LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[heartblock]

Shame hasn't bothered the majority of Southwark Councillors before, not sure why many of this new lot would feel any different.

From setting up sock-puppet accounts to troll council house residents, to sitting on Council while working for property developers and lobby groups, that they eventually work for full-time, to closing roads for old mates that helped destroy Heygate and lose council housing stock for profit (that they actually didn't receive due to an inability to read the LandLease small print).

In the main - Shameless, careerist and undeniably without talent or vision.

[Rockets]

What makes me laugh is they claim to be socialists and take every opportunity to call out corruption and sleaze yet are more than happy to stand back and let it happen on their watch. Hypocrites every single one of them and a classic illustration why politicians of all political persuasions are so despised by so many - putting their own party's ideology ahead of the will of the people they are supposed to represent.

[Chick]

Here is a link to their proposal.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=

Laugh, I almost fell off my chair

[dougiefreeman]

This whole operation just smacks of cllrs' disdain for the objectors in this review.

The idea that they know better and have the 'correct' ideology for how southwark should be moving forward is a trump card and gives them carte blanche to do what they want regardless of the overwhelming objection.

It appears that Southwark Coucnil are trying to use this 'new government guidance' as a sort of get out of jail free card for ignoring the review findings.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/active-travel-schemes-supported-by-government-funding

Perhaps might be worth a letter to transport sec to clarify if bypassing democracy is part of the gov guidance?

[Rockets]

Just seen the newsletter that dropped through our door. Apparently we told the council we are all supportive of the measures.....they seem to have forgotten to mention that 65%+ of local residents responded to tbe review saying they wanted them removed.

This are the only stats they present from the review:

The majority of respondents (55%) were

supportive of the overall aims of Streets for

People as set out as priorities in the survey.

In particular, a majority of respondents (77%)

agreed that improving air quality and road

safety on the street where they lived was an

important priority.

The largest level of support in the survey

(82%) was for improving air quality and road

safety for local schools.

This council is shameless, absolutely shameless and I hope they one day get held to account for their constant manipulation of what they are being told by their constituents. I really hope they have the backbone to hold some public meetings around this - I think they need to hear from people directly instead of hiding behind Covid as a reason not to engage with the people they represent.

[Rockets]

Chick Wrote:

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

> Here is a link to their proposal.

>

> https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/i

> mproving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review?

> utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source

> =govdelivery&utm_term=

>

> Laugh, I almost fell off my chair

And a very selective group of documents that they link to....very different from the documents we saw last night. Talk about trying to bury the story and drive people to the data you want them to see rather than the data that tells you what is really happening and what people think of the measures.

[legalalien]

I'm not horrified at the prospect of the council making a decision that goes against the wishes of local residents - sometimes governments have to make unpopular decisions where they believe that it's in the best interest of their constituency - and if people don't like it, their remedy is the ballot box.

I am, though, still concerned by the things that heartblock mentions, in particular the lack of data, the treatment of data that is available, and the overall lack of transparency throughout the process.

Do people have views on how much improvement the proposed amendments will make e.g. moving the North Melbourne closure to the other end, reducing the times of closures, making Melbourne South timed? The latter two must help a bit with EDG/LL/ Croxted (it would be good if they could restrict them to term time as well, and exclude bank holidays?). I'm not sure what a timed school street in Townley would do in terms of traffic that currently heads south along that route - it presumably gets shunted to LL and DV - I don't know how much traffic we're talking about there?

Presumably "Parallel work with TfL to make improvements to junction safety for cyclists and improve the flow of traffic at the junction of Village Way, Dulwich Village and Red Post Hill." means "putting in that cycle lane and restricting straight ahead and right turning traffic to one lane has been a complete disaster in terms of creating traffic congestion through the village". will watch that one with interest.

[Rockets]

Legal - it looks like a token gesture to say "we're listening and making changes" and I don't think it will much difference at all.

The residents of Dulwich have spoken and they want this disaster the council forced upon us at the behest of a few self-interest groups and self-interested individuals removed. It just shows the weight of feeling against the measures that despite trying to rally support for them by pulling every underhand trick in tbe book the council have not been able to rally a mandate to continue this horrendous experiment. Yet they chose to do so.

The council cannot be allowed to put the will of a few over the will of the majority. Keeping the DV measures on the basis of weak support on Court Lane and Calton is another very dangerous precedent for them to set.

[Rockets]

Remember how we were kept being told that the emergency services had no issue with the closures by the council and the pro-LTN supporters. Check out the emergency services response document for the truth....a very different narrative than the one that was being peddled....

[Spartacus]

The paper version of the update just came through my door.

Page 2 bottom right reads

"A majority of respondents said they would like to see changes to the current measures."

How is it that in the data presented by the council the majority wanted to see the measures removed yet the summary provided doesn't mention that once.

There's spin and there's downright lies

Email your response on the published report to [email protected] by the 27th September to object to this overall sham of a consultation.

[Rockets]

The council are going warp factor 9 on the spin on this one.....some epic turd polishing going on in Tooley Street - you have to commend them for their continued blatant disregard for the democratic process!

[legalalien]

I've just had a multi-page hard copy review update through the door.

One thing that strikes me is that pretty much all of the measures have been able to be compromised in some way, EXCEPT the Court/ Calton closure, where it's about emergency services only. That's what I don't understand. Why can't that junction have timed restrictions like everywhere else? There's a real fixation with closure, I'm not sure why. My money is on refusal to acknowledge the poor design last time it was remodelled (a sort of "it's an impossible junction to make safe for cars, cycles and pedestrians", rather than catering to some narrow local interests (surely not?). I don't want to believe the latter.

