LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[sally buying]

and closure of Champion Hill

[dulwichfolk]

Aren?t the conservatives the opposition in DV or indeed prior to the last election in charge.

[legalalien]

No there are no conservative councillors in DV / Southwark any more I don?t believe.

[James Barber]

Hi Rockets,

I did chair Southwark Cyclists 20 years ago. But I do cycle, walk, car, public transport locally.

I would genuinely like to understand the 2,500+ petition against the local LTN's. If those are genuine local residents then it needs to be looked at again.

Equally, if the LTN is going to stay then we need to make it work better and get people tempted to shop in those Melbourne Grove shops. Perhaps a new street market at the Grove Vale end.

[dulwichfolk]

Sorry the way I wrote the! Agreed conservatives not in charge now but I thought they were previously. Maybe the boundary changes didn?t help them.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> No there are no conservative councillors in DV /

> Southwark any more I don?t believe.

[malumbu]

first mate Wrote:

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

> I think that reference to being like a reformed alcoholic or born again christian is telling. > There is a danger in being so zealous in your desire to reform or convert others you lose perspective.>

This thread is even worse than comments page on the BBC website for having a proper discussion rather than a whinge fest (note I am doing this to make a point rather than insult the masses). On the Beeb by the time you have posted a reply there has been about 30 separate comments. It feels the same here except that most of you insist on posting copies of previous long posts meaning it is even more difficult to navigate.

Anyway two quick points

1. The comment about born again Christians etc was self deprecating. First mate if you check you find that the word gullible is not in the dictionary. No shite Sherlock

2. Many people will not give up their cars no matter how easy you make it.

I am the peoples poet, my work is done and I will now return to the Lounge. Oh I do have a great story about Court Lane but that can wait.....

[Rockets]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Rockets,

> I did chair Southwark Cyclists 20 years ago. But I

> do cycle, walk, car, public transport locally.

>

> I would genuinely like to understand the 2,500+

> petition against the local LTN's. If those are

> genuine local residents then it needs to be looked

> at again.

>

> Equally, if the LTN is going to stay then we need

> to make it work better and get people tempted to

> shop in those Melbourne Grove shops. Perhaps a new

> street market at the Grove Vale end.

James, despite what the council and pro-closure lobby would like people to believe it is now a majority of people who object to what the council is doing. Those pro-closure groups suggest that because there are no postcodes added on Southwark e-petitions then the 2,700 names cannot be trusted, making the suggestion that it had been infiltrated by ?outsiders?. The irony is, of course, that many of the cycling and pro-closure lobby groups have been encouraging members to leave comments on Commonspace Southwark websites etc and it is the council that doesn?t insist on postcodes for their e-petition website.

The pro-lobby also tends to overlook the 1,700 members OneDulwich has gathered - and they do have their postcodes and plots the distribution on their website. It is clear a lot of people across Dulwich do not like what is happening.

In your experience how do we get the council to look at them? The council seems to be doing everything at the moment to avoid any discussion with the wider Dulwich community about these closures.

[Peckham Park]

Let?s blame the Conservatives for everything that is wrong in Southwark. The Labour party has 49 councillors and the Liberal Democrats party has 14 councillors in Southwark. My historical knowledge of council political representation is not great, but it?s always been dominated by Labour. Check the council?s website https://www.southwark.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/councillors-and-mps/your-councillors

[Earl Aelfheah]

There is plenty of evidence of pro car groups campaigning against local initiatives from outside the area. I'm sure there is probably the same thing happening on the other side too (those in favour of low traffic neighbourhoods). The council should assess the reality and do what in their judgement is best for the area. I am pretty suspicious of online petitions tbh as you can find one arguing for almost any position nowadays and it shouldn't be about how shout loudest.

[redpost]

"despite what the council and pro-closure lobby would like people to believe it is now a majority of people who object to what the council is doing"

source please? and don't say Donald Trump

[Bicknell]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> There is plenty of evidence of pro car groups

> campaigning against local initiatives from outside

> the area. I'm sure there is probably the same

> thing happening on the other side too (those in

> favour of low traffic neighbourhoods). The council

> should assess the reality and do what in their

> judgement is best for the area. I am pretty

> suspicious of online petitions tbh as you can find

> one arguing for almost any position nowadays and

> it shouldn't be about how shout loudest.

Could you point me to the evidnece of pro car lobbies campaigning from outside the area @rahrahrah? Would be good to see that.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> There is plenty of evidence of pro car groups

> campaigning against local initiatives from outside

> the area. I'm sure there is probably the same

> thing happening on the other side too (those in

> favour of low traffic neighbourhoods). The council

> should assess the reality and do what in their

> judgement is best for the area. I am pretty

> suspicious of online petitions tbh as you can find

> one arguing for almost any position nowadays and

> it shouldn't be about how shout loudest.

