LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[thebestnameshavegone]

Of course it is. The last desperate lurch of an entitled group of polluters, resorting to petty vandalism.

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

> Someone's cut the tubes on the pneumatic car

> counter on Calton avenue. It looks more like a

> deliberate disablement of it rather than kids

> vandalism.

>

> One dulwich supporter?

[first mate]

Oh dear.

[hopskip]

I wonder what your evidence is for saying this. Or just your biased attempt to discredit? I have been following One Dulwich and can see that they have been pushing our Councillors to explain what the monitoring plans are - ie advocating car (and cycle) counting tubes, air pollution monitoring etc.

More to the point, my Residents' Association is pressing for answers on monitoring plans. I receive updates from my RA attending biweekly meetings with our Councillors. Councillors have confirmed that tube monitoring is expensive and that they are moving the tubes around and in fact removing them - more to go down in Sept when the schools are back. But they were not able to relay a full monitoring plan including tube measurements and 'what' they are actually measuring nor is air quality planned to be measured.

My evidence you ask? The most complete (but not, I have to say, meaningful) statement is not easily discoverable but is within the frequently asked questions at the Southwark commonplace site:

https://dulwichvillagestreetspace.commonplace.is/

See item 7 - for all it is worth, not a comprehensive plan in my view:

7. How will we monitor the impact of the changes and assess whether they

meet their objectives?

The monitoring criteria we are using to assess the scheme are:

 Modal shift towards walking and cycling, with particular focus on the journey

to school and short trips

 Qualitative feedback from residents, local community and businesses

 Use of public space by the community for active travel, leisure or play

 Net changes in traffic in residential areas

 Net changes in traffic on the distributor roads in comparison to London-wide

traffic changes

Video surveys will be periodically installed around the area at key junctions and high

footfall areas to assess how the streets are being used by the community. We will be

collecting traffic data at key sites in the area, including both residential streets and

bordering distributor roads. We will also be monitoring feedback from the community

- see point 10 below.

Air quality data will not be part of the monitoring process, as it is not possible to

solely filter out the traffic contribution to poor air quality. We will be using change to

traffic levels as a proxy for the air pollution contribution by motor traffic.

More details on the monitoring programme, locations and results will be provided in

due course and made available at

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> Of course it is. The last desperate lurch of an

> entitled group of polluters, resorting to petty

> vandalism.

>

>

>

>

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

> -----

> > Someone's cut the tubes on the pneumatic car

> > counter on Calton avenue. It looks more like a

> > deliberate disablement of it rather than kids

> > vandalism.

> >

> > One dulwich supporter?

[JohnL]

The bottom line is there is going to be less cars if present policies (London, UK, WOrld ?) continue.

Sooner or later we'll end up with electric cars controlled from Amazon Data Centers all following the same route at 20 mph but until then ?

[mikeb]

I came across this yesterday - wasn't aware of this very similar action by the local council and the very similar local response.

https://www.oneoval.co.uk/

[thebestnameshavegone]

Well, they would surely condemn the continued vandalism of the planters, and associated criminal vandalism such as this if it was really absolutely nothing to do with them.

Yet they're strangely silent, despite having a well-oiled comms strategy and army of winged monkeys and digital astroturfers parroting the official lines. So yes, they are directly responsible.

hopskip Wrote:

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

> I wonder what your evidence is for saying this.

> Or just your biased attempt to discredit? I have

> been following One Dulwich and can see that they

> have been pushing our Councillors to explain what

> the monitoring plans are - ie advocating car (and

> cycle) counting tubes, air pollution monitoring

> etc.

>

[tiddles]

I find the finger pointing at one dulwich rather strange. Just because they are clear in their opposition to these new measures doesn't make them automatically responsible - and lets face it, the people involved are really unlikely to be resorting to this sort of tactic. Their radical tactics are along the lines of 'expensively produced' flyers. :)

[JohnL]

mikeb Wrote:

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

> I came across this yesterday - wasn't aware of

> this very similar action by the local council and

> the very similar local response.

>

> https://www.oneoval.co.uk/

Brixton Buzz claim to be looking at what is behind both sides

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2020/07/lambeth-residents-voice-their-anger-at-oval-triangle-low-traffic-neighbourhood/

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2020/07/save-oval-streets-residents-state-their-support-for-the-oval-triangle-low-traffic-neighbourhood/

By the way, Boris/Cummings seem to want to get rid of a lot of planning control and allow things to be changed quickly without "Newt botherers" so I suppose that goes for roads too - I notice they have stated they will allow residents of a street to decide whether it goes traffic free.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Encouraging more people to cycle, walk, or use public transport by dedicating space to these alternative modes of transport should also make driving easier for those who need a car or van.

Thought this graphic offers a good illustration of this point (the urban superposition):

[Earl Aelfheah]

Also, this is quite interesting in terms of highlighting the general inefficiency of car use, and why we need to move away from 'hopping in the car' being the default for short journeys:

[edited to correct link (although both are interesting imo):

]

[mikeb]

It's not hard to find out who's behind One Dulwich; they don't seem the sort of people to be snipping cables in the middle of the night

[Rockets]

There is significant opposition across London from residents impacted by these changes. The Uber driver I was talking too lived in Brixton and he said it was a nightmare around there due to local closures and that he wished residents would set-up something like One Dulwich.

These road closures are fast becoming a political hot potato and it is going to be interesting to see how local councils and the Mayor's office deal with it. It is clear this will impact future local elections and from what I have seen the majority of people are against them - or at least against such ill-thought out and counter-productive measures. The govt is very cleverly putting the powers in the hands of local authorities knowing full well that this is not going to win any votes.

