Earl Aelfheah

The Tory party's rhetoric and policies have helped fan the flames. Language that talks of 'invasions' by 'fighting age men' have clearly stoked / normalised anti-immigrant feeling (more 'foghorns' than dog whistles). Asylum seekers in particular have been demonised and dehumanised, both rhetorically, but also via the performative cruelty of policies like Bibby Stockholm and Rwanda. Obviously years of extremely inflammatory rhetoric from the press and continued amplification of it via social media and channels like GB News have all laid the ground for this. And I see no evidence that lessons have been learnt. In fact the line now from the mainstream right seems to be this narrative about 'two tier policing' and 'bad people on both sides' (very reminiscent of Trump). It is a distraction from the fact that these were primarily far-right, racist riots. The climate in which this virus has been allowed to grow and mutate was formulated in the rhetoric of mainstream politicians and newspapers, then amplified, replicated and mutated (becoming ever more dangerous) through social media.

It's just one day. An opportunity for neighbours (some of who may not know each other) to get together, and for kids to play outside on their street in safety. How much inconvenience is it really causing? You may have to slow your car a little to navigate through a street closure? It seems there are some people who just want kids inside / out the way and are obsessed with the 'right' of cars to dominate almost all of our public spaces at all times (which they already do). This is the mildest possible attempt to try and rebalance street use towards people, and to spread a bit of community spirit for maybe a few hours on a single day of the year.

Here was the report which was released in 22 - an assessment of the changes made to the scheme in response to feedback and some concerns (including I believe, concerns around buses). It showed traffic down and bus journey times improved https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/117775/Executive-Summary-June-2022_1-1-.pdf The answer to this is that the data has always indicated a positive impact of the LTN overall.

Absolute nonsense. The data showed exactly what I said it showed. You can dispute the methodology (which you do for every and all attempts at researching the impacts of LTN schemes... they all broadly show them to be effective), but not the counts which were taken, as it's a matter of record. The data which was gathered showed average reductions in traffic across all monitored sites, conspiracy theories aside.

I've had the same experience in Ruskin. Easier to jump the fence there though

It's not about whether or not I wish to organise a street party (although we did help organise a regular 'play out day' on our street when our children were a bit younger). If others wish to do so, then good on them.

The responses! Heaven forbid that people should wish to have some fun, meet their neighbours and create a sense of community for one day. 🙄

It is not an ‘untruth’ to say the data showed a decrease in traffic across the wider area. Of course ‘the wider area’ means those roads that were monitored. That didn’t include underhill road, but did (from memory) include part of Lordship lane. I believe the data showed traffic decreased by 12% compared to before the scheme, across all count sites. The monitoring went on for many months so not sure whether this was the final position but it was certainly in that ball park. It is not the case that traffic ‘only’ fell within the boundaries of the LTN as claimed above. On the other point I have to concede… Queues of private vehicles actually speed up buses 😂

No. The data showed that traffic decreased on average, across the wider area. Both inside and outside the LTN. Do keep up. …and I’m sorry, but I cannot believe that anyone honestly believes that buses are not held up by private vehicles and the congestion that they cause. You can argue whether or not it’s an acceptable trade off, but not bus times are unaffected, it’s laughable.

This was right at the start of the launch of the scheme and was specific to Croxted Road. They made changes to the scheme accordingly to address it (literally years ago). There is no evidence that LTNs delay buses generally, and certainly not on Lordship Lane specifically. In fact the data suggests that traffic has decreased across the whole area as a result of the LTN (albeit marginally). If you think that buses don't get held up by private vehicles and parked cars then you can't be paying attention, or just don't want to see it. To maintain that LTNs are delaying buses, but that the hundreds of private vehicles (often single occupancy and making journeys of less than 2 km) have no impact, is literally deranged.

As an insufferable pedant, I would argue that the last 'piece' was more Camberwell then Peckham (although admittedly debatable).

I've seen people move them off the road in order to park their car... instead, leaving them blocking the pavement.

Easiest way to improve bus travel in ED would be to make the bus lanes along Lordship Lane 24/7. Second, remove the parking on Lordship Lane, to allow more room for buses to pass each other. These two simple changes would significantly improve journey times. The worst thing you could do is encourage more private vehicles.

Some might give the same weight to a random opinion, a survey undertaken by a polling company, and actual peer reviewed, academic research, yes.

I'm confused. Is it being argued that 300 votes in a constituency of 70K+ indicates a significant number of people in favour of replacing the square with a queue of idling traffic, or that it doesn't?

Over 70,000 in the constituency, so around 0.4%

Argh, that sucks. Some classic South London venues on that list. Hope they manage to successfully reinvent themselves.

Those views have been expressed and reflected upon (almost ad nauseum) for 4 years. There have been various consultations and a local election since then. Removing a popular pedestrian / seating area and a safe cycle route used by lot's of school children so that cars can sit in a queue, idling at the junction again, is an odd thing to put years of energy into.

No, that wouldn't be a poll. It would be an opinion, which is why it was proceeded by the words 'I suspect'.

Show me any polling data that shows the majority of Londoners are against LTNs and / or ULEZ.

All polling has shown the same thing - that LTNs have majority support. The same is true of ULEZ. Whilst there is a lot of noise from those in favour of car priority in all cases, there is no evidence that their views are widely held. In the local elections, across London those who implemented LTNs were overwhelmingly returned to office with even greater majorities. I strongly suspect that if Dulwich Square were ever torn up so that cars could queue there again, you would see a lot of people and businesses up in arms. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2023/07/13/latest-polling-shows-overwhelming-public-support-for-ltns/

Sunak ordered the DfT to undertake an official study of low-traffic neighbourhoods amid efforts to stop them being built / exploit a potential wedge issue / culture war. It concluded they are generally popular. Despite a very angry minority of people who will not accept even a modest attempt to address (almost total) car dominance of our public spaces, the majority welcome them. Likewise, polling shows that ULEZ has majority support in London. People want safer, quieter areas where one can linger and where (especially kids) can walk and cycle a bit more comfortably / safely. The Dulwich LTN has been in place around 4 years now. The Square is hugely popular and the shops around it are booming. The absolute obsession of those determined to rip it out so that their car can have priority in all cases, is almost pathological at this stage.

Not suggesting any incompetence. But reading the info, it suggests that the bunds are being put in place to hold water in the park: “capturing about 6 Olympic-sized swimming pools worth of surface water and releasing it very slowly”. …so I’m interested whether this will lead to the park being more regularly waterlogged. I would have thought that the responsibility for drainage / flood avoidance is a joint one with the private companies who run this infrastructure, alongside the local authority, but may be wrong. Again it would be interesting to know the answer.

Thanks Renata. Are these works likely to lead to the park being waterlogged more regularly? Also, are the sewerage and water companies picking up any of the cost?

I really hope this doesn't lead to parts of the park being permanently waterlogged, as it did when they undertook similar work in Dulwich park. This quote (below), doesn't fill me with confidence.... The cynic in me wonders whether this is a a case of an under investment in our infrastructure / drainage and sewage systems by private companies, externalising the costs of mitigation to councils (and to the detriment of our open spaces).