LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Nigello]

Global pandemics have long arms but hid harder, softer and more or less often depending on where you are, so its effects on, say, a hotel in London or a rail franchise is different from a small, retail area. My point is that even with a global pandemic you cannot apply a blanket or worst-case scenario for every situation, and perhaps the poster who says that the council (and business owners, for certain, yes) could have not been so precipitous and resolute in its traffic measures has a valid point.

[Spartacus]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Would that be gradual change like erm a global

> pandemic?

>

> Business models and marketing strategies are

> currently disrupted *worldwide*.

> But hey - what's happened in little old Dulwich

> Village is all Southwark Councils fault.

Let's take a serious look at how shopping habits changed during the peak of the pandemic.

Supermarkets were felt by many to be too risky to go to so there was a massive surge in shopping locally partly because smaller shops were felt to be a safer option and partly because delivery slots were rarer than hens teeth (so not everyone moved to online shopping)

If businesses in a location are saying that this shift to local didn't happen due to LTNs then maybe they have a serious point and it should be looked into and not dismissed so lightly.

The concept of more people will walk to a local shop if it's harder to drive is flawed as those that want to walk or cycle already do and those that are slightly further out or have mobility issues will choose to shop at easier locations which is why there's a drop in trade being observed.

So dismissing the lack of customers as a result of business model bring disrupted by a global pandemic is laughable

Another example is the rash decision to exclude busses from Rye Lane where some traders are experiencing similar issues as customers are going to locations where they can get to via public transport with ease.

[DulwichCentral]

Hi Spartacus

'dismissing the lack of customers as a result of business model bring disrupted by a global pandemic is laughable'

Even when the shops were closed?

[Spartacus]

Food shops weren't closed 😱

[DulwichCentral]

The anti-LTN shops in Dulwich Village and Melbourne Grove which aren't food shops were closed.

[Bicknell]

point is @dulwichcentral that the council should talk to local business . it hasnt done this- Why not? meetings a week before the decision dont realy cut it.

Shops in DV say they can show effect of ltn (seperate to covid19)

[Abe_froeman]

There is no pandemic now though. All covid restrictions have been lifted (except those imposed by Southwark Council it seems).

You are right to point out that these LTNs were implemented under the pretence that they would help social distancing (even though you claim all the shops were closed anyway) but now that we are out of the other side there is no longer any global pandemic justification for keeping them

[DulwichCentral]

Bicknell how do you know council havent spoken to shops?

Would be interesting to see actual evidence of how they can show effect of LTN separate to covid. Have you got a copy of it?

[exdulwicher]

You are right to point out that these LTNs were implemented under the pretence that they would help social distancing (even though you claim all the shops were closed anyway)

That was part of the reason although it was more relevant to the pavement widening schemes.

LTNs were put in to prevent or mitigate the risk of a car-led recovery. The fear being that lots of people who used to travel on P/T would be afraid to do so because of crowded conditions and would instead make the journey by car which would lead to a vast and unmanageable increase in traffic everywhere.

but now that we are out of the other side there is no longer any global pandemic justification for keeping them

There's still the minor problem of a global climate catastrophe. You know, that thing caused by burning fossil fuels.

[Spartacus]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

>

> There's still the minor problem of a global

> climate catastrophe. You know, that thing caused

> by burning fossil fuels.

In that case why are the council causing congestion on surrounding roads as a result of LTNs which increases pollution being pumped out by stationary traffic and ignoring this fact as they want to claim LTNs work ?

The ULEZ will remove some pollutants and moving to electric or hydrogen will get rid of the rest that are related to motoring but compressing traffic into fewer roads won't !

Another problem we have is that nations like China are expanding their pollution quicker then we reduce it so if you really want to make an impact find a solution to the developing world using fossil fuels as well as us reducing their use.

As I said earlier those who want to walk or cycle do, and those that need to use a car will still need to use a car and no amount of inconvenience will stop them. If you want to understand the psyche of why then just look at smokers still willing to pay ?10 to ?12 for the privilege despite the price being increased to try and price them out of smoking ...human nature being what it is !

[Bicknell]

@dulwichcentral

twitter post

[Abe_froeman]

Our LTNs were not put in for environmental reasons. The sole justification was covid. It had to be qualify for the money the Tory government was handing out.

[Rockets]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> You are right to point out that these LTNs were

> implemented under the pretence that they would

> help social distancing (even though you claim all

> the shops were closed anyway)

>

> That was part of the reason although it was more

> relevant to the pavement widening schemes.

>

> LTNs were put in to prevent or mitigate the risk

> of a car-led recovery. The fear being that lots of

> people who used to travel on P/T would be afraid

> to do so because of crowded conditions and would

> instead make the journey by car which would lead

> to a vast and unmanageable increase in traffic

> everywhere.

