Rockets

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ha ha....that's the only piece of segregated cycle > infrastructure they have put in across the whole > area and it does impede the traffic by narrowing > the lanes to allow only one car to pass and causes > a daily tailback in front of Dulwich Hamlets > school - thus creating more pollution for the > school children. I think you'll agree that's > probably not a good thing. > > Cos there was never, in all of history, ever a > tailback in front of Hamlet before LTNs...? > > You only need one lane there. Traffic coming into > DV from Turney can only go left or right and it > has it's own phase, it's effectively a T junction > for cars now. > > The advanced green phase for cyclists needs to be > a bit longer to shift more riders before the > traffic behind starts up and tries to turn left > "across" the flow of riders who can go straight on > and in fact it's not difficult to envisage a time > where you'll need to give a full green phase to > cyclists only at that junction. Same at Townley > crossing over into Greendale. Ex- but the tailbacks are worse since the LTNs went in - every day (after the closure times) the traffic crawls to that junction. Funny isn't it how they put that bike lane in and suddenly had to put a right-turn greenlight in because it became so snarled up because they had reduced what was effectively two lanes into one. Typical of so many planners - put something in that causes a problem and instead of fixing the problem try to move the problem on somewhere else.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > diable rouge Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > As Tory MP for Wimbledon, Stephen Hammond, said > > this morning, angry Tory voters didn't just > stay > > at home and not vote as many people thought > they > > would, they actually came out and voted against > > the Tory party. > > Or maybe the Tories are just discovering what > Labour discoverer a few years ago: that there > basically aren't any party-loyal voters any more. > The membership of the Tory party is tiny and > (iirc) its average age is in the 60s or possibly > 70s. The rest of the electorate is up for grabs > and every vote needs to be fought for on every > front. Sometimes that means you pull off > unexpected coups - like smashing the "red wall". > And sometimes that means you lose in places that > traditionally would be a shoo-in...if Dulwich > Village (the wealthy, leafy home of 80s > Thatcherite stockbrockerism) doesn't vote Tory - > where will? It's interesting isn't it. In the last general election Labour gained support from traditional middle-class voting areas at the expense of working class areas and the opposite was true for the Tories. It's all going a bit topsy-turvy! For the next GE the winner will be the one who can reconnect best with their core voters.

Ha ha....that's the only piece of segregated cycle infrastructure they have put in across the whole area and it does impede the traffic by narrowing the lanes to allow only one car to pass and causes a daily tailback in front of Dulwich Hamlets school - thus creating more pollution for the school children. I think you'll agree that's probably not a good thing. Another classic example of how the "solution" actually becomes the "problem" and how the council seems incapable of addressing the issue despite the bleedingly obvious that it is making things worse. Yes traffic has dropped - traffic is about 15% lower since the pandemic and that has nothing to do with the LTNs - although the council's monitoring report has benefitted massively from the 15% pandemic decrease!

Ex- I agree that they need to be used in combination but Southwark haven't done that - they have used LTNs to create a set of streets with less cars at the expense of others who get more cars. They promised fewer cars for all and that, clearly, hasn't been delivered. When the data supporting that came out showing that displacement was occurring the council told us that "main roads are built for more traffic". Your list is telling by what Southwark haven't done in Dulwich - no segregated cycle infrastructure, a failure to deliver sufficient cycle parking storage, no sign of any delivery hubs and so the list goes on. Given we have them for another 4 years I do hope Labour councillors apply a little more grey matter, engage more broadly with all members of the community and finally come up with something that benefits everyone rather than just a few.

