LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[LTN BooHoo]

alice Wrote:

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

> Do you think a lifetime labour voter would shift

> to Tory Bailey over ltns? It was a desperate move

> for a loser. But locally I won?t be voting Labour

> again. They have betrayed the people they stand

> for. What happened to Fairer Futures for all? It?s

> not LTNs as a principle but where they were placed

> in Dulwich and who benefited that was the breaking

> point.

The majority of LTNs in Southwark are in poorer parts of town. Dulwich has the highest car ownership in a borough where 58% of residents don?t have access to a car. Think about that for a moment. Is it fair that Dulwich residents get permits to drive around and through poorer areas (as supported by the Dulwich Alliance) or do affluent areas try to drive less and play a full part to give others who are less fortunate a fairer future?

Alien your comments about rooftop housing etc need to be squarely directed at the Tories. Rooftop housing won?t happen in affluent areas that are protected ie conservation areas. Shite planning happens in poorer areas where Tories tend not to live. Those who are concerned about equality can take up the fight.

[Rockets]

Most of our councillors were voted in on a majority of about 250. Previously most people didn't bother with councillor elections...if a lot of people start to bother (on the basis of LTNs) then our councillors are in trouble. That will be weighing on their minds as we edge closer to May. Southwark Cyclists won't save them when push comes to shove in councillor elections.And this is not a case of people suddenly voting Tory, it's about parties like the Lib Dems seeing an opportunity (as they did in Bankside).

[Mscrawthew]

There is a post on the Edf fb group by a guy called Ian with a link to onelambeth and within the post is some data about completed forms. Pity Southwark isn't so forth right.

[ab29]

Have been a swing voter all my life; voted Labour in the past but will never do so again after this failed LTN experiment. Most of my neighbours contacted the local councillors about the road closures - Andy Simmons and Catherine Rose - and also the MP Helen Hayes. Majority have received no reply from any of them.

If the consultation doesn't change anything, I sincerely hope the councillors responsible for introducing LTNs will be voted out in May. High time to change the one-party state situation in the council.

[alice]

So boohoo you say the majority of ltns are in the poorer areas? So what! Dulwich KTNs are certainly not. So you?d support the removal of Dulwich LTNs then?

[Metallic]

northernmonkey can't answer proper questions because it is biassed, just as we anti lobby are biased too. So that is even more need to trust the data - and I do not, especially after that incredible meeting last night. Tom was quite a lad, nice to finish off on a positive but wait, what's this, the terminally ill lady called Stephanie just said very loudly 'we don't trust you'. Great last words.

[northernmonkey]

'it' ???

The point about answering questions is an interesting one.

Asking anyone opposed to these measures what measures they would support tends to result in some speech about equality and ensuring a fairer solution for everyone but with the exception of 'lets have a community bus' which in and of itself would be unlikely to bring significant change, no actual options are ever put forward.

I suspect its because there is unity in disagreement to the current measures, but as soon as people specify what they do support then others will disagree.

[Earl Aelfheah]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> I suspect its because there is unity in

> disagreement to the current measures, but as soon

> as people specify what they do support then others

> will disagree.

Exactly this. Which is the real reason that One Dulwich are calling for people to support a 'return to the current state'.

The reality is that Low Traffic Neighbourhoods boost cycling and reduce traffic. If you're in favour of that, then you should generally be in favour of LTNs

[legalalien]

The rooftop housing I?m talking about is the stuff being built by Southwark on its council estates. Obviously not in affluent areas, and hardly the fault of Conservatives (except to the extent National planning policy might allow the Labour Council to do it, I guess). Just pointing out that voting dynamics are by no means all about LTNs, and lots of non-drivers in historic LTNs, as we are to call them, might be focused on other issues.

[Spartacus]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > I suspect its because there is unity in

> > disagreement to the current measures, but as

> soon

> > as people specify what they do support then

> others

> > will disagree.

>

> Exactly this. Which is the real reason that One

> Dulwich are calling for people to support a

> 'return to the current state'.

>

> The reality is that Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

> boost cycling and reduce traffic. If you're in

> favour of that, then you should generally be in

> favour of LTNs

The truth is that no matter what is suggested, no one trusts the council enough not to implement it in a way that disadvantages the area.

I think the call to remove it then have a proper mediated study and consultation is the way forward. Especially as the majority of "non compliant" cars will soon be removed from the area as part of the ULEZ. What then? the council claiming a massive success for their schemes whilst tfl also claim the same (effectively double counting)

Let's get a London wide scheme in first to see its impact before adding potentially unnecessary layers to the cake.

[Rockets]

Meanwhile the pro-lobbyists ramp up the "it's working" narrative on the basis of some seriously suspect data from the council.....

[legalalien]

Never mind it?s working - the suggestion is to turn the existing timed restrictions into all day modal filters and also close off Red Post Hill?

Again - not smart to close off routes to hospitals. And 24/7 will only make Croxted, LL and EDG worse.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Meanwhile the pro-lobbyists ramp up the "it's

> working" narrative on the basis of some seriously

> suspect data from the council.....

>

>

> https://twitter.com/southwarkcycle/status/14153244

> 20038668292?s=19

[northernmonkey]

Weren't they suggesting bus gates on those permanent filters - in which case public transport, emergency vehicles (and maybe licensed taxis) would be allowed through.

[legalalien]

Not everyone going to hospital goes in an ambulance?

[northernmonkey]

This is true - but in terms of emergency vehicles there would be access.

the biggest delay nationally to emergency services is other traffic. I sometimes wonder if those of you on this thread being concerned about a queue of say 10 cars at a traffic light or any delay at all to emergency vehicles are in fact asking for much much more. Is it time to look at whether all private vehicles except blue badge holders should be banned within cities or during peak hours?

