LTN Discussion

[northernmonkey]

Ok- hadn?t realised how deep the misunderstanding was.

There are no ?dulwich alliance candidates?.

There are only Conservative candidates standing for the Conservative party locally.

This isn?t ?socialist pro LTN?, rather an attempt to correct the frankly horrifying level of misinformation / misunderstanding.

350m for the NHS anyone?

Bic Basher Wrote:

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

> There was someone else on Twitter who is clearly a

> socialist who was plugging the Dulwich Alliance

> candidates are Tories mantra as well today.

>

> This seems to be the tactics used by either anon

> Labour activists or members of the pro-LTN groups

> who are suggesting that they're Tories in an

> attempt to put off voters who aren't in any way

> Conservative from voting against Labour.

>

> Why would two supposed Tory members put themselves

> up for election and then reduce the Tory

> candidates chances of winning by splitting the

> anti-LTN vote? If anything, it may do Labour a

> favour by using the core Labour vote with the

> pro-LTN lobby.

[Jenijenjen]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> Ok- hadn?t realised how deep the misunderstanding

> was.

>

> There are no ?dulwich alliance candidates?.

>

> There are only Conservative candidates standing

> for the Conservative party locally.

>

> This isn?t ?socialist pro LTN?, rather an attempt

> to correct the frankly horrifying level of

> misinformation / misunderstanding.

>

> 350m for the NHS anyone?

>

>

>

>

> Bic Basher Wrote:

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

> -----

> > There was someone else on Twitter who is clearly

> a

> > socialist who was plugging the Dulwich Alliance

> > candidates are Tories mantra as well today.

> >

> > This seems to be the tactics used by either

> anon

> > Labour activists or members of the pro-LTN

> groups

> > who are suggesting that they're Tories in an

> > attempt to put off voters who aren't in any way

> > Conservative from voting against Labour.

> >

> > Why would two supposed Tory members put

> themselves

> > up for election and then reduce the Tory

> > candidates chances of winning by splitting the

> > anti-LTN vote? If anything, it may do Labour

> a

> > favour by using the core Labour vote with the

> > pro-LTN lobby.

Confusion may have arisen because one of the Tory candidates, Clive Rates, was a founder of Dulwich Alliance. Rockets made an interesting observation on 13th January:

?On the Tory candidates it is interesting, but not surprising, they are running on an anti-LTN agenda. One Dulwich has stated from the beginning that they were not politically motivated and I always wondered why Dulwich Alliance came to fruition and I wonder whether Clive wanted to launch a political career.?

Never thought I?d agree with Rockets but it appears a miracle has happened.

[Penguin68]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Update on Wood Vale traffic calming measures

>

> https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryH

> ome.aspx?IId=50026426

This is an extraordinary document, not least in its failure to note at the start that not only are there two Southwark wards effected, but that the East Side of Wood Vale is in Lewisham.

[march46]

Dulwich Alliance isn?t a separate group though, it?s an ?alliance? of One Dulwich with a few other groups. So the claim that One Dulwich was ever not politically motivated is dubious.

[legalalien]

It?s an alliance involving One Dulwich and various residents associations and traders groups - if anything I would have thought that would be likely to make it less party political rather than more? That?s assuming One Dulwich itself has some sort of political affiliation. It might or might not?

march46 Wrote:

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

> Dulwich Alliance isn?t a separate group though,

> it?s an ?alliance? of One Dulwich with a few other

> groups. So the claim that One Dulwich was ever not

> politically motivated is dubious.

[Rockets]

March - by the same judge then are you accusing the Dulwich Ballet School, Dulwich Village Association and Grafton Dance Centre as being politically motivated - they are also some of the members of the Dulwich Alliance?

At the end of the day it doesn't matter whether any pro- or anti-LTN group has particular political leanings (most have been clear from the outset that they are a-political) - what matters is whether people vote for the candidates at the council elections.