I am not sure the council will be too keen to engage with the wider community on this as they know which way the dialogue will likely go. Remember, many of them have admitted they are getting a lot of emails about it and the majority of those are voicing negative sentiment towards the closures.

[Rockets]

redpost Wrote:

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

> "despite what the council and pro-closure lobby

> would like people to believe it is now a majority

> of people who object to what the council is

> doing"

>

> source please? and don't say Donald Trump

Let's start with the e-petition - currently 2778 who have signed the petition to remove the closures and 54 who have signed the petition to keep the closures. Now, of course, that isn't scientific and the pro-closure lobby will accuse the 2778 of having been swelled by the mass ranks of the Daily Mail reading cab drivers! It was interesting because at the time it was set-up I was aware of a lot of local What's App groups that were alerting people to it and a lot of people on my street were aware of it and passing it on via their own What's App groups and word of mouth. Of course, there are no postcodes associated with the council e-petitions (a failing of the council not the person who set it up).

Of course One Dulwich has been collecting postcodes of those people who have registered with them. They have 1700 registered supporters here https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters and they plot where the people are from. It's pretty compelling.

I also hear lots of people talking negatively about the closures from across all 4 corners of Dulwich. Once again, not scientific but, as someone who has been discussing CPZs and OHS for some time I can assure you many more people are discussing these closures. Why? Because it impacts people directly. Most people in Dulwich own a car (somewhere between 70%-80% depending on which part of Dulwich you live in) and anyone who has a car will be impacted in some way by these closures. Also, you only have to shop on Lordship Lane to realise how detrimental these closures are being on traffic across the area.

So, I am pretty confident it is a majority and I think it will get even higher once the cameras go in next week as more and more people fall victim to the timed closures. Remember nearly 50,000 people fell foul of the Lewisham LTN cameras in the first month or so.

Finally, look at the numbers of people across London who are fighting these closures. Thousands of people have been on marches across London - there are groups in every borough fighting these closures and fighting the councils who are doing it. I very much suspect this is organic - if not it is the best organised guerrilla protest organisation ever! ;-)

[Metallic]

I agree with Rockets. Cyclists may be the more active community on Twitter but they also have the ears of the councillors and the schools. What they don't have is any empathy for businesses in Lordship Lane and the Village shops, and the fact that as long as their kids can sit on a kerb for a publicity photo, this must prove to everyone that it is the right thing to do.

[Spartacus]

There is a simple solution to the question of are people in support or against LTNs

The council should run an all inclusive survey that asks one simple question

"Do you want LTNs in Southwark?"

No secondary questions (for example "if there is one in your neighbours street... ") just a straight forward for or against question.

However the council are far too chicken I think !

[DulwichCentral]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> redpost Wrote:

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

> -----

> > "despite what the council and pro-closure lobby

> > would like people to believe it is now a

> majority

> > of people who object to what the council is

> > doing"

> >

> > source please? and don't say Donald Trump

>

> Let's start with the e-petition - currently 2778

> who have signed the petition to remove the

> closures and 54 who have signed the petition to

> keep the closures. Now, of course, that isn't

> scientific and the pro-closure lobby will accuse

> the 2778 of having been swelled by the mass ranks

> of the Daily Mail reading cab drivers! It was

> interesting because at the time it was set-up I

> was aware of a lot of local What's App groups that

> were alerting people to it and a lot of people on

> my street were aware of it and passing it on via

> their own What's App groups and word of mouth. Of

> course, there are no postcodes associated with the

> council e-petitions (a failing of the council not

> the person who set it up).

>

> Of course One Dulwich has been collecting

> postcodes of those people who have registered with

> them. They have 1700 registered supporters here

> https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters and they plot

> where the people are from. It's pretty

> compelling.

>

> I also hear lots of people talking negatively

> about the closures from across all 4 corners of

> Dulwich. Once again, not scientific but, as

> someone who has been discussing CPZs and OHS for

> some time I can assure you many more people are

> discussing these closures. Why? Because it impacts

> people directly. Most people in Dulwich own a car

> (somewhere between 70%-80% depending on which part

> of Dulwich you live in) and anyone who has a car

> will be impacted in some way by these closures.

> Also, you only have to shop on Lordship Lane to

> realise how detrimental these closures are being

> on traffic across the area.

>

> So, I am pretty confident it is a majority and I

> think it will get even higher once the cameras go

> in next week as more and more people fall victim

> to the timed closures. Remember nearly 50,000

> people fell foul of the Lewisham LTN cameras in

> the first month or so.

