LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[legalalien]

Raeburn I think there is some doubt as to whether the statement in the Southwark FAQs is actually accurate, I seem to recall that the fortnightly meetings referred to weren?t happening (can someone confirm)? I?d be very cautious about relying on statements on the Southwark website as a source of fact. They failed to comply with their statutory duties to advise TfL in advance as well, if the FoI responses from TfL are correct. I?d be keen on Southwark not posting statements that are untrue, as people are likely to believe them. Am less worried about Rockets ;)

[heartblock]

Even LTN cycling poster boy for Southwark - Guardian's Peter Walker admits that "Motor traffic on the roads in many places has returned to pre-pandemic levels, and there are concerns that in some areas it could rise further as people shun public transport because of concerns about coronavirus"

Which means traffic fell due to the pandemic -lock down and NOT LTNs

and

"This is seen as particularly an issue for cycling: the number of bike trips rose notably during lockdown, but there is concern that many new or returning cyclists could stop now"

Which means cycling increased when people were off school and working from home during the lockdown - NOT due to LTNs.

[heartblock]

I believe their are some e-mails with LAS asking Southwark why the meetings were not happening and why the changes have not been made...FOI requests?

[Rockets]

Raeburn - I really don't know what point you are trying to make - other than repeatedly blindly defending the council. Just because the council is promising to do something now doesn't make it ok that they did nothing for 14 months. That is endangering lives.

The police, ambulance and fire services all made their feelings abundantly clear about non-permeable barriers to Southwark council in July 2020 after the measures went it. They did not support them and wanted permeable (for emergency vehicles) barriers. They have continued to lobby Southwark to make those changes. Southwark did make some changes to Melbourne Grove (for example) but have done nothing at the DV junction.

Absolutely nothing. The DV junction is as non-permeable now as it was when the road closures went in.

And now, in documentation that Southwark has posted as part of the review LAS and MPS have both stated that the DV closures led to delays in responses to blue-light incidents (where, I am sure you appreciate every second counts).

So it doesn't look good for the council as the question still remains: why did they ignore the input from the emergency services about the DV junction for 14 months? Any ideas?

Here is a suggestion for you: I think the council have resisted doing it because if you make that junction an emergency access route you cannot have the "party in the square" nonsense and that grandstanding event has been more of a priority than emergency vehicle access.

And are you really suggesting that emergency services had access around the DV closures by mounting the pavement? Once I stopped laughing at that absurd suggestion I tried to imagine being in the back of the ambulance and the driver saying, hang on for a second patient (let's imagine they have a back injury for example), we're just going to bump up and down the pavement for a moment or two whilst trying to avoid pedestrians as we navigate our way around this road closure.

[Raeburn]

Not quite sure how cameras were installed pre May(cost + installation can't be cheap, plus presumably there's planning regs, Dulwich Estate, possibly licence for recording on highways, data protection etc to apply) and plans were made to open up then, if the Council tactic were simply ignoring the emergency service stakeholders.

I'll point out again; it's motorists that ruined up a perfectly good temporary solution, and motorists that can't be trusted so we need expensive ANPR cameras. I'd direct any annoyance here, not at the work to bring positive changes that have been made.

[heartblock]

Mounting a pavement is not a 'good temporary' solution...honestly, no idea. I can hear my paramedic students laughing right now...partly in horror and partly in disbelief. I really hope this is not a comment from a Councillor or a Council Official.

[Rockets]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Even LTN cycling poster boy for Southwark -

> Guardian's Peter Walker admits that "Motor traffic

> on the roads in many places has returned to

> pre-pandemic levels, and there are concerns that

> in some areas it could rise further as people shun

> public transport because of concerns about

> coronavirus"

> Which means traffic fell due to the pandemic -lock

> down and NOT LTNs

>

> and

>

> "This is seen as particularly an issue for

> cycling: the number of bike trips rose notably

> during lockdown, but there is concern that many

> new or returning cyclists could stop now"

> Which means cycling increased when people were off

> school and working from home during the lockdown -

> NOT due to LTNs.

Interesting on this - do people think public transport is being shunned? I know the train and tube aren't indicative of all public transport journeys but I have travelled on both on weekdays and weekends and they have been incredibly busy - weekends particularly.

