LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> So hearts drawn with chalk (probably by a child)

> are equivalent to pouring buckets of engine oil

> over planters?

> You surpass yourself in hyperbole Rockets :))))))

You?re being selective again DC??what about the vandalism of the signs in people?s gardens???hmmmmm? You do love your hyperbole accusations don?t you, quite an obsession??

[northernmonkey]

How much do you think it cost to remove some chalk 'love LTNs' Rockets? Because Lambeth think its cost in the region of 50k of council funds. I haven't seen a similar report from Southwark in terms of the constant replanting of planters and removing the incessant flyposting of stickers that happened repeatedly for a period of weeks but it won't be insignificant.

I don't agree with damaging posters that individuals put up on private property - i saw two video clips of this late at night but it doesn't thankfully seem to have been a constant campaign. Agree there are idiots on both sides but equating some chalk with filling planters and a road with oil is falling into the false equivalence territory.

As is always the case, once the independent schools break up then the traffic drops dramatically, guess both no school run and also associated staffing and other traffic, but simplifying the issue to 'stopping the schools' goes too far. Aside from anything else how would it be done within available powers? The schools have been running active travel training / have policies etc but without some actual deterrents to driving it seems that little will change.

[alice]

The relative clean up costs are irrelevant. Dulwich LTNs are unfair, unjust and will be removed.

[ab29]

Agree. No one ever asked me if I want my money wasted on introducing this dubious experiment to start with.

alice Wrote:

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

> The relative clean up costs are irrelevant.

> Dulwich LTNs are unfair, unjust and will be

> removed.

[Rockets]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> How much do you think it cost to remove some chalk

> 'love LTNs' Rockets? Because Lambeth think its

> cost in the region of 50k of council funds. I

> haven't seen a similar report from Southwark in

> terms of the constant replanting of planters and

> removing the incessant flyposting of stickers that

> happened repeatedly for a period of weeks but it

> won't be insignificant.

>

> I don't agree with damaging posters that

> individuals put up on private property - i saw two

> video clips of this late at night but it doesn't

> thankfully seem to have been a constant campaign.

> Agree there are idiots on both sides but equating

> some chalk with filling planters and a road with

> oil is falling into the false equivalence

> territory.

>

> As is always the case, once the independent

> schools break up then the traffic drops

> dramatically, guess both no school run and also

> associated staffing and other traffic, but

> simplifying the issue to 'stopping the schools'

> goes too far. Aside from anything else how would

> it be done within available powers? The schools

> have been running active travel training / have

> policies etc but without some actual deterrents to

> driving it seems that little will change.

Northern - the council has found the powers to close off roads, has found the resources to put up planters and new street furniture, been able to install ANPR cameras at junctions and add new traffic lights and phasing to junctions....surely they could have applied some of that to working on reducing school traffic.

It's not a throwaway assumption to suggest that if school traffic is a major cause of the problem then many of those causing it are not Dulwich residents yet it is Dulwich residents who are having to absorb the displacement of these measures.

And please, stop the our vandals and idiots aren't as bad as your vandals and idiots nonsense - it's as if you are trying to condone their behaviour . All vandals and idiots need to stop whichever side of the debate they fall on - I was hoping there would be a consensus of opinion towards that but seemingly not - but this is very much a pattern.

[northernmonkey]

Lets stick with this for a while - how? I agree the council has all those powers. How do you apply any of them to reducing school traffic only whilst not affecting local traffic (which seems to be the complaint).

I think that the school street hours on Hillsboro could be extended to cover the upper part of the junior school too. I also think that a school street on Greendale and more enforcement of the CPZ would help. But other than that i'm struggling with measures that would prevent driving to schools whilst not affecting anyone else.

And yes, drawing on things with chalk is a world away from criminal damage. Next...

[Spartacus]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

>

> And yes, drawing on things with chalk is a world

> away from criminal damage. Next...

Northern, I have to ask are YOU the East Dulwich Banksy ?😱

[DulwichCentral]

Rockets:

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

You?re being selective again DC??what about the vandalism of the signs in people?s gardens???hmmmmm? You do love your hyperbole accusations don?t you, quite an obsession??

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

No just pointing out your ridiculous attempt to equate:

- oil poured on planters, spray paint on road signs, fly-posting on all roads in the area, personally insulting stickers placed on people's front doors and elsewhere on their private property - naming them! - personally insulting posters on lampposts revealing private addresses - and naming again! - repeatedly destroying plants from planters..

