LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[slarti b]

@keptthin

Interesting point about local history (which I normally enjoy) but the clue is history. You are quoting some political rallys from over 80 years ago which rather confirms my original posting.

And again it does appear to be part of the ongoing campaign to divert attentions from a large and sucessful demonstration reflecting the majority local opinion objecting to these road closures, which is being undemocratically and shamefully being ignored by the council.

[Kept thin]

I was replying factually as a non partisan individual to a post that claimed DV doesn?t have a history of public demonstrations.

[goldilocks]

It was a large demonstration - especially when compared to the previous ones One Dulwich have run. There were hundreds of people. In Covid times its more likely though that crowds are over estimated though as people aren't getting as close to one another. Its not a concerted effort to come on and point out that the guesstimates from One Dulwich are wildly overplayed and that this is indicative of their approach overall.

@Slarti - majority of people responding to a consultation is different from a majority of people locally. If we meet in the middle and say 500 (generous - especially as some were groups from other areas who will join any anti LTN protest) then as a % of local people its not even close. No one is looking to divert attention, rather pointing out that you're adding 2+2 and getting 5 (or 1000 perhaps)!

[slarti b]

@Goldilocks

You are (deliberatley?) misreading my post. The vast majority of local residents refers, not to the 500 or 1,000 people who attended the demo, but the respondents to the Soutwark Streetspace consultation.

Can you provide numbers (from any of the consultations over the last 2-3 years) showing how many local residents support the closure ofthe DV junction?

[sim1]

What I find the most depressing of all this is the "rip it out and start again" narrative. Now, I totally get that some?people?living on certain roads don't feel they benefit from the Dulwich measures, and some even find it's worse than before. I get it. But the thing is, the current schemes are benefiting a huge amount of people, and many people - us included - are now relying on these small stretches of safe routes.?

Fair enough some don't agree with the current measures, but I think it would be absolutely awful if everything would just be ripped out without other safe measures having been put in place first (whatever those may be?!). That would be like throwing people who have made a positive change to active travel under the bus (or more likely a large SUV in the case of Dulwich).

The Council's plans to reduce the timed restrictions to 4:30pm across Townley / Dulwich Village / Burbage Road and Turney Road in December are really depressing for starters. Looks like kids coming home from after school clubs and people cycling home from work, visiting friends, family, or cycling home from the shops will soon have to battle against lots of big metal machines again. In the middle of winter when it's pitch black by 4:30. Not that it's perfect now (the Council should have stuck to their original plans of filtering Burbage and Turney, for example), but I can still remember what it was like before the timed restrictions went in and despair of the fact we will soon be faced with it again.

There was a time when I was seriously hoping that we might finally be on the cusp of starting to plan for a network of safe routes, but recent announcements of rolling back measures is just making me feel really down. We will probably still be fighting over a few square metres in Dulwich Village by 2040, when the rest of the world is burning...?

I get some people don't like the current scheme, but ripping it all out without having a safe alternative in place? It's incredibly sad...?

[Hitmyhat]

I think that disabled people and older people whose lives have been made so much more difficult by these schemes and those on The boundary roads who are suffering so much more congestion and pollution find it incredibly sad that the schemes might continue!

[heartblock]

https://johnstewartliveblog.wordpress.com/2021/10/19/the-weaknesses-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-as-a-policy-tool/

The main walking and cycling route in reality is ED Grove, I see far more pedestrians and cyclist on ED Grove than any of the LTNs in the morning, but in this discussion facts don't matter very much.

There is no proof that LTNs in Dulwich have accelerated the increases in active travel that have been seen over the past 5 years and no evidence that pollution or traffic levels have dropped due to LTNs across the area.

Of course closed roads will have less traffic.

They just do not achieve that goal and distract from policy and investment in local public transport, decent walking environments and improved cycling lanes on all roads.

They are a cheap distraction and if pollution levels were actively measured across all roads, it is likely that LTNs in Dulwich are contributing to an increase in idling traffic and consequently higher pollution levels.

[ab29]

People are using these safe routes/closed roads for 15-30 minutes every day - to take kids to and from school. Those living on the boundary roads have to put up with the negative impact of the LTNs every day.

My neighbours have three kids, walk and cycle, no car. The dad said recently that it is all well and good that they can use the closed roads but then they have to go back home and face idling traffic, increased air pollution and noise. It is asking people to sacrifice too much.

Also, people, including children walk these streets and wait for buses there. It is not all about cycling.

I already mentioned I'm really worried about the increase in traffic during the weekends - it is much worse now so we don't even have these two quieter days anymore, except half terms and holidays.

If the roads are closed for people to get kids to schools, why they have to be closed on Saturday and Sunday as well?

