LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Rockets]

hpsaucey Wrote:

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

> DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> -----

> > For anyone new to this forum - just to

> summarise

> > 7,775 posts:

> >

> > Anti Low traffic measures:

> > - People who drive *always* need to drive

> because

> > they are poor, disabled, elderly, key workers

> or

> > single parents.

> > - People who cycle are privileged, smug,

> wealthy

> > because they have big houses with bike storage

> > facilities.

> > - No more people will switch from driving to

> > active travel in Dulwich because they've all

> > already done so.

> > - The only people benefiting from the filtered

> > roads are wealthy mates of the councillors

> > - The filtered roads never needed any changes

> in

> > the first place, and cycling is just a Covid

> > related fad

> > - Southwark Council are a totalitarian

> > dictatorship.

> > - The only way to stop people driving is

> improve

> > public transport and road pricing - which will

> > take years so we may as well give up.

> >

> > Pro Low traffic measures:

> > - Safe routes enable people to switch from

> driving

> > to active travel

> > - More monitoring and assessment needs to be

> done

> > - More needs to be done to reduce non-essential

> > car journeys

> > - More Safe routes needed to link up throughout

> > the area - and London-wide

> > - 24/7 bus lanes - removing parking at pinch

> > points - would reduce congestion

> > - We're in a climate emergency so it's good the

> > council have made a start - it needs improving

> and

> > more done.

>

> Love it DC!!! Not just good for newbies - also

> pretty bloody useful for those who've doggedly

> ploughed through most of the thread.

>

> HP

*other, more balanced, perspectives may be prevalent in a majority of Dulwich residents ;-)

[dulwichfolk]

sally buying Wrote:

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

> Why does nobody talk about champion Hill that has

> been turned into a gated community?

As I believe according to Twitter the guardian journalist and ex councillor who live there don?t want it being mentioned.

Hasn?t it had an 18 month trial extended a number of times as the results they want/need to keep it gated aren?t being produced yet?!

[Rockets]

Redpost - per the comments of Penguin68 and Heartblock your comment on PTAL scores is massively undermined by the council referring to Dulwich having a "low level of public transport accessibility" and a low PTAL score.

The full report can be found here, should you wish to take a look: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Dulwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf

It's pretty compelling.

Maybe the transport links are good compared to other parts of the country but this isn't other parts of the country this is London, a densely populated urban area sandwiched between other densely populated urban areas. Within the London Borough of Southwark the PTAL scores for Dulwich are some of the lowest and the council has used that low PTAL score to explain why car usage is at the level it is but, interestingly, no higher than in other parts of the borough.

It says:

This is confirmed also by more general DfT accessibility statistics which show that, in general the area has a lower public transport accessibility level than the remainder of Southwark whilst by car it tends to be on par with the other parts of the borough or somewhat higher for hospitals, particularly due to the proximity of Dulwich Community Hospital.

So, can you explain why the council decided, against it's own advice, that Dulwich was a good place for LTNs? Don't you think in light of the council's own data in reports like the one above that it was clear what the only outcome of the LTNs going in was going to be?

[malumbu]

I quite liked it when somebody challenged those with opposing views to come up with the opposite argument (was that you Heartblock?) - I was happy to join in but others didn't which is a shame.

ed_pete Wrote:

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

> After 260 pages and 7700+ posts isn't it time the

> two sides met a pub one evening and let this

> thread die gracefully ?

[sally buying]

dulwichfolk Wrote:

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

> sally buying Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Why does nobody talk about champion Hill that

> has

> > been turned into a gated community?

>

>

>

> As I believe according to Twitter the guardian

> journalist and ex councillor who live there don?t

> want it being mentioned.

>

> Hasn?t it had an 18 month trial extended a number

> of times as the results they want/need to keep it

> gated aren?t being produced yet?!

Correct. A joke.

[dulwichfolk]

sally buying Wrote:

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

> dulwichfolk Wrote:

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

> -----

> > sally buying Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Why does nobody talk about champion Hill that

> > has

> > > been turned into a gated community?

> >

> >

> >

> > As I believe according to Twitter the guardian

> > journalist and ex councillor who live there

> don?t

> > want it being mentioned.

> >

> > Hasn?t it had an 18 month trial extended a

> number

> > of times as the results they want/need to keep

> it

> > gated aren?t being produced yet?!

>

> Correct. A joke.

Think the trial in the recent Southwark traffic orders has decided to make it permanent I guess they don?t really care what anyone thinks and just go ahead regardless. Is there any trial measures Southwark have put in over the years which have then been totally removed?!

