LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[mr.chicken]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> You are suggesting scrapping, or even just

> altering, the so-called LTN's? What an outrageous

> suggestion.

Absolutely! We should get rid of them all. You and I would both rather spend 30 minutes in traffic in a car than walk a formerly drivable journey in 15 minutes: this is how we know that LTNs can't reduce traffic, only divert it. And if they can't reduce traffic then what's the point?

It is important that people be able to take a quick pop to the shops in their SUVs and so we should absolutely aim to maximise the throughput of cars to the greatest extent possible, e.g. by repurposing minor residential roads. I think with a few tweaks, e.g. banning on street parking on both sides, making it two lanes one way and upping the speed limit to 40, we could turn Calton avenue into a major thoroughfare taking a significant portion of traffic off EDG. I think in the reverse direction we could make use of Court Lane and streets like Desefans with similar modifications. One way systems are a little irritating, but I think we could very effectively increase the number of cars.

> Me and my neighbours on Calton Avenue put a lot of

> effort into persuading Margy and Richard to close

> off our road

I don't know Margy and Richard. Are they nice?

[first mate]

Let's not try too hard to get this thread locked, though that does seem to be the intention of a certain forum 'cock'.

[heartblock]

Interesting to see so many 'Clean air for all' posters in local independent shops on Melbourne, Grove Vale, LL and Village. As well as houses inside LTNs. Also two nurseries on EDG.

Some interesting tweets from Rosamund Kissi Debra, on the inequalities of diverting traffic onto residential roads with high density housing - although she is constantly trolled sadly.

I also have been sent a copy of the latest Labour Party meeting, encouraging members to fill in the consultation and tick 'strongly agree' for all LTNs. They also repeat the flawed research about disappearing traffic and reduced pollution/traffic in areas with higher poverty and high BAME residents and have produced a poster, that would seem strange in a window- with an SUV and a second car on the front drive - with the tagline.

CARS ARE A LUXURY,

CLEAN AIR IS A RIGHT.

PUT PEOPLE BEFORE CARS

When I see the removal of Green space in Brenchley and Bells, both high density housing by Southwark, it all seems a little hypocritical, increasing traffic on LL,EDG, Croxted and Grove Vale, while removing trees, green space and children's play areas from these estates.

If you want to know more - do follow

Infilling Harms Estates@CourtCampaign

They are currently campaigning to save Peckham Green, 1.4 acres of nature from private development

[Rockets]

Indeed, given the coop of aforementioned Mr.Chicken is "close to the Calton Avenue junction" - as they stated on one of their first posts here - I think we can all determine what Mr.Chicken's objective is....their tongue-in-cheek postings were entertaining to begin with but now appear to be nothing more than a exercise in disruption.

Perhaps they might shed their cloak of obtuseness, join the debate properly and tell us what they really think.....;-)

[Rockets]

Heartblock - can you share the documents that have been shared with you from the meeting? What meeting was it? Was it a meeting for Labour members within the LTN area? Are political parties allowed to try to influence the outcome - fine if they are telling people to go and look at the review but not so fine if they are telling people how they should respond - at what point does that become interference?

[heartblock]

Hi Rockets, not sure I can share it all from source, as might indicate the person who sent it to me, but I think that they can influence consultations? Maybe councillors can't but a local political party can, so within their rights. Not sure. I think they do truly believe it is the right way to reduce pollution and traffic, despite the local problems for residents, businesses and school-children walking to school.

It does include a 'fact check' that links to Sustrans and Peter Walker Guardian articles, but frames it all as;

"It's an issue of equality. Less than half of Southwark residents own a car, with car ownership concentrated in the highest earning households. Yet all people pay the price for car use, disproportionately the most vulnerable. People living in deprived areas are more exposed to pollution, and suffer worse health outcomes. Disabled Londoners and those with health conditions make 32% fewer car trips each day than other Londoners, but as pedestrians are five times more likely to be injured by a motor vehicle than non-disabled people. We need to make our streets safe for all people, not only people with cars"

So apparently the increased traffic and pollution on EDG, Croxted. LL and Grove Vale is making 'streets safe for all people'?

It's like Orwellian Doublethink.

[Glemham]

A couple of months ago I watched a large SUV park in my road ( which serves as an overspill car park for Alleyn?s School) and the driver get out, take a small bike from the boot, and then follow behind as a small uniformed boy ?cycled? on the pavement to a nearby private Junior School. No doubt the boy is one of the statistics showing the increase in the number of children cycling to school.

[heartblock]

Hi Glemham, frequently seen on EDG - car stuck in traffic and school child jumps out with scooter, bike or walks, so arrive at school as an 'active travel' statistic, but have actually been driven down EDG school rd.

If a busy parent has 3 children to drop off at various nurseries, primary and secondary schools, before trying to get to work, then maybe driving is for them is the most effective way.

I feel sorry for all these busy parents being condemned by the 'lobby' as petrol heads and not caring about pollution, it must be very difficult naviagating road closures, idling traffic and different school opening times.

