LTN Discussion

[ohthehugemanateeLTN3]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> Majority of people in Dulwich want LTN removed

> according to the council's own consultation

Given how I'm a vocally pro LTN sheeple (according to Rockets, though I feel compelled to note that while both bovidae, cows are not sheep and anyway a seasheep is a type of seaslug), don't you think it's a little disingenuous to count me among those who want LTNs removed?

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> Majority of people in Dulwich want LTN removed

> according to the council's own consultation

The consultation was open to everyone with an Internet connection and an opinion, not just Dulwich residents. People that aren't bothered about something don't tend to engage in consultations about that thing. Only on some streets did more than 25% of residents even reply. A consultation is not a vote.

[exdulwicher]

Majority of people in Dulwich want LTN removed according to the council's own consultation which they chose to ignore.

Picking up on DKHB's point above as well...

No - the majority of people responding to the consultation raised objections. That's absolutely not the same as saying the majority of people in Dulwich want it removed.

And Southwark didn't ignore it, they published a response document:

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103597/Report%20Determination%20of%20Objections%20Dulwich%20Streetspace%20Review.pdf

which detailed why some of the objections were total rubbish, why the data didn't back up some of them and addressed some others (access to emergency vehicles for example).

The consultation is PART of the process, not the deciding factor. And its purpose is not to ask "should we do X?" but rather to say "we are doing X, how best can it be done / improved?"

I know it suits the narrative to loudly proclaim that Southwark didn't listen to "the majority" and they're some sort of Communist Dictatorship imposing their authoritarian jackboot over the proles but that doesn't actually match Reality.

[mfp]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

> A consultation is not a vote.

When I spoke with one of the councillors about the LTN's it was pointed out to me the consultation was not a vote. Then we got onto the topic of CPZ for the roads close to East Dulwich Station and I questioned the decision to make it an all day parking restriction and not just for 2 hours as agreed in Peckham. I was told it was because during the consultation the majority favoured longer hours and so the council had listened to what the residents had wanted. So I guess that was a vote then? This I pointed out and I didn't get much of a response - well a bit of an awkward...er well....

[Rockets]

Yup - the council seems to be the final decision-maker on what is a consultation or not - if they like the result it's a vote if it is not a result they like it's a consultation or as Cllr Rose put it "it's a consultation not a referendum".

[colville09]

In our road, close to East Dulwich station, we fought off having a CPZ for many years but now have one. It is only for two hours a day between 9-11am. It has made no difference to the amount of cars parking and somehow it feels instead of being ?our? road it is ?their? (The council?s) road. We don?t even have a car but have to pay for a parking permit if anyone comes to do repairs.

[hammerman]

Looks like the area around the Southwark/Lambeth border on Herne Hill is being traffic coned off in a lot of places. This suddenly came about after the local election and the local Labour councillors/Southwark Council are responsible for this? The Herne Hill area was working fine a few years ago until the layout was changed. Another change would be detrimental to bus and car users with long traffic jams etc. The whole area would come to a standstill.

[Earl Aelfheah]

?Sheeple? 🤣😂

[Earl Aelfheah]

@hammerman - do you know what the changes are? Or are you just sure they?ll make things worse without knowing?

[Rockets]

Rahx3 - when you refuse to reply to questions you normally don't grace us with your presence for a few days...welcome back so soon! ;-)

Anyway, on the basis of your refusal to answer my analysis of the reality of what is happening can you take a look at the following from the council dashboard and explain what you think is going on here:

"Traffic has been rising across Southwark since the end of the 2021 COVID-19 lockdown, and was at 92% of pre-COVID levels in November 2021 at count points in the north of the borough, and above pre-COVID levels on the TfL network near Dulwich"

[ohthehugemanateeLTN3]

Rahrahrah: come on my good fellow, priorities! Rockets needs a reply. Do you want speculations about bans to be incoming? Accusations of a galloping case of sheelpification?

Anyway what Rockets is failing to account for is that public transport journeys by train (so on trying to blame it on the roads!) are down, so people are clearly eschewing public transport almost like there's still an infectious disease going around!

https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/public-transport-journeys-type-transport

But what you really need to understand is that firstly there's a traffic increase. AND a decrease. The former is 100% the fault of the LTN and the latter is unrelated and nothing to do with it.

Clear now?

[heartblock]

Well Rockets is only quoting the latest from Southwark Council

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/traffic-data-analysis

So would also love to know... is it - 'traffic is above pre-Covid levels' in the Dulwich area or is it 21,000 less vehicles?

Which is it?

And I wonder if we will ever see pollution measurements at peak times at Charter School and the Health Centre?

[Rockets]

Manatee - maybe you can use your obvious wisdom in such analysis and help Rahx3 answer the question, what do you think is happening here:

"Traffic has been rising across Southwark since the end of the 2021 COVID-19 lockdown, and was at 92% of pre-COVID levels in November 2021 at count points in the north of the borough, and above pre-COVID levels on the TfL network near Dulwich"

Like my old primary school teacher I think I know what is happening but will let you try to determine the answer for yourselves.....remember, according to the council there are 21,000 less journeys happening in the Dulwich area....