Redpost - not necessarily and what you see from the council's data is that for evaporation to take place on some roads there has to be absorption on others. Traffic doesn't just disappear - it goes a different way. That's always been the Achilles heal of every LTN - remember Waltham Forest and that scary stat that a road 3.1 miles away from the LTN saw a permanent increase in traffic after the LTNs went in.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > Looking at the results thus far I think Labour has > a problem nationally - they should have cleaned-up > in these elections... > > This has to be seen in the context that at the > last local elections in 2018, Labour did very > well, but then went on nationally a year later to > perform terribly at the GE, so you can't just > compare the 2018 and 2022 results in isolation and > say Labour should've done much better, they were > never going make huge gains in the number of > seats. A better way is to look at Labour's share > of the vote and how that would transpose if it > were a GE, I'm sure some pollsters will be number > crunching that info as we speak. > > The Tories are probably hurting from losing some > key London seats but probably think they got away > with one as they should have taken a hammering... > > The Tories losing Wandsworth and Westminster will > be causing a lot more pain than just 'hurting'. > These were Tory flagship councils, not just in > London, but also nationally. Even when Blair won a > landslide in '97 and subsequent elections, the > Tories controlled these councils. > > As Tory MP for Wimbledon, Stephen Hammond, said > this morning, angry Tory voters didn't just stay > at home and not vote as many people thought they > would, they actually came out and voted against > the Tory party. That will send alarm bells ringing > in CCHQ and Tory MP's sitting uncomfortably in > marginal seats... Yes and the way you are suggesting people look at the popular vote is the way Labour are trying to spin this as a victory but they know what we are seeing today is not good enough to win at a GE - on Radio 5 the presenter said "but you wouldn't have won" and the Labour campaign leader said "but we have turned the corner" which is grasping for something that actually isn't there. As you point out Labour did really well in 2018 and then fell flat on their faces at the GE - if the Tories get rid of Boris and bring in someone more palatable will Labour be able to rely on the protest vote? Look at what is happening in regions that Labour needs to be winning now - they are losing seats which looks like a protest vote against them. Labour will not be looking at London for the bellweather to their GE chances but the rest of the country because that's where they lost the last election because they lost touch with their core and nothing we have seen thus far suggests that they are re-engaging with it - and that is worrying for everyone. The BBC sums the challenge for Labour up very well: Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper welcomes what she calls "strong Labour results" so far and says they are down to the party rebuilding its support. She says: "We do see this as a turning point for Labour because particularly since the 2019 election we've had a real rebuilding of support right across the country in different areas." She also claims if Labour's vote share were to be replicated in the next general election it would win dozens of constituencies back from the Conservatives. But analysis from polling expert Prof Sir John Curtice suggests, based on these results being repeated whenever Boris Johnson pulls the electoral trigger, Labour would not grab enough seats for a Westminster majority. In fact it would not even topple the Tories as the largest party in the Commons. As counting continues, Labour is currently at a net loss of councils outside London, although we have only passed the halfway mark in England and none have been declared at all in Wales or Scotland.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The breakdown is on twitter > > > 54205952/photo/1 So it looks like the Tories and Lib Dems split their own vote - perhaps there should have been a pact between them (like is being seen in other parts of the country between Labour and the Lib Dems).

Heartblock - let's hope the council do start thinking about everyone and not just the few benefitting the most from the closures and do something to address those roads that have had increases in traffic since the LTNs went in. I think even the most showboating of pro-LTN supporters coming on here to have their say can, hopefully, at least subscribe to that.

Rahx3 - can you send us the link to the share of vote as I would be interested to see them as I can't find them anywhere? Clearly LTNs were not the key agenda item for the voters and yes, this was the opportunity for people to register their rejection of the LTNs but they didn't - there's no denying that. But Labour did, very successfully, move the agenda away from local issues to national issues - we saw it on here, lots of people saying they would vote to protest against Boris. And let me correct you, the data is not clear at all, Covid succeeded in bringing traffic down and increasing active travel - the LTN's role in that is still very unclear and something we will continue to debate for a long time. I really hope Labour will take a refreshed approach and begin to engage with everyone over active travel and not just listen to those with most to gain and ignore anyone who has a differing opinion. They haven't to date and given they didn't even mention LTNs in their manifesto and now they have even more control of the council I am not sure this leopard will change its spots anytime soon!

Southwark is even more red than it was before......

Ex, indeed and look Wandsworth had their LTNs removed and they voted Labour who will probably bring them straight back in again! ;-) And to your point Labour made the local elections about everything but the LTNs and elevated it to a national level issue - which, whilst I thought might backfire on them actually worked as they galvanised the local protest vote against the national perspective. But as I said earlier I do worry that actually dilutes the office their councillors are now filling.

Jenijenjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ab29 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Poor Londn. I wish people voted on local issues > > rather than trying to punish tories. > > They did vote on local issues. There are many more > local issues than LTNs By no means scientific but a few of our friends in Herne Hill who are very anti-LTN and terrified they are going to get one told me that they voted Labour to send a message to Boris and the Tories.....I was like...what...are you mad...have fun with your LTN when it arrives! Labour did not campaign on local issues and went out of their way to make it a national issue (certainly the plethora of leaflets that dropped through our door didn't mention anything about local issues)

Looking at the results thus far I think Labour has a problem nationally - they should have cleaned-up in these elections given the weight of the protest vote against Boris and they are losing seats in some of their heartlands to the Lib Dems. This may further galvanise the anti-Starmer elements within the party and there could be instability/infighting - on Radio 5 just a moment ago they said that Lisa Nandy had made negative comments on Starmer's leadership (which the Labour guest they were interviewing refuted BTW). Infighting and the tug of war between centre-left and hard-left within the party always kills Labour. The Tories are probably hurting from losing some key London seats but probably think they got away with one as they should have taken a hammering given what they have put people through and the scandals surrounding Boris et al. Lib Dems are probably the biggest winners thus far but the challenge for them is whether they can turn the protest vote into something more tangible at the next election but they do seem to be rebuilding via councils in many parts of the country.

