Artemis

Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Okay - I am going to modify my previous post as it > is perhaps obscuring my larger point which is: > > > I would like to see our environmental issues less > played by politics and more addressed with the > urgency they require in as apolitical a fashion as > can be. With respect, you are the one who brought up politics here. I do not see this as a party political issue and I think there are many differing political standpoints on both sides of the argument.

Jenijenjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hahahah ? I?m not going to discuss an imaginary > concept, real events are difficult enough to deal > with. I think if you?re going to label anyone who is feeling disappointed and let down that Southwark Council has failed to reflect the wishes of the majority as ?belligerent?, it would be nice if you had a try at imagining how we might be feeling. It?s the failure to see anyone else?s point of view that has turned this debate so toxic.

Jenijenjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Listening is not the same as having to accept the > respondents? views to remove all LTNs which, let?s > remember, formed a very small percentage of those > consulted within the area. > > Once again, the anti LTN belligerence and threats > of voting Labour out of office which is the aim > and sub text of this entire thread. Well, we?ll > see. Just one question to put this in context: if the outcome of the consultation had been different and stated that the majority of respondents had wanted the LTNs retained, and Southwark had ignored this and removed them, would you consider that constituents had been listened to?

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It isn't a win and this area has become a rather > unpleasant place to live, partly due to idling > traffic, but mainly because of the mud-slinging > and unpleasant language. Elderly people insulted > and Twitter accounts taking a moral high ground > while victimising local businesses. Agreed - it?s all very sad and seems to have brought out the very worst in people.

DulvilleRes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Artemis - the council, as a result of listening to > the consultation, is going to allow emergency > vehicles through Dulwich Square. > > I thought it was great that people were out > protesting, as other posters have pointed out, > that right is currently under threat. The time I > was there, it felt pretty well run, though I do > find the incessant graffiti on signs a bit > depressing. > > A few people have mentioned why weren't the > councilors not there, and whilst I can't speak for > them, I wouldn't blame them for not coming. Even > in the last couple of days I heard of one of them > being targeted at their home address by person/ > persons of anti LTN sentiment. Over the summer, > the Police have had to be involved with anti LTN > people getting targeted. Clearly, this might be > down to as little as one individual who has no > formal affiliation with the anti LTN groups, but > it is fair to say aspects of this local issue have > been surprisingly nasty. > > Listening to what I did of the speakers and > looking around the attendees, I was surprised how > relatively upmarket it all felt, and how the > demographic skewed over 50 - very few young people > there, and very few people from a BAME background. > It didn't really reflect the make up of the > borough as a whole. Given the demographic of > Dulwich, this is probably to be expected, but it > didn't feel like some kind of broad-based > egalitarian inspired uprising to me, as some of > the anti-LTN rhetoric suggests. A cynic driving by > who didn't know some of the complexities of the > issues might be forgiven for thinking 'The rich > folk of Dulwich want to keep driving their cars'. > > I'm hoping that the sensible adjustments the > council has proposed are implemented - emergency > vehicle access, Blue Badge holder access - and > have had time to bed in, the LTN's might be seen > as part of the radical shift we're all going to > have to make to address the climate crisis. Given > that the UK contributes only 1% of the global > carbon emissions, it does feel like a long hard > road ahead, but fair play to the Council for > trying to do something. It would be great if they > were given a chance. I rather wish the ?rich folk of Dulwich want to keep driving their cars? fallacy would die a death. I imagine there are some people for whom that is the case, but again we?re getting to the dangerous territory of assuming that everyone who doesn?t hold your own view is selfish and wrong. Different people have different reasons for their beliefs, and attempts to categorise everyone as either ?good? or ?bad? is just stoking division. As it happens, the only people I know who support the LTNs live in the roads that are blocked, and continue to drive large, expensive cars. But I?m not going to draw conclusions from that because I recognise that we are a large and diverse community and different people have different reasons for supporting or opposing the LTNs.

My understanding is that the London Ambulance Service has on many occasions asked over many months that the junction at Calton Avenue/Court Lane is opened to allow access for emergency services as it has caused many potentially life threatening delays and the Council has not addressed this to date (although I am pleased to see that their plan is to open it - when, remains to be seen).

Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do feel bad for all the people demonstrating - > change is hard. > > I've seen people who were initially super > irritated by the LTN's that have come round to > understand that they are working, that it will > take time to see more shift, that they are the > first step. That this is a long process. I have a > glimmer of hope we will not burn down this planet > from that and I do feel for anyone that finds > these changes hard. > > Metallic - I meant that there were no Marshalls > marshalling me thru. I am sure there were > Marshalls - just that they had zero involvement > with my journeys or ushering etc. But you felt strongly enough to come on here and act as though it were an irresponsibly unmarshalled event. I understand that LTNs are working for some, but you will have seen from the numbers there yesterday that others don?t. My own worry is that they don?t work for the most vulnerable - the elderly, their carers, emergency services and the disabled. And increased pollution on roads isn?t going to stop ?burning down this planet? - wider legislation on car ownership and MUCH better public transport would be more effective. You say ?change is hard?, but when there are no alternative options for the elderly and disabled, something isn?t working and needs to be addressed. Something that works for able bodied young people is fine, but isn?t catering to the less fortunate at the moment, in my view.

Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I cycled through. Both ways. The issue is that > this was a narrow area for two way traffic on > bikes. Turning from Village Way onto Calton was a > little tricky but do-able. If someone were cycling > the opposite way at the time I would have been > stuck in the middle of the roadway though. > Thankfully I was not. > > Edited to say there were no marshals that I saw on > my way thru. This was a one-off, marshalled event, with the police in attendance. The marshalls I saw were frequently asking people to keep cycle ways clear. It was a polite and good humoured event, and allowed people the right to freedom of speech. I am sorry that you were mildly inconvenienced, but I imagine that those living on roads which now have considerably increased traffic/pollution would not consider it as much of an inconvenience as they experience for many hours a day. Why not listen to what they are saying and try to understand why they might feel upset and let down?

Wouldn?t it be lovely if people thought ?other people are really upset here, let?s try and appreciate why rather than immediately attacking them?? And if the Councillors thought ?we have a horribly divided community, let?s do something to try and unite it?? I think a lot of us who don?t agree with the LTNs appreciate the intention behind them, but think for this particular area they aren?t working, as they are having a negative impact on a lot of people and businesses, but would be delighted if we could all work together to find a solution that allows active travel, reduces traffic and allows free passage to those who genuinely need to use cars. Why not put our energies into lobbying for better public transport or genuine school streets (on streets where there actually schools) rather than petty swipes, belittling and intimidation? Or am I incredibly idealistic and naive?

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > You are deliberately conflating One Dulwich's > > timed restrictions lobbying versus the only > > reasonable option they were presented by the > > council in their flawed review process. > > There was an option to select 'modify existing > measures' and a box to fill in suggestions for > modifications. But One Dulwich told their > supporters to select 'remove all measures' because > they're prepared to jeopardise the whole scheme > just to get what they want. But it?s what the majority of all those voting wanted, isn?t it? If the scheme isn?t working for most people, SHOULDN?T it be ?jeopardised?? Possibly they asked supporters to ask for measures to be removed because they were concerned that Southwark would manipulate the situation to say that there were so many different measures suggested that there was no majority vote so no alternative should apply. I cannot speak for One Dulwich or Dulwich Alliance, but I would guess that the plan was to have a rational, mature and considered discussion with Southwark and key stakeholders after the majority vote stated that all measures should be removed to decide what should be introduced that would work for the majority. Back in the day when they had the audacity to think that Southwark would actually listen to the majority.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Artemis - my point is that of the 2000 people > signed up to One Dulwich it is unlikely they are > all fully aware what One Dulwich actually want ie > timed restrictions with permits **for those living > in Dulwich Village**. > > It's not unreasonable to assume many of the 2000 > are people who would drive through the area and > are annoyed by the fines - do they realise that by > supporting the One Dulwich agenda they would still > get fined? > > Presumably @rockets supports the 'One Dulwich > alternative scheme' which the council have > rejected as dangerous and confusing and doesn't > mind that a large proportion of the 2000 > supporters are unwittingly signed up to still > being fined. My own concern is damage to the environment from increased pollution caused by idling traffic, excess miles driven because of road blocks, problems caused to the elderly and their carers and delays caused to emergency services. My own perspective is that I rarely drive anywhere so the fines are neither here nor there for me, and if (I say ?if?) fines reduce pollution, all well and good. To suggest that many people supporting One Dulwich are only concerned about fines is again making a broad assumption that people?s views are based on selfishness or financial concerns. I don?t think that?s a fair assumption. I can actually see the logic, however, of permits for those living in Dulwich Village - if your work or caring responsibilities require you to drive, it doesn?t seem environmentally friendly that you have to take a long detour to your house, simply because the Council has decided to block you in, or selfish to ask to be allowed to drive home. I?m not sure why @DulwichCentral finds that so mind bogglingly selfish. No more selfish than those living on LTN roads being happy that they have fewer cars driving by. I don?t live in Dulwich Village, for the record.