People seem to be very focussed on trying to paint anti-LTN groups as Tory-funded lobby groups (they have been trying to deposition them from the outset on a wide range of issues not just politics) and it probably shows just how worried some are.

I think, what is clear, is that the noise around Clive Rates running as a candidate and his links to the anti-LTN lobby via the Dulwich Alliance, is clearly worrying a few incumbents and their supporters - he will probably be delighted about the lengths some are going to try to undermine him.

Local issues will always direct votes in local council elections and whilst many will use their vote to stick it to the Tories to send a message at the national level there are many who will probably want to do the same to Labour in Southwark at the local level - then the issue becomes who are people more annoyed with.

[legalalien]

??.the issue becomes who are people more annoyed with?.

True, but a sad indictment of the state of politics.

[northernmonkey]

Ah Rockets- your incessant attempts to twist continue.

Not trying to ?undermine? Clive Rates.

Just pointing out (many times apparently as the misunderstandings are coming fast and thick) that he is a Conservative party candidate standing on a Conservative ticket for the Conservatives.

[heartblock]

Local elections are always a bit more fluid than national - and local councillors a little more variable.

Many of us on the left find it difficult to tell the difference between let's say a Labour MP like Wes Streeting and a Tory MP lets say Tobias Elwood. Seeing that a Conservative MP can merrily join the Labour MPs and have the whip given to him, makes it harder to actually see the difference these days.

LTNs are not a party political issue - although they are a Tory policy, they are a health and clean air issue. So yes, although there isn't an anti-LTN of any shade standing in my ward - if they did I would vote for them in this local election.

Nationals...depends on policy I'll wait and see what the LP say before they earn my vote.

[Rockets]

Northern - incessant attempts to twist..tee hee........I refer you to the preceding posts within the thread...to point out it is others who are trying to twist the narrative.

He is indeed a Conservative party candidate standing on a Conservative ticket for the Conservatives....but that's not what's upsetting people is it - it's because he is standing on an anti-LTN ticket and that, despite his Conservative'ism, makes him a big threat? If he becomes the only candidate running on an anti-LTN ticket then that makes him an even bigger threat to the Labour incumbents. The Lib Dems' next move will be very interesting - do they put the opportunity to grab seats ahead of policy towards LTNs?

There is no escaping the fact that every candidate will need to address LTNs in the battle for the local votes and, come May, I very much suspect a lot of people will be eagerly awaiting the opportunity to put an X in a box next to the name of someone other than the incumbents.

[Penguin68]

We do need to distinguish between those who are anti-LTN as a matter of principle and those who believe that (1) the specific LTN actions in ED have been very sub-optimal - in terms at least of reducing pollution in areas where the most vulnerable are based and/ or (2) that the council's high handed approach, ignoring and belittling local opinion has been inappropriate. Subscribing to either/ both (1) and (2) opinions might be sufficient to vote against incumbent councillors in the upcoming elections without placing you in a 'anti-LTN come what may' box.

The good news is that respondents to these threads (and pro-LTN activists) who do not live in the wards concerned will not have a vote in these elections. Neither of course will the antis who are not local residents.

[Earl Aelfheah]

As long as those who want the removal of LTNs are clear that it will lead to a reduction in the number of people walking and cycling and an increase in car use across the area. At least that is what all the evidence suggests.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I suspect that future generations won't judge us for having done too much in trying to discourage car use, but rather for having done far, far too little.

[CPR Dave]

I don't think future generations will judge anyone on the LTNs in East Dulwich either way. Its a microscopically small project that negatively impacts a miniscule number of people and positively benefits even fewer people.

No one outside the people living here, now will care about this issue or comment on it at all in ten years time.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Of course, you're right about an individual micro scheme. But I do think they'll question why we did so little to discourage car use generally.

I certainly don't think that looking back, anyone would think that decisions which involve opening up side roads to through traffic, discouraging walking and cycling and encouraging car use, would have been a good call.

