Jump to content

Recommended Posts

alice Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes if they were based around school streets it

> would be fairer and more logical. Short closures

> work well for schools.



Agree... A far more rational and pragmatic solution to the problem....but does anyone know if Southwark Cyclists or the LCC support such a plan?

A further comment regarding the percentage of those who responded to the consultation. This is from the Council report:


?A consultation newsletter was posted to 19,729 postal addresses in May. We also notified 3,339 people by direct email, after they had registered in the previous phase. 576 paper surveys were posted to people who had requested them.

We received 7,542 responses to the survey. Of these 209 were voided as being duplicates (people providing more than one response). Of the remaining 7,333, some 5,538 identified themselves as living or working on streets within the consultation zone.?


a) The consultation newsletter was sent to 19,729 addresses. Clearly many of these will have multiple occupiers so the number of residents it reached will be much higher.


b) The consultation was for local residents and 5,538 identified as living or working on streets within the consultation zone. It would have been only these responses which were included in the consultation results.


These two factors bring down the response rate far below the 37% which a previous poster has quoted. I?m quite prepared to accept this figure but I should like to know how it was arrived at.

a) The consultation newsletter was sent to 19,729 addresses. Clearly many of these will have multiple occupiers so the number of residents it reached will be much higher.


Whilst you cannot 'know', it does seem possible at least that some responses may have been made on a 'household consensus' rather than just an individual basis, at least at times (ours was) - so a single response may represent more than one resident.


b) The consultation was for local residents and 5,538 identified as living or working on streets within the consultation zone. It would have been only these responses which were included in the consultation results.


Is this stated anywhere? They say that 209 were voided as being duplicates - but do they say that the ones from those not living or working in the area were voided?


You assumption that the %age response was less than 37% is based on responses only being on a wholly individual basis and that the ones from outside the area were actually excluded. Both of these are I think assumptions but not necessarily facts.

So why did Southwark consult? Surely to understand what residents wanted...also Southwark actively encouraged cycling lobby groups and non-residents to respond....why?

It's all very well dismissing the results because it doesn't fit into your need to keep your LTN on your road, but it isn't about having a quiet road at the expense of increased pollution, due to idling displaced traffic on many other roads.

Just assuming stuff, to make an very 'individualistic' argument feel better is just that, trying to make one's standpoint feel better.

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So why did Southwark consult? Surely to understand

> what residents wanted...also Southwark actively

> encouraged cycling lobby groups and non-residents

> to respond....why?

> It's all very well dismissing the results because

> it doesn't fit into your need to keep your LTN on

> your road, but it isn't about having a quiet road

> at the expense of increased pollution, due to

> idling displaced traffic on many other roads.

> Just assuming stuff, to make an very

> 'individualistic' argument feel better is just

> that, trying to make one's standpoint feel better.



They consulted to seek opinions on modification to the scheme. It was not a referendum.


The policy of restricting road space to cars was initiated by the government, it's the job of the government to make hard and unpopular decisions for the long term benefit of society and the planet ... although todays budget which continues the 12 year freeze on fuel duty and cuts APD wouldn't seem to indicate that.


If you disagree, then vote for a party with an anti-LTN policy in the next general and local elections.

I think it?s a feasible position to hold that you are not anti-LTN if specific LTNs work and reduce pollution/improve air quality. But perhaps the one in Dulwich isn?t fulfilling that aim. There seems to be a very simplistic argument going on - you are either pro-LTN or anti-LTN as a general principle. However each needs to be looked at in the context of the particular configuration, the local public transport options, the local/specific displacement of traffic etc., surely? I would be pro-LTN if I thought they fulfilled their objective. In Dulwich, I don?t think they work. But that doesn?t mean I don?t think they are in principle a bad thing - they might work if they are better thought out, consider local pinch points/transport options/variables (such as schools with large catchment areas). On Twitter, people who have clearly never been to Dulwich are wading in and saying that LTNs are inevitably a good thing. But if they haven?t been properly thought out and cause more pain than benefit, maybe they aren?t working in that particular area. To have a ?pro-LTN/anti-LTN? stance should surely be decided on a case by case/area by area basis? They aren?t inevitably a good thing or a bad thing in my view - it?s where they are and the nuances of a particular area and the particular restrictions implemented that make the difference.

