LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Spartacus]

The campaign was backed up by alternatives , nicotine gum, patches, electronic cigarettes and so on. You are arguing that the campaign alone was responsible but as I said before it was a whole package that made it easier to occur and with only a campaign to stop people using cars without any form of alternatives that work for all then people will be reluctant to reduce car use and resent being told what to do.

Simple solution is improve the transport infrastructure by adding increased service then people will have credible alternatives to get them out of their cars. Arguing that with less cars services can run faster isn't correct as more people getting on a bus result in longer periods at the stop so less traffic makes a very small impact on journey times. Therefore capacity needs to increase to spread the load over more buses to improve loading and unloading times resulting in faster overall journeys. But the cost of improving services is eye watering so no one is going to invest.

It has to be carrot and stick, not just stick to make it work.

[JohnL]

I agree it was a whole package and we need a whole package to move away from the current transport system to wahtever replaces it (electric cars, auto-navigation, driverless, better public transport etc.).

[Abe_froeman]

Is there any public transport at so inside any part of the zone subject to these measures?

[Bicknell]

New measures have bus gates which means Buses and teh private school coaches and taxis allowed through. ok for P4. OUtside the zone all the cars go on East Duwlich grove and lordship Lane where all the other buses are. Chaos for 176,185,40,37, etc etc.

[TheCat]

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/08/24/a-revolt-against-road-closures/

[Metallic]

Bicknell Wrote:

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

> New measures have bus gates which means Buses and

> teh private school coaches and taxis allowed

> through. ok for P4. OUtside the zone all the cars

> go on East Duwlich grove and lordship Lane where

> all the other buses are. Chaos for 176,185,40,37,

> etc etc.

The proposals don't mention the school coaches, I guess the council will make a charge on rich parents sending their kids that way. But maybe they won't be allowed, and then there is the prospect of the coaches dumping pupils off in all sorts of places like Lordship Lane, or Village Way, or College Road near the roundabout. Then the parents will get their cars out because they won't want their kids walking in polluted areas.

[Abe_froeman]

Isnt the plan for the coaches to park at the grove tavern ?

[Metallic]

The councillors told people in the ward that they were looking at the park and/or Sainsbury's DKH. I heard that third hand so who knows?

[Wil72]

Has anyone set up a petition yet? I can see that residents in Wandsworth have done one for the same reason on Change.org

Just found this on the Turney/Burgage Road Residents website- so please contact James Barber on here if you have experienced anything unsafe?

No doubt school children being chucked out of cars a mile away from schools as there is no longer anywhere to drop them safely will cause problems in a couple of weeks...

'The interventions are under the Emergency Traffic Act and can last up to 18 months and if they are to be made permanent a consultation process has to be carried out. Any intervention can be removed sooner if it is clear that it is unsafe.'

[Serena2012]

I?ve had a look and can?t seem to find a petition. I would sign one in an instant if it was set up!

[mr.chicken]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> Correct Mr clucking,

Mr Chicken if you please.

> After all they've paid for

> their cars, pay ved and other taxes so what's

> wrong with wanting to drive.

Oh, you paid money to buy some private property, I didn't realise. I think that means you are in fact entitled to do as you wish without regard for the consequences or future planning.

> The big concern is that the council are

> implementing experimental schemes without

> consultation or proper monitoring of the before

> during and after metrics.

Well perhaps they asked me. I'm 100% in favour of these schemes. The more the better, IMO, or in the case of cars, the fewer the better. Perhaps if they're quick enough they can block off both ends of the roads at once and trap some cars inside.

[Spartacus]

So sorry Mr. Clucking for getting your name wrong or should I say so sorry Peter John ? As that's what your consultation of one makes you sound like 😱

[Wil72]

If you set one up I will be the first to sign up Serena2012! Residents in other council wards across the country have protested & stopped this nonsense so we need to do something now otherwise they are going to create misery for anyone that has to drive for work/because they don't want to risk Covid on public transport!!

[mr.chicken]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> So sorry Mr. Clucking for getting your name wrong

Is this sort of intentional misrepresentation representative of One Dulwich supporters? Perhaps the "grass roots" is a couple of SUV drivers and an army of sock puppets.

[andrewc]

This study on how road closures reduce overall traffic levels is worth a read.

https://www.napier.ac.uk/about-us/news/school-street-closures

[alice]

I am not against bike lanes, trees and greening urban life. But dead against the way these current measures benefit those in high income areas pushing traffic into higher density housing streets. Serena if you started a petition I would vote for it.

[Metallic]

mr.chicken Wrote:

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

> Well perhaps they asked me. I'm 100% in favour of

> these schemes. The more the better, IMO, or in the

> case of cars, the fewer the better. Perhaps if

> they're quick enough they can block off both ends

> of the roads at once and trap some cars inside.