My understanding is as Rockets said, and that the One Dulwich response is as a result of the drafting of the consultation. I am not involved in the running of One Dulwich, so I cannot speak for them (although I support their aims). From my own perspective, I think the failure to introduce any timed restrictions at the Court Lane/Calton Avenue junction means that the issues that are causing suffering and problems are not going to be eased, so it does not seem a good compromise to me. It?s ironic that the junction was not nearly so problematic/dangerous until Southwark started making changes a decade or so ago, and that is now used as an argument as to why timed restrictions won?t work.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ab29 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > "They want restrictions *WITH PERMITS* for > > themselves." - eh?? > > > > I live on Lordship Lane, a very noisy and very > > polluted road. I have to put up with increased > > traffic, air pollution and noise because people > on > > Calton Ave are too posh to put up with five > > vehicles passing down their precious road, > having > > several cars and amazon deliveries daily! > > > Yes One Dulwich people who live on some of the > wealthiest quietest streets in Dulwich Village > want timed restrictions with permits for > themselves - unbelievable isn't it! So selfish. > > Not sure where you get your 5 vehicles a day > figure from. Before the measures there was > gridlock from one end to the other up to five > hours a day on Calton Avenue, Townley Road, > Dulwich Village, and Court lane - for YEARS. Angry > drivers overtaking at speed and pulling out onto > Townley road on the wrong side of the road. > Thousands of schoolchildren using this route. > > Oh and the One Dulwich alternative scheme they > submitted to the council has been deemed dangerous > and confusing to drivers which would incur even > MORE fines! Ask them if they care about that? There are 2000+ members of One Dulwich, so I think it is mildly disingenuous to suggest that ALL of them want one thing. Most have presumably joined because they are fed up with the gridlock, pollution, bus delays and emergency service diversions. Many of those who live on the wealthiest, quietest streets already have restrictions on their roads?. It seems really unhelpful to get into this ?these people all believe A/these people all believe B? - I wouldn?t presume to understand why all those pro-LTN and all those anti-LTN hold the beliefs they do, or what they want. It?s not simple, and to suggest that it is (like the prevalent: ?Pro-LTN = pro active travel/Anti-LTN = wants to be able to drive everywhere? fallacy) could stoke division where my view is that we should be working to find common ground rather than suggesting that anyone who doesn?t hold your view must be selfish and wrong.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'Disgusting' is the word. To close a junction and > pretend it is some sort of Italian piazza, waste > money on 'performances' on the said junction, > being clearly told by constituents it is wrong and > yet showing the same constituents a middle finger > and continuing...Southwark Labour councillors have > clearly departed from real world. Told not only by constituents, but by the London Ambulance Service. Reckless and shameful. > > How can they criticise Tories after something like > this?

Would it not make more sense to look at the reasons why cars/vans/etc are on the road and trying to work collaboratively to address which journeys could be cut out or made by alternative means (by that I mean government, local councils, London Transport, business and individuals working together) rather than talking about ?sharing pollution out?? Just shifting the problem around and bringing in diversions and bottle necks is not looking at the fundamentals of why people are on the road. Assumptions are being made which do not seem to be made on any real analysis. The cycling lobby seem to be making assumptions that people are all making short journeys in cars when they just need a nudge to get on their bikes - that isn?t borne out by what we?re seeing (any increases in cycle journeys may seem significant in percentage numbers, but in actual numbers are still tiny as a percentage of the population). They are not concentrating on other reasons why the road may be being used (eg online deliveries, Uber). Would fewer people drive if the money being used for cycle ways and LTNs were instead put into public transport? Perhaps.

What the LTNs do not address is the massive (and ever increasing) number of online deliveries. Are we surprised that roads are clogged when several billion parcels are despatched every year? When the expectation is that you can order your groceries, clothing, household goods etc. and they will turn up at your front door the next day, traffic is not going away. I would hazard to guess that a significantly high proportion of traffic clogging the roads is made up of delivery drivers, rather than local drivers doing short journeys (which seems to be the assumption of many people). And that traffic is not going to ?evaporate? - it is irrelevant to the consumer sitting at home whether the delivery driver has sat in traffic for three hours or not -they just have an expectation that their consumer goods will arrive. The narrative ?you need to get out of your car and walk/cycle and we won?t have a problem? is failing to address one of the most significant reasons for increasing traffic, in my view.

