LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[KidKruger]

Let?s not confuse a bunch of badly organised, out-of-tune, disharmonious instruments with free-form jazz.

[Bicknell]

i wish the mannatee would stop writing such long things

[dulwichfolk]

It funny how in the last meeting when they showed the next steps the last option about removing the LTN had no reference to the result of the consultation. The other two options keep the measures or adapt them did. Means the removal of the LTN is only factored on the data which obviously there is no success or failure criteria to! That?s how I read it anyway.

[Bicknell]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Gilkes isn't an "existing LTN" unless the proposed

> Gilkes Place closure goes ahead. Looks like it

> has been approved today subject to call-in

>

> https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s1003

> 34/APPENDIX%2016%20GILKES%20PLACE.pdf

>

> I think the Gilkes one is experimental based on

> Table 1 in the report and the Network Management

> recommendation referred to (although confusingly

> the relevant appendix also refers to consultation

> on an (ordinary) TMO. There's a note in the

> report that "Gilkes Place ? the proposed ETMO

> does not preclude the Gilkes Place/Gilkes

> Crescent

> junction not being considered as part of the

> overall Dulwich area review. However, the junction

>

> can not be opened before the review is completed

> on safety grounds. " This seems to be in response

> to a suggestion that the Gilkes experimental order

> be deferred until after the overall Dulwich review

> had been completed.

can you link to the decision on this pls? cant find it

[legalalien]

Does this work

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7396

Gilkes is Appendix 16

[Earl Aelfheah]

alice Wrote:

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

> alice Wrote:

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

> -----

> > There has never been an answer to why the

> Dulwich

> > LTNs were positioned to benefit the wealthiest.

>

> flurry of responses cannot answer the question.

They weren?t ?positioned to benefit the wealthiest?. That?s the answer

[alice]

What? You mean nobody realised that Dulwich Village is a wealthy area?

[heartblock]

I know Alice it?s a joke, everyone who has lived here for more than 35 years knows exactly why Gilkes has a ?temporary? gate on it, who was asking for Melbourne and Court to be gated and why LCC chose Dulwich Village. Hilariously these are also the roads that campaigned for public transport to also be banned from their road!

Absolutely nothing to do with reducing pollution and everything about making a few roads nicer.

How anyone thinks making car journeys longer and making nice car parks for a few wealthy people is the answer is fooling themselves.

Duncan, I listed all the actions I thought would aid car use in Southwark ages ago in this thread. It didn?t go down well as actually the gated community do not want to give up their Range Rovers, their second run-around, their two parking spaces, have a bike lane or allow a bus down their road.

[DuncanW]

Rocket, is that comment definitely for me? I don?t recognise what it?s in response to?

[hpsaucey]

Bicknell Wrote:

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

> i wish the mannatee would stop writing such long

> things

After 199 pages worth of thread with a lot of very long posts and hyperbole I'm personally v glad Manatee's contributing.

HP

[ohthehugemanateeLTN]

alice Wrote:

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

> There has never been an answer to why the Dulwich

> LTNs were positioned to benefit the wealthiest.

No one can answer conspiracy theories.

[ohthehugemanateeLTN]

Bicknell Wrote:

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

> i wish the mannatee would stop writing such long

> things

Read faster.

[ohthehugemanateeLTN]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Gilkes isn't an "existing LTN" unless the proposed

> Gilkes Place closure goes ahead. Looks like it

> has been approved today subject to call-in

Gilkes Cresent is. They closed it to through traffic ages ago. Here's a picture of the gate:

[Bicknell]

ohthehugemanateeLTN Wrote:

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

> Bicknell Wrote:

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

> -----

> > i wish the mannatee would stop writing such

> long

> > things

>

> Read faster.

well i suppose so. or u coud write less. might be a better solution

[heartblock]

Aaah Gilkes...all a bit Stepford Wives....I always feel the hairs on the back of my neck go up when I walk down there, surprised that the residents association hasn?t introduced an entrance gate with a security guard...my partner refuses to walk down Gilkes...?it?s all a bit ?Get Out?? in their opinion.

[ohthehugemanateeLTN]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Manatee

>

> I will pick you up on a couple of things:

>

> > You're saying that acting on the results of

> research represents a conflict of interest.

> No but being the head of policy for the London

> Cycling Campaign and lobbying for LTNs and then

> being paid to produce research validating the

> positive effects of the LTNs (by unknown groups)

> certainly is a conflict of interest.

Wait so you have evidence that pro LTN groups are paying her but you don't know who those groups are? How on earth do you know they're pro LTN if they're unknown?

> It goes even

> further now because Aldred revealed (in her

> conflict of interest statement on her last report)

> that she has been awarded funding by the DfT to

> evaluate the active travel programme. Another huge

> conflict of interest.

So she has a long history of research, reached a conclusion and acts on it. Horror of horrors, others interested in her work ask her to evaluate the effect on the thing she has studied? And the conflict is what exactly?

> > Nor did they arrive

> > without any form on consultation or implemented

> > using the Covid pandemic as the "excuse".

>

> >Given you seem unaware of what actually happened,

> I claim you just invented that on the spot because

> you like the way it sounds.>

>

> Trust me - it is you who are unaware of what

> happened.

Lol nope. You didn't even know it existed. And then just made some stuff up on the spot because it sounded right.

> The measures were all implemented to aid

> "social distancing".