Congrats to Labour - I am very surprised they have managed to come out of this without losing a single seat - but I was absolutely amazed how many friends were voting on a national agenda. Labour do need to be careful as they are basking in their well-earned victories in London but, as Corbyn found to his cost, the People's Republic of Islington isn't indicative of the country's mood and I see Labour have lost Hull and seats in places like Salford - their traditional heartlands so they can't allow complacency to creep in again as there is still a lot of work to do before the election. And, as everyone knows, Boris won't be leading the Tories into the next election so whilst he will likely be got rid of Labour are very much thinking about the next leader (which is why they have been attacking Sunak so much) and that may present a whole range of new challenges to them.

We had heard from a friend in Here Hill that they were told they could not vote unless they had their card which I thought was a bit odd.

Is a low turnout bad for Labour?

hpsaucey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cyclemonkey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > There is a reason why Wandsworth has very low > > Council tax - the services aee minimal and you > pay > > extra for everything. > > > THIS! Know from past experience. Wouldn't want to > go back there. > HP Out of interest what do they have to pay for in Wandsworth that we don't in Southwark? We seem to be paying for more and more (as extras) whilst also paying more for our council tax.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So many people I have spoke. To seem to have > been seduced by the narrative that local elections > are about national issues (driven in the main by > Labour) > > No one is being seduced. Lots of people are > hacked-off with this current Gov, we need to > prioritise, there's no point having nicey-nicey > local Gov if the country is going to pot. It's > naive in the extreme to think that if the Tories > do well in the local elections, Johnson and his > cabal won't grandstand about it and say it's a > vindication of their policies. Get rid of this > Gov, then sort out local issues... But by your own measure should you not be voting against Labour to send them a message? Since the last local election they have presided over the most humiliating election defeat of a generation as they blindly followed an ideological path that was utterly unelectable and managed to lose an infinitely winnable election - it was Labour's misstep in electing Corbyn and allowing the hard-left to drive the party that delivered more awful Tory rule. A hard-left that has its roots in councils like Southwark. So, should you not be helping fix the problem with the opposition first?

It does dishearten me when I see lots of Labour leaflets extolling the virtues of voting for them "as a vote against national Tory disgrace x, y and z". By doing this Labour are degrading the office of local councillor and ultimately diluting the need for local elections. Local elections are not about national issues they are about local issues. I very much suspect this is why turnouts are always much lower for local elections.

Legal I do wonder whether this is why we find ourselves in this mess at the local level and why councils roundly ignore their constituents. People have become so apathetic to local issues that they are happy to throw their vote away to try and influence the national picture. So many people I have spoke. To seem to have been seduced by the narrative that local elections are about national issues (driven in the main by Labour). Have we got to the point then that local elections and local councillors are a bit pointless?

Labour were asking for polling card numbers outside the DV polling station so they know who to target later in the day for a door knock. They're obviously worried in some wards and are going to mobilise pressgang squads later today.

I think overall the Tories will get a kicking nationally, especially considering the electoral pacts that seem to have been made in some areas between Labour and the Lib Dems but Labour could take a kicking in some wards here. We had another Labour activist knock on our door tonight about our voting intentions and when we said not Labour they ask why and we said the LTNs and the activist said that the LTNs were a big issue in the ward. Maybe Labour are about to find out how small that small vocal minority they ignored is?..

dulwichfolk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Just a reminder that latest data shows traffic > is > > down at all monitored sites, compared with pre > > pandemic levels. The only exception is EDG East > > (between Melbourne Grove South and junction > with > > LL, where traffic has been diverted away from a > > school entrance and now continues down the road > > before turning). Cycling and walking are up. > > Pollution has NOT increased. Despite the > continual > > hyperbole, opinion and misinformation on this > > thread, the LTN has objectively succeeded in > > increasing active travel and reducing traffic > and > > car use. > > You would think with it being such a success > labour would at least mention LTN in one of their > seven or eight leaflets they keep delivering?.. > > Or maybe they do but only in the closed/restricted > roads?maybe the cheerleaders for the scheme could > confirm??? No, even on our road, which is supposedly benefitting from the closures, not a peep about LTNs in any leaflet from Labour. It was such a strange decision - pretending the LTNs weren't an election issue.

Rah x3 - have you been drinking from the council Kool-Aid fountain again? https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/traffic-data-analysis And the chart goes a lot more red if you include the 15%+ area-wide decrease in traffic when comparing pre- and post-Covid numbers.

And if you don't vote expect a house visit from a load of Labour press-ganging councillors and activists around 6pm tomorrow.....;-) Sorry, couldn't resist! Always intriguing the night before an election - which way will it go? Will some of us be saying "there you go, Dulwich has finally had it's say on LTNs and has spoken" or will it be others saying "well, those 20 people on the forum who voted against Labour made zero impact". Time will tell.....