LTN Discussion

[Bic Basher]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> Just read that Uber has been granted a new two and

> a half years licence to operate in London.

>

> Thinking about how to safely share streets, it has

> been muted that ride hailing apps like Uber have

> contributed to reduced bus usage and more journeys

> being made by car.

>

> Wouldn't it have been an ideal opportunity to add

> a clause into the high level Uber licence limiting

> the number of individual private hire licences

> associated with them and also substantially

> reducing the overall number of private hire

> licences across London as a whole?

>

> Whilst it's a bigger issue than Dulwich or

> Southwark, it could be something that our

> councillors should be championing.

There are other factors to why bus usage is down. The pandemic is an obvious one, but bus passenger usage has been creeping up on weekdays and is back to near-normal at weekends when they're used mainly for leisure use.

The reduction of the road speed to 20mph has been another factor in why bus travel has declined, it's led to buses either crawling between bus stops, stuck in traffic due to extra traffic caused by the LTNs on boundary roads or being held at bus stops, which doesn't make it a viable option outside of local trips or if you're really poor and can't afford to use railway services.

I agree that the private hire vehicles are an issue, but they earn TfL revenue which is something they don't have a lot of at the moment. You'll find also that the PHV industry has been pro-active in ensuring vehicles are either hybrid or EV.

[heartblock]

Anneliese Dodds, Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, and Chair of the Labour Party concerned that LTNs will cause problems on arterial road bus routes, so writes to halt LTN implementation until bus routes and Government cuts to bus routes reversed and then LTNs reconsidered. Also concerned about residents opposition and cost of removing failed LTNs. It also seems that some Oxford City Labour Councillors are far more in touch with the people in their area that rely on public transport, unlike Southwark Labour Councillors.

Although Labour generally getting its knickers in a right twist over LTNs as some oppose on the grounds of social injustice and some support .... although Lord knows why.

Maybe for the same reason 13 Lambeth Councillors live in LTNs and 3 live in roads about to be made into LTNs....my question is how many Labour Councillors in Southwark live in an LTN?

[Bic Basher]

Dodds is "soft left" rather than being a Corbynite, so there will be some who'll think she's sold out, but it's good to see at least one member of Labour who has taken a pragmatic look at the issues surrounding LTNs.

[goldilocks]

I'm sad that the Labour councils have implemented Tory policy but imagine that voting Tory would 'shake the arrogance of the incumbents' is a pretty odd take.

Why not vote Lib Dem in the village - its a) not the Tories, b) they also want the LTNs removing and c) would be able to form part of the Lib Dem contingent on the council rather than being the 2 sole Tories in the whole borough.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> I imagine locally voting Tory in the Village and

> LibDem in ED/Goose Green is the best way to shake

> the arrogance of the incumbent Council, but it

> still makes me sad that the Labour Party I

> supported for over 50 years has implemented Tory

> Central policy.

[kissthisguy]

The flaw in this argument is that the LDs have sat through the LTN mess in Dulwich and done precious little in the one area where they might have had an effect: scrutiny. So the idea they're going to suddenly spring into decisive action now is laughable. They also seem in disarray as to whether they support LTNs or not. So really it's a straight up fight, on the LTN issue, in DV, between Lab and Cons. Re GG James Barber, if he runs, will prove a strong challenger, if only from the POV of maturity, experience and being good at responding to residents.

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> I?d imagine looking at the candidates overall,

> that if you?re against the LTNs it?s down to a

> straight choice between the Tories and the Lib

> Dems. The Tories would be the only ones on the

> council whereas the Lib Dems have more potential

> to influence together with the likely other Lib

> Dem cllrs from Borough and Bankside.

[first mate]

James Barber historically a prime mover re CPZ, double yellow lines everywhere. Also, I think, at one point on Southwark Cyclists committee. Not sure I would trust him on LTNs. He has been very quiet on the subject.

[goldilocks]

But for the village ward - which is where the Tories are standing, its not James is it - its Raghav and Richard and they couldn't have been clearer on LTNs.

