LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[ab29]

arrogant and patronising - as per usual

malumbu Wrote:

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

> Heartblock - you have been reading too much Viz

>

> https://viz.fandom.com/wiki/Category:The_Modern_Pa

> rents_Characters

>

> And another character comes to mind

>

> http://viz.co.uk/category/millie-tant/ although

> perhaps not politically correct, apols

>

> Just a bit of light humour

[DulwichCentral]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> arrogant and patronising - as per usual

You mean like this?

ab29 Wrote:

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

> not sure if those complaining about your post actually know what 'metaphor' is.

[heartblock]

Viz 🙄. So a question. Why has Southwark compared Sept 2019 pollution level to June 2021 levels on ED Grove. Wasn?t the schools closed, so traffic will not peak at school run?

Why only a month?

Am I missing something?

[ab29]

and what do you have to say about people accusing P3girl about inciting violence - hmm?

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> ab29 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > arrogant and patronising - as per usual

>

>

> You mean like this?

>

>

> ab29 Wrote:

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

> -------

> > not sure if those complaining about your post

> actually know what 'metaphor' is.

[Rockets]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Viz 🙄. So a question. Why has Southwark

> compared Sept 2019 pollution level to June 2021

> levels on ED Grove. Wasn?t the schools closed, so

> traffic will not peak at school run?

> Why only a month?

> Am I missing something?

Have they published any of the Underhill Road monitoring figures? I reckon when they include the figures from there their claimed 10% reduction in area-wide traffic drops to 0 - it may in fact register an increase.

[Pugwash]

It will be interesting to see how with the onset of autumn/winter with rain and snow, how many people will continue cycling with their kids to school. I suspect that at least 25-40% of them will revert back to the car.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

P3girl Wrote:

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

> Ealing anti-LTN group mustered around 3,000 folk

> to each of their (legal) protests. Dulwich

> mustered only 150!... The operators were nameless and

> uncontactable...> 5. They appeared to only want to raise funds. The

> never said what money had been spent on.

> 6. Comments are unattributed eg by "a local

> resident" or by " a local business"... 9. Failed to dispel the view that they were just a

> bunch of toffs from Dulwich Village.

Have you considered the possibility that maybe the changes just weren't as unpopular in real life as they were among certain empty vessels on here? Are dark money and untraceable, anonymous leaders hallmarks of a movement with genuine popular aupoort?

[heartblock]

Pugwash, in the consultation paper ...hidden discreetly it does say that the cycling numbers are already dropping. UK wide they are almost back to pre-lockdown and pre LTN levels. I don?t find this joyous as I would like more people to find alternatives to private cars...but obviously I don?t think LTNs encourage this.

And it seems, they probably don?t.

[DulwichCentral]

P3girl Wrote:

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

> Ealing anti-LTN group mustered around 3,000 folk

> to each of their (legal) protests. Dulwich

> mustered only 150!

>

> Where did Dulwich get it wrong?

>

> 1. They had two different oganisations - Dulwich

> Alliance and One Dulwich.

> 2. The target audience were confused by this

> 3. Both DA and OD have websites which have no

> focus. The operators were nameless and

> uncontactable.

> 4. No one was responsible for handle different

> tasks eg media, banners, protests, correspondence

> etc

> 5. They appeared to only want to raise funds. The

> never said what money had been spent on.

> 6. Comments are unattributed eg by "a local

> resident" or by " a local business"

> 7. Any decision to be made had to be a unanimous

> one.

> 8. They resisted all suggestions that demos should

> take place at Tooley St, Southwark Town Hall, LL

> or Rye Lane.

> 9. Failed to dispel the view that they were just a

> bunch of toffs from Dulwich Village.

> 10.Failed to use social Media effectively.

> 11. Acted like a debating society that issued the

> occasional verbose newsletter which regurgitated

> all the usual arguments.

> 12. To cap it all, they even replaced the plants

> that had been vandalised in the planters.

>

> No doubt I could add more, but Dulwich can achieve

> what Ealing did - provided DA and OD change tack.

Hi @P3girl - to add to your list they also got it wrong on the following:

13. Producing out of touch, culturally insensitive posters with slogans such as ?All Streets Matter?.

14. Telling everyone to respond to the consultation with ?Return it to the original state?

yet also submitting proposals which retain the camera timed closures.

15. Claiming to support the council?s aims around active travel etc. yet submitted an alternative plan for Calton/Court Lane junction which was judged to ?not meet many objectives in the councils Movement Plan 2019? by independent consultants.

16. Position Age Speaks as a new, separate group, whilst it?s obvious to us all it?s mostly the same people ? and says as much on their website ?We are a group of older people within One Dulwich who have banded together to amplify our voice.?