[Rockets]

What is driving this - do the councillors think there won't be any repercussions come council elections in May or do they believe they are untouchable?

[ab29]

If residents/constituents don't benefit from what Southwark council is doing who does?

[heartblock]

Well if you have lived in ED for 35 years you do actually know who benefits - which is why it is so annoying that these LTNs have been placed where they have been placed...anyway.

Malumbu - yes I asked to be convinced, I have changed my opinion when offered good evidence - I will change my opinion if I am convinced ED/ Dulwich LTNs will reduce pollution/traffic on my road - someone convince me this will happen.

[march46]

Will be interesting to see the council?s latest data (when they finally publish it).

[rupert james]

Unfortunately those that are pushing these measures are the newby,s. Young, we know it all and have no idea how an area works or evolved over the years.Rather like moving to the country because they liked what they saw and then changing everything.

Most long standing residents never know of these consultations as they have a living to earn and do not get to hear of these plans or look at council websites so those that have more time, have coffee mornings to think up these plans to influence Cllrs who want to be liked to push these/their schemes.

Champion Hill was only busy for a very short period in the morning and evening rush hours and empty the rest of the time.

This knowledge comes from living on and around Champion Hill for 75 years.

Closing it pushed traffic all around the area which when using Champion Hill only took a minute to avoid Dulwich keeping traffic flowing if there was any.

When I wrote to my Cllr on this I never got a reply.So do not think or expect they will go against the party line.

Unfortunately come the local elections nothing will change.

You are right 18 months trial and then another 18 months and the a TMO to push it through.

It is a joke.

[hpsaucey]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> hpsaucey Wrote:

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

> -----

> > DulwichCentral Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > For anyone new to this forum - just to

> > summarise

> > > 7,775 posts:

> > >

> > > Anti Low traffic measures:

> > > - People who drive *always* need to drive

> > because

> > > they are poor, disabled, elderly, key workers

> > or

> > > single parents.

> > > - People who cycle are privileged, smug,

> > wealthy

> > > because they have big houses with bike

> storage

> > > facilities.

> > > - No more people will switch from driving to

> > > active travel in Dulwich because they've all

> > > already done so.

> > > - The only people benefiting from the

> filtered

> > > roads are wealthy mates of the councillors

> > > - The filtered roads never needed any changes

> > in

> > > the first place, and cycling is just a Covid

> > > related fad

> > > - Southwark Council are a totalitarian

> > > dictatorship.

> > > - The only way to stop people driving is

> > improve

> > > public transport and road pricing - which

> will

> > > take years so we may as well give up.

> > >

> > > Pro Low traffic measures:

> > > - Safe routes enable people to switch from

> > driving

> > > to active travel

> > > - More monitoring and assessment needs to be

> > done

> > > - More needs to be done to reduce

> non-essential

> > > car journeys

> > > - More Safe routes needed to link up

> throughout

> > > the area - and London-wide

> > > - 24/7 bus lanes - removing parking at pinch

> > > points - would reduce congestion

> > > - We're in a climate emergency so it's good

> the

> > > council have made a start - it needs

> improving

> > and

> > > more done.

> >

> > Love it DC!!! Not just good for newbies - also

> > pretty bloody useful for those who've doggedly

> > ploughed through most of the thread.

> >

> > HP

>

>

> *other, more balanced, perspectives may be

> prevalent in a majority of Dulwich residents ;-)

** But not always on this thread ... exclusions apply

HP

[tiddles]

I think the new tack taken by the councillors (expressed in an email to me by one of them) is that they can?t take out the LTN?s even if they wanted to because central govt would fine them. govt made them put them in, it?s not our fault etc. Tbh I think the money they have raked in would more thank cover any financial punishments

[heartblock]

I have also heard this tiddles. It's a ploy so we do not blame 'labour' in May elections - basically it is all central government's fault.

But.

1. Grant Schapps -

Councils that fail to consult local residents and businesses over plans for Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) could see their funding reclaimed by the Government.

The Department for Transport (DfT) said that Grant Shapps has been clear that ?future funding allocations will be reduced, and clawbacks could also be imposed? where local authorities do not consider affected communities.

LTNs often close roads to motor traffic and reallocate road space to walkers and cyclists with segregated cycle lanes and wider pavements to encourage ?active travel?.

The schemes have already faced critics, with some suggesting the planters, bollards and barricades have made congestion worse. The controversial measures have even faced backlash from a minority and some have even vandalised roadblocks and poured oil on spaces left for cyclists.

Mr Shapps voiced his objections in a letter sent to council leaders in July, where he highlighted problems with using barriers to widen town centre pavements.

