LTN Discussion

[ED_moots]

Hi Doug. No that's nonsense. The Halloween decorations on Melbourne Grove pre date LTNs by a couple of years. both LTN supporters and detractors partake as do some businesses.

There was no victimisation of the businesses. There wasn't a party but if some councillors saw some sort of PR opportunity then who's to stop them.

[Doug85]

I was a regular of Ahmed and Callows guys there and now moved and only repeat what heard at time that alot were upset. The LTNs had gone in and all their sales dropped immediately, having gravestones with 'You'll be next' and 'Dead End' etc was far too close to the bone. Even if it was not intentional. One had one facing into their shop and at the time they and GMs guys were very upset. Glad it did not seem to be repeated last October.

Ed_Moots sounds like you are close to the residents group? This overlap of residents and lobby groups is still worrying. Do you know what that ?500 went on, if not those Halloween decs?

[Administrator]

Final chance before I Lounge this and ban LTN threads for good.

Stay on topic "LTN in East Dulwich".

[northernmonkey]

If you were a regular of Ahmed?s you?d know that a)his landlord put the rent up to a level that he just couldn?t afford and b) he had been struggling for quite some time since the new barbers shop opened on st Francis Road. That?s before you get to peoples reluctance to go in for haircuts during covid. He really had tried a few things and had tried to put prices up slightly but it just didn?t close the gap for him.

Doug85 Wrote:

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

> I was a regular of Ahmed and Callows guys there

> and now moved and only repeat what heard at time

> that alot were upset. The LTNs had gone in and all

> their sales dropped immediately, having

> gravestones with 'You'll be next' and 'Dead End'

> etc was far too close to the bone. Even if it was

> not intentional. One had one facing into their

> shop and at the time they and GMs guys were very

> upset. Glad it did not seem to be repeated last

> October.

>

> Ed_Moots sounds like you are close to the

> residents group? This overlap of residents and

> lobby groups is still worrying. Do you know what

> that ?500 went on, if not those Halloween decs?

[northernmonkey]

Getting very close to libel there Rockets with your ?musings?. I mean I say ?musings? but it does really look like an attempt to start some flames that you can then fan with the help of the conspiracy cohort!

Rockets Wrote:

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

> There have certainly been rumours that many of the

> lobby groups are the same small group of people

> creating multiple accounts to suggest broad

> support for their initiatives.

>

> Something has happened to act as the catalyst for

> CAD to refuse the funding they were awarded in

> 2020. I wonder if the council did some due

> diligence and realised much of the funding was

> going to the same people under different group

> names - now that might warrant a council

> investigation about fraudulent applications!

>

> BTW on a potentially linked subject, that stage

> managed call the councillors held for the

> Melbourne Grove closures where they only took

> comments and questions from some from the street

> residents group- was it recorded and is there a

> link to it anywhere?

[Bicknell]

please dont ban thread. v useful info for many of us in e dulwich.

thank you.

[Administrator]

I'll try, please try and help me keep it on topic.

[legalalien]

Interesting read- report prepared by Cllr Rose/ officers for next week?s Environment Scrutiny Committee?s meeting, responding to some of the committee?s recommendations in its most recent Air Quality Report.

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s105848/Air%20Quality%20report%20briefing%20note.pdf

Looks as though the revised Movement Plan, which has all the traffic policy including low traffic neighbourhoods etc is going to be consulted on in summer this year. More detail on the Movement Plan and upcoming consultation in this report delivered to Cabinet last month https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s104619/Report%20Movement%20Plan%20update.pdf

- one recommendation was for a review of the viability of the Council target to reduce traffic by 90% by 2030. The reponse refers to a target of 50% of pre- pandemic levels in the Streetspace plan and says that ?As part of the review of the Movement Plan targets will be reviewed considering applicability (all traffic, local traffic), deliverability, and ability to monitor and ensure delivering of the ambition, coordination with other work areas.? I?m not quite sure what that means in concrete terms. (Also not sure where the committee?s 90% target comes from. The Movement Plan report refers to the most recent Climate Change Strategy as saying car journeys should be kept ?to a minimum?, but given the intention to move to SMART targets in that strategy I suspect a figure will be put on it.)