Gilkes was closed long long before covid.

> In fact, if you scroll back

> far enough you will probably find a councillor

> post claiming just that when the measures were

> first mooted.

Gilkes crescent has been closed for AGES.

> >People have been whining about DV and court lane

> have they not? Gilkes cresent for example provides

> a parallel route to DV and was closed long ago >

>

> Because the council's own numbers suggested 7,000

> cars a day used the DV junction - we all flagged

> our concern when we realised that LTNs don't

> deliver anything more than single digit %

> reduction in vehicles and we did the maths and

> tried to work out where all that traffic was going

> to travel to.

This is a combination of it wasn't big enough to matter, plus it's big enough to matter and cause traffic jams, with a side order of traffic elasticity doesn't exist. Which is does.

Also that was a dangerous junction for pedestrians and it's much safer now.

>

> >Also literally not true. One Dulwich is proposing

> going back to how it was.>

>

> Again, if you had been paying attention you would

> know the history behind that and the fact that one

> Dulwich and Dulwich Alliance were left with no

> option as the council did not engage with them or

> give people any option other than: Change

> it....but the council did not give any idea what

> that change would be.

And one Dulwich, who could have offered a suggestion didn't, revealing what they really wanted.

> Surely, even you would agree

> that you need to understand what you are voting

> for? "Change" is a little vague don't you think?

>

> And I am not going to go back and forth with you

> on Spartacus' post - it wasn't my post and, as I

> said at the time, I didn't agree with them using

> that analogy.

And yet you downplayed it. How about you don't do that, eh?

> Please stop trying to tar everyone

> on this forum who doesn't agree with your view on

> LTNs with the same brush - we have seen that tried

> before and it is an underhand tactic.

I'm not tarring everyone, but I did collect all the arguments I saw in one place. And I've not seen any vaguely rational anti-LTN posts. Because all the anti-LTN arguments seem to hinge on wishing for the impossible, while ignoring the inexorable growth of traffic.

Look: even if you get your way, you will not get to keep it. But you won't have any say at all that way because the do-nothing default of ever more clogged with traffic and pollution will arrive.

Doing nothing is an active choice to accept what will come as a result. No amount of wishing or ponitificating about grandiose schemes involving cooperation between three layers of government and nudges finally working for no apparent reason will prevent that.

> If anyone wants to judge for themselves the thread

> in question starts on page 177.

[ab29]

Or one and the same person? ;)

Bicknell Wrote:

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

> ltnBooHoo

> ohthehugemanateeLTN

>

> i think their related

[ohthehugemanateeLTN]

Bicknell Wrote:

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

>

> well i suppose so. or u coud write less. might be

> a better solution

Or you could stop whinging?

[ohthehugemanateeLTN]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Aaah Gilkes...all a bit Stepford Wives....I always

> feel the hairs on the back of my neck go up when I

> walk down there, surprised that the residents

> association hasn?t introduced an entrance gate

> with a security guard...my partner refuses to walk

> down Gilkes...?it?s all a bit ?Get Out?? in their

> opinion.

Oh, that's an argument I forgot to add to my list:

* LTN residents are eeevviiiiilllll [spooky voice]. Haha only serious.

Gilkes Crescent is just a quiet residential cul-de-sac like so many others with houses on either side. There's nothing remotely horror like about it.

Except you all forgot about that little LTN until I pointed it out because it's been in so long now it's quietly accepetd and everyone sees the absurdity of opening a long-closed quiet residential street to heavy through traffic.

[Cozza01]

So we are all supposed to be using public transport now? so whose bright idea at Southern railways is it to stop ALL the trains from Crystal Palace through Dulwich for the forseeable future?.

[legalalien]

heartblock Wrote:

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

Really isn?t - you?d be surprised. I?d be an epic fail as a Stepford Wife. Happy to act as a safe house for your partner if needed ;)

> Aaah Gilkes...all a bit Stepford Wives....I always

> feel the hairs on the back of my neck go up when I

> walk down there, surprised that the residents

> association hasn?t introduced an entrance gate

> with a security guard...my partner refuses to walk

> down Gilkes...?it?s all a bit ?Get Out?? in their

> opinion.

[ohthehugemanateeLTN2]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Manatee

>

> I will pick you up on a couple of things:

I'm sorry rockets, I wrote a nice point by point reply. Apparently this didn't go down well, and it looks like my account and all its posts were deleted. I'm not entirely sure what I wrote which caused such offence. Perhaps the quantity? Months of pent up opinions coming out in one go. Anyway, having typed it out all, I really don't feel like doing it again, I'm sure you understand. But it looks like we won't be able to continue our discussion (BTW Gilkes Cres has been closed for years now, long pre covid, FYI).

It appears that the admins are against a spirited two way discussion on this topic.

Anyway I suspect this message will self destruct in 10 seconds, so farewell for now.

[hpsaucey]

Yer wot!! Where have Manatee's posts gone and why?

HP

[luvLTNrichguy]

My post is gone too - but my account is active. Not had any messages as to why the post was removed?.

Doubt it was admins Manatee. More likely members reporting the posts. And, frankly, given the unpalatable nature of your content it?s no surprise really 😉

[heartblock]

Ha ha legal....you are the outlier. I walk down often as I like seeing the gardens change over the season, but my partner literally refuses to walk down there and after laughing at my post has said...?don?t go in the ?safe-house? it?s a trap. 🤣