Just look at how little we now hear from Cllr McAsh - remember he was one of the leading cheerleaders for the closures and was actively canvassing Melbourne Grove in favour of them - local politicians know that this is likely to cost them their seats such is the mess they have created.

[TheArtfulDogger]

mr.chicken Wrote:

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

> Someone's cut the tubes on the pneumatic car

> counter on Calton avenue. It looks more like a

> deliberate disablement of it rather than kids

> vandalism.

>

> One dulwich supporter?

Careful, this edges very close to slander

[Earl Aelfheah]

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

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

> mr.chicken Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Someone's cut the tubes on the pneumatic car

> > counter on Calton avenue. It looks more like a

> > deliberate disablement of it rather than kids

> > vandalism.

> >

> > One dulwich supporter?

>

> Careful, this edges very close to slander

Good luck whoever thinks they could bring that case exactly.

[LucyFM]

Quick fact check: They have condemned the vandalism:

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> Well, they would surely condemn the continued

> vandalism of the planters, and associated criminal

> vandalism such as this if it was really absolutely

> nothing to do with them.

>

> Yet they're strangely silent, despite having a

> well-oiled comms strategy and army of winged

> monkeys and digital astroturfers parroting the

> official lines. So yes, they are directly

> responsible.

>

> hopskip Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I wonder what your evidence is for saying this.

>

> > Or just your biased attempt to discredit? I

> have

> > been following One Dulwich and can see that

> they

> > have been pushing our Councillors to explain

> what

> > the monitoring plans are - ie advocating car

> (and

> > cycle) counting tubes, air pollution monitoring

> > etc.

> >

[JohnL]

Oval have actually said who's allowed rather than who's banned

https://twitter.com/LambethCyclists/status/1288552299908997123/photo/1

[first mate]

But why let the facts get in the way of a low level but slightly hysterical attempt to smear the ?opposition?.

LucyFM Wrote:

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

> Quick fact check: They have condemned the

> vandalism:

>

> https://twitter.com/realonedulwich/status/12871415

> 43476965377?s=21

>

>

> thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Well, they would surely condemn the continued

> > vandalism of the planters, and associated

> criminal

> > vandalism such as this if it was really

> absolutely

> > nothing to do with them.

> >

> > Yet they're strangely silent, despite having a

> > well-oiled comms strategy and army of winged

> > monkeys and digital astroturfers parroting the

> > official lines. So yes, they are directly

> > responsible.

> >

> > hopskip Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > I wonder what your evidence is for saying

> this.

> >

> > > Or just your biased attempt to discredit? I

> > have

> > > been following One Dulwich and can see that

> > they

> > > have been pushing our Councillors to explain

> > what

> > > the monitoring plans are - ie advocating car

> > (and

> > > cycle) counting tubes, air pollution

> monitoring

> > > etc.

> > >

[Earl Aelfheah]

JohnL Wrote:

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

> Oval have actually said who's allowed rather than

> who's banned

>

> https://twitter.com/LambethCyclists/status/1288552

> 299908997123/photo/1

They've got these signs on the Dulwich planters now I believe.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> JohnL Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Oval have actually said who's allowed rather

> than

> > who's banned

> >

> >

> https://twitter.com/LambethCyclists/status/1288552

>

> > 299908997123/photo/1

>

> They've got these signs on the Dulwich planters

> now I believe.

Ha ha...the council spent money to put new signs on them - probably had a focus group on the best language to use and not be so negative and combative!!! ;-) The council must have money to splash around, who is funding them......;-)

I can see why the residents of the Oval are up in arms - closing Fentiman Road will have a huge impact and funnels traffic away from lots of big expensive houses along that road creating huge issues for others.

This is collective political suicide by our local councils and councillors and I think they have massively misjudged the public and how they would react. For each person heralding this as a great thing there are hundreds more who are being negatively impacted.

It would have been so much better to be more balanced and now the public are turning against these measures in their thousands and I worry that this will actually set the anti-congestion, pollution and road safety discussion back years and years.

[Earl Aelfheah]

A different perspective perhaps on Railton LTN (Imagine if we had this in ED)

[Metallic]

I've actually come round to the view that all these pro-cycling groups, councillors and anyone wanting to shut roads down, couldn't give a fig for residents of the actual area they are trying to change.The idea that these councillors will be voted back in in 2022 is a joke and I bet new groups like One Dulwich and One Oval will put up candidates that may not get in, but will split the votes of the likes of Cllr. Leeming, Cllr. Newens, Cllr. McAsh and co. I'm really sick of being pushed aside.

None of these pressure groups care about traffic displacement. There is a hard core of drivers who have to drive and they will all displace somewhere - at the moment at the end of Dulwich Village and the end of Burbage Road, but when the latter gets shut except for cyclists, watch out Croxted Road, which will make Norwood Road (more) impossible and here we get to the closing of the ring, because Herne Hill will be next to complain.

[Rockets]

Are the rumours true that a couple of the councillors pushing the closures actually live on the roads benefiting most from the changes in DV? I heard at least one of them had been lauding the likely increase in house prices to their neighbours ahead of the closures whilst lobbying for support!

[nxjen]

Probably not. I wonder who started these rumours

[dulwichfolk]

Must just be Lambeth then.

[JohnL]

dulwichfolk Wrote:

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

> Must just be Lambeth then.

Camberwell ? (there's a onecamberwell now)