- on the recommendation around switching the entire council fleet to electric, it looks as though some proper analysis has been done (good) and while some of the lighter vehicles are easy to switch, that?s not the case for the heavy/ specialist ones (there are for example no electric gulley suckers). Also ? Whilst it is certainly feasible to acquire electric vehicles for many of the fleet replacement requirements, detailed consideration needs to be given to the required charging infrastructure, its location and the expected associated costs. The scale of the requirement and the task of installing charging infrastructure on such a large scale should not be under-estimated.?

- cycle hangars - speed of roll out increasing, but waiting list around 9000. ?There are no plans to increase the current hangar space charge to users (currently ?40 per annum) or reduce the current level of council subsidy (currently ?20 per annum). However, this may be required to be reviewed dependent on the costs to the council of future cycle hangar provision, maintenance and management.?

- variable parking permit pricing - current system based on fuel type more practical than charging based on size and weight because the relevant vehicle info isn?t easily available from DVLA. ?There are other potentially more effective means of managing kerb space in relation to varying permit pricing which will be given consideration in the short to medium term.?

ETA I think the 90% might come from the target in the 2019 Movement Plan to ?reduce trips made by car/motorbike to 13% by 2041?.

[goldilocks]

Gosh - how is life under your tin foil hat? Cllrs often call in at street parties - I'd imagine it gives them an opportunity to meet people in their ward and get their 'faces seen' at a time when people aren't complaining about something and its a chance for them to hear from people who live in a specific area.

The council has set up a defined process for street parties and councillors turning up gives a great opportunity for them to talk about how the programme of street parties in Southwark works at bringing neighbours together etc. THe idea of cllrs attending isn't a thinly veiled attempt at bribing them with a slice of Victoria Sandwich!

Doug85 Wrote:

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

> Wasn't there a ruckus about this funding after the

> East Dulwich LTNs first went in and residents put

> up some pretty nasty Halloween decorations that

> took the proverbial out of the businesses on

> Melbourne Grove? 'You'll be dead next' outside

> their businesses etc and had some kind of party.

> It was pretty bad. Seem to recall EDSTN account

> tweeted Councillor Victoria Olisa went to the

> Halloween thing they threw.

>

> As if the advice to get local councillors on board

> with your LTNs by inviting them to street parties

> wasn't crass enough, it sounds like there is now a

> very good chance of overlap of lobby group members

> and residential groups that received money for

> street parties. Definitely Helen of CAD, (isn't

> she also EDSTN Twitter as well?) and lives on one

> of the roads is on record advising other lobby

> groups to use street parties to get local

> councillors on side and romance them over LTNs.

>

> Maybe one of them if on here they can tell us what

> they spent that ?500 on and if any of CAD and

> councillors attended?

[legalalien]

Did my post earlier this morning about the council report on the environmental t scrutiny commission recommendations get deleted by admin? It was specifically relevant to the LTNS as it deals with the Movement Plan and the council targets for traffic reduction. And the summer consultation on the Movement Plan.

In case it did get censored I?ll start another thread in the Lounge. It def was posted, as I went back in to edit it.

[heartblock]

On LTNs - has anyone seen NOx and PM data for peak times on ED Grove post LTN implementation? What is the current plan to mitigate for traffic on ED Grove, Croxted, GV, LL?

Has anyone this information?

[Mrs D]

Hi Legal. Yes it must have been deleted from this thread and I agree it was relevant to the LTNs (and wider discussion re travel, pollution etc).