..with some **CHALK HEARTS** or a couple of incidents of 'stop ltn' signs being pulled down.

And I wonder who cut the traffic monitor strips? Because I doubt it was people who support the scheme.

Pulling signs down was wrong. But to try and equate the above regarding costs or otherwise is utterly ridiculous and desperate.

[Rockets]

You have to work with schools to determine where the problem is coming from, what/who is causing it and how to fix it. Both state and private are contributors to the problem so the council should have been working with them all to try to determine how to fix it and they needed to consider everything from school street closures to subsidised school buses. My problem with the LTNs is that they were a solution the council put in when they had no idea what the problem was - it's the classic sledge-hammer to crack a nut - it was way too simplistic - too many cars, block the streets.

And, for the record, graffiti is criminal damage (regardless of what it is put up with, some of it is not in chalk BTW). But, more importantly you are overlooking that going into someone's garden and defacing and destroying things (anti-LTN signs) is both criminal damage and actually quite threatening - it has been happening repeatedly. I would probably stop trying to flog this dead horse if I was you.....because I really don't know what point you are trying to make....just agree with me that the idiots have to stop on both sides (which was my initial point) rather than trying to prove some holier than thou point that that your idiots aren't as bad as our idiots....;-).

[northernmonkey]

I already did that but in your enthusiasm to jump in you seem to have missed it.

So there has been years of 'working with the schools' and nothing has changed. Yet again you have reverted to 'my problem is that the measures are too simplistic' - so again, what measures would actually achieve the goals without inconveniencing anyone local or causing any detours at all?

[heartblock]

Some may or may not agree with more ?direct? action, I personally would never harm plants, cause damage to someone?s private property or name people and their right to a private life.

It is an interesting point though...direct action has been a way of those that have unfair, authoritarian actions imposed on them to protest. I?m sure we are all informed enough to know of many examples.

In all these historical events we see that some call direct action one thing and others another.

I remember the Federation of Conservative Students asking for Mandela to be hung as a terrorist, suffragettes poured ink into post boxes to ruin all the mail and were imprisoned by the state for that act.

Now..before the usual crowd start with ...how dare you conflate and compare..I?m not saying that protest using direct action against the injustice of LTNs, has the same depth of justification as the two causes mentioned. Indeed it seems somewhat counterproductive.

Many who live on so called ?external? roads who have no agency and feel that their environment and access to clean air is being ignored should be allowed a voice to Southwark Council, these families matter as much as the families living in LTNs. If you impose something that makes living in your street less healthy, due to traffic and pollution, frustration can lead to unfortunate and regrettable events.

[dulwichfolk]

How about changing/adding timed restrictions from lunchtime in most areas to the weekday mornings say 8am till 10am. Then actually policing it. Isn?t that all in the councils remit??

[Rockets]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> I already did that but in your enthusiasm to jump

> in you seem to have missed it.

>

> So there has been years of 'working with the

> schools' and nothing has changed. Yet again you

> have reverted to 'my problem is that the measures

> are too simplistic' - so again, what measures

> would actually achieve the goals without

> inconveniencing anyone local or causing any

> detours at all?

Northern - firstly, can you detail what this "working with schools" for years has actually entailed?

Secondly, in terms of measures temporary school street closures are a far more balanced and equitable means of reducing the impact of the school run - that mean residents and locals don't get impacted by displacement issues 24/7.

It is interesting that throughout all of the LTN process the council did not consult with schools. Nowhere on any of their consultation documents did they list schools being part of the small group of parties they consulted with. I also remember that Goodrich told the council that the measures they were trying to force upon them outside the school would not work - that doesn't sound like a particularly collaborative or consultative approach.

I am also sure that council subsidised school bus services would also go a long way to prevent the school run. Granted, that would not work with private schools as there is no way council money should be used to subsidise that but there are plenty of other ways for the council to leverage and affect change with private schools (although given the contemptuous way in which some of our councillors view private schools I can't imagine the conversations would be particularly fruitful).

[northernmonkey]

Why would state schools possibly need a council subsidised bus service?

The way places are allocated is based on distance from the school. Admittedly there are some people who get the first child into a school, then move away and continue to take their child to that school and subsequent siblings but getting to a position where that isn't socially acceptable isn't going to be a quick thing. Otherwise the distances are very small - less than 1km in most cases.

Whilst the distances at secondary are further, the main issues really appear to be around primary schools so I'm not clear how a bus service would help. Some schools have set up walking busses (Goose Green did one pre covid) and they're a good idea. More could be done on that perhaps for the indi schools with a walking bus from north Dulwich train station picking up from key trains.

