LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Rockets]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> oimissus Wrote:

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

> -----

> malumbu - I've seen you frequently ask people for

> solutions, and yet every time they do just that,

> you criticize them.

>

> You actually seem to want everyone to stop

> criticizing the council and then just shut up.

> Which sounds pretty much like what the council

> want residents to do as well.

>

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

>

> You've missed my points. Firstly that the default

> position of many is to blame everything on

> Southwark.

>

> Secondly that even with the best will in the world

> they do not have the powers to compel either the

> schools or parents to reduce the school run.

>

> If anything you should be feeling sorry for local

> authorities who have been given the job by central

> government to sort out air quality without the

> funding or powers. A cop out, the point I have

> made during various central government

> consultations. Most of government effors is going

> on big ticket interventions - Clean Air Zones and

> the like working with the big metropolitan areas

> where, for example, you have greater control over

> public transport, such as Manchester, Birmingham,

> and to a lesser extent GLA/TfL (they don't like

> Mayor Khan). But little at the borough level.

>

> I was always disappointed in the lack of publicity

> at borough level. But even where this was good,

> such as Croydon, still had little impact.

> https://lovecleanair.org/what-can-i-do/projects/cl

> ean-air-4-croydon-schools/#.YZVJth3Leos

>

> I've also raised a couple of times where

> Southwark's interventions a few years ago led to

> more traffic passing a Lewisham primary. But not

> one of you, not one of you, showed any empathy.

> Which suggests a narrow perspective.

>

> I could go on about what I have done personally

> and collectively to support sustainable travel to

> school, but this is not my moral high ground

> thread. And I reached out in the past as in the

> late noughties I got very obsessed over a planning

> matter and a local authority, which took over my

> life, so have been in a similar space.

Why do they need powers? Surely a dialogue with schools and some brainstorming of ideas would not go a miss? Ideas like the gamification of the school journey would be easy to do, easy to implement and far more effective than the short-sighted self-interest lobby group influenced ideas that are the LTNs.

Southwark and our councillors are collectively responsible for the LTNs so they deserve the blame if they fail to deliver. I find one of the most frustrating things is that Southwark will never admit they got something wrong - it's one of the less pleasant traits of the left which is also adopted by our government.

I don't think anyone feels sorry for local authorities - especially not after the way our local authority has acted around LTNs - I feel sorry for their constituents who are having to live with the negative impacts of their nonsense ideas.

And Malumbu - you are the great question asker and pointer of fingers but very rarely do you ever respond to any questions put to you. Maybe this is why many don't engage in dialogue with you because it's all a little bit one-sided.

[slarti b]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> Thats just the same data - and same claims though. Would be good to see something not from the Dulwich Alliance on it.

Hey Goldilocks. DA are very open with their analysis and their data comes from the council figures ( those that the council are prepared to disclose) or other more reliable sources, DfT, TfL etc.

Can you back up your continued smearing of their reports, or is it that you just don't like their exposure of the council errors and mistatements?

[Bic Basher]

The closest to a "one party dictatorship" is in Lewisham where there is no opposition to Labour because last time round people all voted for them instead of the Lib Dems or Tories as a protest vote.

However there's an election next May where it could be very different in both Southwark and Lewisham where controversial LTN schemes have been railroaded...er introduced where it could change power in both boroughs.

It is fair to say however that this current Labour administration have been the most forceful in introducing schemes that go against the will of local residents or taking on board what the opposition Lib Dems have asked for with regards to the LTN consultation for Dulwich Village.

[heartblock]

As far as I can see DA just use Southwark Council data, but are far more skilled at using a calculator.

They also have an understanding that when using data to prove change, one cannot use data from different times of the year and different years as a 'baseline'.

They have also highlighted the EqAsI that shows protected groups, the elderly and the BAME community are negatively impacted by the current HTN Southwark policy.

If the LibDems do stand candidates that are going to stop the High Traffic Neighbourhood policy I'm quite happy to tear up my Labour Party Membership card and vote for them in the local elections in May.