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Did my post earlier this morning about the council

> report on the environmental t scrutiny commission

> recommendations get deleted by admin? It was

> specifically relevant to the LTNS as it deals with

> the Movement Plan and the council targets for

> traffic reduction. And the summer consultation on

> the Movement Plan.

>

> In case it did get censored I?ll start another

> thread in the Lounge. It def was posted, as I went

> back in to edit it.

[legalalien]

Thought I was imagining things for a minute there! Anyway, posted it in the Lounge now.

[Bic Basher]

Southwark Labour Cllrs really rubbing salt into the wounds on Sunday.

[goldilocks]

haven't seen this information - but from the question its clear neither have you! This is despite you being adamant it had gone up.

There seems to be a spate of 'information / not information' going on at the moment - saw on twitter some claims about traffic on lordship lane oct - oct, but its weird as the info on the Council's report is to September.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> On LTNs - has anyone seen NOx and PM data for peak

> times on ED Grove post LTN implementation? What is

> the current plan to mitigate for traffic on ED

> Grove, Croxted, GV, LL?

> Has anyone this information?

[kissthisguy]

What's slightly confusing about this is that very near to where they're standing, just out of shot, are two (helpful in my view) islands, either side of the Court Lane jct, presumably to assist pedestrian crossing. It's also near(less than 100m? to a traffic light/ Green man crossing by the Lordship Lane estate. If ?50K has been put 'towards' creating a crossing, how much is the total? Seems like overkill, unless it's another element of embedding the LTN.

Bic Basher Wrote:

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

> Southwark Labour Cllrs really rubbing salt into

> the wounds on Sunday.

[alice]

Unbelievable yet quite sad to see our Dulwich hill councillors posing at this gateway to inequality.

No need for crossings on court lane, few cars,no buses, rare bikes and sweet breezes blow.

Lordship lane - mad detours made, buses and grey polluted air.

[Metallic]

Bic Basher Wrote:

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

> Southwark Labour Cllrs really rubbing salt into

> the wounds on Sunday.

Do you think so? I read it as we have locked you in, but no one should complain we are stopping East Dulwich Hill residents from getting to the Park safely as now you have the world's most expensive crossing to use.

[northernmonkey]

How much do you think a zebra normally costs metallic?

[alice]

Maybe a days work I?d say ?1000. Recent studies show that crossings without Belisha Beacons are still very effective at a fraction of the price. But why when you?ve got another crossing 100 yards down the road?

[Rockets]

Sorry, am I missing something or have other posts been deleted - are the councillors going to put a crossing in around the Court Lane junction?

[alice]

Sounded like it from the Twitter post

[Bic Basher]

I've seen a leaflet from the Tory Dulwich Village candidates who pledge to have a "community bus service", which I'm not sure how it'll be funded either from Southwark taxpayers or will they talk to TfL to re-route the P4?

The axing of the LTN features alongside reversing parking charges in Dulwich Park and adding EV charging points?

[kissthisguy]

*edited to reflect I've digested Cllr Brownings' post.

Yes @rockets on Lordship Lane, very close to two traffic islands, on either side of the jct.

Can someone help me understand the joint funding messages here: unless it's right on the border of two wards (Dulwich Village and Dulwich Hill) surely one ward would be applying for funding? How did Margy vote for it if (as it seems) the proposed crossing is in Dulwich Hill? Why is Cllr Leeming trying to brainstorm funding? https://twitter.com/RM_Leeming/status/1503086093612326919 If the crossing is in DHill then it will be closer than the pic suggest to the existing green man. It's making my head hurt. What am I missing?

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Sorry, am I missing something or have other posts

> been deleted - are the councillors going to put a

> crossing in around the Court Lane junction?

[legalalien]

I don't think the Devolved Highways funding (which I think this is) works in quite the same way as the Neighbourhoods Fund funding. Whereas the latter is essentially ?10 per councillor, there seems to be more of a pooled approach o the former. See https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s105533/DHB%20South%20Decision%20Making%2022-23%20FINAL.pdf.