I'm not anti any policy that reduces traffic, pollution and noise.


Unfortunately the LTNs 'designed' in Dulwich and East Dulwich do not reduce pollution, but do increase traffic and pollution on already polluted roads that have schools and high density residency.


They only appear to make a few non-school roads with huge houses, with huge gardens and multiple car ownership quiet enclaves for the fit and wealthy (as the less mobile and disabled residents feel kettled in the LTNs) and to help increase the value of houses already worth millions.


When I voted Labour I expected so called Socialists to bring in policies that reduce pollution, increase the local PTAL, help the poorest, help those with reduce mobility, sadly they have had the wool pulled over their eyes by a Tory Government and have been made fools of.

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not anti any policy that reduces traffic,

> pollution and noise.

>

> Unfortunately the LTNs 'designed' in Dulwich and

> East Dulwich do not reduce pollution, but do

> increase traffic and pollution on already polluted

> roads that have schools and high density

> residency.

>

> They only appear to make a few non-school roads

> with huge houses, with huge gardens and multiple

> car ownership quiet enclaves for the fit and

> wealthy (as the less mobile and disabled residents

> feel kettled in the LTNs) and to help increase the

> value of houses already worth millions.

>

> When I voted Labour I expected so called

> Socialists to bring in policies that reduce

> pollution, increase the local PTAL, help the

> poorest, help those with reduce mobility, sadly

> they have had the wool pulled over their eyes by a

> Tory Government and have been made fools of.


COMPLETELY agree!

YY I agree with Artemis. I'm not anti LTN in principle, but I do think they can only work if they are properly /well designed (and that this inevitably requires local input, an engagement process that is not broken, and actual, local data rather than reliance on generalised studies). And also that the process/ speed of change needs to bring people along with it.
Agreed - they were brought in hastily (though a fair-minded person can place that in context) and were therefore not well thought through. Part-time restrictions coupled with other measures (such as pressuring schools to do much more to get staff and - more problematic - kids' parents to not drive there) would be more welcome.
I agree completely - I believe the measures on Melbourne Grove (for example) make sense but they don't at the DV junction and it is the DV junction that is causing the problems across Dulwich and the council stedfastedly refuses to acknowledge that fact.

That junction used to have a reasonable free flow of traffic as did ED Grove.


Southwark redesigned the ED Grove Townley rd junction and the Court-Calton - Village junction at a huge cost and messed up both so badly that they became dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists and increased idling traffic.


Both junctions are dreadful examples of town planning, so I think the solution Southwark came up with was to just close these junctions either 24\7 or timed to try and hide the incompetence of failed design and didn?t even think of the consequences of displaced traffic on residential and school roads. It shows a supreme lack of thinking, planning and understanding of traffic flow.


My natural belief in Socialism as a way to make a fairer society and my support of the Labour Party is truly tested and in the local elections I will not be voting for any Councillor that supports these ridiculous pollution creating LTNs.

That junction used to have a reasonable free flow of traffic as did ED Grove.


Southwark redesigned the ED Grove Townley rd junction and the Court-Calton - Village junction at a huge cost and messed up both so badly that they became dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists and increased idling traffic.


Both junctions are dreadful examples of town planning, so I think the solution Southwark came up with was to just close these junctions either 24\7 or timed to try and hide the incompetence of failed design and didn?t even think of the consequences of displaced traffic on residential and school roads. It shows a supreme lack of thinking, planning and understanding of traffic flow.


My natural belief in Socialism as a way to make a fairer society and my support of the Labour Party is truly tested and in the local elections I will not be voting for any Councillor that supports these ridiculous pollution creating LTNs.