[ab29]

Heartblock, I remember you suggesting banning BBQs as air pollutant and someone replying that this country is not a dictatorship yet. Most people are not ready to sacrifice anything - they want to live on quiet roads, drive, have BBQs, order from amazon etc. They also don't have a problem with dumping dirt, pollution and noise on their neighbours' roads - see LTN aka HTN.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Aah but I haven?t called anyone or anything a

> dictatorship or one party state..I think you might

> find that expression was used by someone else.

>

> I wouldn?t use that term, just saying what a silly

> expression it is, I completely agree with you

> DuncanW, so either I made a poor job of making my

> point or you didn?t understand my response to a

> previous post, criticising malumbu?s use of that

> term. Either way, yes I agree with you.

[Rockets]

Given the better grasp of calculator use by the opposition groups it probably explains why Southwark refuses to release the raw data (despite promises from Cllr Williams that they would do so).

I wonder if he has looked at the numbers and realised that the council's review conclusions were a work of fiction. He is obviously concerned the raw data does not stand up to scrutiny.

Southwark appear to be trying to bury the data from which they drew their conclusions.

If Turney Road is indicative of the council's data analysis skills you can understand why. I do wonder whether the raw data shows an overall increase in traffic throughout the area.

[DuncanW]

I'm not sure how you're able to assert that the 2018 Lewisham result was a protest vote. Like so much of this thread, that seems like a flight-of-fancy to me, but if I have missed some underlying data that points to that, please feel free to share.

Lewisham has long been a Labour stronghold. They went into the 2018 election holding 53/54 seats and gained one seat to take a clean sweep. They won that seat from the Greens, not Tory or LibDem.

Bic Basher Wrote:

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

> The closest to a "one party dictatorship" is in

> Lewisham where there is no opposition to Labour

> because last time round people all voted for them

> instead of the Lib Dems or Tories as a protest

> vote.

>

> However there's an election next May where it

> could be very different in both Southwark and

> Lewisham where controversial LTN schemes have been

> railroaded...er introduced where it could change

> power in both boroughs.

>

> It is fair to say however that this current Labour

> administration have been the most forceful in

> introducing schemes that go against the will of

> local residents or taking on board what the

> opposition Lib Dems have asked for with regards to

> the LTN consultation for Dulwich Village.

[Spartacus]

Just to add to the fun

There's a possibility bus services could be cut by a fifth by TfL

If that happens there will be more pressure on the overcrowded HtNs (love that parallel)

BBC News - TfL services may be cut due to funding gap, mayor warns

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59328131

[Nigello]

Buses are very busy at certain times, much less busy at others. How could TfL recognise this and work around it? Smaller vehicles for certain routes at certain times? Routes that overlap at certain points being reduced or withdrawn? Work with what you've got!

[Spartacus]

In a joined up thinking world Nigello that would make sense, but in reality it will result in a reduction in services to save on fuel, maintenance and salaries.

Smaller buses would need to be purchased, drivers trained on them and still need maintenance , fuel and drivers so that won't help and reducing overlapping routes will disadvantage passengers by forcing them to change possibly onto already busy buses.

[Penguin68]

TfL services may be cut due to funding gap, mayor warns

Apparently the ULEZ expansion has not led to the money bonanza hoped for - as too many Londoners have chosen to get ULEZ compliant vehicles or not come in - which means that the expansion, for which the Mayor prayed-in-aid reduction of pollution and improvement of air quality was actually (anything sound familiar here?) about revenue raising. The Mayor was hoping for a continued influx of polluting vehicles, which he could charge, not for what has happened.

How unlike the home life of our own dear Council - or not?

[DuncanW]

"The Mayor was hoping for a continued influx of polluting vehicles"

Cripes - that's quite a statement!!

[Rockets]

Unfortunately I suspect the TFL cutting services is another move in the political football games between the Tories and Sadiq over TFL funding - and, as usual, it is the people of London who end up suffering.

[Metallic]

Whether there are fewer bus routes or not, if they don't run freely at the times of day people need them, there goes your policy to get people out of their cars. If I lived in Gipsy Hill and use the 3, would I really walk all the way to Brixton because most of the route is a traffic jam in the mornings?

[Rockets]

And one of the findings from the Dulwich LTN review was that bus services are being impacted on some routes - it's all a very vicious circle.

