LTN Discussion

[first mate]

A divisive issue is likely to generate divisive content. I also think Waseley's post was on the strong side and hardly even-handed.

[Waseley]

Well disappointed that you didn't like my reference to April Fools - the spaghetti harvest, the 80s comedy Trading Places or 80s soft rock and tight outfits. I thought it was funny although irrelevant

Ps light hearted post

[heartblock]

There are are a few houses in Village Ward portion of EDG that are expensive... but not down my ends, in Goose Green Ward - flats and terraces, my neighbours are school cleaners, delivery drivers with kids, some young couples and friends renting very small garden-less flats. Over the road converted flats with 3 flats per building. Very different from Court, Calton and Gilkes.... ED Grove also has schools, a health centre, a nursery and is a bus route - what a stupid plan to divert more traffic down this road.

LTNs are not a proven method to reduce pollution...in fact even Southwark council admits that traffic and pollution may rise on so called boundary rds like EDG...that?s why they promised pollution monitoring....

So where is the NOx and PM pollution readings at peak traffic? What are CYP breathing in as they walk to school?

[ab29]

"Why not stick to the real issues of the best ways to reduce traffic and car use?" - LTN does not help with this. At all.

How such a detached from reality and unjust scheme could ever see a daylight is unfathomable.

I agree with Rockets that to a certain degree it is a class war or rather money have/have not.

The most polluted roads are the main roads. Why did I buy a flat on such a road? Because it was cheaper. Did I expect peace and quiet? Of course not. I was dreading it; thankfully, you can get used to it, to a certain degree at least and you keep thinking it?s not for ever.

What did LTN do to the main roads? Pushed more traffic onto them, creating more stationary traffic and making them more polluted and noisy as a consequence.

What did Southwark council do to help to improve air quality and tackle the noise issue on the main roads? Nothing.

By introducing LTN they made it worst. At the same time, they had no problem with closing roads like Court Lane ? already peaceful and quiet, where hardly anyone can afford to buy a house.

I don?t drive and never owned a car. I asked few neighbours what would make them to stop driving or drive less ? they said that it would only be a price of driving, if it becomes too expensive. They hate LTN, they are stuck in the traffic for much longer now, have to take all sorts of detours but have no intention to ditch their cars.

Public transport is also crucial and yet it becomes worst and worst. Bus frequency has been reduced and bus routes senselessly altered (nr 40). Trains frequency has been reduced; tickets fares are ridiculously high for what Southern offers; trains from London Bridge to ED or Forest Hill are delayed and cancelled more often than not and yet Govia has been granted new 3 yrs contract.

[heartblock]

I agree ab29.. I walk and take trains, I drive only to visit friends and family in Devon, Gloucestershire and Lincolnshire..about 3-4 times a year, I would rather take a train but it?s too expensive for us and connections are awful. When visiting NHS sites in London I always get public transport and often walk up to two hours a day, because I am still mobile. Yet..... I and my neighbours and CYP walking to school now suffer worse traffic and pollution, so multiple vehicle owning LTN supporters can live on a quiet traffic free road.

Marvel at the car storage roads of Melbourne, Derwent, Gilkes and Calton...have a walk down these roads and calculate yourself the number of vehicles per household. Maybe all closed roads that benefit from a traffic free road should have all private cars (with the exception of BB holders) banned completely.... I wonder if support for their closed road would soon dissipate? It is plain hypocrisy and we all know it.

[Rockets]

And this comment from DulvilleRes sums up, very succinctly part of the problem:

"I do know a lot of people, however, who are looking to do something about the kind of world they will leave their kids."

Once people start thinking about all kids rather than their own we will finally be able to make some progress. LTNs clearly benefit some kids not all...

[DulvilleRes]

It isn't a rich v poor argument - there is also social / rented housing within the LTN's, even on Calton Avenue - and I think its characterisation as such is a dubious bit of appropriation on the part of the anti LTN lobby. Try telling the people of large parts of Salford, Thamesmead or Lurgan that an average house price of ?808,000 represents a deprived street.

There has clearly been much too and fro over the last few months as to whether LTNs work or not overall in reducing traffic, and to be clear, I respect the views and experiences of many who have posted on her, even though I might not agree with the conclusions they reach. I completely recognise the real strength of feeling many poster on here have.

What concerns me most is the manner in which this debate has been conducted - there has been a good deal of misleading statements, factual inaccuracies, and at times physical intimidation. Characterising people who support LTN's / traffic reduction as multiple car owners, who love artisan shops, and just care about their house prices feels more like the latest caricature driven manifestation of 'war on woke' than anything relevant to a debate within a community.

At times I've asked myself the question: is this a straight debate amongst neighbours about the best way to reduce traffic, or is it being used by some to push a wider but concealed political agenda? The appearance of the opaque Vote Them Out website supporting an anti LTN lobby position does not do much to allay my concerns.

[ab29]

"At times I've asked myself the question: is this a straight debate amongst neighbours about the best way to reduce traffic, or is it being used by some to push a wider but concealed political agenda?"

I think exactly the same about the opaque Clean Air Dulwich or Friends of Dulwich Square - have the friends of the closed Dulwich Village junction stopped for a minute to think how this closure will affect their neighbours on South Circular or Lordship Lane? Why is their need to have the roads closed so they can cycle there is more important than my desire to have rush hours twice a day instead of all day long in front of my flat?

[Metallic]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> "At times I've asked myself the question: is this

> a straight debate amongst neighbours about the

> best way to reduce traffic, or is it being used by

> some to push a wider but concealed political

> agenda?"