He explained that the fixtures could ?prevent pedestrians from crossing the road, cause congestion for buses and motor traffic, and impede access for kerbside businesses?.

Heaton-Harris

Heaton-Harris?s letter, being sent on Friday, warns councils that if schemes installed using central government money, such as funds provided to boost walking and cycling during Covid, are then hastily abandoned, this could affect future grants.

?Premature removal of schemes carries implications for the management of the public money used in these schemes and for the government?s future funding relationship with the authorities responsible,? wrote Heaton-Harris.

Southwark has evidence that closing roads is not a 'success' but have chosen to ignore much of their own consultation, so even though there is evidence that closing roads causes more pollution, traffic and slower bus journey times -they have chosen to present a rosy picture - therefore if any funding is removed it is due to their imagining of the facts and not for any other reason.

it was central government money anyway - hence Ealing Council removing their road closures after their public consultation - it appears Ealing doesn't treat their residents as fools.

Meanwhile green-washing Southwark is planning to cut down mature trees on a council estate to make a car park..

[DulwichCentral]

> DulwichCentral Wrote:

> For anyone new to this forum - just to summarise 7,775 posts:

Anti Low traffic measures:

- People who drive *always* need to drive because they are poor, disabled, elderly, keyworkers or single parents.

- People who cycle are privileged, smug, wealthy because they have big houses with bike storage facilities.

- No more people will switch from driving to active travel in Dulwich because they've all already done so.

- The only people benefiting from the filtered roads are wealthy mates of the councillors

- The filtered roads never needed any changes in the first place, and cycling is just a Covid related fad

- Southwark Council are a totalitarian dictatorship.

- The only way to stop people driving is improve public transport and road pricing - which will take years so we may as well give up.

Pro Low traffic measures:

- Safe routes enable people to switch from driving to active travel

- More monitoring and assessment needs to be done

- More needs to be done to reduce non-essential car journeys

- More Safe routes needed to link up throughout the area - and London-wide

- 24/7 bus lanes - removing parking at pinch points - would reduce congestion

- We're in a climate emergency so it's good the council have made a start - it needs improving and more done.

@Rockets wrote

> > *other, more balanced, perspectives may be

> > prevalent in a majority of Dulwich residents ;-)

Exactly @Rockets. More balanced perspectives may indeed be prevalent in a majority of Dulwich residents.

So not the so-called *majority* anti-LTN One Dulwich falsely claim that demand that all measures are ripped out?

After being called out for claiming 'the majority of residents' they did at least adjust their messaging to 'the majority who responded to the review'. But it doesn't stop them inventing the false narrative which you have so nicely de-bunked here. Thank you.

[Penguin68]

So not the so-called *majority* anti-LTN One Dulwich falsely claim that demand that all measures are ripped out?

As I recall, of the 'options' offered in the council's own survey, that was the one which did receive most support, and quite widely. It is true that had other options (other than keeping the LTNs unchanged) been more clearly spelled out (which they weren't) then it is very possible that some modified form of LTN might have achieved more general approval.

As the council appears happy to ignore any results of any consultation which doesn't fit their own pre-conceived viewpoints, what people said and want is anyway irrelevant (as it turns out) and the 'consultation' a joke.

And it should be noted that the council was more than happy to include in their analysis, it appears, almost a third of responses from people neither living nor working in the area - but presumably with an 'interest' in the debate - and it is clear that pro-cycling (and pro LTN) groups were energised by the council to respond, although I have, of course, no evidence that it was these outsiders who responded positively to the existing LTNs in the survey.

[DulwichCentral]

Anti Low Traffic measures group One Dulwich are also happy to include people neither living nor working in the area. Look at their map of supporters. And they energised those people to respond saying 'rip it all out'.

They also welcomed anti low traffic people from Hackney and Lambeth to join their not-so-local protest.

Their mission to remove all measures recently got support from the 'Freedom for Drivers Association' an organisation that 'promotes the interests of drivers'. I don't think One Dulwich boasted on Twitter about that particular piece of publicity tho. Must be a bit embarrassing for a group who **claim** to care about reducing pollution and improving infrastructure for active travel.

[Rockets]

DC you really are trying hard to deposition One Dulwich aren't you - it really does validate what a cracking job they are doing?!

The fact you are trying to throw mud is wonderful - unfortunately none of it is sticking.....

What must really annoy you is that the supposed "small, vocal minority" isn't small at all - that must really grate when you were being told that by the councillors in the hope the noise against these measures would just fade away.