P.S. I think Peter Walker knows falling bike journeys are not a "concern" but a reality - I suspect he has seen the DfT figures on cycling in 2021 and is trying to put his usual pro-cycling pro-LTN spin on things!

[Raeburn]

Well, it was absolutely fine for the low slung car with sports suspension I filmed doing it on two pavements, and heading up Court Lane.

I can see there's a lot of ambition to discredit and take away from this planned, positive change, so I'll leave you all to it.

[Rockets]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Mounting a pavement is not a 'good temporary'

> solution...honestly, no idea. I can hear my

> paramedic students laughing right now...partly in

> horror and partly in disbelief. I really hope this

> is not a comment from a Councillor or a Council

> Official.

Heartblock - but surely if a bike can bump the kerb then surely an ambulance, water-laden fire engine or police car could do the same......;-)

Raeburn, no-one is trying to discredit it we're just asking why it took the council so long to do it (14 months) when all of the emergency services were telling them to do it immediately. Surely that is of concern to you too?

[slarti b2]

Raeburn Wrote:

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

I can see there's a lot of ambition to discredit and take away from this planned, positive change,

The residents of Croxted Road and EDG don't see the increased pollution and congestion arising from the displaced traffic as positive. Neither do the older and less mobile local residents see the road closure as positive.

In fact, as we know from teh consultation (depsite SOuthwark's best efforts to coneal the results) a large majority of local residents oppose the measure and only a small minority wish to retain them.

[Abe_froeman]

It's not positive, it's an absolute sh!tshow as the many thousands of consultation replies amply demonstrated.

[heartblock]

So - in a way, I think the LTNs don't work argument is pretty much won in terms of

1. They do not reduce car use

2. They do not reduce pollution

3. They do not increase cycling

4. They increase traffic and pollution on so called 'boundary' roads which are in fact highly populated residential roads

5. They only have the support of 800 responders and over 4000 responders want then moved or changed.

What is clear is the majority of responders do agree that something should be done to reduce private car dependence, traffic in general and help people make healthy active travel choices.

So to turn this long thread into something positive - if the LTNs were removed (hooray!) what ideas do people have to try to achieve a cleaner and greener ED and Dulwich?

Can I start with

1. Council and community funded local public transport buses - like the big yellow bus in Brighton.

Next....

[rachp]

Routes to ride bikes safely and not be subjected to car fumes. Something that Brighton is also great for is the amount of space that is given over to pedestrians and cyclists which means for those who can, cycling and walking become not just viable but appealing and preferable to cars and buses.

[rachp]

Oh, and building on the bus theme, air conditioning on the buses. The thought of getting on a bus for a long journey in the summer is very unappealing. The Brighton buses are also very well marketed and sell themselves as a day out, rather than an endurance test.

[heartblock]

Excellent, yes ... some of the newer red buses are great, reminiscent of the buses I remember as a child. Air con is not very ?green? but maybe on an electric bus is ok? Good ventilation is vital though.

I really like a split wide pavement, half for cycling and half for walking, much safer for cyclists to be off the road.

The Calton, Court, Townley junction could be designed so a wider pavement is shared and a small local bus route links ED and Village, with maybe a one-way car route for Townley and Court?

A side note on junctions and related to LTNs

The ED Grove-Townley junction is the worst junction...redesigned badly by a former planner of the Council, it caused an uplift in traffic on ED Grove when implemented and then exacerbated by LTNs...supported by the very same designer of that terrible junction

[rachp]

Good point about environmental issues re. Air con. It might be more environmentally friendly than lots of single occupancy cars with their air con on though?

[heartblock]

Oh I love aircon...it?s a guilty pleasure, but yes..better than 30 cars with only one passenger.

[Rockets]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> 300 respondents to a consultation on the cash

> machine in DV and our councillors mobilise into

> action......

>

> https://twitter.com/SouthwarkLabour/status/1442434

> 104444653568?s=19

>

> 3612 of their constituents say remove the LTNs in

> another consultation and they...........ignore

> them....

One day is a long time in politics. The cash machine that our councillors were claiming to have saved has gone one day after their grandstanding tweet (I took this pic this morning).....that's a bit embarrassing......perhaps those 300 responses counted for nothing either after all - at least they can claim they are being consistent!