[Rockets]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> P3girl Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Ealing anti-LTN group mustered around 3,000

> folk

> > to each of their (legal) protests. Dulwich

> > mustered only 150!... The operators were

> nameless and

> > uncontactable...> 5. They appeared to only want

> to raise funds. The

> > never said what money had been spent on.

> > 6. Comments are unattributed eg by "a local

> > resident" or by " a local business"... 9. Failed

> to dispel the view that they were just a

> > bunch of toffs from Dulwich Village.

>

> Have you considered the possibility that maybe the

> changes just weren't as unpopular in real life as

> they were among certain empty vessels on here? Are

> dark money and untraceable, anonymous leaders

> hallmarks of a movement with genuine popular

> aupoort?

64% of residents within the LTN area would disagree.....you can't argue with that.

[Rockets]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Pugwash, in the consultation paper ...hidden

> discreetly it does say that the cycling numbers

> are already dropping. UK wide they are almost back

> to pre-lockdown and pre LTN levels. I don?t find

> this joyous as I would like more people to find

> alternatives to private cars...but obviously I

> don?t think LTNs encourage this.

> And it seems, they probably don?t.

And they are continuing to fall to below pre-Covid levels - driven in part because people are not commuting on bikes into London as often/at all.

LTNs were designed to increase cycling and they have failed.

[legalalien]

I agree with that P3girl and I think there is a common cause with those opposing some of the council?s other ill thought out and ill-consulted plans on the housing front.

I actually helped organise a ?party? in a brewery once, for its centenary, as part of my student work experience. Best thing on my CV probably.

[Rockets]

I actually think the various anti-LTN groups have done a good job keeping these issues top of mind amongst local residents. The council was very much hoping the "small vocal minority" would quietly lose interest and fade away but that small vocal minority turned into a large vocal majority - the council just now chooses to ignore them.

[legalalien]

That's true, Rockets, but also possibly true that some of the older/ longer term residents had some degree of (what has turned out to be) misplaced trust in the system, based on previous experience of Dulwich interest groups (eg the Estate, Dulwich Society) having some sway in protecting the interests of Village residents, and ward councillors representing the ward (as opposed to the party line - and their own particular interests / the views of those in their echo chambers)?

OD and DA have done well in getting locals to express their views: but in a situation where the council's response is essentially "meh" .. then what? I had hoped TfL might intervene to fix the Croxted problem (maybe they still will), but maybe a "sack the 49" movement borough wide is the way forward. I can't believe that Southwark Labour would be foolish enough to put the current Village incumbents up as candidates for the next election, would be interested to see what they come up with.

Incidentally I see on the website that "Your locally elected councillors will be holding a mobile (roving) surgery programme at different locations across the Dulwich Village ward area to enable residents to raise any local issues. Residents will be notified of the date, time and specific streets/roads where the surgery will take place by letter in advance."

I'll await a letter - not expecting one any time soon.

[Rockets]

I wonder if some of the incumbent councillors may not stand for re-election and will cash in their ?5000 golden parachute payment from Cllr Williams.

It's clear Southwark residents desperately need some sort of opposition in Tooley Street. The one party state only ever results in one thing and we are seeing that playing out in front of our eyes with every council led initiative - they do what they want and residents have zero say.

[Rockets]

The more time I spend reading the council?s documents on the LTNs I am becoming more and more incredulous at the council?s audacity at continuing with this flawed programme of measures.

Can any of the pro-lobby look at the documents and tell us what the pluses are in the report - there aren?t any jumping out from the council?s report?

It appears to me that their report concludes:

No reduction in pollution (in fact increases in areas such as East Dulwich Grove)

10% decrease in car journeys (although data incomplete due to lack of info from Underhill)

Decreases in traffic on closed roads but increases in traffic on boundary roads (Burbage, EDG and Lordship Lane taking the brunt - but of course no data on Underhill which will show a significant increase)

School journeys have seen a 6% shift from car use but some of the shift to cycling and scooting has been at the expense of walking

Bus journey times have increased on many key routes such as EDG, South circular and Croxted

The large majority of people who responded to the review backed the strategy but not the implementation.

People agree that they are walking and cycling more but this is not because of the effectiveness of the measures

The majority of Respondents are concerned about the impact on the old, disabled and local businesses. They are also concerned about displacement issues.

And finally??(and this is the one I find astonishing) the measures have endangered lives with numerous issues of delays reported by LAS to the council during the duration of the closures. Yet the council did nothing to address them. And this is what I find incredible that it is clear from the emergency services report that both LAS and MPS were telling Southwark their measures (especially DV) were causing response time issues yet the council did nothing. How can the council ignore the requests of the emergency services - they have been putting Dulwich resident lives at risk because of this dogged pursuit of the LTN approach?