I do feel Southwark Council should run a training session for councillors and advise them on how to communicate with their constituents. Imagine the council were a retailer and their management spoke to their customers as some of the councillors do. They would go out of business. I cannot comprehend how anyone who has chosen to enter public office could even conceive of openly insulting, belittling and attacking the very people who they are supposed to represent. I find it startling inappropriate. What about trying to win people round to their opinions through decency and courtesy while respecting the opposite views, and rising above any criticism they receive rather than resorting to childish bickering.

It would be interesting to know on what data the new businesses have based their forecasts, and who provided that data. The fact that the opening of the new businesses is as a result of other businesses either failing or choosing to relocate could speak more than forecasts of businesses who have not yet experienced current conditions. Time will no doubt tell. northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Its true that if the LTNs threatened businesses > then consideration should be given to what could > be done. Its not clear though that the effects > quoted are actually as a result of the LTN (a > bunch of people against LTNs saying' its affected > my business, definitely not the pandemic isn't the > same thing as showing demonstrable reduction in > trade). Also suspect that the wording has been > carefully crafted to date - where some businesses > like dry cleaners will be down lots, others less > so. > > Final point is that despite it being so apparently > dreadful for businesses we are in a position were > 3 businesses are opening up - one of them directly > onto Dulwich Square. I'm going to assume that > they did their due diligence before opening and > considered that the location would be good - which > does make the claims that LTNs are death to the > high street difficult to reconcile. Whilst its > clear that new businesses often get rent > reductions / rent free periods, I'm also assuming > that they've forcasted on a future rent paying > basis. > > > > Bicknell Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > but councilors should care if local shops say > > duwlich ltns are threatening thier business? > > shouldnt they? > > if not why not?

slarti b2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Exdulwicher. > A couple of days ago you objected to the > description of the measures at Dulwich > Village/Calton Ave Junction as "Road Closures". > You complained this is misleading and they are in > fact "permeable filters". > > Well I took some photos and, as you can see, it > looks like Southwark seem to think they are indeed > road closures (most of these signs have been there > over a year). > > Personally, unless you are a cycling activist or a > traffic engineer, I think the phrase permeable > filters is much more misleading. During the OHS > consultation last year several of my neighbours > thought it meant that residensts could drive > through, especially in the context of the > residents permits the council was proposing at the > time. > > I think the description "cycle only access" would > be much clearer, what do you think? If you?re an ambulance driver trying to get to someone having a stroke or a heart attack, I think you?d be justified in describing the Dulwich Village/Calton Avenue Junction as a road closure. Although a cyclist probably wouldn?t.

geh Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > trains to London Bridge halved > trains to Crystal Palace, stopped entirely > what is going on, I have seen nothing from either > councillors or MP on these cuts. > guess we are just supposed to suck it up Agreed. How are any attempts to encourage people to move away from driving going to work if the councils/government/TFL do not work together? Reducing public transport options at the same time as shutting roads is extraordinary. Is NO consideration being taken for those who aren?t able to cycle or walk to where they need to go?

But surely Rockets? point is that the ?door-to-door stuff? only happened AFTER the consultation was meant to have ended?

I imagine the westernmost point is Croxted Road as the report was commissioned by Southwark, and the area to the west of Croxted Road is in Lambeth. The current consultation is concentrated on the area covered in the map (as Southwark has no influence/power over Lambeth), so these figures seem relevant to the current discussion.

Aren?t 68% of short journeys in the area already by cycle or foot? Or have I got my data wrong?