>

> Finally, look at the numbers of people across

> London who are fighting these closures. Thousands

> of people have been on marches across London -

> there are groups in every borough fighting these

> closures and fighting the councils who are doing

> it. I very much suspect this is organic - if not

> it is the best organised guerrilla protest

> organisation ever! ;-)

You forgot to add Nigel Farage

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8924869/NIGEL-FARAGE-Stop-pious-pay-road-tax-obey-rules-like-motorists.html

[heartblock]

It is possible to be pro-cycling, a cyclists, a green campaigner and be against the pollution and increased traffic caused by poorly planned LTNs....there are complexities that have not been addressed by Southwark?s intransigence, either due to abject wilfulness or just plain stupidity.

[Rockets]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> It is possible to be pro-cycling, a cyclists, a

> green campaigner and be against the pollution and

> increased traffic caused by poorly planned

> LTNs....there are complexities that have not been

> addressed by Southwark?s intransigence, either due

> to abject wilfulness or just plain stupidity.

Completely agree, I think most of us are annoyed by the way the council has implemented this and the fact their measures are delivering the exact opposite of what they intended yet they will not admit the mistake they have made and are trying to ignore and deposition anyone who doesn't dare agree with their view.

[exdulwicher]

There is a simple solution to the question of are people in support or against LTNs

The council should run an all inclusive survey that asks one simple question

"Do you want LTNs in Southwark?"

No secondary questions (for example "if there is one in your neighbours street... ") just a straight forward for or against question.

Yes and look where such a "simple" question got us to in June 2016...

There are far more complexities in it than just "do you want it?", not least the fact the Government (and by extension, councils) are committed to reducing emissions, reducing reliance on private cars, promoting active travel and attempting to mitigate some of the Covid-related impacts (like the requirement for social distancing).

Some are very good - in fact many have existed for years in one form or another. Gilkes Crescent for example was closed off years ago at the Calton Avenue and Gilkes Place ends.

Some are badly implemented undoubtedly, they'll need some modification (or removal!) but it's better to trial that with them now and then remove a few planters than it is to completely rebuild a junction at great cost and disruption and then go "oh no, we'll change it all again".

Let the trials run their course. Complain / feedback through the official channels. If/when they are modified or removed then you're vindicated.

Asking simple questions to complicated issues, especially when they run cross-borough, is never going to give you anything useful.

[Spartacus]

Sounds like you are scared of asking the question as simply as possible ex

Is it possibly because you know it will be a majority against LTNs and that doesn't suit your agenda ?

[Metallic]

If no survey, then May 2022 will be when we give the answer.

[dulwichfolk]

Weren?t the council due to release the figures/postcode/details etc around who was filling in the survey originally for the healthy streets programme which led to the first closure?

I remember initial they said the data was tricky to obtain but surely by now they would have it? Not that it should be taken as gospel but would be interesting to see. I think there were around 220 odd responses. I just remember a bit argument on the validity of them at the time and the councillors/council saying they would be published in time....

[legalalien]

There's some stuff about that in the onedulwich fact checker that I came across yesterday - as of August they don't seem to have got to the final figures.. (It's towards the bottom of the page)

https://www.onedulwich.uk/fact-checker

[exdulwicher]

Sounds like you are scared of asking the question as simply as possible ex

Is it possibly because you know it will be a majority against LTNs and that doesn't suit your agenda ?

I don't have an agenda.

Asking what, on the face of it is a simple question with a binary yes/no answer is not going to give you anything like the answers that are actually needed.

Firstly it's quite quaint that you think the councils are there to do what you / we want. They're not, they're there to run the borough by (as near as possible) democratic means but democracy does not mean that they have to ask everyone their opinion on everything. They were democratically elected and they'll do what the democratically elected Government tell them to do mixed in with their own local issues based on the funding they can obtain for it all.

Secondly, it is not a simple answer. I said this above. Some LTNs are very good, they've had very positive effects. Some are not so good and either get removed after a while or modified. Some impact certain people more than others. A resident on Calton Avenue with no private car will have a very different view to a resident on Court Lane with 2 vehicles even though they may live only 200m from each other.

Some residents and businesses will love their own LTN but hate the one that forces them to drive an extra mile to get to a shop or school. There is literally no one answer to this. You're trying to make an incredibly complicated matter (that is linked in to other traffic considerations not just in Southwark but across neighbouring boroughs) a simple yes/no and sadly, the world doesn't work like that unless it's just "do you want more pudding?"

I know what the answer will be by the way - 52:48 (and that could go either way). It pretty much always is when you try to break down a divisive issue to a simple question which is why it's a terrible idea.

If it's more pudding then it's easier, it's always yes. ;-)

[JohnL]

Found an interview with London?s Walking & Cycling Commissioner, Will Norman.

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/11/09/the-streetsblog-interview-will-norman/