This idea that its Conservative or Labour is laughable - Lib Dems have been serious contenders in the Village at the last election too, and their main feature here is that they've not chosen to stand as Tories. Voting in Tories because you claim to believe that perceived inequality is wrong is frankly laughable. Its like the voters of Hartlepool saying 'well we have food banks now, we didn't have them when Labour were in power' as though its a positive.

[kissthisguy]

Goldilocks you've been such a doughty supporter of LTNs I'm surprised you're not voting Labour and urging everyone else to do so too! Isn't this flurry of LD fandom because you think the Conservatives are going to win?! I think they will too, btw.

PS LDs came 3rd in 2018 (cause: unambiguous policy on Brexit), 4th (!) in 2014.

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> I'm sad that the Labour councils have implemented

> Tory policy but imagine that voting Tory would

> 'shake the arrogance of the incumbents' is a

> pretty odd take.

>

> Why not vote Lib Dem in the village - its a) not

> the Tories, b) they also want the LTNs removing

> and c) would be able to form part of the Lib Dem

> contingent on the council rather than being the 2

> sole Tories in the whole borough.

>

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I imagine locally voting Tory in the Village

> and

> > LibDem in ED/Goose Green is the best way to

> shake

> > the arrogance of the incumbent Council, but it

> > still makes me sad that the Labour Party I

> > supported for over 50 years has implemented

> Tory

> > Central policy.

[goldilocks]

Oh - I'm not voting for either of them - just surprised that there seems to be a narrative on here of 'it has to be the Tories'.

If you do feel the need to vote against the LTNs that's one thing, but not sure it's a jump straight to endorsing the Conservatives. Also , if a 'vote them out' website which to all intents and purposes is a Tory website can only find 'solicitor / runner' as the best thing to say about one of them, its hardly a ringing endorsement is it!

[first mate]

My preference would be for some very strong independents. But, it is likely they would be isolated and given a rough ride. But the hope would be that an independent might have a genuine interest in grass roots local issues. Some current councillors seem too interested in careers at national level.

I am not a natural tory or even LD voter but the behaviour of the Labour council has been so appalling that something must be done to break their stranglehold.

[kissthisguy]

You're not alone in this @firstmate

first mate Wrote:

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

> I am not a natural tory or even LD voter but the

> behaviour of the Labour council has been so

> appalling that something must be done to break

> their stranglehold.

[goldilocks]

DO you think that having 2 Tories in a borough of Labour would 'do something to break the stranglehold' - having to form alliances rather than having Lib Dems who could join their natural grouping of Lib Dems on the council?

[kissthisguy]

There's no point having two useless people adding to the uselessness that exists.

Your argument would hold water if the LDs had a strong track record on this issue. They don't. Their manifesto *doesn't even mention* LTNs.

https://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/plan_for_southwark

Goldilocks you say Raghav and Richard have been clear on LTNs. Look at this on the LD website: https://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/dulwich_village_candidates

Anyone with memories of the LD tuition fee pledge will rightly be cautious about a party that says one thing in the ward and another on the website and elsewhere in the borough.

[CPR Dave]

Actually, some new councillors from any different party would be able to have an impact on the LTNs immediately because they would have access to every bit of information that has been collected and be able to open the kimono on what has been going on.

That might rock the boat quite considerably.

(It might not too but I, for one, and no doubt many others, have lost all confidence in the labour councillors and the employees of southwark council responsible for our LTNs).

[kissthisguy]

Good point. Whoever wins, the prize for residents and businesses is accountability and proper scrutiny.

CPR Dave Wrote:

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

> Actually, some new councillors from any different

> party would be able to have an impact on the LTNs

> immediately because they would have access to

> every bit of information that has been collected

> and be able to open the kimono on what has been

> going on.

>

> That might rock the boat quite considerably.

>

> (It might not too but I, for one, and no doubt

> many others, have lost all confidence in the

> labour councillors and the employees of southwark

> council responsible for our LTNs).

[kissthisguy]

Though it should be noted the LDs had a chance at scrutiny, and "calling in" the decision on the Dulwich streetspace scheme, and fumbled it.

kissthisguy Wrote:

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

> Good point. Whoever wins, the prize for residents

> and businesses is accountability and proper

> scrutiny.

