LTN Discussion

[Earl Aelfheah]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> 1. Traffic hasn't dropped because this point

> measure is new in Sept 2021, so it is impossible

> to prove a drop at a single point on one count.

> 2. There are three schools on EDG

> 3. Two of Charter's entrances are on EDG and the

> sports field is 2 metres from EDG and the main

> entrance will be on ED Grove at the chateau if you

> look at the plans, does that mean Melbourne will

> open and EDG become the LTN?

> 4. Explicit means - stated clearly and in detail,

> leaving no room for confusion or doubt, so nope

> 5. Through traffic means - traffic which continues

> on a road or highway rather than crossing onto a

> different road. all through traffic has been

> diverted, so the through traffic or diverted

> traffic is as you have willingly admitted now on

> EDG

Traffic on the central section of EDG has dropped. Your argument that this doesn?t include the school, because vehicle volumes have only been measured at two points either side of it, is absolutely ridiculous.

You have called for the removal of the filter on Melbourne Grove North, to create through traffic from EDG to Grove Vale, passing the entrance of Charter. So yes, you are explicitly arguing for more cars to pass the entrance of the school.

Alleyn?s is also inside of the new traffic restrictions btw.

[ab29]

Traffic has increased on the roads such as LL, EDG, Croxted Rd and on many other roads such as Overhill Rd or Crystal Palace Rd. Anyone living on these roads or using them knows this. Of corse, if all you do is cycle from Dulwich park to the closed junction in DV via Court Lane then you have no idea what is going on in a real world.

[legalalien]

Looks as though the Bermondsey scheme is being made permanent even though the council acknowledge it?s created a real traffic problem on Tanner Street. Basically ? we know but we?re doing it anyway, we?ll then consider whether there is anything we can do to address it?. More Southwark ?night time economy? action, to the horror of some of the residents... I?m still predicting a late night bar enclave in Melbourne Grove.

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7590

[Jenijenjen]

No, you're not predicting, you are rumour spreading to stir up further feeling against Southwark Council, as do many of your posts. If you have any evidence that this is being proposed please supply proof other than the vague notion that Southwark Council supports a night time economy.

In the case of the bars discussed in the Bermondsey Scheme, they have been there for a very long time. To compare the vibrancy of Bermondsey Street with Melbourne Grove is laughable.

[heartblock]

It is a one point measure, it has only had one measurement and therefore change cannot be calculated. A point measure is not a stretch. All the schools have ED Grove buildings on this road, the main entrance for Charter will be on ED Grove when completed, the main entrance of JAGs is on EDG and it is the main route for children to travel. I would rather live in my 'ridiculous' questioning world than an appearance of blindly following dogma without question or inspection of skewed data.

I have actually called for local PT, bike lanes, to keep school road timed closures and I support road pricing.

Telling people what they think, calling them ridiculous and misrepresenting their beliefs is called gaslighting, it happens a lot on this subject.

[Jenijenjen]

Now I?ve had time to read the Bermondsey Street Report, it received 20 responses to the consultation. Half of these supported the scheme and there is only 1 (one) objection to the bars etc in the area.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Jenijenjen Wrote:

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

> No, you're not predicting, you are rumour

> spreading to stir up further feeling against

> Southwark Council, as do many of your posts. If

> you have any evidence that this is being proposed

> please supply proof

They have no proof, of course. It's literally conspiracy theory.

It's not even internally consistent: apparently the LTNs are created by an alliance of Spartist cyclist civil servants and ?berwealthy car-driving NIMBYs that want to turn their streets into gated communities and then set up late night bars on them??? It is complete cobblers.

[legalalien]

Listening to overview and scrutiny meeting from Monday. Good to hear Cllr Burgess talking about both the need for credible data (including a proper calculation of net benefit of LTNs taking account of increased mileage and potentially increased congestion even if less traffic). She also mentions the importance of addressing air pollution for schools on main roads and not focussing entirely on side road issues. Earlier on she mentions a paper that she has circulated prior to the meeting but I don?t think it?s on the council website, which is a pity as I?d quite like to see it. She also speaks up about the problems of coloured crossings for people with guide dogs (and horses). Refreshing change to hear a cabinet member talking about pros and cons of things.

[heartblock]

I like the sound of Cllr Burgess, yes idling congestion is more important than traffic counts. I think almost everyone understands that a large lorry outside a home sitting for ten minutes belching out NOx and particulates is much worse than 10-20 cars passing at 20mph.

