LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Rockets]

When you see if all listed out like that it is really astonishing - so many broken promises and holes in the council's analysis and granularity of the data that they have based their assumptions on.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

It's striking that while castigating the council for being slow in releasing the raw data, OneDulwich is happy to make assertions and speculation that are unsupported by data. For example, in that post there, it suggests traffic inside and outside the LTN may have increased, that the "true" net effect of other schemes has been understated etc. Other "issues" it raises are easily explained e.g. Q: why do the consultation and travel data show different results? A: because the group of people who responded to the consultation (anyone with an Internet connection) aren't the same as group of people making real life journeys through Dulwich.

As a private pressure group accountable only to its funders, that is of course OneDulwich's prerogative. It's not a publicly funded body like a council.

Has OneDulwich published the origin of its funding or is that still in the dark?

[malumbu]

Instinctively I don't see many drivers would have come into the ULEZ zone then out again on a normal journey before the introduction of the charge, so I expect it is only longer journeys eg out to the M4 or M40 where you previously may have gone through town. There may be some parts of London where you can cut the odd corner off for a local journey which may be now affected. Those that want to avoid the Blackwall Tunnel due to ULEZ will have a very long drive round the 'outer ring road'. Wandsworth one way West has been as bad as it ever was even before ULEZ and I suspect that the roads to the West of this (Putney, Sheen, Mortlake and the like) have become more congested in recent years due to curbing rat running, 24/7 bus lanes and the like. I suspect most paying the charge are very occasional drivers - some 20 year old petrol cars are exempt if a cheap run around is needed.

This is purely a comment on the ULEZ so please don't turn it around about the LTN. I used to drive for work a few times a month in the 80s and 90s out to the M4, M40 and M1 and got to know pinch points fairly intimately. It was a blessing then when I had my car nicked so I used the train more, or occasional car hire.

[DulwichCentral]

@Dogkennelhillbilly wrote

It's striking that while castigating the council for being slow in releasing the raw data, OneDulwich is happy to make assertions and speculation that are unsupported by data.

This ^^^^^^^^^ x 100! Probably the most significant was One Dulwich's very own Air Quality measurements which weren't measured correctly.

RE ULEZ - why not support expanding it to M25?

[Hitmyhat]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> It's striking that while castigating the council

> for being slow in releasing the raw data,

> OneDulwich is happy to make assertions and

> speculation that are unsupported by data. For

> example, in that post there, it suggests traffic

> inside and outside the LTN may have increased,

> that the "true" net effect of other schemes has

> been understated etc. Other "issues" it raises are

> easily explained e.g. Q: why do the consultation

> and travel data show different results? A: because

> the group of people who responded to the

> consultation (anyone with an Internet connection)

> aren't the same as group of people making real

> life journeys through Dulwich.

>

> As a private pressure group accountable only to

> its funders, that is of course OneDulwich's

> prerogative. It's not a publicly funded body like

> a council.

>

> Has OneDulwich published the origin of its funding

> or is that still in the dark?

Really?!

Yes, you are right Southwark Council is a publicly funded body which makes it all the more egregious that the transparency Cllr Kieron Williams, the leader of the council, promised has not happened. The council has not explained its methodology or provided the promised raw data so what it has published remains ?assertions and speculation that are unsupported by data.?

[Rockets]

And let's be honest, the council hasn't been slow to release the data; they have missed their own deadlines for releasing said data. Why is it that they are so keen not to share the raw data and methodology....hmmmm one wonders?

To challenge OneDulwich that they are making assertations and speculations that are unsupported by data is blindingly hypocritical when the council steadfastly refuses to deliver the raw data or methodology they have promised to support their own assertations which means the council's own conclusions remain, at best, speculations.

We all know why they are afraid to share the raw data - because they know it doesn't back up their report conclusions. If they had confidence in the data they could have released the raw data and methodology at the same time as they published the report. And until such time as they do release both it remains a massive smoking gun - but as we know politicians tend to dig deeper when trying to dig themselves out of a hole and it doesn't take a genius to work out what is really going on here.

[heartblock]

Maybe Southwark Council should publish all the raw data and methodology? Then One Dulwich can analyse the data.

Why was there crowdfunding for pollution monitors - because Southwark were not monitoring pollution.

It's was nice to see children using the new sports facility 3 metres from East Dulwich Grove road - I wonder what the NOx and particulates are just at that point? It's not monitored by Southwark.