[heartblock]

Fine by me Northernmonkey, I would be happy for a ban on all private car travel during school and rush hour, as I live on ED Grove and it is now a nightmare. I wonder if all the people supporting LTNs on their lovely quiet streets, who have two cars would agree?

[Rockets]

Southwark Cyclists won't be happy until they have every road closed I see they are suggesting Dulwich Village should also be closed permanently....it's amazing the council has such a cozy relationship with them....there is no balance at all and it is skewing the council's approach and thinking.

It makes you wonder what other cozy relationships the council has with lobby groups and how that is determining council policy in areas beyond LTNs.

[Penguin68]

Dulwich has the highest car ownership in a borough where 58% of residents don?t have access to a car. Think about that for a moment. Is it fair that Dulwich residents get permits to drive around and through poorer areas (as supported by the Dulwich Alliance) or do affluent areas try to drive less and play a full part to give others who are less fortunate a fairer future?

It is worth remembering that the majority of Southwark (the northern part - the original borough of Southwark) is much better served than the south with public transport, including the tube. Car ownership in Dulwich matches more closely that in e.g. Bromley - where public transport again is less available - fewer bus routes etc. and fewer stations. The northern part of Southwark gets the natural concentration of public transport you would expect where dispersed routes around London concentrate into the centre. This is not a plea in mitigation of the location of Dulwich's LTN - which protect the wealthy from pollution at the expense of the less wealthy around them, but the high penetration of vehicle ownership in this area is partly at least a function of the low penetration of useable public transport, the topography militating against cycle usage by the unfit and the greater distances (and hence public transport time) needed to get anywhere much.

[Lebanums]

I don't believe the answer is to make it difficult for private car ownership. Make other options more attractive. There is no longer direct access to a train station for those of us who live away from LL or on the Peckham Rye side. The request to extend the 63 to Honor Oak Park has been requested for years, but nothing has happened, there is no longer access to Peckham Rye. What are we supposed to do?

In attempting to make it more difficult for drivers, public transport users have been limited, forcing us to use our cars. Getting around East Dulwich is fine, but it is not so well-connected to our neighbours.

By only consulting the few, the many are impacted. The whole community needs to be engaged in ideas and decisions, so we will buy in to new measures instead of fighting against one another, while the council slips something else under the radar.

[Metallic]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> 'it' ???

>

> The point about answering questions is an

> interesting one.

>

> Asking anyone opposed to these measures what

> measures they would support tends to result in

> some speech about equality and ensuring a fairer

> solution for everyone but with the exception of

> 'lets have a community bus' which in and of itself

> would be unlikely to bring significant change, no

> actual options are ever put forward.

>

> I suspect its because there is unity in

> disagreement to the current measures, but as soon

> as people specify what they do support then others

> will disagree.

"It" is because I have no idea whether you are male, female, or indeed a monkey from the north.

[Metallic]

A green bus on circuit would make a difference.

And so would opening up those roads in ED apart from Tintagel, those roads were inexplicably closed at the request of a few residents, could we see the emails, Minutes and discussion attendees please? Oh no, we can't because the activists have the councillors in their pockets and managed to wrap it up before anyone knew what was happening. Now that the residents have had a year to judge the experience, can we hear from them?

I live in Area B it is driving me mad, doing long detours and adding to the traffic problem. And yes I have to use my car for some journeys and if I can use PT I do, but I am at risk now of Delta variant and cannot risk my health.

[northernmonkey]

How much of a difference do you really think a 'green bus on a circuit' would make. Lets assume you have 2 of them and they seat say 20 passengers. Lets also be generous and say that they take 20 single occupant vehicles off the road each. Given the area people seem to want covered (east dulwich to west dulwich) i've allowed an optimistic hour for a circuit. Thats between 40-60 cars overall removed from the roads by this. Its hardly going to result in safe walking and cycling routes.

So - we've got Metallic who is suggesting reopening everywhere and putting in place a community bus (funding tbc)

Spartacus - remove everything and wait for ULEZ (note even TFL thinks that 80% of cars are currently already ULEZ compliant)

Anything else?

[northernmonkey]

Also 'they' would have covered any of those things, but less rudely.

Your username is 'Metallic' - my furst thought is not that you are a person made of metal!

Metallic Wrote:

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

> northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> -----

> > 'it' ???

> >

> > The point about answering questions is an

> > interesting one.

> >

> > Asking anyone opposed to these measures what

> > measures they would support tends to result in

> > some speech about equality and ensuring a

> fairer

> > solution for everyone but with the exception of

> > 'lets have a community bus' which in and of

> itself

> > would be unlikely to bring significant change,

> no

> > actual options are ever put forward.

> >

> > I suspect its because there is unity in

> > disagreement to the current measures, but as

> soon

> > as people specify what they do support then

> others

> > will disagree.

>

> "It" is because I have no idea whether you are

> male, female, or indeed a monkey from the north.

[alice]

Yes change the centre of LTN from Village/ Court/Calton to the junction of EDG with Lordship Lane.

[Penguin68]

So - we've got Metallic who is suggesting reopening everywhere and putting in place a community bus (funding tbc)

Spartacus - remove everything and wait for ULEZ (note even TFL thinks that 80% of cars are currently already ULEZ compliant)

It would be at least consistent with the Pareto Principle to suggest that 80% of vehicle pollution (not CO2 but other pollutants leading directly to ill health) might be caused by 20% of vehicles - in which case the 20% of vehicles which might immediately be to blame would most likely be those not meeting ULEZ limits.

So maybe the ULEZ will actually, in a stroke as it were, address 80% of the health problem. It would certainly be worth waiting for its effects to bed-in to see if this is so.

With a much reduced problem the appropriate remedy might be something less draconian?