The fact you can see where One Dulwich's supporters are from (and by far the overwhelming majority are from the Dulwich area) is a thousand times more granular and transparent than anything the council has done in this whole debacle.

And, please, don't start on the bussing people in nonsense because there are far more smoking guns in that regard on your side of the fence......

[DulwichCentral]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> What must really annoy you is that the supposed

> "small, vocal minority" isn't small at all

Ah but it's nowhere near a majority is it Rockets - as you so clearly pointed out in your response to my previous post.

And I wouldn't call getting their mission amplified by the Freedom for Drivers Association a 'cracking job' for a group who claim to want to reduce pollution - would you?

Not annoyed at all - tbh I find that particular piece of publicity quite amusing.

[heartblock]

Anti - low traffic measures group - you must mean Southwark Council who have made interventions that have caused more traffic congestion, more pollution, slower bus journeys and idling traffic on our roads.

You must be embarrassed that disgraced Simon Still and people who have trolled parents of children with asthma - clean-air campaigners Rosamund Kissi-Debrah/ David (little ninja) are associated with the pro-LTN lobby (or HTN as I like to call them).

See we call all pile out this stuff - you are bad, no you are bad, no you are bad..but it isn't helpful DC. (cue another 'wot about those posters' post)

Much more helpful to stick to the discussion about do these measures work.

So yet again, I am ready and willing to be convinced that the road closures introduced by Southwark will within a year reduce traffic, pollution and noise on my road compared to pre-LTN levels.

I await.....

[Rockets]

Heartblock - you hit the nail on the head.

The pro-LTN lobby seems to just want to point fingers and name-call rather than engage in the debate and we know that is the first sign that someone realises they are losing the debate and don't have any responses.....

And DC - according to the responses to the council's consultation it is, indeed, an overwhelming majority.....

[Artemis]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Heartblock - you hit the nail on the head.

>

> The pro-LTN lobby seems to just want to point

> fingers and name-call rather than engage in the

> debate and we know that is the first sign that

> someone realises they are losing the debate and

> don't have any responses.....

>

> And DC - according to the responses to the

> council's consultation it is, indeed, an

> overwhelming majority.....

And I think we still haven?t had an answer to the question of what the point of the consultation was if the majority of respondents? view hasn?t been reflected in the plans? There is a lot of ?it wasn?t a referendum/it wasn?t a vote/lots of people didn?t respond so it?s actually not a majority? chat, but if that?s the case, what on earth was the point? Southwark said they would listen to the respondents. If they did, why did they then go ahead with a plan that doesn?t reflect what they heard?

[DulvilleRes]

The council has responded to the consultation - they have proposed to make sensible adjustments, such as concessions for Blue Badge holders and an ambulance gate in Dulwich Square. In the light of this, and the fact that tactically the anti-LTN lobby was recommending the 'return things to how they were' for any objection to the LTN's, the current level of opposition to the LTN's from those who responded to the survey has not been tested.

My understanding is that the central government stipulation is that the LTN's remain in place for a year to see how they work. So rather than blaming the Council for everything, I think a more nuanced approach would be to see how well they work. I think currently, as we emerge post covid, there are so many variables on traffic flow. A lot of people still balk at public transport on grounds of personal safety, and certainly many workplaces, mine included, risk assess that the preferred means of covid safe transport is driving solo in a car. So a year gives it all a chance to settle down to something more approaching 'normal'.

Ultimately I see the LTN's as part of a raft of measures that, if as a community we are serious about climate change, are coming down the track to change our relationship with the motorcar. When people drive less, it will follow there will be less traffic on any road. I can imagine for many people growing up in a generation where the private car was a powerful means of freedom and independence, and indeed a symbol of success, learning to adapt to measures that prevent them driving at will is going to be hard. But the world is changing fast.

[rupert james]

Why is Champion HIll to remain closed?

[Rockets]

Dulville - the measures have been in for over a year already (about 15 months now) and the monitoring completed by the council clearly demonstrates they have not delivered against their stated objectives. They have bedded in and so has the displacement.

So, they don't work but I think what the council is now doing by stating to play that hand is buying themselves more time because they will say "we have made changes and we now need leave them for a year to see what happens". It's repeating what that have done on Champion Hill - permanent measures under the guise of temporary to get around any proper accountability.

On the subject of the ambulance gate - why did it take the council 15 months to agree to doing something about that when LAS, the police and fire service were telling them lives were being put at risk by their permanent closure?

Also, I am interested in your comment that LTNs are part of a raft of measures....what other measures have Southwark and our local councillors actioned since the LTNs went in? It seems to me that the council is a bit of a one-trick pony and that trick was LTNs.