[Rockets]

Or maybe Rahx3 they will question why our supposed leaders led us down the LTN garden path. Maybe history will show us it was complete folly that made things worse rather than better and did nothing to deliver against its stated objectives and was only installed because of political pressure exerted by pro-cycle lobby groups.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Or maybe Rahx3 they will question why our supposed

> leaders led us down the LTN garden path. Maybe

> history will show us it was complete folly that

> made things worse rather than better and did

> nothing to deliver against its stated objectives

> and was only installed because of political

> pressure exerted by pro-cycle lobby groups.

They have delivered against their objectives. They've increased active travel and they've reduced car use and for that matter, road accidents. There is no evidence that they have made 'things' worse.

[Earl Aelfheah]

opening up side roads to through traffic would lead to a reduction in the number of people walking and cycling and an increase in car use. All the evidence shows it.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Or maybe Rahx3 they will question why our

> supposed

> > leaders led us down the LTN garden path. Maybe

> > history will show us it was complete folly that

> > made things worse rather than better and did

> > nothing to deliver against its stated

> objectives

> > and was only installed because of political

> > pressure exerted by pro-cycle lobby groups.

>

> They have delivered against their objectives.

> They've increased active travel and they've

> reduced car use and for that matter, road

> accidents. There is no evidence that they have

> made 'things' worse.

....depends who you talk to.....

P.S. your "success" claims should always come with the *"according to the council's own data" disclaimer.....

[CPR Dave]

"I do think they'll question why we did so little to discourage car use generally."

I disagree with that too.

In about 15 years from now cars will be fully automated and electric. The internal combustion engine will be a museum piece. There will be very little pollution and no road traffic accidents whatsoever.

And in the future beyond that people will use personal aviation machines which will no doubt still irritate all the penny farthing fetishists.

But you can't hold back progress. It's innate and essential to our survival.

[Waseley]

Rather nieve to say that politics has nothing to do with this. When the coalition came in it was known that technology had failed to reduce emissions of nitrogen dioxide. Similarly whilst particulate emissions had reduced with the adoption of particulate filters other sources, including wood burners, were becoming more dominant. The coalition could have picked up on Labour's proposals for a national framework of Low Emission Zones but preferred to kick this into the long grass and put the emphasis on local authorities whilst providing little leadership. As the process in Brussels takes forever this bought much time until the suprise loss in the Supreme Court.

Go out to the outer boroughs where car is still king and you will see a dearth of 20 mph zones and cycle lanes. Those with longer memories will recall the outer boroughs quashing GLA's fare's fair cheap London public transport fares.

Of course it is not simply Loony lefties vs prudent Tories and there are many in the public sector passionate about addressing air quality and climate change

[exdulwicher]

In about 15 years from now cars will be fully automated and electric. The internal combustion engine will be a museum piece. There will be very little pollution and no road traffic accidents whatsoever.

And in the future beyond that people will use personal aviation machines which will no doubt still irritate all the penny farthing fetishists.

Fully automated cars have been "10-15 years away" for about 35 years now. They're still "10-15 years away". Yes, you've got cars that have a high degree of automation built in and test cars have done full laps of race circuits but there's currently nothing close to full automation in an urban environment for consumer use.

It's another way of kicking the can down the road, the idea that we don't need to do anything now because in x years time everything will be perfect, solved for us by the power of technology. Which I said back on Page 7...

[Bic Basher]

The latest from Dulwich Streetscape.

streetspace

16:53 (21 minutes ago)

to streetspace

Dear resident

Last year we worked with the Dulwich community and our stakeholders, listening to suggestions on how we can improve the experimental Dulwich Streetspace measures to ensure they work better for the whole community. Whilst opinions varied on the changes, the process was comprehensive. Thank you for your contribution to that process.

Why are we making these changes?

? Make our roads safer for all residents and visitors.