Of course a counter would see this as a drop in traffic from 20 to 1 and it would be claimed as a success by some.

[legalalien]

I?m still watching and she?s just said that the council need to be very careful about fixating on LTNs as the only solution, given the wider network effects they can have in terms of traffic displacement - Croxted Road gets a mention (1:35 on the YouTube video). She?s actually calling out factors that make Dulwich a difficult LTN location. And now is advocating for a community kerbside zone, and the idea that a trade off for having a filtered street might be significantly reducing parking in the street. Has said that having some people as collateral damage is not OK. Going to keep watching.

ETA now watched her talk to the end. Worth a watch.

[ED_moots]

The Head teacher at ED Charter has already stated the Jarvis Road entrance will not close and refert to EDG even when the old hospital building is made fit to use. Even if LTN on MG North is removed its likely to be replaced with school Street so not 24/7 closure.

Not trying to argue here HB, just pointing out the switch in intent for the main school entrance. The nodal point is also on Jarvis but that's another story

[heartblock]

If you look at the plans, the main entrance is specified at the chateau on EDG, you can view the plans on the Southwark Council website. There is a third entrance near the canteen on EDG, so three in all. Children currently play sports on the sports ground just next to ED Grove.

I have no issue with school street closures that are timed.

Children walk to school, get buses on and cycle down ED Grove to the various schools in this area. I am sure that a count of children walking to school or actively travelling is far higher on ED Grove than any of the other school roads, I wonder if Southwark have this data?

[legalalien]

You could maybe get an idea of the likely relative use of different Charter entrances with some sort of map showing roughly where the students live?

I walk past at around 3:30 once a week and have to say that most students seem to turn left out of the Charter ED gate and then (for quite a number) onto buses outside the station / up DKH - I don?t see that many going the other way towards EDG. Might be that my exact timing misses the first wave of leavers. Based on that suspect the catchment isn?t circular but is skewed eastward/ north eastward, with those to the west electing Charter North. Obviously this is anecdata and could be wrong. There do seem to be a fair number of primary aged children heading towards DVIS /Hamlet/ JKPS and the primary schools along EDG.

Does anyone know if there?s a plan for some sort of green screen or planting along the EDG side of the sports pitches? This would seem to be a good thing to do in the short term?

[goldilocks]

Well said Jenijenjen. I'd been reading Legalalien's posts on these and wondering whether to call out what is an obvious attempt to stir up ill will. There is absolutely nothing anywhere that would indicate that anything about night time economy in that area is anything other than conjecture and an attempt to provoke outrage which can then be pounced upon by the usual parties!

Legalalien - you started out on this forum claiming that you 'didn't have an agenda and that you just wanted to ensure that people have all the info as its hard to find (which i agree with), but that not having an agenda has become more and more stretched over time to the extent that you're now creating things to provoke outrage.

Jenijenjen Wrote:

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

> No, you're not predicting, you are rumour

> spreading to stir up further feeling against

> Southwark Council, as do many of your posts. If

> you have any evidence that this is being proposed

> please supply proof other than the vague notion

> that Southwark Council supports a night time

> economy.

>

> In the case of the bars discussed in the

> Bermondsey Scheme, they have been there for a very

> long time. To compare the vibrancy of Bermondsey

> Street with Melbourne Grove is laughable.

[legalalien]

I think most people can tell the difference between fact, and opinion, to be honest. I will endeavour to restrain the occasional slightly tongue in cheek comment if it bothers you. This one was an extrapolation from the number of times references have been made to nighttime economy in various Southwark documents - including in particular around the case for the Rye Lane closure to traffic. But I agree that I haven't seen any suggestion of a specific plan for this area.

Having said that, I think a few tasteful bars in that location, near the station, could be quite successful.

For the record I am flying solo and don't have any political or lobby group ties - just in case that's what is being implied.

[goldilocks]

Legalalien - ~I wasn't implying you were part of an organised group - but more that your 'I don't have any particular agenda line' is not really playing out by what you post on a much more frequent basis. The fact that you have repeatedly inferred something and drawn links to unrelated policy is more likely to promote more mass 'anti Southwark' hysteria.

There are huge differences between Rye Lane and Melbourne Grove and any attempt to draw parallels between them is doing more than reaching!