>

>

> CPR Dave Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Actually, some new councillors from any

> different

> > party would be able to have an impact on the

> LTNs

> > immediately because they would have access to

> > every bit of information that has been

> collected

> > and be able to open the kimono on what has been

> > going on.

> >

> > That might rock the boat quite considerably.

> >

> > (It might not too but I, for one, and no doubt

> > many others, have lost all confidence in the

> > labour councillors and the employees of

> southwark

> > council responsible for our LTNs).

[Bic Basher]

kissthisguy Wrote:

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

> Though it should be noted the LDs had a chance at

> scrutiny, and "calling in" the decision on the

> Dulwich streetspace scheme, and fumbled it.

>

> kissthisguy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Good point. Whoever wins, the prize for

> residents

> > and businesses is accountability and proper

> > scrutiny.

> >

> >

> > CPR Dave Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Actually, some new councillors from any

> > different

> > > party would be able to have an impact on the

> > LTNs

> > > immediately because they would have access to

> > > every bit of information that has been

> > collected

> > > and be able to open the kimono on what has

> been

> > > going on.

> > >

> > > That might rock the boat quite considerably.

> > >

> > > (It might not too but I, for one, and no

> doubt

> > > many others, have lost all confidence in the

> > > labour councillors and the employees of

> > southwark

> > > council responsible for our LTNs).

Hold on, didn't the Lib Dems attempt to do that and were blocked by the current Labour administration?

[DuncanW]

From the Southwark Lib Dems website:

"By trade Raghav is an Entrepreneur & an Executive Life Coach" - this is one of their candidates for DV

His LinkedIn profile has him leaving University and going straight into being a self-employed life coach. You might wonder who would feel the need to engage a life-coach who has no experience of life barring three years at Oxford Brookes. He has some testimonials on his website, but they mainly appear to be from people with no LinkedIn profile or online footprint. That's quite unusual for successful business folk. And as he doesn't ever seem to have registered a company or employed anyone, I do question the use of the word, entrepreneur...

This is out in the first round of The Apprentice stock, surely the LibDems could do better than that.

[legalalien]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> DO you think that having 2 Tories in a borough of

> Labour would 'do something to break the

> stranglehold' - having to form alliances rather

> than having Lib Dems who could join their natural

> grouping of Lib Dems on the council?

I?m in two minds about this. I get the ?larger group, more bodies on committees? thing, but also conscious that LDs would be subject to a LD whipping operation so that local councillors? ability to speak out for their own particular ward might be compromised more. It would be interesting to understand what degree of control conservative HQ has in practical terms over individual councillors in councils where they are in a tiny minority.

PS as a qualified solicitor who runs sometimes I think that?s absolutely a ringing endorsement!! 😆

[Waseley]

This thread has turned into a debate on who to vote for on local authority elections rather than discussing LTNs. I hope that candidates have interests beyond the LTN and ditto for voters. If they only have a single interest eg Charlton returning to the Valley or Martin Bell and the local hospital perhaps they should run as such.

[Metallic]

It?s correct that the Lib Dems did attempt to call in the Dulwich scheme in October 2021 - this is a link to the request and Southwark?s decision not to call it in https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s102409/Request%20for%20Scrutiny%20Call-in%20Dulwich%20Streetspace%20Review.pdf

As you can see, the attempt to call in was made on the grounds, firstly, of inadequate/ insufficient consultation. This was easily batted away by Southwark officers, as the Lib Dems must have known it would be. The second grounds were a little garbled but seem to imply that the Council had not gone far enough! Also easily batted away by officers.

What is striking is that in their 10 March 2022 ?position statement? on the Dulwich LTN, the Southwark Lib Dems cite longer car journeys, pollution displacement and unacceptable congestion on the boundary roads, as well as the impact of the measures on local businesses and emergency vehicles/ carers.

These issues were all completely evident back in October 2021, and had been repeatedly brought to the attention of the Lib Dem councillors and candidates.

If the Lib Dems really are concerned about these issues, why didn't they use them as grounds in their call-in request, which might have given it a chance of success, and when they could have really made a difference?

I feel strongly about the businesses and more importantly the residents of all the boundary roads suffering and at the time sent in an email asking the Lib Dems to call it in and didn't receive any explanation as to why it didn't happen.

