kissthisguy

CPR Dave Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James Barber also listened when a consultation > proved that closing Melbourne Grove would be > disastrous and took it no further. Interesting. If James Barber ran again I think he'd get in. So for those disappointed in Labour, tactical voting would suggest LDs in Goose Green and Conservatives in DV.

I'm really sorry to hear about your situation. It sounds very stressful, especially given the prospect of little negotiation with your neighbours. No one wants to live their life wearing earplugs but sleep is so important that perhaps that plus a white noise generator (there are phone apps for this) might help.

@legalalien I cling to optimism! Let's say *most* people's views evolve; the bell-shaped curve and all that. Of course there are outliers at either end. And yes, trust will be key. Labour has squandered it in the most egregious way. I can't be doing with LibDem flim-flam on this issue and agree with @Goldilocks' characterisation of them (at least what I've seen of the candidates in DV); James Barber was at least competent and pretty dedicated).

Goldilocks seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. As far as I understand it, Mr Rates was chair of a residents association (Dulwich Village, College Road, Woodyard Lane) as such he presumably had a mandate from those residents to represent their view (this may or may not be his view). He co-founded the DA which formed its own position on the closures (again this is a group of people, not an individual). He is now a Conservative candidate and presumably they have taken a view as to what they consider to be the best solution (for what frankly is a mess) in Dulwich and are standing on that platform. I don't quite see the issue here. Are you saying that he should now be presenting the views and interests of his previous residents association as Conservative party policy? *Of course* people's views evolve - given the externalities, new info, practical reality and so on. A less conspiratorially-minded view is that, having seen how the council behaves and the paltry modifications that were made, and the harm that continues to be caused, the only logical conclusion is to say rip it out and start again!

I've always voted for the candidates over party locally. If they seem decent, honest, eager to do stuff like point out potholes and represent their constituents they've got my vote. It helps if they're a known quantity in the community but appreciate that not everyone can afford to live in GG or DV. Labour have lost my vote this time round. Shocking behaviour.

.

The thing about accusations about concern trolling is that it's impossible to prove. What I'd like to see (and I think is more materially relevant) is declarations of vehicle ownership (number of vehicles, size, type) by those campaigning for LTNs. There should be declarations from policymakers too.

There will be pain in every solution. What's important is the pain is not put on the shoulders of those least able to bear it. That, surely, is a principle we can all agree on. As others have pointed out, you can't hope to disincentivise car use without improving alternatives. So public transport has to be front and centre. Not just improving provision and frequency but prioritising it. So clearway bus priority, for example.* Parking needs to be grappled with. It's nuts that a cycle hangar space costs more than an electric car that sits on the road, for example (?80 vs ?35!). We need better alternative hire. The Santander map shows a big hole in our bit of south London. Car clubs need more space etc etc. There isn't a single silver bullet but all of the above in combination would be more effective and equitable than LTNs, which increase journey miles and emissions (so bad for climate change), do little to bring down car ownership and use (in fact LTNs make car ownership more attractive) and in Dulwich have given the richest an enhanced environment while degrading the environment for those that are worse off. And schoolchildren. *Provocative idea: if we *really* wanted to tackle this issue we would have made main roads bus and cycle only. Public transport would thrive, be the most efficient way of travel, and cycling would feel much safer on the most direct routes...

Rockets: Really?! If @Dan-the-man is right about the left holding sway, no wonder she changed it. On a more serious note that's quite a rough and tumble game - requires resilience. Agree with you that the Philip Normal tweets were appalling. I suspect it's Occam's Razor re the DA: it came to fruition to fight the closures rather than being a roundabout way of an individual starting a career. But who knows.

Ok so James McAsh's tweet earlier today does speak to a deep factional rift. But it sounds as if (from his complaint about unequal treatment of Ben Wiedel-Kaufmann and Philip Normal) Lambeth is a moderate controlled council? But in southwark it's Momentum / left controlled? Or at least that's who'll be on the ballot paper in the elecitons this year?

@dan-the-man really interesting picture you paint of the local political dynamics. I'm amazed that the hard to hardish left has such influence still. I'd just assumed that it would be on the wane post-Corbyn. You say selections are happening, so do you know if Labour are going with James, Charlie, Victoria, Margy and Richard and just haven't announced it yet? If Richard is a moderate how can he squeeze through? I think you're right about Margy being left leaning - her twitter bio says she is a Socialist-environmentalist

very true @clintmcjam. A friend had secondary glazing put in last year and barely needs to heat the upstairs now. It's not the most attractive solution, but it's made a big difference.

Thanks for starting this thread. Wonder how appropriate they from a noise perspective for Victorian terraces? Are our back gardens all going to be humming in a few years?

Unbelievable. Authoritarian and lacking in confidence - it's not the thing you do when you've won the argument!

On the election, of course there are the two most obvious (but smallest?) camps: pro (who generally experience a direct benefit - though to @Rockets earlier point a few pages back, there are those who benefit who are against) and antis (generally those who experience harm or object on fairness grounds) but for me there's a big grey middle who are neither beneficiaries nor the harmed. So far so normal, you may say, BUT this is Dulwich and there was a consultation, and people here expect to be listened to and not be taken for mugs, as it were. So yes I agree for many it will come down not to political parties but how people feel they've been treated (by cllrs, in the consultation) and so on. It has all the markings of an emotional choice election. The standard political allegiances may be suspended for once.