Of course, all those blah..blah..blahing on about Greenwashing HTNs don't actually care about pollution levels on school roads. We all know it's about nice quiet, leafy roads for the most wealthy in this area. It was always about house prices and keeping traffic off posh roads and never about pollution.

[DulwichCentral]

@Heartblock wrote: 'It was always about house prices and keeping traffic off posh roads and never about pollution.'

Traffic count data, photos, video - and lived experience - show that the filtered roads were dangerous gridlocked rat-runs for YEARS with 1000's of schoolchildren travelling along them in all directions to get to various schools in the area. To dispute this fact is delusional, and to relentlessly attempt to stoke up a non-existent class war is divisive, unnecessary and misleading.

Please try and stick to the facts.

[alice]

Woodward/Beauval/Dovercourt/Calton/Court etc were ?dangerously gridlocked.?

Just so much rubbish. Take your own advice and stick to ?facts?

[rupert james]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> @Heartblock wrote: 'It was always about house

> prices and keeping traffic off posh roads and

> never about pollution.'

>

> Traffic count data, photos, video - and lived

> experience - show that the filtered roads were

> dangerous gridlocked rat-runs for YEARS with

> 1000's of schoolchildren travelling along them in

> all directions to get to various schools in the

> area. To dispute this fact is delusional, and to

> relentlessly attempt to stoke up a non-existent

> class war is divisive, unnecessary and

> misleading.

>

> Please try and stick to the facts.

How long have you actually lived in the area?

[heartblock]

Calton Avenue and Court Lane gridlocked - no I don't think so.

Yes the traffic on a road was made slightly worse after the badly planned changes on the Court/Calton/Village lights years ago, so that junction did get a bit busy at rush-hour - but gridlocked.. I have been walking around this area for 35 years and I am very aware of the traffic on roads.

It is all about having quiet roads for some very wealthy people - I see that there is no commentary about how bad it is that children with developing lungs are playing sports 3 metres away from pollution and traffic or about the lack of pollution monitoring. Plenty about those poor people on Calton and Court and the awfulness of it all, thankfully they can escape in the Range Rover to the second home in the Lake District at the weekend.

[DuncanW]

Would be doing well to get up the Lake District and back for the weekend, I'd say

[Rockets]

DC I do think there is a case to press the council on why they selected DV to the be focal point of these closures. According to their own advice on the use of LTNs it is the worst place to site one so it does beg the question why they thought it was a good place for one. Do you have any ideas?

[DulwichCentral]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Calton Avenue and Court Lane gridlocked - no I

> don't think so.

Heartblock I have video of my youngest son walking alongside gridlock the entire length of Calton Avenue on his way to the village infants - he was 6 - I videoed it because it had already been going on for a while and was steadily getting worse. He is now a teenager. These levels of gridlock - hours am and pm - continued up until Lockdown - so that's about 6 years of worsening gridlock with enraged drivers frequently speeding along the wrong side of the road to get past it and pulling out at Townley road on the wrong side of the road. I have seen video of that and witnessed it myself. A serious accident waiting to happen.

The village junction was also gridlocked in all directions - from Calton, Court lane and Dulwich Village. Again there is plenty of footage online to show this, an entire neighbourhood witnessed it and council data to backs it up.

Denying this ever happened throws into doubt anything you might claim is happening now.

And it had F all to do with an imaginary class war.

[alice]

If the Entire Neighbourhood saw this how come 70% are against blocking roads?

[DulwichCentral]

a) the entire neighbourhood are not against the filters

b) not all those who opted to remove the measures even live in the area

c) some people don't care that this was the reality previously because they choose see this as a 'us' or 'them' dog eat dog imaginary class war when instead of being divisive they could support what the council have done and push for more.

[alice]

Your a) and b) are meaningless and therefore not disputed. (Except for the word ?even?. In answer to c) Your blocked roads are clear precisely because other local roads are not.

[DulvilleRes]

The class war aspect of this debate is particularly puzzling and unpleasant, as clearly it has no factual basis. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that people living within LTN's support them because it makes their lifestyle nicer or increases their house prices. The class war assertions also start to look distinctly wobbly when viewed through the lens of anti LTN placards in the gardens of ?2m plus houses on East Dulwich Grove, and ?1m plus houses on the South Circular. Endlessly repeating a false assertion doesn't magically make it true.

The LTN's are for everyone in the Borough to use and even enjoy, the vast bulk of which has lower income households than those around Dulwich, in or out of the LTNs. It has been very heartening to see people who have clearly travelled into Dulwich having a coffee outside one of the cafes or enjoying walking and cycling.

