LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Droid]

eastdulwichlocal99 Wrote:

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

> I really don?t know what all the fuss is about -

> the roads are only busy at rush hour like they

> have always been. Go down from 9:30am onwards and

> it?s really quiet. Removing the LTNs won?t change

> the rush hour jam one bit.

>

Sorry but it's not just rush hour. The increased traffic congestion on Saturday & Sunday is horrendous on EDG, LL, DV, Croxted and Gove Vale simply because:-

1. Locals use their cars for a weekly shop as it's the only time they can reasonably do it if the work mid-week.

2. Most of the roads off EDG and the others are blocked.

3. People travel to socialise.

Last Saturday, my neighbour took 40 minutes to travel from Grove Vale to Alleyns school.

Your assessment is just so, so wrong.

[LTN BooHoo]

Droid Wrote:

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

> eastdulwichlocal99 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I really don?t know what all the fuss is about

> -

> > the roads are only busy at rush hour like they

> > have always been. Go down from 9:30am onwards

> and

> > it?s really quiet. Removing the LTNs won?t

> change

> > the rush hour jam one bit.

> >

> Sorry but it's not just rush hour. The increased

> traffic congestion on Saturday & Sunday is

> horrendous on EDG, LL, DV, Croxted and Gove Vale

> simply because:-

> 1. Locals use their cars for a weekly shop as it's

> the only time they can reasonably do it if the

> work mid-week.

> 2. Most of the roads off EDG and the others are

> blocked.

> 3. People travel to socialise.

>

> Last Saturday, my neighbour took 40 minutes to

> travel from Grove Vale to Alleyns school.

>

> Your assessment is just so, so wrong.

Ok I have to ask, I assume your neighbour was driving from Grove Vale to Alleyns School, if so why? Time poor? Au pair on the sick? Why would anyone drive that short distance?

[LTN BooHoo]

DulvilleRes Wrote:

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

> There needs to be a bit of context and balance on

> reporting on anti-social behaviour by people

> arguing for and against LTN's.

>

> I've seen no mention on this thread of a couple of

> troubling incidents at the end of the week before

> last. In the first one, a deeply unpleasant and

> personal notice was posted on the front and side

> doors of an elderly lady with a pro LTN point of

> view. In the second similar one, a woman living

> nearby, with a pro LTN viewpoint, had an equally

> unpleasant and personal notice put up in the

> street in which she lives. This is beyond the

> level of any kind of reasoned debate amongst

> neighbours about local issues, and tips I would

> think into criminal law. @legalalien made a very

> good point about keeping it civil - I think the

> sometimes antagonistic tone on this thread doesn't

> help.

Agree, this behaviour is unacceptable. However it continues. The planters have been vandalised 3 nights running. Intimidating people and damaging public property will not help one?s cause. There is no justification for this.

[Rockets]

Completely agree - the lunatic fringes of both sides need to stop being idiots - whomever is vandalising the planters needs to stop, whomever is tearing down the anti-LTN signs needs to stop. It's a bit like when someone started cutting the monitoring strips - I really question what their intention is and whether they actually considered what they were doing. A time for a few to engage brain before action.

[Abe_froeman]

The only people to benefit from removing the monitoring strips are those who benefit from traffic being dispersed onto the roads being monitored.

One ugly fact of life that this whole exercise has really shone a light on is that East Dulwich is unfortunately living next to a bad neighbour.

[Droid]

LTN BooHoo Wrote:

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

> Droid Wrote:

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

> -----

> > eastdulwichlocal99 Wrote:

> >

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

>

> Ok I have to ask, I assume your neighbour was

> driving from Grove Vale to Alleyns School, if so

> why? Time poor? Au pair on the sick? Why would

> anyone drive that short distance?

You asked so I'll tell you. He was doing the family weekly shop at Sainsburys DKH because he works full time and he lives close to Alleyns.

Multiply that by hundreds of others who are time constrained by work and other circumstances and so the weekend traffic is congested. It would have been the same if he went on the 42 bus from Sainsburys.

Is that difficult to understand? Maybe you are favoured by more fortunate circumstances. Does your butler do the shopping? And your nanny look after your kids?

Why not get out there and see what has been happening with traffic.