[heartblock]

Another section

"Low traffic neighbourhoods work. Data collected from similar schemes elsewhere have shown that over time, LTNs do not move traffic from closed roads to other areas; they reduce overall car use both on residential roads and boundary roads. They do this by making journeys by car less convenient, and travel by foot and bike safer and more accessible for a wider range of people. On streets closed for school opening / closing times for instance, you can see children now walking and cycling to school because it's safe to do so - taking cars off the road, reducing congestion, and improving the air for all."

[Nigello]

If you have children and lots of them, then simply decide to organise your life so that you are less likely to negatively impact others (and yourself - be selfish!) Nobody is forcing you to have one, two, three children, or use a car to get them to school - you CHOOSE that and convince yourself you HAVE to act the way you do. Saying you have to do something is not based in reality - is a CHOICE, even if it brings you disadvantages now (and probably a lot more down the line).

[Rockets]

Heatblock - Labour have completely immersed themselves in the pro-LTN propaganda and are drinking the Kool-Aid by the gallon. The use of the Fact Check carries as much weight as the Tories doing it on their twitter feed during the election (and that's before it takes you to Peter Walker's articles ;-)) - I would love to know to which LTNs they are referring to that have reduced traffic on both residential and boundary roads as there isn't one in existence - I suspect they are regurgitating the Waltham Forest "success" - which, as we know, was anything but successful for anyone who didn't live within the closed area - the 28% increase in traffic 3.1 miles from the outer edge of the Waltham Forest LTN speaks volumes!

Re: school drops Court Lane is also a school car park at drop-off and pick-up time but at least they are walking the last 100 yards!!! ;-)

[Nigello]

Much more needs to be expected from the several schools - state and private - in terms of reducing motorised vehicle trips in getting pupils to and from their premises. We all know and see the effects of the school holidays so we know that school traffic is a big part of the logjams. I think it is fair for any school in this part of the borough to do its utmost to reduce parent car/taxi trips to and from school. How they do it is up to them but they must do more.

[first mate]

I do agree with this and wonder how much the Council is engaging with either sector? As a teacher our local Councillor is well placed to comment in more dtail.

[mr.chicken]

Rockets Wrote:

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

>

> Re: school drops Court Lane is also a school car

> park at drop-off and pick-up time but at least

> they are walking the last 100 yards!!! ;-)

We need to re-open the junctions so they can drive the last 100 yards. I think it's unfair for people to have to walk anywhere when they have spent good money on cars. ;-)

[first mate]

I wonder if these instances of 'walking' and 'cycling' are included as evidence of LTN success?

Rockets Wrote:

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

>

> Re: school drops Court Lane is also a school car

> park at drop-off and pick-up time but at least

> they are walking the last 100 yards!!!

[exdulwicher]

I wonder if these instances of 'walking' and 'cycling' are included as evidence of LTN success?

You can probably argue it several ways. In some respects it's "multi-modal transport" - car part way, cycle/walk the rest. It might not be the original idea of the LTN, perhaps a sort of unintended consequence but it's still better than driving ALL the way. It's not really any different to driving to North Dulwich, parking on Half Moon Lane and getting the train to London Bridge rather then driving all the way into town.

Without seeing where they're coming from, where they're going afterwards (is it simply a "drive child to school, drive home again" or is the parent going on somewhere else - to another school, to a workplace and if so, how? Cycling the remainder of the way, cycling back to their parked vehicle and driving...?) and how widespread a practice it is, it's difficult to come to a definitive conclusion - so far we've got a couple of anecdotes

It could be argued that a parent who previously parked in (say) Calton Avenue to drop their child at JAGS or Alleyn's is now parking in (say) Court Lane and cycling through the closed DV junction and up Calton which has pushed the parking problem onto Court Lane rather than Calton / Townley / EDG.

If you were especially pro-LTN, you could probably phrase it as a drive through all the dangerous bits until you've got somewhere nice and safe to cycle therefore you need to make the dangerous bits safer - perhaps by extending the LTN. ;-)

If you were anti-LTN, you could probably phrase it as a rather disingenuous use of stats showing increases in active travel by virtue of the fact that there is still vehicle usage.

Your choice.

*edited for spelling

[ab29]

LA, I really appreciate your work & input - and I am a guilty party here.

But what are the options?

I begin to see this as a divide between people who are able to empathize and those that are not

.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> It?s in danger of ceasing being a discussion and

> taking on the tone of the clashes taking place on

> Twitter. I despair. Whatever happened to reasoned

> debate, acknowledging the weaknesses in one?s own

> argument and pausing for reflection? Call me old

> fashioned but I find all this playground /trolling

> stuff a bit of an irritant - I guess that?s the

> point of it, but I can?t see how it progresses

> anything.

>

>

> ianr Wrote:

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

> -----

> > For non-participants, where has this discussion

> > got to so far?

[heartblock]

I think you are right exdulwicher, it can be used either way. I suppose when I think about ?success? from a purely reducing pollution point of view, which I think should be the goal, then I do wonder why the illegally polluted roads that also have schools on, such as Croxted, Grove Vale, East Dulwich Grove and Village are not LTNs but Derwent and Calton with very low levels of pollution are. Are the Dulwich LTNs about reducing pollution or creating quiet neighbourhoods for certain people?