[Metallic]

LTN BooHoo Wrote:

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

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I see that Lambeth gated communities are now

> going

> > to have CCTV and policing spent on them to keep

> > the unwashed away from the peaceful q?white

> > areas.....more and more like an American gated

> > community everyday that passes. Rosamund Kissi

> > Debrah must watch on with deep despair.

>

> That?s funny a ?gated community? is what One

> Dulwich/DA is pushing for! A permit system where

> everyone in Dulwich (whatever that means) gets a

> permit, which would allow the ?washed? to drive in

> and out of their nice neighbourhood into poorer

> areas of town. Of course the unwashed won?t be let

> in as they won?t have a permit.

>

> Where?s the equality in that you ask on behalf

> Rosemund Kissi Debra?

I don't think I have read that since the Council offered permits under the OHS original plans. All people want now is a permit system for EVERY blue badge holder. I have been reading this on twitter and in fact my friend down the road, who is eligible for a full exemption through the cameras, was never told by Southwark council people, I read it on twitter, told them, and they applied for it and of course received it.

[Rockets]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> Why would state schools possibly need a council

> subsidised bus service?

>

> The way places are allocated is based on distance

> from the school. Admittedly there are some people

> who get the first child into a school, then move

> away and continue to take their child to that

> school and subsequent siblings but getting to a

> position where that isn't socially acceptable

> isn't going to be a quick thing. Otherwise the

> distances are very small - less than 1km in most

> cases.

>

> Whilst the distances at secondary are further, the

> main issues really appear to be around primary

> schools so I'm not clear how a bus service would

> help. Some schools have set up walking busses

> (Goose Green did one pre covid) and they're a good

> idea. More could be done on that perhaps for the

> indi schools with a walking bus from north Dulwich

> train station picking up from key trains.

Why? Because the catchment areas for state schools are growing all the time due to the pressure on school places - secondary especially and that adds to the traffic. You need to stop looking at this from the microcosm of the primary school at the end of the street - Dulwich is a crossroads for a lot of areas and that is why we have traffic problems - a lot of people moved here 10 - 15 years ago for the plethora of good primary schools and are now having to get their older children to secondary schools outside of the immediate area.

This is highlighting the folly of the LTNs - before being able to effectively manage the situation the council first needed to understand what the problem is and where it was coming from. They didn't. They just threw in measures on the premise of "we need less cars, let's close roads".

Could you share with me any details of these years of working with schools the council has done to counter the traffic issues?

[DuncanW]

Demand for school places reduces catchment area size normally - not the other way round

Some older children may travel further for schools - but how many 13-15 yr old kids are being dropped off by mummy in the mornings?? Most would rather crawl over nails to get there, surely??

Schools alongside councils have done a lot to try to counter traffic issues - most visibly, the school street closures that many primary schools now have, but also via education and persuasion, walking buses, active school travel days, bikeability courses, improvements to cycle infrastructure, greater enforcement of infractions - sure they could do more still, but are you seriously saying you're not aware of any of this stuff

[DulwichCentral]

.... and last but not least - safe routes.

[Metallic]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> Why would state schools possibly need a council

> subsidised bus service?

>

> The way places are allocated is based on distance

> from the school. Admittedly there are some people

> who get the first child into a school, then move

> away and continue to take their child to that

> school and subsequent siblings but getting to a

> position where that isn't socially acceptable

> isn't going to be a quick thing. Otherwise the

> distances are very small - less than 1km in most

> cases.

>

> Whilst the distances at seconda?e around primary

> schools so I'm not clear how a bus service would

> help. Some schools have set up walking busses

> (Goose Green did one pre covid) and they're a good

> idea. More could be done on that perhaps for the

> indi schools with a walking bus from north Dulwich

> train station picking up from key trains.

Just wondering how many ED parents send their children to Kingsdale?

[Earl Aelfheah]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> .... and last but not least - safe routes.

Yup

[Rockets]

DuncanW Wrote:

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

> Demand for school places reduces catchment area

> size normally - not the other way round

>

> Some older children may travel further for schools

> - but how many 13-15 yr old kids are being dropped

> off by mummy in the mornings?? Most would rather

> crawl over nails to get there, surely??