[ab29]

Of course it is catering to some narrow local interests.

We have to get rid of these corrupted, good for nothing councilors in May. I hope One Dulwich will start information campaign soon so more people are aware of the council's doings. I have already started mine, talking to friends and neighbours and explaining why they should not vote labour in the next local elections.

[legalalien]

Does anyone know / has anyone heard any rumours as to whether independent candidates of any flavour are likely to come forward in May? I'd potentially vote for a local independent or local party, in the hope they might be - well, representative in some sense.

[dulwichfolk]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> I've just had a multi-page hard copy review update

> through the door.

>

> One thing that strikes me is that pretty much all

> of the measures have been able to be compromised

> in some way, EXCEPT the Court/ Calton closure,

> where it's about emergency services only. That's

> what I don't understand. Why can't that junction

> have timed restrictions like everywhere else?

> There's a real fixation with closure, I'm not sure

> why. My money is on refusal to acknowledge the

> poor design last time it was remodelled (a sort of

> "it's an impossible junction to make safe for

> cars, cycles and pedestrians", rather than

> catering to some narrow local interests (surely

> not?). I don't want to believe the latter.

Isn?t this due to the fact you can?t/dangerous to put timings on the traffic lights (or it is too difficult to do) hence it is either always open or always closed.

[first mate]

I'd say it is only independents we'd want. James Barber of LibDems has been quiet as a mouse on all this but in his time was pro CPZ and very entwined with cycling lobbies. Could not vote for a Tory, so we have to pray we get some decent independent candidates.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Does anyone know / has anyone heard any rumours as

> to whether independent candidates of any flavour

> are likely to come forward in May? I'd potentially

> vote for a local independent or local party, in

> the hope they might be - well, representative in

> some sense.

[heartblock]

From the Southwark Council report and there are many more like this.

"It was noted that Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic people were more likely to live in areas outside of Dulwich Village, such as East Dulwich and Peckham ? therefore not benefitting from the low traffic measures and potentially experiencing higher traffic volumes, congestion and air pollution.

Buses were mentioned as a particular concern as commutes to central London were affected with longer journey times"

What does this say to us residents? I think it is telling us if you are not wealthy, white and able bodied Southwark doesn't care if you are negatively effected by the closure of roads that are very white, wealthy and with accessibility to private and public car parking.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> The residents of Dulwich have spoken...Keeping the DV

> measures on the basis of weak support on Court

> Lane and Calton is another very dangerous

> precedent for them to set.

It's complete nonsense that "the residents of Dulwich" all want rid of the scheme and that there is only weak support only on Court Lane and Calton Ave. This thread is a echo chamber that is not representative of the outside world.

[heartblock]

The thoughts of pregnant women and women with small children in the consultation - nearly 75% negative impact of LTNs

[heartblock]

It is Southwark's consultation document - not an anti-LTN group.

I would love the raw data to be published though. Southwark hasn't published the raw data set or the pollution data - except for June 2021..I'm sure there are more months in a year - why???

[dulwichfolk]

I think the photo on Twitter showing Melbourne grove having newly painted 20 mph signs at the grove vale end in May , which seemed strange as it was next to blocked off planters, suggests this was decided a long long time ago and all these consultations are a waste of time.

[heartblock]

And a waste of money. How much has this vanity project cost?

[Rockets]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > The residents of Dulwich have spoken...Keeping

> the DV

> > measures on the basis of weak support on Court

> > Lane and Calton is another very dangerous

> > precedent for them to set.

>

> It's complete nonsense that "the residents of

> Dulwich" all want rid of the scheme and that there

> is only weak support only on Court Lane and Calton

> Ave. This thread is a echo chamber that is not

> representative of the outside world.

DKHB - take the time to look at the data the council published from the review. It's all in there. Let us know if that changes your view......

[Spartacus]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > The residents of Dulwich have spoken...Keeping

> the DV

> > measures on the basis of weak support on Court

> > Lane and Calton is another very dangerous

> > precedent for them to set.

>

> It's complete nonsense that "the residents of

> Dulwich" all want rid of the scheme and that there

> is only weak support only on Court Lane and Calton

> Ave. This thread is a echo chamber that is not

> representative of the outside world.

Read the data behind the report.

Over 65% of respondents said they want the schemes removed. That comes directly from the real world, not the EDF

Yes, true, it doesn't represent every resident of the SE22 postcode zone, but as in all things you either speak up or you put up with what the majority of those who respond said.

So no echo chamber DKHB, but consulted on fact.

[DulvilleRes]

I've just read the Council's review, and it feels pretty fair-minded and responsive to me. A lot of the anti LTN campaigning was at one point was focused around emergency vehicle response times, and that has been addressed, as has Blue Badge holders/ disabled access. There seem to be measures in play to try and reduce congestion on Croxsted and East Dulwich Grove.

I also read the government guidance referred to in the review - the council, even if they wanted to, couldn't get rid of the LTN's at this point. Despite all the 'vote them out' sentiment, I can't see any major existing party at either a national or local level who would want to roll back on increases in active travel/ reduction in car useage. In terms of the Climate Crisis, it isn't a great look, and ultimately the move to a carbon-neutral country I think will be supported by a national majority, especially with younger people.

I've found the tone of this debate around the LTN's dispiriting - unnecessary personalization of the issues, even Police involvement for some of its excesses. Given the overarching context that the LTN's or some form of alternative serious traffic reduction isn't going to go away, I would have thought the best way forward is to accept the new reality, and try and collectively make it work as best as possible.