West Dulwich LTN Action Group - needs your support

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Let's just ground your comments on the weight of opposition to the Dulwich Square proposals - the council said they had 3234 comments left in the consultation and 82% of respondents identified as being from Dulwich. This is how the comments were ranked (in terms of do the changes meet the objectives). Pretty compelling and how did the council respond - "thanks for your interest we are proceeding with the plans regardless".

Eh? I thought this was about three schemes being proposed in Lambeth?

The road layout changes in Dulwich are over 4 years old - having trouble moving on?

Edited September 17 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

The Dulwich Phase 3 consultation results (which are an excellent example of how the council ignores the responses) were published in February of this year. I know you would love to pigeon-hole the Dulwich scheme as a done deal but you may, or may not, have noticed that the council has been changing the designs - hence the Phase 3 tag - and remember, they had proposed an £8m set of improvements for the latest round that were soundly laughed out of the room and then they came back with the works they are now, hurriedly, trying to complete.

So no, some of us haven't moved on as we are not happy to turn a blind-eye to council wastage - especially at a time when the council is claiming it has no money for anything - perhaps you are? Or maybe you're happy for them to waste tax-payers money time and time again on things you support? For anyone who spends much time around there it's becoming clear there are likely design-flaws in the works they are doing now - they seem to be creating a cycle pinch-point on the chicane part in front of Au Ciel - so I am sure they will come back and throw even more money at it in due course. That square will likely haunt the local councillors for the rest of their careers - from the way they installed it, the way they ignored the pleas of the emergency services to re-open it (I have never understood why any politician thinks that ignoring the input from emergency services is a wise move), the way they have botched consultation after consultation and the millions of tax-payer's money they have wasted on what is nothing more than an ideological vanity project.

[Earl Aelfheah]

You're on the wrong thread.

[Rockets]

No I am not - you were talking about consultations and I have given an example of a local consultation that Southwark Council have ignored the results from. 

I think you will find I am very much on the right thread and that's exactly why you're trying to deflect and distract....;-)

[Earl Aelfheah]

Yeh, but it's boring. You're pretending not to understand the difference between a consultation and a referendum and again going on about road changes in Dulwich - a subject you have droned on endlessly about for years and started multiple threads for already.

It would be good if the OP on this post would simply clarify what their objections are to which elements of the three proposals in Lambeth before asking for people's money.

[first mate]

Earl, no need to hang around if you are bored. A number of us are glad objections to local LTNs have and continue to be voiced. I am afraid that is not going to change, much as you may like it to.

I am also interested to find out from the OP if, unlike Southwark, LTNs in Lambeth are mandated.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Yeah, ridiculous to expect someone asking people for money to support legal action objecting to something to detail what it is they're actually objecting to 🤣

Edited September 17 by Earl Aelfheah

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

10 minutes ago, first mate said:

A number of us are glad objections to local LTNs have and continue to be voiced.

Sure - but that's your position whatever the merits of the West Dulwich proposals. This is a thread for talking about the West Dulwich changes specifically, and perhaps what OP would and would not like to see happen there.

[first mate]

Still here Earl? I thought you were bored of threads with this subject matter?

I am sure the OP will let us know, Perhaps pushing through non-mandated LTN and traffic measure changes is not jtst s Southwark Council thing.

 

[malumbu]

I'm bored of the LTN posts.  Not really discussions are they?  I expect the challenge to be unsuccessful, and that elsewhere the development of the Court Lane junction be a success.  Even more measures please, including schools taking rougher action.  I'm a fan of Lambeth and hope that my other local boroughs, Southwark and Lewisham do more.  Not so hopeful about Bromley and Croydon ...

[alice]

Your boredom is irrelevant surely. 

[first mate]

"I am bored" seems to be the latest response from the pro LTN playlist, along with the laughing/ ridicule emoji and "this news is four years old, move on". Perhaps a list of responses is kept at LCC HQ, along with advisories on which LTN and CPZ consultations to input around the boroughs.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

16 minutes ago, first mate said:

Perhaps a list of responses is kept at LCC HQ...

Most conspiracy theorists think they're being tormented by the Freemasons or Secret Lizard People. I suppose it's only appropriate that the puppetmasters in such a low octane conspiracy theory as this should be...the London Cycling Campaign.

🦎 🦎 🦎 

[first mate]

Oh well, that's a new one. Proof you are not one of the LCC posting cadre, DKH? 