Anyway. per Heartblock's question on solutions to the traffic problems that are not LTNs I am more and more convinced means-tested road pricing is the only way forward. What has been interesting during this fuel crisis debacle is the roads seem quieter during the last two days. I suspect people are questioning whether they really need to make a journey and I do think that that is the only thing that will force people to make long-term changes.

[slarti b2]

I hear Councillor Rose was due to have an open air meeting yesterday eveneing to discuss the planters on Melbourne Grove South. However, she then got cold feet about meeting some of the many people who are angry about these schemes and went for a cozy chat with a few of the vocal minority who support all these closures.

It is depressing when local democracy can be so trampled on by our Labour Councillors

[Penguin68]

It is depressing when local democracy can be so trampled on by our Labour Councillors

It was the Labour treatment of their voters (ignorant cannon fodder who can be ignored and taken for granted- together with incipient corruption it must also be added) that lost them their 'natural' majorities in Scotland - however I cannot see a Scots Nats equivalent emerging in SE London. Without strong independent and pro 'the Dulwichs' voices prepared to stand (and then there's the rest of Southwark to take on) I cannot see much hope even in the ballot box. But the current pusillanimous shower are a disgrace to any concept of local democracy. They are not 'our' councillors - we are their serfs, to be ignored when we don't see things their way. LTNs as a concept can work - but the ones we have don't, delivering none of the intended outcomes - save that of being part of the council's war on private vehicle ownership - a war started long before current climate and pollution issues emerged, and based on a socialist dislike of private ownership of anything, much. Other than their own, of course, but like all party bigwigs, their 'ideals' don't go as far as to impact them, or their friends.

[heartblock]

Well I'm a socialist and I think LTNs are a disaster for Dulwich and ED. I think that the Labour Party have ignored the 'serfs' like me and continue to do so unfortunately, but that is a Lounge thread, that I'm happy to indulge in!

But back to LTNs and local democracy. I imagine that many in roads impacted negatively by the LTNs - whether due to ability to travel due to mobility, the slowness of buses or pollution increases, will find it very hard to put a cross against Labour.

Road pricing is interesting - I think the petrol issue highlights that many people are vital workers, it was interesting on R4 that the last petrol crisis - even though NHS staff were allowed to get petrol to get to work, many had to stay at home to look after children as classes closed, because teachers (who were not considered vital workers), couldn't get to work.

So with road pricing, do we allow certain vital professions a free pass and who is vital.

When I was on call 24hr shift for an emergency team, I used to ride a motorbike or drive in - nice and quick at 3:00am in the morning and very little traffic, but if called in on a Saturday afternoon...I was grateful that I was on a motorbike rather than the car (well the patient was probably even more gateful).

So that is a clear-cut example ... and now thinking about HGV drivers..taechers...hospital cleaners..

Excellent and 24hr public transport would be the alternative for most people who are not on an urgent call or transporting heavy goods.

[Nigello]

I do not excuse the councillors for ignoring the majority view, but the fact that so few of us (yes, that could include YOU), really CBA with local elections. It is widely acknowledged and shown by statistics that a minority vote in most local elections. If we all were to take more of an interest those we vote in will know that they have a wider and more invested electorate and may shape up a bit!

[malumbu]

Interesting that there is reference to Brighton. The local authority is very interventionist and is considering banning cars. I expect that there is a similar forum down South with many angry about anti-car measures.

Anyway, interesting reading: https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/19027419.car-free-brighton-plans-liveable-city-centre/

[Rockets]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> I do not excuse the councillors for ignoring the

> majority view, but the fact that so few of us

> (yes, that could include YOU), really CBA with

> local elections. It is widely acknowledged and

> shown by statistics that a minority vote in most

> local elections. If we all were to take more of an

> interest those we vote in will know that they have

> a wider and more invested electorate and may shape

> up a bit!

I very much suspect that quite a lot more people will be taking an interest in the councillor elections in May - perhaps that will be the only "consultation" that the council pays any attention to! The campaigning for those elections will be interesting - the councillors might actually have to face their constituents again.

I very much suspect that a few of our councillors won't stand for re-election and try and save some face.

[heartblock]

I don't have any issue with banning cars - if there is a decent public service and no closed roads - the problem is that LTNs DO NOT reduce car use...or pollution..Jeez...stop spinning this unicorn defence of LTNs!