[Rockets]

I think the LibDems are taking a pragmatic approach to the LTNs. They knocked on our door at the weekend (as did Labour) and I asked them about their approach as it was unclear to me if they were supportive or not of the LTNs in Dulwich and they made it clear that they believe, for example, that the LTNs in Borough are working and the ones in Dulwich are not (and much of this is down to the availability of other travel options in some parts of the Borough - the old PTAL Achilles heal of the ones in Dulwich) and that they would work to revise/remove the LTNs in Dulwich as a result.

It is clear that the Lib Dems are targeting not only Dulwich but other wards in Southwark - they are going after Labour in those wards areas where Labour have managed to alienate/annoy large swathes of the electorate - the in-filling in Peckham came up as did the gentrification of Elephant and Castle. Their mantra seems clear - they feel they are the only ones who can disrupt the Labour machine in Southwark and the only ones who will be able to affect change.

The Lib Dems seem very confident (based on the feedback they said they were receiving going door-to-door across the area) and Labour seemed to realise they are out come May in some Dulwich wards. In fact, Labour seemed more concerned whether these local issues would impact my national voting intentions after I made it clear I would be voting against Labour in the May elections on the basis of their handling of local issues.

From body language alone it seemed both Labour and Lib Dems had been hearing a similar story to mine on much of their door knocking on streets local to ours - Labour looked brow-beaten and the Lib Dems excited!

[alice]

Does anyone know if the Lib Dems are standing in Dulwich Hill ward?

[Rockets]

One Dulwich update.

Elections on 5 May 2022

We understand that 5 April is the last day on which candidates can declare their intention to stand. News is still coming in very slowly ? nothing yet, for example, on any Green Party candidates. We will update you with a full list of candidates next week.

What has Southwark spent on consultation?

Southwark?s response to a February 2022 FOI asking what had been spent on the Dulwich Streetspace consultation (including fees paid to external bodies, communications and staff time) estimates a total of ?210,000 ? but this doesn?t seem to include the consultation survey itself, the latest March 2022 newsletter, or all staff costs (for example, the communications team). It?s likely, therefore, that the total is well over a quarter of a million ? although this is clearly affordable given the income from fines (see below).

Southwark News on the ?whopping? fines

See the Southwark News report this week on the ?6.6m brought in so far from fines (we estimate the total will be more than ?8m for 2021 once all 120,000 penalties have been collected). Decision-maker Cllr Catherine Rose (standing again for election in Dulwich Wood ward in May) is quoted as saying, ?We want to help local people to reclaim their streets.? As she knows, however, streets on the boundaries of LTNs ? like Croxted Road and East Dulwich Grove ? are not ?reclaimed? but have become more congested and more polluted.

More LTNs in North Dulwich?

As we dig into the rumours about a new LTN in the North Dulwich triangle, we have been reminded that this was a proposal put forward by Southwark Cyclists and Living Streets as part of the Dulwich Streetspace consultation (see option 7, page 23). It suggested the closure of Ruskin Walk, Hollingbourne, Holmdene, Elmwood and Beckwith from Half Moon Lane. Southwark Cyclists and Living Streets are very influential with the Council ? see our News piece from last week ? so this proposal may well re-emerge after the elections on 5 May.

The redesign of Herne Hill junction

Separately, more about the background to the Herne Hill Forum?s plans for redesigning Herne Hill junction can be found in the minutes of the Forum?s meetings. The September 2021 minutes record that Herne Hill ward councillor Becca Thackray (Green Party) and Dulwich Village ward councillor Richard Leeming (Labour Party) ?responded positively? to the scheme.

[heartblock]

More than half of Londoners use the bus at least once a week. Research shows that people on lower incomes, people of colour, women and younger people, rely on the bus more than anyone else.

But of course Southwark Council ignores this and cycling is the only measurement that matters..... No plans for bus lanes, no plans for local green buses - but LTNs implemented that slow down bus journeys and leave buses idling in stationary traffic - just consider Croxted - next it will be bus lanes swapped out for cycle lanes. It's time for this Council to be voted out.