>

> I think exactly the same about the opaque Clean

> Air Dulwich or Friends of Dulwich Square - have

> the friends of the closed Dulwich Village junction

> stopped for a minute to think how this closure

> will affect their neighbours on South Circular or

> Lordship Lane? Why is their need to have the roads

> closed so they can cycle there is more important

> than my desire to have rush hours twice a day

> instead of all day long in front of my flat?

I would say that none of them give a jot. If they did they wouldn't fight so vociferously for their streets to be closed. As for the residents living near the closed junction, on Calton Avenue and Court Lane - I have no words for their selfish behaviour towards their fellow Dulwich residents.

I'm praying further closures won't hit the old Area B once the elections are over if Margy Newens and Richard Leeming are returned., because our district can't take any more of their vanity projects.

[Administrator]

Please, please, please stay on topic

[intexasatthe moment]

Admin are you referring to Metallic's post at 5.18pm ? If so I'm not following your point ,could you explain ?

[Metallic]

Administrator Wrote:

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

> Please, please, please stay on topic

I was definitely on topic. More LTN roads will come if the Labour admin in Southwark is re-elected en masse. As for the ED streets closed there are plenty more with potential. Surely this IS the topic?

[MrsR]

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/exclusive-council-makes-a-whopping-6-6-million-from-fining-drives-in-dulwich/

[ab29]

One Dulwich update:

"Local elections 5 May 2022

The countdown to the elections has begun, but only the Labour Party has so far declared candidates for all local wards. We should hear final news of all candidates by 5 April.

Why the decision on the LTNs is unsafe

Our latest News piece can be found here.

National media focus on Dulwich fines

On 30 March, Janice Turner in The Times highlighted the ?6.6 million raised in fines. ?I find it extraordinary that a revenue model, replicated across the country, can be introduced without consultation. ?Low Traffic Neighbourhoods? create winners and losers, quiet residential streets v congested bus routes. In Dulwich and elsewhere they will be a red-hot May election issue.?

On 1 April, Harry Wallop in the Daily Mail wrote about LTNs across the country ? councils? bogus data, and the difficulties caused to residents with disabilities ? and Dulwich?s ?astonishing? fines again got a mention.

Confusing signage

On 31 March, a local resident tweeted a picture of an ambulance driver in Court Lane who refused to believe that the Dulwich Village junction was open to emergency vehicles. In response, Cllr Margy Newens tweeted that emergency vehicles can and do drive anywhere, but promised to ask Southwark Highways to alert the LAS to the new situation. ?Obvs LAS must update its systems and drivers.?

Surely this is missing the point. Shouldn?t Southwark be putting more effort into improving signage at this confusing junction (something the LAS has already requested)? Or maybe ? thinking again about the ?6.6 million raised in fines ? the poor signage across Dulwich is actually because the Council doesn?t really want anything to be made clear at all?"

[Administrator]

Last warning.

The subject is "LTN in East Dulwich Discussion"

[legalalien]

Agree re the signage. If Living/ Healthy Streets folk are allowed to put up "road open to.." signage, then perhaps we could crowdfund for some emergency services access signs and put them up? I agree that the council should do it, but TBH I think getting some signs up (and making things clear to emergency services drivers) asap is more important than having a prolonged argument about who should pay for it?

[ab29]

I am confused - is this to do with me pasting the One Dulwich update? If so, do you care to elaborate? It is about LTN.

Administrator Wrote:

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

> Last warning.

>

> The subject is "LTN in East Dulwich Discussion"

[heartblock]

On East Dulwich and Dulwich LTNs - can someone confirm this information I read on Twitter that on Croxted Road - SCOOT data indicates weekday morning congestion has increased by 100% at peak hours since the LTNs? Is there the same SCOOT data for ED Grove pre and post East Dulwich LTNs?

[Bic Basher]

The problem with discussing the LTNs is that there is a political element to the supposed road calming scheme, so unless you keep it to the practicality of the how the scheme is working or not, then what else is there to discuss?

[kissthisguy]

Good idea. Whatever your views on the LTNs I would hope everyone would agree there needs to be clarity around emergency vehicle access. Couple of examples attached.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Agree re the signage. If Living/ Healthy Streets

> folk are allowed to put up "road open to.."

> signage, then perhaps we could crowdfund for some

> emergency services access signs and put them up?

> I agree that the council should do it, but TBH I

> think getting some signs up (and making things

> clear to emergency services drivers) asap is more

> important than having a prolonged argument about

> who should pay for it?

[Rockets]

Admin - could you clarify where people are falling foul of the not sticking to the topic? On previous occasions the deviation has been clear and obvious - now it is much less so and the last two pages of posts pretty much all reference LTNs and between your two warnings all of the posts are in relation to the LTNs (unless of course some of them have been deleted).

We all want to be respectful of the rules but it seems the forum members have been doing a good job self-policing and staying within the subject matter of the title of this new thread.

Could you help clarify the rules of engagement please?

[alice]

Did anyone hear whether Prof Aldred referenced East Dulwichst the conference today?

[ab29]

@Admin, following on Rockets question may we please see the rules of this forum? Where do they come from? And how did I break it (following your comments after I posted One Dulwich update; many of which were posted here before)?

[heartblock]

Alice - It will be on Understanding Society's YouTube channel at some point - so you should be able to see if East Dulwich LTNs are mentioned.

[alice]

Thanks for that hb