[malumbu]

Hello peeps, hope you missed me. I'm going to try to restrict myself to factual stuff, as I've made my general opinions clear over recent months. Droid refers to the new Birmingham Clean Air Zone. This was very delayed and was a result of the government being ordered to meet air quality standards several years ago. The then Mayor of London had jumped the gun a little by announcing an earlier similar scheme - the ULEZ. I see from the news that there are groups opposed to the Birmingham Scheme.

It was suggested that Southwark could do similar to Birmingham, but this is essentially a matter for the strategic authority - ie GLA through TfL. There is a wider discussion on how London boroughs work together.

Hackney has introduced their own Ultra Low Emission Zone - not a charging one as per ULEZ and Birmingham but an outright ban at certain times on certain streets for all but plug in electric vehicles and hydrogen electric vehicles. https://hackney.gov.uk/ulev-streets I've not seen any publicity nor do I know how popular it is, some vehicles are exempt.

The then Mayor of London stated his ambitions about the ULEZ extension, and also that there would be a no emission zone in the central congestion charging zone. I expect the latter is some way off.

[first mate]

LTN BooHoo got the answer to their question, the latter dripping with judgement and condescension.

A change of tone would help.

LTN BooHoo Wrote:

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

> Droid Wrote:

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

> -----

> > eastdulwichlocal99 Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > I really don?t know what all the fuss is

> about

> > -

> > > the roads are only busy at rush hour like

> they

> > > have always been. Go down from 9:30am onwards

> > and

> > > it?s really quiet. Removing the LTNs won?t

> > change

> > > the rush hour jam one bit.

> > >

> > Sorry but it's not just rush hour. The

> increased

> > traffic congestion on Saturday & Sunday is

> > horrendous on EDG, LL, DV, Croxted and Gove

> Vale

> > simply because:-

> > 1. Locals use their cars for a weekly shop as

> it's

> > the only time they can reasonably do it if the

> > work mid-week.

> > 2. Most of the roads off EDG and the others are

> > blocked.

> > 3. People travel to socialise.

> >

> > Last Saturday, my neighbour took 40 minutes to

> > travel from Grove Vale to Alleyns school.

> >

> > Your assessment is just so, so wrong.

>

> Ok I have to ask, I assume your neighbour was

> driving from Grove Vale to Alleyns School, if so

> why? Time poor? Au pair on the sick? Why would

> anyone drive that short distance?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Just seen that ?One Dulwich / Dulwich Alliance? are now asking people to support total removal of all LTNs in the current consultation. So no alternative proposals, just a blanket objection to any attempts to reduce car use and / or encourage active travel.

[Earl Aelfheah]

To be precise, they?re encouraging people to tick the box for ?Return to original state?. This is despite the fact that one can suggest alternatives (for example the timed closures they previously said they favoured). It?s difficult to see how this squares with their insistence they are strongly supportive of encouraging active travel and reducing car usage.

[alice]

Tinkering won?t sort it. Needs a cross borough approach. Consultation questions are farcical.

[Earl Aelfheah]

They?re not suggesting a Borough wide approach. They?re encouraging no change.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The consultation allows one to suggest alternatives. ?One Dulwich? could have put together an alternative proposal and encouraged their supporters to reference it in their responses. But they don?t want something different. They want everything to be left as it was. Which apparently is a way to strongly encourage active travel. Somehow?

[Earl Aelfheah]

So this is what they are supporting, just to be clear:

[alice]

Basing dulwich ltns on one junction was always an error. It didn?t work and every time they tried to patch it - it got worse. Needs fresh eyes that link boroughs, bus routes, schools and takes account of how different population densities affect pollution.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I?m genuinely disappointed. Despite what you might think, I could have been persuaded to support a serious, well thought out alternative to the current scheme if it encouraged active travel and a reduction in car use. The ?no change? option appears really cynical when measured against their own rhetoric.

[Earl Aelfheah]

? The Dulwich Alliance strongly supports reducing pollution and encouraging active travel?

Great, how exactly?

?By not making any changes?