[ab29]

Dulwich LTNs - and LTNs in general - are about reducing pollution or creating quiet neighbourhoods for certain people - this much is certain.

[exdulwicher]

Dulwich LTNs - and LTNs in general - are about reducing pollution or creating quiet neighbourhoods for certain people - this much is certain.

So... they work then?

Therefore, by that logic, councils should start introducing traffic reduction systems EVERYWHERE?

Perhaps by taking one lane away and replacing it with a secure cycle lane, perhaps by putting in a bus lane or implementing a Park & Ride or a toll road or a residents access only road...?

What is essentially being said is that LTNs have pushed pollution elsewhere and from comments on here, there appears to be two (rather binary) choices: spread the pollution around a bit or look at the positive outcomes and use them elsewhere to reduce pollution there too.

I mean, if there was a ton of rubbish flytipped on EDG, would you argue that it should be split into multiple lots of 50kg and spread around the area a bit or would you argue that we needed better rubbish prevention methods?

[alice]

The puzzle always has been: Why was the centre of South Southwark deemed to be Calton/village/junction?

I asked this at one of the zoom meetings and was asked whether i wanted the same measures on my road. Not an answer to the question.

[ab29]

Ex:

"Therefore, by that logic, councils should start introducing traffic reduction systems EVERYWHERE?"

I can selfishly say I do not own a car and so I would be happy with closing off an entire London area to cars, especially A-roads where people have suffered long enough e.g. South Circular (except for disabled people, ambulances and so on).

No one who OWNS A CAR should be lecturing people here about LTNs!

"spread the pollution around a bit" - no, not "a bit" - A LOT

On a day AFTER the so-called 'LTN' went live I was talking to my neighbours - we thought there was an accident in the area to cause a traffic of such monumental proportion.

Rubbish comparison: "if there was a ton of rubbish flytipped on EDG, would you argue that it should be split into multiple lots of 50kg and spread around the area a bit or would you argue that we needed better rubbish prevention methods?" - I want to see the rubbish being "split into multiple lots of 50kg and spread around the area a bit"

UNTIL A PROPER SYSTEM IS IN PLACE - instead of punishing residents of East Dulwich Grove.

It is only fair.

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> Dulwich LTNs - and LTNs in general - are about

> reducing pollution or creating quiet

> neighbourhoods for certain people - this much is

> certain.

>

> So... they work then?

> Therefore, by that logic, councils should start

> introducing traffic reduction systems EVERYWHERE?

>

> Perhaps by taking one lane away and replacing it

> with a secure cycle lane, perhaps by putting in a

> bus lane or implementing a Park & Ride or a toll

> road or a residents access only road...?

>

> What is essentially being said is that LTNs have

> pushed pollution elsewhere and from comments on

> here, there appears to be two (rather binary)

> choices: spread the pollution around a bit or look

> at the positive outcomes and use them elsewhere to

> reduce pollution there too.

>

> I mean, if there was a ton of rubbish flytipped on

> EDG, would you argue that it should be split into

> multiple lots of 50kg and spread around the area a

> bit or would you argue that we needed better

> rubbish prevention methods?

[ab29]

Ex:

I said: ""Dulwich LTNs - and LTNs in general - are about reducing pollution or creating quiet neighbourhoods for CERTAIN people"" - "this much is certain".

You said: "So... they work then?"

Pushing air pollution from one street to another does not reduce the overall air pollution - and is it not what the so-called 'LTN' supporters are after? Only because YOUR STREET has been quiet it does not mean it is ok!

The neighbouring roads are now getting YOUR traffic!

Do you understand? You are happy while others have to suffer - is this what you want?

Unless you are happy that CERTIAN people have clean air but not the others?

[Rockets]

Ex- surely the objective should be to reduce pollution for everyone - not just some? I know planners are currently obsessed with "nudge interventions" (it seems to be THE buzz word) but I am not sure how anyone can agree with such a strategic policy that is so imbalanced and one that creates bliss for one and hell for another.

What people really mean by nudge intervention is that you throw something in that makes life so miserable for those impacted by the results that they just say please give us what they have - the fact this is being pushed by, so called, socialist administrations is quite shocking.

Also, defaulting to the "we just need more of them" is another tactic employed by those who favour them and is horrendously flawed as you can't just keep pushing the collateral damage to another street. It is the weak argument of those who have no idea how to try and tackle the problem holistically - it's lazy and gets rolled out by every councillor.

I am sorry but your fly-tipping example just doesn't work. Fly tipping happens on my street and I would much prefer to see something that removes fly-tipping at source rather than just saying - get it dumped in the next street along please.

This is not about sharing pollution it's about sharing the responsibility for reducing it and not, in the process. reducing it for some yet doubling it for others. This seems to be the part of the issue that pro-LTNs fail to grasp and it's not actually that difficult to understand.

[heartblock]

If you use the pile of rubbish analogy, then we started with illegal piles of rubbish on EDG, LL and Grove Vale, all of which have schools. Calton and Court had very little rubbish. Now the roads with previously illegal piles of rubbish have the extra burden of the small amount of rubbish from other roads.

To me, this doesn?t seem a way of reducing pollution.