But, edited out of respect to the OP. Any news on your efforts to object to LTNs imposed in Lambeth?

Edited September 17 by first mate

[Rockets]

45 minutes ago, malumbu said:

I'm bored of the LTN posts. 

Do you find the boredom only washes over you when the discussion goes in a direction that you can't argue against........;-)

Maybe those who are bored of it should take heed of some sage advice from 80s TV classic kids programme Why Don't You:

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

😂 and there you have it:

”give me money to stop some changes”

”what changes’”

*silence*

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Bit of an odd post from West Dulwich Action Group here (hoping the link works):

https://x.com/WDulwichAction/status/1838117258104545427

It claims to show a massive year on year increase in the volume of traffic along Rosendale Rd. It actually seems to show percentage splits of speeds of an unspecified volume of traffic along an unspecified road on an unspecified date. It's not terribly compelling...

[Rashmipat]

On 08/09/2024 at 10:48, malumbu said:

Fortunately I expect that you are not typical of many drivers around here.  The residents opposing the LTN recognise we need to reduce car journeys.  It's views like yours that make this challenging and the reason we need road closures, traffic calming and speed cameras.

Rashmipat out of interest how do you and residents feel we should reduce car journeys?  

 

Thank you for your comment. I fully agree that reducing car journeys is an important objective, and I personally rely on my bike for most trips, using my car only when absolutely necessary. However, the concept of "traffic evaporation" that Lambeth Council promotes is highly misleading. Both their own data and TfL’s statistics show that what actually happens is traffic displacement. Instead of reducing overall traffic, it is simply diverted to boundary roads, resulting in increased congestion and pollution in those areas.

Lambeth’s traffic monitoring methods are also flawed. For example, their counters do not register vehicles traveling below 6mph, which distorts the data and skews the outcome in their favor. By the end of the trial, they will likely mark their own work and claim success, despite the on-the-ground realities reflecting a different story.

It seems this issue is being driven more by political motives than a genuine commitment to addressing pollution. Cllr Rosina Chowdhury has been pushing this agenda without proper resident engagement, similar to the poorly executed schemes in Streatham. It’s only after we initiated the Judicial Review that the council began to communicate with us—though this has been minimal and, frankly, begrudging. The lack of proper consultation and attention to local nuances has been frustrating.

In my opinion, Cllr Chowdhury’s drive to implement a one-size-fits-all LTN scheme appears to be more about her political ambitions within the Labour Party than about improving the local environment. The broader concern seems to be financial, not environmental. There seems to be little regard for the impact on boundary roads, where thousands of children, poorer communities, and the elderly are directly affected.

When it comes to reducing car journeys, I believe a collaborative approach is key. Rather than dividing communities, the council should engage with residents from all areas together and not insist on doing this seperatly so that we can  develop thoughtful, practical solutions. When we met with representatives from Dalmore, we proposed reasonable alternatives that could be trialed such as road closures at key times rather than a 24 hour LTN

Improving public transport, particularly in under-served areas like West Dulwich, could be a more effective solution. Expanding bus services or considering time-specific road closures might help, but any approach needs proper evaluation and resident involvement.

Ultimately, we need well-thought-out solutions that truly reduce pollution without simply shifting the problem elsewhere. Collaboration, not division, is what will make a difference in our community.

[Spartacus]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/28/labour-council-taken-to-court-over-flawed-ltn-plan/

[Rashmipat]

On 09/09/2024 at 08:29, yogiandbubu said:

I have seen the flyer and I have to be honest, I don’t understand which one ( or all) of the proposals you are against to. 
There are data collected on local traffic through the years (official data monitoring published by the council) and we had so many consultations about these changes when everybody had the chance to reply to.

Now that they have finally decided to do a trial to see what works best and, as they say, are ready to modify them if necessary, I really don’t understand what this complain is about.

the traffic is already displaced to side roads where cars speed knowing there is no control . We’ve had so many car accidents in the area and some very serious. Crossing the road has become impossible.

I can’t believe you think that the current situation is fine.