>

> Schools alongside councils have done a lot to try

> to counter traffic issues - most visibly, the

> school street closures that many primary schools

> now have, but also via education and persuasion,

> walking buses, active school travel days,

> bikeability courses, improvements to cycle

> infrastructure, greater enforcement of infractions

> - sure they could do more still, but are you

> seriously saying you're not aware of any of this

> stuff

Not entirely correct for Dulwich - the demographics skew it. Think back to 10 - 15 years ago Dulwich (particularly East Dulwich) was referred to as Nappy Valley as young couples were moving in their droves to the area to start families on the basis of the good primary schools and (cheaper) housing stock. Now many of those children are older and will no doubt be going to secondary schools further afield due to the relative lack of secondary schools.

I have no idea how many 13-15 year olds are being dropped off by mummy (or daddy - tsk, tsk Northern) but the point is nor does the council as they have no idea who and what is causing the traffic in the area as they have never done the proper research to find out.

[DuncanW]

Then they built a whopping, great big, new school on East Dulwich Grove!!

And reopened two old ones either side of Peckham Rye!!

That's a fair amount of increased capacity, no?

The area where it's toughest to get a Dulwich school from (in ED) is round Friern Road/Underhill Road ends - from there, you are likely to get FHB or Sydenham. Those schools are quite easy to get to from that part of East Dulwich so no real need to drive, and if those families were to drive, they wouldn't be going passed there new LTN areas.

Regardless of all that - school catchment areas don't expand when demand is high, they contract. It's really simple stuff!!

[exdulwicher]

But @Rockets, we've been here before about schools in the last 190+ pages.

Schools all have travel plans (they're obliged to have them) - if you dig around enough on the school website you can usually find them, eg: https://www.jags.org.uk/admissions/transport , https://www.dulwichpreplondon.org/our-school/travel/

However, they can't mandate or police how people (both staff and students) travel to school and a lot of their influence ends at the school gates. It's all very well the school putting in a load of cycle parking but if the amount of traffic on the roads leads to all parents saying "oh it's too dangerous to walk or cycle" then you're not going to get anywhere.

The council own and manage the roads (well, most of them, TfL have a hand in some of the major routes) so it's up to them to take measures to reduce the amount of vehicle traffic and increase the amount of active travel. Yes, there are complementary measures that schools, workplaces etc can take but the roads are not their responsibility.

So we're back at LTNs as the one easy cheap way of doing that. Asking nicely if people wouldn't mind awfully driving a bit less doesn't work. Constant "share the road" campaigns have done absolutely nothing to increase either cycle safety or the number of people cycling. "Equitable solutions for all" (answers on a postcard as to what these actually are) don't exist because the road network is already massively unequal and unequitable, it's skewed very heavily towards the use, storage and flow of private motor vehicles.

The implication that keeps being made is that by removing all LTNs and having the schools "do their bit" (which means what exactly?) we'll suddenly be at a utopian ideal of clean air for all and free flowing traffic and that's quite simply not possible.

I have no idea how many 13-15 year olds are being dropped off by mummy (or daddy - tsk, tsk Northern) but the point is nor does the council as they have no idea who and what is causing the traffic in the area as they have never done the proper research to find out.

I have no idea either but you don't need to know the start point, end point, purpose and journey distance of every single car on the road. You're asking (once again) for data that is almost impossible to source with any accuracy without vast sums of money being spent and is actually not that useful anyway. The simple answer is that there are too many cars doing too many short journeys and we need urgent measures to curb that, not years more "consultation" and "research" (aka kicking the can down the road).

[alice]

The can has already been kicked into my road. And where and when

is walking to school dangerous?

[malumbu]

Metallic Wrote:

> Just wondering how many ED parents send their children to Kingsdale?

We wont go there. We wont mention Kingsdale's aggressive marketing tactics, superiority complex, doing their best to cherry pick from the 'nicer' areas. No that would be inappropriate, why should be criticise those who live a few mins away from Harris Boys sending their kids a couple of miles away. Far be it for me. Absolutely not.

Alice - reality check, there are some parents that think it is too dangerous for their kids to walk to school, be it traffic, or general security. Whether this is 10% or 40% I wouldn't know. I even know some who said they drove there kids to school because of pollution, not bothered that they were contributing to this and ignorant that air quality in a car can be worse than the street. As parents we did a lot to support sustainable school transport, walking routes/crocodiles/buses, discourage inappropriate parking. Then our kids grew up and it was up to the next generation to start again.

I once cycled to Shirley to do some interview practice at a secondary school there (year 11s). Met with a ginormous car park and no obvious cycle parking. I wrote to the head asking them to do more to promote sustainable transport. No answer. I suspect it is an outer borough thing!