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> ?Sheeple? 🤣😂

"?Sheeple?, a portmanteau of sheep and people, is the term conspiracy theorists use about the rest of the population, those who they consider passively credulous..."

https://www.economist.com/1843/2020/09/17/from-plandemic-to-breadcrumbs-conspiracy-theory-slang

There has been plenty of conspiracy theorising on this thread, not least a suggestion that the Southwark Cyclists were secretly more powerful than the Masons and the Bilderberg Group combined...

[Spartacus]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > ?Sheeple? 🤣😂

>

>

> "?Sheeple?, a portmanteau of sheep and people, is

> the term conspiracy theorists use about the rest

> of the population, those who they consider

> passively credulous..."

> https://www.economist.com/1843/2020/09/17/from-pla

> ndemic-to-breadcrumbs-conspiracy-theory-slang

>

> There has been plenty of conspiracy theorising on

> this thread, not least a suggestion that the

> Southwark Cyclists were secretly more powerful

> than the Masons and the Bilderberg Group

> combined...

But like the masons, the cyclists tend to have one trouser leg rolled up to protect it from the chain oil and all have a secret hand shake (although in the cyclists case it seems to be a moving "O"aimed at car drivers)

So maybe your conspiracy theory has legs after all Billy

[first mate]

I'm curious what Manatee and Rx3 will come up with.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Manatee - maybe you can use your obvious wisdom in

> such analysis and help Rahx3 answer the question,

> what do you think is happening here:

>

> "Traffic has been rising across Southwark since

> the end of the 2021 COVID-19 lockdown, and was at

> 92% of pre-COVID levels in November 2021 at count

> points in the north of the borough, and above

> pre-COVID levels on the TfL network near Dulwich"

>

> Like my old primary school teacher I think I know

> what is happening but will let you try to

> determine the answer for yourselves.....remember,

> according to the council there are 21,000 less

> journeys happening in the Dulwich area....

[heartblock]

Wouldn't it be lovely if they just said 'I live on a closed road, my house is now worth more and when I open my windows in the morning I no longer see, hear or smell cars, you live on a road with more congestion, so I can enjoy my gated road... and do you know what..I don't care, because my life is now much better. I'll never admit my selfishness, I'll never admit LTNs only worked for those inside them, because I really don't want my road to be opened. In order to do this I will gaslight anyone who disagrees with LTNs - I will never read their alternative ways of reducing traffic overall, I will not engage with any published data or articles about WHO levels of pollution, poverty and inequality, the health of people living on ribbon roads and boundary roads because in reality.... I don't care one iota about anybody else but me..me..me..me'

[Waseley]

Well I neither live on a closed road or gated estate but believe you need a fair amount of stick to force some motorists to change their behaviour.

Thinking about numerous pre LTN schemes, you cannot cut through back roads going down hill from Honor Oak to the South Circ, and similarly across to Brockley through side roads.

No doubt there were protests at the time, but the masses get used to things eventually.

[heartblock]

?the masses get used to things eventually?.

I have seen this on Twitter a few times, basically saying that LTNs are great for those inside them and people on boundary roads will eventually get used to more pollution and traffic.. but at least this is the first honest pro-LTN response.

[ed_pete]

Just a suggestion but perhaps the posters on this thread should start thinking what you'll do with your time once this thread is no more as the EDF is gracefully laid to rest.

https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?12,2274784

[JohnL]

Learn a new language on an app ?

[DuncanW]

Even if the forum continues, which I hope it does, there must come a point when this dialogue across its many threads becomes redundant. You would think that point would have been the overwhelming victory of the pro-LTN councillors in the election last week.. but maybe we need to allow a bit of time for the reality to settle in

[heartblock]

?Victory? ...how nice, as we will get used to more pollution and more congestion...Victory over an enemy...who are just normal residents trying to live their lives as best they can... ?victory? so the nurses, retired, teachers and care workers who have come on this thread to express their dismay at the dirty air they have to breath.

Victory... how lovely indeed, not working with, consulting, brining a community together... but Victory of one neighbour against another.

This is again some more honesty at last...this is the mindset...

[DuncanW]

They won an electoral victory - that's an objective fact isn't it?

Only in your mind does that infer 'enemy'.

Only in your mind does an electoral victory preclude "working with, consulting, bringing a community together."

I've never been anything other than honest when posting on this forum. I don't particularly like the insinuation otherwise.

[heartblock]

I called you honest, but if that offends...

"the overwhelming victory of the pro-LTN councillors"

and yes this does read as an unpleasant take in my eyes, considering the pain caused and I'm happy to be honest and say that. No one has been victorious in this poor, poor and sadly handled process.