 

https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/tfl-impacts-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-feb-2024-acc.pdf

when has an LTN ever been a trial. My point is we have used the councils very own data and that provided by TFL and have shown them that their analysis is 100% wrong. In fact they know it's wrong. Their monitors don't even count traffic that's going less than 6mph - so any increased traffic as as a result of the LTN will potentially NOT be counted. I'ts disgusting. I want low pollution - who doesn't.  I rarely drive, and i am not an anti

LTN peron. i just want the TRUTH - if you fancy funding please do https://www.gofundme.com/f/legal-costs-to-force-a-reevaluation-of-the-west-dulwich-ltn

 

Edited September 29 by Rashmipat

[Rockets]

Are Lambeth still using e flawed pneumatic counters? I thought councils were not using those anymore because of the issue of flawed counting or are some still happy to use them because it allows them to manipulate the process?

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

11 hours ago, Rashmipat said:

we have used the councils very own data and that provided by TFL and have shown them that their analysis is 100% wrong. 

If you're going to claim this, you should give full details with the underlying source of the data so that people can understand what specifically you're saying.

Your group's claim above seems a bit ropey and you haven't addressed it (or other questions on this thread): https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/350461-west-dulwich-ltn-action-group-needs-your-support/?do=findComment&comment=1680839

[Earl Aelfheah]

17 hours ago, Rockets said:

Are Lambeth still using e flawed pneumatic counters? I thought councils were not using those anymore because of the issue of flawed counting or are some still happy to use them because it allows them to manipulate the process?

This is nonsense. As previously discussed 

 

[GOP]

On 28/09/2024 at 15:04, Rashmipat said:

Thank you for your comment. I fully agree that reducing car journeys is an important objective, and I personally rely on my bike for most trips, using my car only when absolutely necessary. However, the concept of "traffic evaporation" that Lambeth Council promotes is highly misleading. Both their own data and TfL’s statistics show that what actually happens is traffic displacement. Instead of reducing overall traffic, it is simply diverted to boundary roads, resulting in increased congestion and pollution in those areas.

Lambeth’s traffic monitoring methods are also flawed. For example, their counters do not register vehicles traveling below 6mph, which distorts the data and skews the outcome in their favor. By the end of the trial, they will likely mark their own work and claim success, despite the on-the-ground realities reflecting a different story.

It seems this issue is being driven more by political motives than a genuine commitment to addressing pollution. Cllr Rosina Chowdhury has been pushing this agenda without proper resident engagement, similar to the poorly executed schemes in Streatham. It’s only after we initiated the Judicial Review that the council began to communicate with us—though this has been minimal and, frankly, begrudging. The lack of proper consultation and attention to local nuances has been frustrating.

In my opinion, Cllr Chowdhury’s drive to implement a one-size-fits-all LTN scheme appears to be more about her political ambitions within the Labour Party than about improving the local environment. The broader concern seems to be financial, not environmental. There seems to be little regard for the impact on boundary roads, where thousands of children, poorer communities, and the elderly are directly affected.

When it comes to reducing car journeys, I believe a collaborative approach is key. Rather than dividing communities, the council should engage with residents from all areas together and not insist on doing this seperatly so that we can  develop thoughtful, practical solutions. When we met with representatives from Dalmore, we proposed reasonable alternatives that could be trialed such as road closures at key times rather than a 24 hour LTN

Improving public transport, particularly in under-served areas like West Dulwich, could be a more effective solution. Expanding bus services or considering time-specific road closures might help, but any approach needs proper evaluation and resident involvement.

Ultimately, we need well-thought-out solutions that truly reduce pollution without simply shifting the problem elsewhere. Collaboration, not division, is what will make a difference in our community.

The West Dulwich ward is certainly not 'under served' for public transport. We have 3 train stations, between them serving London Bridge, St Pancras, Victoria and Clapham Junction routes within 15 mins walking distance and a plethora of bus routes within easy reach. 

Great to see so many young people and 'poorer communities' represented in your Telegraph group pic!

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This is nonsense. As previously discussed 

You might think it is nonsense but others do not and the weight of evidence suggests our position is a more reflection of reality than yours.

 

Let's look....

• The manufacturer admitted they are not accurate under slow moving traffic (10kmph) 
• Southwark council stated they were phasing them out and replacing them with more accurate counters
• Even our dear friend Ex-Dulwicher (who works in this sort of stuff) admitted that they are not accurate when used in heavy traffic conditions.

So combine all of the above with the fact that Southwark actively moved monitoring strips closer to choke points (to use their weaknesses to their advantage) then my statement is anything but nonsense.

I don't know where Lambeth have put the monitoring strips in West Dulwich but if they are in areas of slow moving traffic then the pneumatic strips will not be providing an accurate reflection of traffic levels - that is not nonsense, that is a fact.