LTN BooHoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Artemis Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > LTN BooHoo Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > heartblock Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > No...LTNBoo, I said we were not invited to > a > > > > private zoom meeting, with the council, > > which > > > was > > > > only sent to a gated community so they > could > > > help > > > > Southwark with future changes. Please don?t > > > twist > > > > my words. > > > > > > > > It does seem that people on this forum who > do > > > not > > > > like us on roads that have seen an increase > > in > > > > pollution and traffic due to LTNs > > (independent > > > > pollution monitoring and Southwark?s own > > > released > > > > data), highlighting these facts and asking > > for > > > > something to be done about it, cannot help > > > > themselves with twisting what we write and > > say, > > > to > > > > fit their agenda of maintaining their > > > privileged > > > > lifestyle. > > > > > > > > I only hope if that I lived in a 2 million > > 5-6 > > > > bedroom house in a gated community, I would > > be > > > a > > > > bit more thoughtful about a family, with a > > > young > > > > child in a one bedroom 3rd floor flat with > no > > > > garden who does not own a car and has to > walk > > > with > > > > her child along a polluted and traffic > bound > > > road > > > > every school morning. > > > > > > > > Maybe a house swap for a month...and let?s > > see > > > how > > > > the ?important people ? in the gated roads > > > > feel.... > > > > > > When was this meeting you are referring to? > > > > > > You discuss a ?gated community? but this is > > > exactly what One Dulwich is pushing for. They > > > advocate for a resident exemption permit > system > > > that would allow residents to drive freely in > > and > > > out of their neighbourhood past your home. > If > > > they can?t have permits they want to remove > all > > > restrictions and go back to what we had. How > > does > > > that help you? How will this help the > > generations > > > that follow? > > > > > > And I am being thoughtful about those who are > > less > > > privileged. As I said it is wealthy people > who > > own > > > and drive cars so limiting their ability to > > freely > > > drive their heavy, oversized SUVs is a good > > place > > > to start. Walk around Dulwich there are > plenty > > of > > > homes with multiple cars in the drive with ? > > Clean > > > Air for All? posters up. I am asking ?clean > > air > > > for who? and ?clean air how?? > > > > > > And as an end note - the majority of LTNs in > > > Southwark are in less privileged areas. > > > > Picking up on your ?end note?, Burbage Road, > Court > > Lane Gardens and Dulwich Village are three of > the > > five most ?expensive? roads in Southwark > > (according to Zoopla figures in 2020) and come > > within the LTNs. This is the East Dulwich > Forum, > > not the Southwark forum. We are questioning > > whether the LTNs are equitable in this > particular > > area. > > The meeting you are referring to was with the > chairs if residents associations. I have spoken to > our chair and have been told that 2 people from > Croxted were there. Not sure about other boundary > roads as not everyone noted the road they were > representing. Write to Councillor Williams for > clarification instead of guessing. > > It is sad that the main point of restraining those > with cars from driving is being missed. It is > really simple; those with cars drive through > poorer areas. They have big, heavy polluting often > high performance cars. Not difficult to > understand. > > I?m going out now to buy a Porsche might as well > join the club. And most of the people complaining on this forum are not drivers of Porsches. I live neither on a displacement road or an LTN. I rarely drive. I have no vested, personal interest in this. I just don?t like the fact that Dulwich has become a divided, smelly, traffic clogged area unless you have won the golden ticket and live on an LTN (and even if you do, you?re in jeopardy if you need an ambulance and the ambulance has a longer journey because of road closures). EVERYONE?S main point is that there are too many cars. The anti-LTNers point is that the LTNs don?t seem to be doing enough to restrain them. They?re not missing the point at all. From my perspective it is sad that the LTNers seem so entrenched in a position that the LTNs are how to achieve the goal of reducing traffic. Wider policy at a governmental level is what is needed to reduce travel, in my view.

LTN BooHoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > No...LTNBoo, I said we were not invited to a > > private zoom meeting, with the council, which > was > > only sent to a gated community so they could > help > > Southwark with future changes. Please don?t > twist > > my words. > > > > It does seem that people on this forum who do > not > > like us on roads that have seen an increase in > > pollution and traffic due to LTNs (independent > > pollution monitoring and Southwark?s own > released > > data), highlighting these facts and asking for > > something to be done about it, cannot help > > themselves with twisting what we write and say, > to > > fit their agenda of maintaining their > privileged > > lifestyle. > > > > I only hope if that I lived in a 2 million 5-6 > > bedroom house in a gated community, I would be > a > > bit more thoughtful about a family, with a > young > > child in a one bedroom 3rd floor flat with no > > garden who does not own a car and has to walk > with > > her child along a polluted and traffic bound > road > > every school morning. > > > > Maybe a house swap for a month...and let?s see > how > > the ?important people ? in the gated roads > > feel.... > > When was this meeting you are referring to? > > You discuss a ?gated community? but this is > exactly what One Dulwich is pushing for. They > advocate for a resident exemption permit system > that would allow residents to drive freely in and > out of their neighbourhood past your home. If > they can?t have permits they want to remove all > restrictions and go back to what we had. How does > that help you? How will this help the generations > that follow? > > And I am being thoughtful about those who are less > privileged. As I said it is wealthy people who own > and drive cars so limiting their ability to freely > drive their heavy, oversized SUVs is a good place > to start. Walk around Dulwich there are plenty of > homes with multiple cars in the drive with ? Clean > Air for All? posters up. I am asking ?clean air > for who? and ?clean air how?? > > And as an end note - the majority of LTNs in > Southwark are in less privileged areas. Picking up on your ?end note?, Burbage Road, Court Lane Gardens and Dulwich Village are three of the five most ?expensive? roads in Southwark (according to Zoopla figures in 2020) and come within the LTNs. This is the East Dulwich Forum, not the Southwark forum. We are questioning whether the LTNs are equitable in this particular area.