[ab29]

Reminder to OBJECT to the Dulwich Streetspace traffic orders - the deadline is 11th of November.

There is no option to object to the scheme as a whole - a separate email needs to be sent for each traffic order.

The orders (which can be found at www.southwark.gov.uk/trafficorders) are:

Dulwich Streetspace: Calton Avenue area (TMO2122-015_DS Calton Avenue area)

Dulwich Streetspace: Champion Hill (TMO2122-016_DS Champion Hill)

Dulwich Streetspace: East Dulwich area (TMO2122-017_DS East Dulwich area)

Dulwich Streetspace: Melbourne Grove south (TMO2122-018_DS Melbourne Grove south)

Dulwich Streetspace: Timed bus, cycle and taxi only routes (TMO2122-019_DS bus cycle taxi routes)

Please note that no. 3 covers Derwent Grove, Elsie Road, Grove Vale and Tintagel Crescent, and no. 5 covers Burbage Road, Dulwich Village, Townley Road and Turney Road.

- Send an email to [email protected], with the headline ?Dulwich Streetspace Statutory Consultation?

- Number your objections if there is more than one

- Give your name and address at the end

More at https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/last-chance-to-object

[Artemis]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> heartblock Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Calton Avenue and Court Lane gridlocked - no I

> > don't think so.

>

> Heartblock I have video of my youngest son walking

> alongside gridlock the entire length of Calton

> Avenue on his way to the village infants - he was

> 6 - I videoed it because it had already been going

> on for a while and was steadily getting worse. He

> is now a teenager. These levels of gridlock -

> hours am and pm - continued up until Lockdown - so

> that's about 6 years of worsening gridlock with

> enraged drivers frequently speeding along the

> wrong side of the road to get past it and pulling

> out at Townley road on the wrong side of the road.

> I have seen video of that and witnessed it myself.

> A serious accident waiting to happen.

>

> The village junction was also gridlocked in all

> directions - from Calton, Court lane and Dulwich

> Village. Again there is plenty of footage online

> to show this, an entire neighbourhood witnessed it

> and council data to backs it up.

>

> Denying this ever happened throws into doubt

> anything you might claim is happening now.

>

> And it had F all to do with an imaginary class

> war.

It was never a significant problem until Southwark start messing around with the junction. But even if it was a problem, why is it now OK to shift the problem to Croxted Road and East Dulwich Grove (which were polluted anyway)?

[malumbu]

ab29, as you will see not everyone is against LTNs, or at least the concept of traffic restrictions. Please don't make these assumptions in your call to arms.

Thanks DC, Dulville and others for the counter arguments. I know that there are pretty firm views but alternative views still need to be shared on a community discussion forum. I've strayed away from personal experience (beyond my own) but comments on Townley did strike an accord. I was cycling there before 9 a few days last week and was pretty gobsmacked at speeding motorists, and the one who overtook on the other side of traffic calming was 'special'. The irony as that we catch cars up like this at the lights and are ahead of them due to the advanced stop lines and advanced cyclist lights.

There is a bias of course in my reporting, but this doesn't do any favours for drivers calling for less restrictions. Follow the Highway Code, which includes equal priority for all road users not only cars, and the world would be a better place.

[legalalien]

I agree with this point re the class war to the extent it is simplified to ?rich people within LTNs? vs ?poor people outside LTNs?. As mentioned before there are plenty of well off people living within the closed roads who are vehemently against them - and no, not because they are inconvenienced drivers.

I attended the Gilkes Crescent residents association AGM last week and there were a significant number of attendees who were very unhappy and raised their concerns about the EDG and Croxted situations with Cllr Newens (yes, she was there, even though apparently our ward Cllrs can?t manage to hold ward meetings, unlike other wards in the borough).

Her perspective as I understood it is that council data is correct, there is a traffic reduction and cycling increase and things are working, while there is a problem on Croxted road we need to understand that half of the road is in Lambeth and that things Lambeth are doing are partly responsible, much is to do with the pinch point under the railway bridge at HH and it?s a pity Lambeth aren?t engaging with her/ Southwark councillors/ Helen Hayes and TfL as much as they would like (a bit weird as it you read Twitter, Croxted residents suggest it?s the other way around - who knows?). She didn?t seem to think there was a problem on EDG despite people expressing views to the contrary.