[goldilocks]

Interesting ab29 - as the timed restrictions aren't in place on the weekend. Maybe, you're just noticing traffic more because its become a focus?

The monitoring for Lordship Lane at the bottom end shows a fall. I see you disagree with this monitoring because your eyes tell you a different story but the data tells us that traffic has fallen on pretty much every boundary road. The exception is East Dulwich Grove but the last monitoring released seems to show that even on there the traffic effects aren't the same along the whole street.

[legalalien]

The timed restrictions aren?t in place on the weekend but the Court/ Calton closure is, and many believe that to be the root of the problem.

[ab29]

DV & Court Lane are permanently closed - it used to take traffic away from LL.

Well, you have data and I have eyes and experience in living on a busy road.

[heartblock]

Yes ED Grove isn't the same across the whole road 35% increase in one area, 25% increase in another and 200% increase at a junction - so yes you are correct. It's bad, very bad and extremely bad. Pollution has also risen, but that is the pollution counters we the residents paid for...the council hasn't released their data yet...I wonder why?

Of course all this increase was measured from different baselines for different streets, from 2017 - 2019, (I say baseline 'measured' but this old data seems half guesswork and half badly collected TFL data) and then the traffic drops......during school shut-down and home working. But of course the drop in traffic across all of London..must be due to ED and Dulwich LTNs in this period, even in London areas without LTNs (everywhere dropped in London during the lockdowns - except streets with displaced traffic from LTNs)

And now - London traffic going back up and cycling going back down (again the rise in cycling - baseline Winter pre-Covid, measured against Summer during lockdowns and home working)

Oh dear, wouldn't pass an undergraduate research dissertation let alone be the basis for 'proving' a failed experiment has worked.

[AlexandHelenC]

sim1 Wrote:

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

> What I find the most depressing of all this is the

> "rip it out and start again" narrative. Now, I

> totally get that some?people?living on certain

> roads don't feel they benefit from the Dulwich

> measures, and some even find it's worse than

> before. I get it. But the thing is, the current

> schemes are benefiting a huge amount of people,

> and many people - us included - are now relying on

> these small stretches of safe routes.?

>

> Fair enough some don't agree with the current

> measures, but I think it would be absolutely awful

> if everything would just be ripped out without

> other safe measures having been put in place first

> (whatever those may be?!). That would be like

> throwing people who have made a positive change to

> active travel under the bus (or more likely a

> large SUV in the case of Dulwich).

>

> The Council's plans to reduce the timed

> restrictions to 4:30pm across Townley / Dulwich

> Village / Burbage Road and Turney Road in December

> are really depressing for starters. Looks like

> kids coming home from after school clubs and

> people cycling home from work, visiting friends,

> family, or cycling home from the shops will soon

> have to battle against lots of big metal machines

> again. In the middle of winter when it's pitch

> black by 4:30. Not that it's perfect now (the

> Council should have stuck to their original plans

> of filtering Burbage and Turney, for example), but

> I can still remember what it was like before the

> timed restrictions went in and despair of the fact

> we will soon be faced with it again.

>

> There was a time when I was seriously hoping that

> we might finally be on the cusp of starting to

> plan for a network of safe routes, but recent

> announcements of rolling back measures is just

> making me feel really down. We will probably still

> be fighting over a few square metres in Dulwich

> Village by 2040, when the rest of the world is

> burning...?

>

> I get some people don't like the current scheme,

> but ripping it all out without having a safe

> alternative in place? It's incredibly sad...?

This is at least an honest statement - some people are suffering because of the LTNs but you believe that?s a price worth paying for others to benefit.

The refusal by some parties to even accept the fact that boundary roads have been so badly impacted is exasperating. How can that even be disputed?

[KidKruger]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> Interesting ab29 - as the timed restrictions

> aren't in place on the weekend. Maybe, you're

> just noticing traffic more because its become a

> focus?

>

> The monitoring for Lordship Lane at the bottom end

> shows a fall. I see you disagree with this

> monitoring because your eyes tell you a different

> story but the data tells us that traffic has

> fallen on pretty much every boundary road. The

> exception is East Dulwich Grove but the last

> monitoring released seems to show that even on

> there the traffic effects aren't the same along

> the whole street.

Depends what you mean by ?traffic?.

Congestion ?

Actual no. of cars ?

The whole road network from EDR/Grove Vale down LL to Harvester and beyond is packed nowadays.

Therefore there will be less throughput / vehicle count.

That?s why CPR has now become one of the most dangerous roads in ED - drivers realise they can skip LL congestion and hurtle down a road with no traffic lights and only one Zebra crossing. Obvious alternative.