[redpost]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> TfL services may be cut due to funding gap, mayor

> warns

>

> Apparently the ULEZ expansion has not led to the

> money bonanza hoped for - as too many Londoners

> have chosen to get ULEZ compliant vehicles or not

> come in - which means that the expansion, for

> which the Mayor prayed-in-aid reduction of

> pollution and improvement of air quality was

> actually (anything sound familiar here?) about

> revenue raising. The Mayor was hoping for a

> continued influx of polluting vehicles, which he

> could charge, not for what has happened.

>

> How unlike the home life of our own dear Council -

> or not?

Any evidence for this (e.g. tfl minutes) or are you just making it up?

Bearing in mind SK was elected on a manifesto of reducing pollution, I'm sure he's happy with the result of less pollution.

[heartblock]

TFL buses are going to be cut...18% buses and 9% tube. But's that's ok because HTN's cure all. Boris has fooled Labour Councils and 'greenwashed'. Quiet street for the chattering classes, so Boris doesn't care.

Silly, silly Southwark Council.

[malumbu]

It's all getting rather ludicrous now and this thread has gone into a parallel universe. I expect that Southwark was behind the decision to scrap most of the HS2 Eastern extension. I'm being facetious, but felt like using stronger language earlier.

Perhaps tomorrow, Friday, we can have more positive thoughts about the world.

[heartblock]

Nope that was Boris - he also fooled a load of Northern MPs as well. Yes it is quite ludicrous to imagine closing roads reduces traffic, when in fact it just funnels traffic onto other residential roads and makes journey times longer, increasing idling and polluting traffic.

What is also ludicrous is that Southwark were taken on this 'evaporating' ride of fantasy. I'll be promised herds of unicorns by my Council representatives I leafleted and campaigned for back when I thought the Labour Party represented me and other ED residents - more fool me.

[alice]

if you want to start a 'positive thoughts about the world' thread M. sounds good but try the lounge.

[ED - NAGAIUTB]

Another victim of the LTN as GM?s Hair on Melbourne Grove closes after 20 years of business.

[Spartacus]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> It's all getting rather ludicrous now and this

> thread has gone into a parallel universe. I

> expect that Southwark was behind the decision to

> scrap most of the HS2 Eastern extension. I'm

> being facetious, but felt like using stronger

> language earlier.

>

> Perhaps tomorrow, Friday, we can have more

> positive thoughts about the world.

The buses / transport reduction has nothing to do with the council, however it's potential impact on this area should be part of the councils strategy to keep things moving. If there are fewer buses then there will be more pressure on the ones running, potentially leading to more people needing to find alternative ways to get around, be it active travel for some or more use of a car for others (depending on individual circumstances )

If the TfL reduction in services goes ahead then there needs to be some serious joined up thinking by the council in conjunction with the residents to get a positive way forward.

Blocking roads when buses are reduced isn't the logical answer

[legalalien]

It will be interesting to see whether Councillors continue to maintain the narrative that the Bakerloo line extension will go ahead - it has seemed that a lot of the council strategy re solving housing and financials around that has been very focused on the Old Kent Road regeneration plans.

[redpost]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Nope that was Boris - he also fooled a load of

> Northern MPs as well. Yes it is quite ludicrous to

> imagine closing roads reduces traffic, when in

> fact it just funnels traffic onto other

> residential roads and makes journey times longer,

> increasing idling and polluting traffic.

> What is also ludicrous is that Southwark were

> taken on this 'evaporating' ride of fantasy. I'll

> be promised herds of unicorns by my Council

> representatives I leafleted and campaigned for

> back when I thought the Labour Party represented

> me and other ED residents - more fool me.

So by your logic building new roads doesn't induce demand?

[Penguin68]

The buses / transport reduction has nothing to do with the council, however it's potential impact on this area should be part of the councils strategy to keep things moving.

There is, or at least there should be, some requirement on local councillors to make the argument for joined up planning. Changing local issues on the streets has to be done in the light of changes (or realities) of public transport (TfL etc.) and of other influences, such as the Mayor expanding ULEZ. Yet each group acts as if it exists in a bubble. And as if, because it can't and doesn't influence the other groups, it can happily act as if these (and their conflicting decisions and plans) didn't exist.

Our closest representatives are those we elect locally - and they should be fighting our corner against the other groups, if their plans reduce our life quality. Not acting as if they didn't exist.