You see, that is the sort of selfish and ridiculous attitude which splits communities and doesn't help anyone. Calm down. Work on solutions not spite.

[Rockets]

Metallic Wrote:

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

> mr.chicken Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > Well perhaps they asked me. I'm 100% in favour

> of

> > these schemes. The more the better, IMO, or in

> the

> > case of cars, the fewer the better. Perhaps if

> > they're quick enough they can block off both

> ends

> > of the roads at once and trap some cars inside.

>

> You see, that is the sort of selfish and

> ridiculous attitude which splits communities and

> doesn't help anyone. Calm down. Work on

> solutions not spite.

Metallic, completely agree. Most people on here want a fair and balanced approach to managing pollution and congestion issues and the reliance on the car. Unfortunately, comments like Mr Chicken's show just how bad the fanaticism has become and why there seems to be no reasoning with many elements of the pro-cycle lobby and why, ultimately, a more balanced approach will have to be taken because politicians will realise that their political future will depend on who they side with - the fanatics or the majority.

[snowy]

But you realise that this transport agenda was in the election manifesto of both the conservative and labour parties?

[JohnL]

snowy Wrote:

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

> But you realise that this transport agenda was in

> the election manifesto of both the conservative

> and labour parties?

It centers around Andrew Gilligan who has been one of Boris's closest advisors since he was Mayor of London

"Andrew Paul Gilligan (born 22 November 1968) is a British policy adviser and journalist, currently transport adviser to the Prime Minister. "

Boris and Gilligan wrote the forwards to the attached document in 2016 and they called what are now "LTN" by the name "Quietways" but it seems to be the same thing.

"Quietways are supposed to be direct routes running on low-traffic back streets. They are meant to

include filtering (bollards or other blockages) to reduce motor vehicle rat-running where necessary;

full segregation wherever a route has to use a busy main road; and safe, direct crossings where the

route has to cross a busy junction, road or gyratory. This is not always happening."

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/human_streets_0.pdf

[JohnL]

Oh and Bori's transport advisor Mr Gilligan in the Guardian on what wins votes in London in 2018

"But it does now seem clear that opposing cycling improvements and pandering to motorists is not, and probably never will be, a vote-winner in London or any other major city."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2018/jun/05/from-brentford-to-brooklyn-cycling-improvements-are-clear-votewinners

[Rockets]

....until such time as the impact is so negative on the majority that we do a U-turn...

It's happening now...all across London...Londoners are saying "This is way too much and your rushed and poorly planned and ill-conceived plans are far more negative than positive".

My biggest concern, and this should be yours too, is what is happening now will set the discussion on sensible plans back years as no politician will want to go near it when they realise their careers could end on the back of this...I think ExDulwicher referred to it as the third-rail...don't touch it...

It's no coincidence that Cllr McAsh hasn't been on here for over a month...he knows that he needs to distance himself from any dialogue on this...

[andrewc]

Politicians are being sued for not reducing pollution. The Paris agreement on emissions means that countries are mandated to comply. Not taking action is not an option. I know that many on this thread think that polution will go up with road closures but all the evidence is to the contrary. I guess this is why politicians are getting involved.

[mr.chicken]

Metallic Wrote:

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

> mr.chicken Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > Well perhaps they asked me. I'm 100% in favour

> of

> > these schemes. The more the better, IMO, or in

> the

> > case of cars, the fewer the better. Perhaps if

> > they're quick enough they can block off both

> ends

> > of the roads at once and trap some cars inside.

>

> You see, that is the sort of selfish and

> ridiculous attitude which splits communities and

> doesn't help anyone. Calm down. Work on

> solutions not spite.

Really? I think it's a quite brilliant scheme. Not only would it reduce traffic, but those cars would be permanently stuck forever and unable to cause any more pollution. Plus I love the idea of council workers with planters racing against SUV owners to see whether the planters can be placed before the cars can make it out of the road. I think that would make some excellent reality TV.

Anyway I fully admit the plan isn't entirely fleshed out, but you can find more details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

[Rockets]

andrewc Wrote:

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

> Politicians are being sued for not reducing

> pollution. The Paris agreement on emissions means

> that countries are mandated to comply. Not taking

> action is not an option. I know that many on this

> thread think that polution will go up with road

> closures but all the evidence is to the contrary.

> I guess this is why politicians are getting

> involved.

Reducing car traffic by 11% doesn't get you close to what you need to do...and over time I suspect we will learn that by trying to reduce traffic by 11% we actually increased emissions and pollution by 30%.

That's what seems to be happening around Dulwich at the moment and I think we can all agree that's not what anyone wants or needs. Sometimes political posturing needs to be replaced by political pragmatism and realism and to defeat the unrealistic idealism.