No rational person can read any of those documents and suggest the measures have delivered against their goals and that the solution is to tweak the measures. This has been a disaster from day one and the council are digging a deeper and deeper hole for themselves (and for those who like to complain the aforementioned digging a hole is a metaphor!)

And finally congratulations the people of Dulwich - looking at the distribution of responses the whole Dulwich area had their say, despite the council?s continued efforts to try to bury the review.

[johnhinton]

Thank you Rockets. The council "strategy" seems misguided: no real reductions in pollution, no meaningful increase in active journeys, no benefits to a wider community. Not even the majority of leafy village residents are in favour of their LTN enclaves - because they don't live in a bubble and are all too aware of the impact on themselves and their neighbours.

The majority of traffic flows are people who don't live or shop locally, but people passing through on their way to work: an LTN that blocks access on key north-south routes is not going to "nudge" behaviour for commuters who don't live there - they still need to be at work. You can't just buy, sell or rent a home every time you change jobs - especially as you get closer to central London.

And a Labour-controlled council should not be making it harder for working people to get to work.

[first mate]

The problem is this Council is utterly paternalistic, they think they are right and so are happy to throw out any remnant of democratic process. They need to be removed and we need incumbents who are prepared to properly engage with residents and represent them, instead of obstinate imposition.

[Metallic]

Dulwich needs better councillors who realise they are representing everyone across the board and not just the few they have dinner with. Time to realise also, that we have seen through their attempts to represent DV Ward and found them seriously wonting. One of them doesn't even live here to see what life is like, he has to make a special journey to see for himself, before he denies it is terrible. First he admits there is excess traffic on Croxted Road, then he says it was built to take it, then he says traffic numbers have fallen on it. All in about three days.

Meanwhile in the dark quiet canyons of closed off Dulwich, women scurry from place to place because quiet streets are nerve wracking. He doesn't address that at all, he lives in a bustling area and he is a man. Spare a thought for our roads here in the Silent Belt.

[Spartacus]

Does anyone know if the organisations against the LTNs including Dulwich Alliance, One Dulwich or the Dulwich Traders have put together a boilerplate email to send to the council in response to all of this?

Obviously the more objections that are received by the council can only be good as they add more weight on the decision process.

[dulwichrunners]

And to follow on from Spartacus, you can keep the pressure on Southwark by writing to your councillors about the issue. You can find them here - https://www.writetothem.com/

I have written to my councillors and made it very clear that I will be voting for neither of the incumbents next time.

[legalalien]

I'm still in favour of lobbying the Lib Dems to ask for the decision to be called in to the Oversight and Scrutiny committee for explanation once it is made. That wouldn't stop the decision ultimately (Labour majority on the committee), but it would give the issue more airtime / make more people aware of what is going on. Any LD or potential LD councillors or members out there?

The Southwark constitution seems to permit call in to be requested by three members of the committee, https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s100483/Overview%20and%20Scrutiny%20Procedure%20Rules%20May%202019.pdf

and there are exactly three LDs on the committee:

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=308

The procedure states that "Requests for call-in should normally only be made if there is evidence that the

decision maker did not take the decision in accordance with the principles of

decision making as set out in Article 1.3 of the constitution."

Article 1.3 says this:

"All decisions of the council will be made in accordance with the following

principles:

a) the link between strategy and implementation must be maintained

b) decision making generally, whether by individual officers, individual cabinet

members or the cabinet collectively, should have reference to the policy

framework

c) respect for human rights, law and probity

d) due consultation and the taking of professional advice from officers

e) proportionality (i.e. the action must be proportionate to the desired

outcome)

f) a presumption in favour of openness

g) clarity of aims and desired outcomes

h) consideration of the likely climate consequences and the likely equality

(including socio-economic disadvantage and health inequality)

consequences of the relevant decision and therefore reports for decision

should include advice from officers of the likely climate and equality impacts

of that decision."

I reckon there's a pretty good argument that at least one of those grounds is engaged...

[Jim1234]

Keen to get others' views: the redesign appears to be prioritising revenue generation via camera controls. Eg. with the Melbourne North road blockers moved south, I assume most unfamiliar drivers looking to turn left from EDG would use Derwent instead.

I'm hugely against cars, however fooling people into penalty charges is unethical.

[heartblock]

They will not change their minds - either vote them out or take a legal step.

[ShirleyBW]

I am interested to see how this improves Emergency call outs. I had an early trip last Sunday and there was an ambulance parked up on Woodwarde Rd waiting for back up. By the time I got to the DV P4 bus stop, another ambulance came racing down and tried to turn into Gilkes - then had to back out and drove towards College Rd. It then came back to turn right into EDG and off to Woodwarde. I directed them. I wonder how LAS view the decision.