Oh

[ab29]

I am against the road closures and have been from the start. I don't own a car, use public transport and walk when I can. My situation has been made much worst after the so-called LTNs were put in place: I'm now presented with idling traffic most of the day, buses are slower and many of my walking routes are affected by displaced traffic.

Several houses near me are split into flats - number of people living in those flats probably equals the entire population of Calton Avenue; the latter, already comfortable, can now enjoy even more peace and quiet while the former, so much less comfortable, have to put up with worsened living conditions - why would anyone support such a scheme?

The traffic is simply pushed to other roads and so the overall air pollution is the same or even worst.

[alice]

Ra3 you are deliberately misquoting.

[johnhinton]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> The Labour Party in Southwark doesn?t represent me

> anymore, sadly. Building on poorer estates green

> space and children?s playgrounds while diverting

> traffic from a road such as Court Lane, with its

> enormous gardens that back onto a huge park to

> Croxted and ED Grove.

>

> I?m surprised that the idealistic values of

> fairness and equality have been lost in a haze of

> self-congratulation, entrenched views and

> arrogance. Followed up by approval of smear

> tactics towards residential anti-pollution

> campaigns.

Well said Heartblock. The Southwark Labour Party has disheartened me and many other former Labour Party members. The LTNs don't just affect local traffic, but any workers passing through on their way to the work they do; why is the Labour Party impeding working people? The failure of national and local governments to address properly the need to reduce levels of pollution by leaving the solution to the "invisible hands" of the market - i.e. do nothing - has worsened traffic levels, pollution and quality of life for everyone.

[Rockets]

Rahx3 - yes you can leave comments for suggestions but that has no impact on the results. The council has, by their design of the review document, left people with no option other than to register their disapproval of the measure by selecting return them to their original state. No one wants to have to do this but they are being shoehorned into doing so by the badly (probably deliberately so) designed review documents.

We have been here before and the council basically pays lip service to the comments and suggestions left and focuses the results on how people registered their thoughts by the options presented.

I don't want the measures removed completely but that is the only way many can effect any change thanks to the council and their attempt to manipulate the review.

[first mate]

Thanks Rockets for correcting the attempted slur on the motives of those against LTNs. It is really not helpful when the Council employs such underhand tactics in order to get the result they have pre-determined.

I am also tired of reading how the mayoral elections are a clear mandate for LTNs. I think few had the appetite to strengthen the hand of the current Govt by voting in their reps and they are all frankly such liars we have no way of knowing they would have dismantled LTNs anyhow. But viewing a vote for Labour as mass mandating of LTNs. Nope.

[heartblock]

From Paul Wheeler an article on LTNs. Paul Wheeler is a very long standing member of the London Labour Party and a founder member of London Cyclists with a Conscience (#realLCC)

?Perhaps most significantly for long-standing Labour supporters, those councils ignored the reality that LTNs primarily displace traffic from the roads of the prosperous to the roads of the poor and disadvantaged, which already suffered from the highest levels of air pollution. The additional congestion and stalled traffic offered no alleviation. It was a policy that went against all the principles of social justice.?

https://www.onlondon.co.uk/paul-wheeler-last-rites-for-the-covid-ltns/

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Rahx3 - yes you can leave comments for suggestions

> but that has no impact on the results. The council

> has, by their design of the review document, left

> people with no option other than to register their

> disapproval of the measure by selecting return

> them to their original state. No one wants to have

> to do this but they are being shoehorned into

> doing so by the badly (probably deliberately so)

> designed review documents.

>

> We have been here before and the council basically

> pays lip service to the comments and suggestions

> left and focuses the results on how people

> registered their thoughts by the options

> presented.

>

> I don't want the measures removed completely but

> that is the only way many can effect any change

> thanks to the council and their attempt to

> manipulate the review.

There are four options:

?Overall, what would your preference be for the future of this measure?

a. Return it to the original state

b. Retain it as it is

c. Install a different kind of measure

d. Retain the measure, but modify/ enhance it with other features

If you answered c or d above, please explain briefly what you would like to see:?

?One Dulwich? could have published some alternative proposals and asked their supporters to tick option ?c? and link to it, or simply refer to it in the comments. It?s that simple.

They have chosen instead to steer people towards no change / option ?a?

[Earl Aelfheah]

So explain the ?slur??