If this is LTN success then it?s only a success for the street residents where the closures have occurred.

It?s seems illogical to me that displacement is viewed as reduction, but how the Councillors work (and whatever devices have been operating in the background) I know not.

Congestion has increased significantly in several places so I don?t see a win here.

Not for the community as a whole, anyway.

[heartblock]

It isn't a win and this area has become a rather unpleasant place to live, partly due to idling traffic, but mainly because of the mud-slinging and unpleasant language. Elderly people insulted and Twitter accounts taking a moral high ground while victimising local businesses.

[Artemis]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> It isn't a win and this area has become a rather

> unpleasant place to live, partly due to idling

> traffic, but mainly because of the mud-slinging

> and unpleasant language. Elderly people insulted

> and Twitter accounts taking a moral high ground

> while victimising local businesses.

Agreed - it?s all very sad and seems to have brought out the very worst in people.

[malumbu]

Just step back please. A bit of an over-reaction. I've probably been insulted more than most, but I don't feel this has been that extreme and I don't find the area an unpleasant place to live (and certainly no more or no less self righteous that it was before - that's a facetious comment before anyone gets uppity.)

OK, back to my retirement from this thread.

I stay clear of Twitter.

[KidKruger]

Artemis Wrote:

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

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> > It isn't a win and this area has become a

> rather

> > unpleasant place to live, partly due to idling

> > traffic, but mainly because of the mud-slinging

> > and unpleasant language. Elderly people

> insulted

> > and Twitter accounts taking a moral high ground

> > while victimising local businesses.

>

> Agreed - it?s all very sad and seems to have

> brought out the very worst in people.

Hardly surprising though - implement an unjust experiment, for the benefit of a very few (who happen to appear to have privilege), deny it?s negative impacts, obfuscate or misrepresent the data to justify your actions, get found out, deny/ignore allegations, meanwhile leaving those most affected to figure/fight it out while you whistle.

[Ghlpc]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> It isn't a win and this area has become a rather

> unpleasant place to live, partly due to idling

> traffic, but mainly because of the mud-slinging

> and unpleasant language. Elderly people insulted

> and Twitter accounts taking a moral high ground

> while victimising local businesses.

No I don't think so.

It's just this forum and twitter that make it seem like that.

In the real world its a nice area to live in.

[Jenijenjen]

Ghlpc Wrote:

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

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> > It isn't a win and this area has become a

> rather

> > unpleasant place to live, partly due to idling

> > traffic, but mainly because of the mud-slinging

> > and unpleasant language. Elderly people

> insulted

> > and Twitter accounts taking a moral high ground

> > while victimising local businesses.

>

>

> No I don't think so.

>

> It's just this forum and twitter that make it seem

> like that.

>

> In the real world its a nice area to live in.

Agree

[slarti b]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

Hardly surprising though - implement an unjust experiment, for the benefit of a very few (who happen to appear to have privilege), deny it?s negative impacts, obfuscate or misrepresent the data to justify your actions, get found out, deny/ignore allegations, meanwhile leaving those most affected to figure/fight it out while you

whistle.

Excellent summary of the situation. I must say I am very disappointed that the council leader, Cll'r Williams, has not stepped in to manage the situation better. When he took over as leader last year he had the opportunity for a re-think but despite his promises of consulting with and listening to the local community and his commitment to a transparent, unbiased review this has not happened.

And with the shameful refusal of the council to call in C'llr Rose's decision for review it is now too late. Still, it seems the next step will need to be a judicial review. If so, it will be interesting to see how well Southwark's data, analysis and governance stands up to independent scrutiny.

[legalalien]

Meanwhile over in Lambeth there's a petition running to replace the "Cabinet" system of government there with a committee system (which some councils have) with a view to individual ward councillors having a greater voice: https://lambethref.co.uk/petition. Looks interesting.

[heartblock]

As many of those twitter accounts that are escalating unpleasantness are certain accounts from individuals who are my ?neighbours? in Melbourne, Calton and other LTN beneficiaries and those same accounts have trolled some independent businesses then yes, I do find it a less nice place to live.

Thankfully after 30 + years of living here my little group of neighbours living in flats on ED Grove are lovely and the business owners I have known for years on LL are lovely, so yes it isn?t all bad.

[Metallic]

Friends of mine have had some name calling at them because they are anti the junction of Court Lane, Dulwich Village and Calton Avenue being left closed.

If anyone starts on me I will defend myself verbally. It is horrible how this has all developed. Councillors of varying places and positions are to blame.

[Roky Erickson]

Yes, it's depressing to see Cllr Leeming 'liking' posts on social media which were critical of the protest. It's obviously unnecessary and only stokes and encourages these kind of divisions.