My impression was that this is very much an ideological thing / buy in to a principle (without regard to local evidence) rather than a case of Labour sleaze / councillors supporting their friends to increase their house prices. Of course I don?t for a minute rule out individual residents supporting measures that improve their houses/ house prices without regard to the bigger picture.

DulvilleRes Wrote:

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

> The class war aspect of this debate is

> particularly puzzling and unpleasant, as clearly

> it has no factual basis. I have seen no evidence

> whatsoever that people living within LTN's support

> them because it makes their lifestyle nicer or

> increases their house prices. The class war

> assertions also start to look distinctly wobbly

> when viewed through the lens of anti LTN placards

> in the gardens of ?2m plus houses on East Dulwich

> Grove, and ?1m plus houses on the South Circular.

> Endlessly repeating a false assertion doesn't

> magically make it true.

>

> The LTN's are for everyone in the Borough to use

> and even enjoy, the vast bulk of which has lower

> income households than those around Dulwich, in or

> out of the LTNs. It has been very heartening to

> see people who have clearly travelled into Dulwich

> having a coffee outside one of the cafes or

> enjoying walking and cycling.

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> a) the entire neighbourhood are not against the

> filters

>

> b) not all those who opted to remove the measures

> even live in the area

>

> c) some people don't care that this was the

> reality previously because they choose see this as

> a 'us' or 'them' dog eat dog imaginary class war

> when instead of being divisive they could support

> what the council have done and push for more.

But DC, the majority of residents who responded to the council's mechanism to determine the views of constituents towards the closures said remove them (68% in fact). Unless you have some other survey that shows a perspective that differs from that I am sure it is safe to say that the majority of residents don't want the measures.

You may just have to accept that you are in the minority on this. And I know it was awful that your son had to walk down a congested Calton but that doesn't make it right that someone else has now has to endure that in even higher levels so you can walk down Calton with many fewer cars on it. Surely you can agree that robbing Peter to pay Paul does not solve the underlying issue? To be fair, I know you were trying to make a point but I can't help but sense a bit of NIMBYISM in your message.

I think the bottom-line is that there is a have and have not element to all of this - there are those who have to live with pollution because some people are not having to live with it anymore and what annoys a lot of residents across the whole of Dulwich is that many of those not having to live with it anymore refuse to acknowledge that things have got worse for many, many more people so they can live in a car-free nirvana. And the next step on from that is a natural one where people say those living in the most affluent part of what is an affluent area are benefitting most at the expense of those who do not and seem to be turning a blind eye to the problems created for everyone else.

That is not a class war that is the very definition of all the negative things associated with class.

[legalalien]

The reason I cannot agree with this is the incredibly patronising ?I can imagine... sentence?. Basically ?you old people think the way you do because of the values I?ve attributed to your generation and not for the reasons you are actually giving.? Don?t you think?

malumbu Wrote:

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

> Hats off Dulville for your articulate post. Why

> cannot others agree in principle in this even if

> you disagree with the approach to closing roads.

> As Greta says there is a lot of blah blah blah

> from both politicians, but also the masses about

> climate change. Not suggesting that this thread

> is full of blah blah blah of course.....

>

>

> " Ultimately I see the LTN's* as part of a raft of

> measures that, if as a community we are serious

> about climate change, are coming down the track to

> change our relationship with the motorcar. When

> people drive less, it will follow there will be

> less traffic on any road. I can imagine for many

> people growing up in a generation where the

> private car was a powerful means of freedom and

> independence, and indeed a symbol of success,

> learning to adapt to measures that prevent them

> driving at will is going to be hard. But the world

> is changing fast."

>

> * insert a less emotive term such as 'local

> restrictions' - which we have had imposed on us

> certainly since I have lived in London

>

> (edited for typos)

[heartblock]

A road was busy at times - it is now not busy at any time because that roads traffic is now added to another roads traffic which was busy at times - and people on the closed road are very happy with that situation and will keep saying that traffic will evaporate and the other road is fine, it isn't more polluted and hasn't got more idling traffic for a longer time each day because they don't want their road to be busy at times ever again and they don't want the LTN removed.

I do understand - if I lived on Calton I might feel the same, unfortunately I can't afford a 2 million pound house on Calton and could only afford a flat on ED Grove at the time. Many flats on ED Grove and schools and nurseries and health centres. Margy and lovers of the LTNs can say what they want - traffic is worse on ED Grove and everyone knows this - but to admit this will admit that LTNs have failed the test that Councillor McAsh said was important - that other residents should not be subjected to more pollution as a result of LTNs and they are.