? Make walking and cycling an enjoyable, safe and easy way of getting around,

? Clean up our air, reducing pollution and noise levels, and creating a greener and healthier environment for everyone.

? Help tackle the climate emergency, reducing the carbon emissions from vehicles in Southwark, as they are one of the biggest contributors to emissions locally.

? Reduce the amount of cut-through traffic so all feel safer on local roads, as well as reducing parking pressure for local residents.

? Encourage people to shop local, so our local high streets flourish

On 23 December 2021, having given additional time to extend the statutory process to ensure all representations could be received, including the calls to remove the scheme, the process to approve was completed. The council made a balanced decision, based on data and the positive changes that have resulted from the experimental measures. We also made sure that all necessary consents and interim orders were all in place to maintain the safety of the road network throughout December and January to take us up to the point the permanent orders come into effect in February.

The report is available on our website.

Map of the final measures

We acknowledge that more needs to be done to ensure the changes benefit the entire community. However, the monitoring data so far shows that the measures are having a positive effect in reducing car traffic and encouraging active travel. We will continue to work with the community, monitor all principle and boundary roads and consider any needed changes as this data becomes available. We need to allow time for the new changes to settle down and review its impact.

When will the measures be implemented?

The measures will come into effect at 00.01 on Thursday 17 February 2022, once all the necessary road signs, posts and other related highway works are in place. This is during most local schools? half term so we can minimise disruption.

The changes and improvements

Timed Restrictions: Hours of timed restrictions reduced from 5 hours to 2.5 hours (8.00 to 9.00am and 3.00pm to 4.30pm)

Better Signage

Additional advance notification signs along the main roads e.g. Dulwich Common, Lordship Lane, Croxted Road.

Improved Access for Emergency Services

Replacement cameras mean there is new access for emergency vehicles to and from Calton Avenue, Dulwich Village, Court Lane and Derwent Grove

Enhanced Monitoring:

We have now introduced continuous monitoring, 24/7, on the following roads:

? Burbage Road

? Townley Road

? Dulwich Village

? East Dulwich Grove central (near Tessa Jowell Health Centre )- since September 2021

The traffic raw data is now loaded onto our map based GIS system

Exemptions

Exemptions will be available for all Southwark Blue Badge Holders at all bus gates before 17 February. If anyone would like to request a Blue Badge you can read more about them on our website. We are also supporting anyone requiring Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) transport services.

Information on exemption requirements and how to apply.

Analysing data from October and November 2021.

We are currently analysing data from the end of last year. Initial analysis of the data from continuous monitoring on the main roads indicates the key trends are:

Generally traffic on the main roads is lower than before the pandemic and falling e.g. traffic volume along Croxted road is falling

Net month-on-month comparison shows traffic is falling on most main roads

Cycling levels are still higher than pre-scheme level

Consistently high pedestrian footfall at the Calton Avenue area (active travel monitors in mid-December 2022 also showed on average over 8,000 pedestrians per day used the area)

We will publish an update on traffic trends on our website in March.

Next steps?

Implement the changes from 00.01 on Thursday 17 February 2022

Share data from the monitoring, looking at impact of changes (spring)

Engage with specific protected groups e.g. disabled, elderly, BAME, also bus users (spring 2022)

Continue engagement with the community, businesses and schools

Work with TfL and Lambeth who are making changes to signals around the Herne Hill area to improve traffic flow in the wider road network (ongoing with changes currently proposed for late March 2022)

Explore measures with TfL to improve bus journey times in the area (ongoing)

Explore measures to improve traffic conditions along East Dulwich Grove (ongoing)

Next newsletters will be in February and March

[Earl Aelfheah]

Do you remember when those in favour of opening side roads up to through traffic also claimed to be deeply committed to increasing active travel but claimed that LTNs would have no impact on numbers walking and cycling?

[Earl Aelfheah]

... or when they claimed they shared the objective of reducing local car trips and reducing road accidents?