>

>

> but now that we are out of the other side there

> is no longer any global pandemic justification for

> keeping them

>

> There's still the minor problem of a global

> climate catastrophe. You know, that thing caused

> by burning fossil fuels.

Err, Ex- pavement widening....where exactly did that go in? The council were slow to put any sort of widening in place on Lordship Lane....it took them months to widen the pavement outside Moxons....their focus was solely on cycling and measures to support the cycle lobby....they were caught sleeping at the wheel in terms of helping pedestrians on Lordship Lane.....

Also, it was clear that the council, and the councillors, were saying the LTNs were being driven by the need for social distancing....correct me if I am wrong by Cllr McAsh started a thread on the very subject of the Melbourne Grove LTN measures as a social distancing tool during the first lockdown.....and it is increasingly clear that was just a Trojan horse used by the council to get the measures in.

[Earl Aelfheah]

There was exactly the right amount of traffic before the LTN. Just enough for businesses in the Village and on Lordship Lane to flourish? which is what we want. But also we don?t want to just return things to how they were, that?s a mischaracterisation. But less traffic (which we want) does impact business, which is bad. So does more traffic by the way. It needs to be easy for people to drive to the shops, which we don?t want to encourage of course. But we?re not against change.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Got it

[heartblock]

If unplanned temporary measures are implemented without consultation, equality impact assessment and funded using the governments Covid emergency social distancing fund, while based on a few very vocal, close to the current council, wealthy residents, who for years have lobbied for gated roads....and you get all your advice from a cycling lobby that represents one, small interest group.

....then maybe these just do not work well for anybody in the end and they are not fit for the new purpose of encouraging less car use.

Remove the LTNs, consult, plan and then implement a range of solutions and objectives to help residents choose public transport and active travel and to help school children and their parents to have the ability to access transport choices that do not cause idling and polluting traffic. Because at present LTNs cause pollution and idling traffic, they do not prevent it.

[Earl Aelfheah]

So do we want it to be easier to drive around the local area / to the local shops, or more difficult? Do we want to restrict the use of cars and encourage active travel (which means inconveniencing car users), or remove barriers to driving? It would be good to understand first principles. Because people will line up against something quite easily, but it?s more difficult to get agreement on any concrete change proposal which requires trade offs and where there will be winners and losers.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Does anyone believe that any changes which make it more difficult to drive around locally, or restricts car access or use, will not be strongly opposed?. Honestly?

[Abe_froeman]

Of course they will be strongly opposed when the only replacement mode of transport that is mandated is a bicycle.

If your only goal is to get people to sell cars and buy bikes and your only strategy to achieve that is close roads and sealion the people who are upset about the very negative impact that has on them, then of course you will find that you can't persuade a single person to come and join your cult.

[Earl Aelfheah]

So, no changes to roads? No restrictions on car use? Well at least it?s honest.

[heartblock]

But it isn?t a restriction on car use, people inside LTNs in Dulwich have high car ownership and drive them....do have a walk down Calton or Gilkes or Melbourne sometime. It is a diverting of car use onto fewer roads. It makes a journey longer without any other alternative except walking or cycling...and cycling is the mode that Southwark have been foolish to stake their bad planning on. Cycling levels have already dropped back across London to pre-Covid levels.

As the UN states, good, joined up, clean and affordable public transport is the way to get cities moving and to give personal equality to city dwellers whatever their mobility, age or income.

The transport choices, prices and reliability of public transport is dire in South London and the PTAL rating terrible.

[Abe_froeman]

You're a sealion

[heartblock]

So Dulwich has a PTAL of 1 - Very Poor, so why LTNs were introduced..is a mystery to me...well actually not a mystery as we know the real reasons LTNs went in, but anyway this score is based on.

? Walking time from the point-of interest to the public transport access points;

? The reliability of the service modes available;

? The number of services available within the catchment; and

? The level of service at the public transport access points - i.e. average waiting time.

And Dulwich scores the lowest possible on PTAL.

[Earl Aelfheah]

But to be clear, Abe is saying he does not want any restrictions on car use. Which is fine. I respect that honesty. Let?s not pretend that if the LTNs are scrapped, it will leave the door open for the speedy development of some as yet undefined alternative for reducing car use and increasing active travel which will garner the support of the majority of ?One Dulwich? folk. As Abe points out, any attempt to restrict or reduce cars will be ?strongly opposed?. I agree, which is why I would rather work to make the current scheme better, instead of returning everything to the previous, congested state - a manifesto for zero change not just now but into the foreseeable future.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Tell me Heartblock - Do you believe that any changes which make it more difficult to drive around locally, or that restrict car access or use, will not be strongly opposed?