I find myself in half or whole agreement with this latest flurry. Traffic displacement occurs in every LTN scheme, as, in fairness, even Simon Munk of the London Cycling Campaign has admitted! The extent to which this happens, and the extent of the attendant harms (which given LTNs offload pollution from one road to another, is guaranteed in some form) will differ from one LTN to another. There will be various influential factors affecting displacement, one of the most significant of which is public transport availability. Private car ownership is also key, as is the availability of private hire Santander cycles, escooters or car clubs. Then there's topology and social geographical factors such as vulnerable population distribution which will impact on ethicacy or fairness of schemes. So, for example, if you were just looking at southwark, you might say, ok, up by City hall there's outstanding public transport, low private car ownership, great cycle hire, a big vulnerable population in the from of a hospital but unlike King's it doesn't still on a four-lane road, and(relatively) few primary schools. Seems like a good candidate. But when you look at Dulwich it's really hard for it to succeed because the underlying setup is all wrong: poor public transport, very high car ownership, no Santander hire and one of the biggest school populations in South London (which all sit on one of the obvious displacement routes!). The school population is also tricky because private school catchments are large and given the poor public transport, that population generates traffic (and being wealthy has the means to do so). Just look at termtime versus holiday time, a world of difference in traffic. So I suppose where I land is that LTNs in the way they've been done (the single blunt instrument of road closures) are quite harmful in general. Some more than others.

thank you @exdulwicher!

For clarification this was in reply to northernmonkey's post about the DA announcement. Still getting the hang of this.. kissthisguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a gauntlet, and from their perspective, a > reasonable one, given the circs. Making snarky > debating points doesn't acknowledge the > substantive: significant community rejection of > what is, to all but the most ardent, a > poorly-designed set of hastily-implemented, > unconsulted schemes. It'll be interesting to see > what promises, fudges, etc are proposed by all > three parties!

Understood - thanks for the clarification. We agree that flow and congestion data both need to be gathered in order to fully understand impacts. (I'd also add there needs to be a quite granular understanding of the communities expected to take displaced traffic, and which communities are given the benefit, but that's a matter for another day!) exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are you arguing that congestion doesn't need to be > monitored or part of the data presentation to > residents? Troubling if so. > > At what point did I say anything about "congestion > doesn't need to be monitored"?! > > In fact I said quite the opposite - monitoring > traffic patterns is an essential part of the > statutory consultation. Please don't try and twist > my words. If you'd like clarification on anything, > just ask. Where I know the answer, I'm happy to > help; where I don't know, I'll say.

It's a gauntlet, and from their perspective, a reasonable one, given the circs. Making snarky debating points doesn't acknowledge the substantive: significant community rejection of what is, to all but the most ardent, a poorly-designed set of hastily-implemented, unconsulted schemes. It'll be interesting to see what promises, fudges, etc are proposed by all three parties!

Check out Calton Ave and Court Lane, and compare with Croxted / Grove Vale for house price movements. It's all in the public domain. KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DulvilleRes Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Is there any evidence, as some posters have > > claimed, that LTN's are having a beneficial > effect > > on house prices within LTN's? I've seen > nothing. > > If there is no evidence, it does feel a > > saddeningly divisive claim to make. > > I could confidently claim that a house on a busy > street that becomes effectively a private street > will become more desirable. To believe otherwise, > in London, is folly. > Why would anyone need evidence for that - it?s > obvious !

To take one example, the pattern for Croxted has been clear. It's one where flow is down (which cllrs have brazenly and either cynically or ignorantly cited as a win) but congestion is up. That is evidenced by TFL raising alarms over the significant delay of the number three bus on that route, following the implemtation of LTNs. I quite understand that ATCs aren't a single snapshot of a point in time (and have never suggested otherwise) but understanding congestion as well is vitally important. Both Southwark and Lambeth have access to a useful data point in this regard, through Waze for Cities. Are you arguing that congestion doesn't need to be monitored or part of the data presentation to residents? Troubling if so. exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But you see my point - if the council is only > releasing ATC data it tells you nothing about > congestion? Which is the important piece in terms > of harm. > > Well it does because you don't just take one > snapshot. Traffic counts are averaged over times > (time of day / day of week / week of year etc) to > get the bigger picture. If you find an hour where > the traffic count off one roadside tube sensor is > obviously out of whack, you can look at the wider > picture - was there some sort of blockage nearby > creating an unusual flow, had someone parked with > the wheels on the tube? Compare it with other > days, look at other sensors nearby, check the > sensor for any malfunctions or damage, align it > with pollution monitoring etc. > You don't just go "hey look, it only counted 10 > cars that hour, publish that quick!" > > That is also part of the reason why you can't > demand data immediately; it takes time to gather > it, verify it, analyse it and present it in a > meaningful way. You're looking at medium-term > traffic patterns, not an individual hour where it > may have been free-flowing or congested.

But you see my point - if the council is only releasing ATC data it tells you nothing about congestion? Which is the important piece in terms of harm.

Thought this was interesting - it's about illegal e-scooters as opposed to ones in the trial schemes, but still quite hair-raising stats for collisions. https://newsfromcrystalpalace.wordpress.com/2022/01/07/illegal-use-of-e-scooters-putting-londoners-at-risk-of-significant-harm-says-labours-gla-crime-spokesman-258-collisions-in-first-six-months-of-last-year-more-than-3600-seized-in-11-months/

I'll see if it's available - can you do the same for congestion on Grove Vale pls? Ta