In terms of whether round the station would be a 'nice area for some bars' there is already the Cherry Tree - its not overrun and I can't imagine it would be thrilled by change of use of other businesses to eat into its trade. The empty building that used to be a bookies opposite the station seems kitted out to be a restaurant, but last time I looked the rent was astronomical and i couldn't imagine what could possibly do enough covers to support it. I'm always surprised by how long landlords will leave a business property empty rather than lowering rent though.

[heartblock]

I actually find the personal accusations of Legalalien 'stirring' and trying to 'provoke outrage' and 'creating things' the usual personal line of attack from those who dislike any inspection or analysis of data and output that requires much closer scrutiny.

Hopefully none of these usual suspects teach children as I would not like the idea that questioning what one is told is 'fact', is accepted as fact without question.

[first mate]

Daring to question or disagree is now 'promoting anti-southwark hysteria'. Goodness!

[Bic Basher]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Daring to question or disagree is now 'promoting

> anti-southwark hysteria'. Goodness!

Indeed, the resentment towards the current Southwark administration is down to the governing Labour council who have introduced schemes that don't work based on ideology. It won't help if Labour return to power in May with Corbynite Cllrs who are replacing those who are leaving.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Daring to question or disagree is now 'promoting

> anti-southwark hysteria'. Goodness!

No, making up rubbish about the council introducing LTNs in order to creat bars along Melbourne Grove is anti-Southwark hysteria. Hope that helps hun x

[legalalien]

I didn't actually say that DKH, I think you might be the one introducing the idea of a conspiracy/ strategy here? I tend to think that council actions are much more ad hoc/ not joined up at all.

Water off a duck's back.

[Rockets]

Ha ha....I wondered how long it would be before the Melbourne Grove fans bit on the suggestion of bars and nightclubs along the road! Brilliant.

I know it was said in jest but it would make sense, some of those empty frontages would be great for a club....not since the heady days of Inside 72 have we had any proper dingy dive bars in Dulwich attracting a clientele that resembles those seen in the cafe scene in Star Wars;-)

Anyway Cllr Burgess seems like the only sensible councillor in the area - from the beginning I have sensed she hasn't fully bought-in to the LTN plan narrative and is seemingly swimming against a tide of "toe the party line" pressure that so many councillors have muted themselves over.

From 58 minutes in the council meeting she makes some really important points about measurement and properly assessing the impact. She also, very refreshingly references, Cairns and Goodwin (that is often cited by pro-LTN lobbyists about proof that 11% traffic evaporation can be achieved by such interventions) that actually in 84% of cases they looked at traffic increased on alternative routes. She says, very sensibly, that the council needs to look at journey miles and the impact of LTNs on that.

I love the fact she poses a question to Dale Foden who legs it from the meeting (to be fair to him he was packing up for some time before she posed the question but he didn't hang around to answer the tricky curve ball....).

She also sensibly says we should not conflate traffic and congestion and she says the council needs a data person to number crunch all of this info to give the council and public confidence of what is actually happening. Which suggests to me she doesn't have a huge amount of confidence that what the council is putting out there is completely accurate.

I wonder what she thinks about the EDG Central number "miracle". I wish she was my councillor, she would win my vote because she is trying to get the council to do what many of us hoped they would.

[goldilocks]

Said in jest - more than once...

Anyway, lets take a moment on Cllr Burgess. She has been for the past 2 years, deputy cabinet member with responsibility for Low Traffic Southwark. Her title changed at some point, can't quite recall when or to what though but essentially the same mandate throughout.

Over a year into her role there was a committee meeting where she was asked about what progress she'd made on a borough wide freight policy (to be clear - she was scheduled to talk, rather than asked when not expected). This was something that was firmly within her mandate and her response was vague, none defined and apparent that she'd done precisely nothing and then she finished with 'was that enough, or would you like me to do some more blue sky thinking'.

If Cllr Burgess had been doing her job for the past 2 years then maybe Southwark would be closer to a last mile logistics policy which might be addressing all the next day delivery issues that are an increasing component of the traffic on our roads. But instead she's spent 2 years producing precisely nothing (though maybe this mystery paper will outline it all).

[heartblock]

Well - that was weird.

[legalalien]

Well, I still appreciated Cllr Burgess? contribution. Not least the bit where she suggested that the policy should not be to grant LTNs ?on request? by groups of residents, because of the real risk that would result in small groups of residents with more social capital getting benefits for themselves at the expense of those less engaged.