Pan-London units wil have

> similar issues with SatNavs.

> London Fire Brigade (Old Kent Road) ? We have a

> 6-8 minute attendance time.

> Must be mindful of width restrictions. Fire

> brigade can also come from further afield

> and these measures can have a big impact. We are

> heavily under the microscope

> due to previous issues.

> Metropolitan Police ? We have had to add these

> measures in to our risk register.

>

> If you read through all the DATIX then there are

> delays due to physical barriers, one being a

> paediatric cardiac arrest.

>

> I suppose it is upsetting for me, as someone who

> used to be part of the on call primary PCI team to

> imagine the frustration paramedics and first

> responders feel when delayed.

>

> Very much in favour of reducing car use and

> encouraging active travel, but doubt LTNs achieve

> either. Seems to causing chaos for many and

> increased house prices for the few.

[heartblock]

I think Southwark doesn't know what to do next.

[legalalien]

Did anyone attend the streetspace online meeting this afternoon? I planned to but unfortunately had to be somewhere with poor mobile coverage/ no data access. Just wondered what happened and whether there might be a recording online.

[PollyGlot]

Yes, I did and I raised a question about data collect relevant to bus performance - given that buses operate on main roads and these roads now have to carry the extra displaced traffic arising from the road closures.

The response was vague and did not dispel the suspicion many of us have, about the accuracy and quality of the data which may or may not be available.

It did nothing to increase my hopes that a sensible decision can ultimately reached on these measure ie one where final result is not biased towards the pre-established position of Southwark planners.

Southwark's intention seems to be based on reducing traffic in LTN areas so that they can claim improvements there in traffic and pollution reduction. They then totally disregard the increased congestion, delays and pollution caused by the traffic displacement on to the main routes.

Crazy!

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Did anyone attend the streetspace online meeting

> this afternoon? I planned to but unfortunately

> had to be somewhere with poor mobile coverage/ no

> data access. Just wondered what happened and

> whether there might be a recording online.

[mr.chicken]

PollyGlot Wrote:

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

>

> Southwark's intention seems to be based on

> reducing traffic in LTN areas so that they can

> claim improvements there in traffic and pollution

> reduction.

That can't be right! We know that while traffic grows to fill the roads, the reverse can't possibly be true and nothing will make the total traffic go down. I for one would much rather sit for half an hour in a traffic jam on a formerly 5 minute journey than walk to the shops in 15 minutes. What am I? A pedestrian?

Heartblock, do you have any opinions on pedestrians? I know you despise cyclists (lycra clad kings of the road! 😉😉😉) as one should, so do you have any quips about them? Or are we to be left only with the funny kids names?

[hopskip]

Yes people asked could be the session be recorded but Andy Simmons and Dale Foden said not - no clear reason for this departure from recording Council public meetings. Some attending will of course have made their own records. It is easy to do so. The meeting Chat was stated by Dale Foden as available for everyone to make a copy. Very unsatisfactory meeting - not one attendee spoke in favour of the closures. Prepared answers and as expected Southwark predetermined agenda. I recommend attending one of the next sessions to hear why critical air and road monitoring data has not been presented with the survey, although stated to be being measured, and why is it still being withheld. Worth asking how the consultation has been adapted to ensure it complies with legal requirements to seek views from under 18s and how these are to be weighted in the overall results.

Really poor meeting with the now familiar patronising comments and agenda from Southwark officials - Andy, Catherine, Dale

[PollyGlot]

mr.chicken Wrote:

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

>

> We know that while traffic

> grows to fill the roads, the reverse can't

> possibly be true and nothing will make the total

> traffic go down.

The key words are in the title of the post and in the Council campaign ie "Our HEALTHY Streets".

To me this means reducing pollution. This does not equate directly to reducing traffic. The strategy should be focussed on reducing the number of polluting vehicles and you do that by incentivising people to use EV and hybrid cars. You do this by exempting them from penalties.

You then penalise users of polluting cars by developing the camera controlled areas further. It's not rocket science.

It just make no sense with the current system of displacing traffic that concentrates pollution on certain roads.

[hpsaucey]

mr.chicken Wrote:

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

> ab29 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > "claiming there are too many threads" - you are

> > absolutely right Firstmate, arrogant and

> selfish

> > individuals like rahrahrah or Dulwich Central.

>

> Quite right ab29! The sheer volume of anti LTN

> posts proves the point. If people were actually in

> favour of them they would be tirelessly posting

> the same points on as many threads as they could.

> We can therefore conclude there is no support for

> LTNs and so any opposition to the removal is anti

> democratic.

Errr - no you can't conclude that at all! I'm in favour of LTNs but choose - apart from this post - not to engage with the issue on this thread or this forum. (ETA - sorry Mr Chicken - re read less befuddled by migraine and am getting the sarcasm now)

ab29 - I'd have thought calling people 'arrogant' or 'selfish' might also put people off engaging here.

HP

[exdulwicher]

I think Southwark doesn't know what to do next.

Well the LTN's are a central Government idea - they proposed and funded it all. The problem is that they haven't really followed it up with much. Vague stuff about "getting the economy going again" but otherwise they've left the councils to largely carry the can for it. Not much (yet) about getting people back to rail and bus, nothing further on avoiding a car-led recovery as people steer clear of crowded public transport for a while, no standardised guidance on how to progress the schemes...

They slipped out a quiet press release about Walking to School:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/multimillion-pound-investment-to-inspire-children-to-walk-to-school

To me this means reducing pollution. This does not equate directly to reducing traffic. The strategy should be focussed on reducing the number of polluting vehicles and you do that by incentivising people to use EV and hybrid cars. You do this by exempting them from penalties.

You then penalise users of polluting cars by developing the camera controlled areas further. It's not rocket science.

Again, that has to be a national policy, it's not something that Southwark can do on their own. Plus it does nothing to promote active travel, it's simply a way of getting people to swap their petrol/diesel SUV for a hybrid SUV. Doesn't address parking or congestion, doesn't help those who don't have a car, doesn't help those who can't afford / don't want a new car.

EV use is already being incentivised anyway - the widening of the ULEZ zone will help with that, car manufacturers have stepped up with lots of new models and the sale of ICE* cars will be phased out by 2030 as well but that still leaves plenty of ICE cars on the roads for the next 15 years or so. You have to do something to reduce traffic otherwise it'll simply be a slow drift from an ICE traffic jam to a mix of ICE/EV and then to full EV. But it'll still be a traffic jam.

*Internal Combustion Engine