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That junction used to have a reasonable free flow

> of traffic as did ED Grove.

>

> Southwark redesigned the ED Grove Townley rd

> junction and the Court-Calton - Village junction

> at a huge cost and messed up both so badly that

> they became dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists

> and increased idling traffic.

>

> Both junctions are dreadful examples of town

> planning, so I think the solution Southwark came

> up with was to just close these junctions either

> 24\7 or timed to try and hide the incompetence of

> failed design and didn?t even think of the

> consequences of displaced traffic on residential

> and school roads. It shows a supreme lack of

> thinking, planning and understanding of traffic

> flow.

>

> My natural belief in Socialism as a way to make a

> fairer society and my support of the Labour Party

> is truly tested and in the local elections I will

> not be voting for any Councillor that supports

> these ridiculous pollution creating LTNs.


Totally agree.

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That junction used to have a reasonable free flow

> of traffic as did ED Grove.

>

> Southwark redesigned the ED Grove Townley rd

> junction and the Court-Calton - Village junction

> at a huge cost and messed up both so badly that

> they became dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists

> and increased idling traffic.

>

> Both junctions are dreadful examples of town

> planning, so I think the solution Southwark came

> up with was to just close these junctions either

> 24\7 or timed to try and hide the incompetence of

> failed design and didn?t even think of the

> consequences of displaced traffic on residential

> and school roads. It shows a supreme lack of

> thinking, planning and understanding of traffic

> flow.

>

> My natural belief in Socialism as a way to make a

> fairer society and my support of the Labour Party

> is truly tested and in the local elections I will

> not be voting for any Councillor that supports

> these ridiculous pollution creating LTNs.


Totally agree.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • What was he doing on the stage at Glastonbury? Or on the stage at the other concert in Finsbury Park? Grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst pissed and stoned 20 somethings on the promise of free internet sung-- Oh Jeremy Corbyn---  What were his policies for Northern mining towns with no jobs or infrastructure? Free Internet and university places for youngsters. What were his other manifesto pledges? Why all the ambiguity over Brexit?  I didn't like Thatcher, Blair or May or Tony but I respected them as politicians because they stood by what they believed in. I respect all politicians across the board that stick to their principles. Corbyn didn't and its why he got  annihilated at the polls. A socialist, anti imperialist and anti capitalist that said he voted for an imperialist and pro capitalist cabal. He refused to say how he'd vote over and over again until the last knockings. He did so to appease the Islington elite and middle class students he was courting. The same people that were screaming that Brexit was racist. At the same time the EU were holding black and Asian immigrants in refugee camps overseas but not a word on that! Corbyn created and courted a student union protest movement that screamed at and shouted down anyone not on the left . They claimed Starmer and the centre right of labour were tories. He didn't get elected  because he, his movement and policies were unelectable, twice. He turned out not to have the convictions of his politics and died on his own sword.    Reform won't win an election. All the idiots that voted for them to keep out Labour actually enabled Labour. They'll be back voting tory next time.    Farage wouldn't be able to make his millions if he was in power. He's a very devious shyster but I very much doubt he'd actually want the responsibility that governance requires.
    • The purge of hard left members that were part of Corbyn's, Mcdonnel's and Lansmans momentum that purged the party of right wing and centrist members. That's politics. It's what Blair did to win, its what Starmer had to do to win. This country doesn't vote in extreme left or right governments. That's partly why Corbyn lost  We're pretty much a centrist bunch.  It doesn't make it false either. It's an opinion based on the voting patterns, demography and statistics. Can you explain then why former mining constituencies that despise the tories voted for them or abstained rather than vote for Corbyns Labour?  What is the truth then? But he never got elected!!! Why? He should have been binned off there and then. Why he was allowed to hang about is an outrage. I hold him party responsible for the shit show that we've had to endure since. 
    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...