Goose Green councillors - how can we help?

[Rockets]

Cllr McAsh - the map shown by Cllr Rose on the recent Dulwich Hill ward LTN call clearly showed the area for the LTN review stopping at Lordship Lane and going no further east than about 6 houses on each road coming off LL east. Your fellow councillors from the Dulwich Hill ward have said that they are going to be lobbying to get the review area extended to include the majority of their constituents.

Has the review area map been shared with you? If so, perhaps you could share it?

Any idea why there is another delay to the review? It was promised in February (even Cllr Williams was suggesting its publication was imminent on the council cabinet meeting on Feb 2nd) yet it seems to be slipping.

P.S. If Cllr McAsh refuses to answer this as I am resident of the Dulwich Hill ward perhaps someone from within his ward can ask the question!! ;-)

[Abe_froeman]

Thanks James

I am very concerned by these suggestions, especially after the last CPZ consultation .

Appreciate your frankness on this.

[heartblock]

Dear James,

I?m very concerned that when schools go back East Dulwich Grove will again have idling traffic as parents yer again drive their children to the 3 schools that are on EDG and the three other schools within the Village. The traffic was terrible after Calton AVe and the 4 other LTNs on streets connecting to the high density residential road that EDG is, were implemented without consultation or any form of monitoring.

With the health centre now working full time as a priority vaccination centre, I believe that pollution levels will be illegal for around 3 hrs in the morning and 3 in the evening, once schools reopen. Will residents receive information on pollution levels and monitoring of cardiovascular and cancer pathology caused by pollution?

Could you bring this up at council.

[jamesmcash]

Hi all

Nigello - Let me look into it and get back to you

Rockets - I have not seen such a map. My understanding is that the whole Dulwich area will be able to participate - as indeed they should. If you haven't already, I would get in touch with your local councillors Cllr Browning and Cllr Hartley. (I suspect you have done this already though!)

heartblock - I totally share your concerns about high levels of traffic. We're doing everything we can to encourage active travel and reduction of car-use. LTNs are part of that effort.

Best wishes

James

[tiddles]

James

Sorry but the LTNs are causing the idling traffic, congestion snd increased levels of pollution. I find it staggering in that you are all towing the party line and are refusing to acknowledge the problems. It?s like dealing with ?computer says no? except it?s not at all funny - local residents and business owners are being mucked about with - these endless ?twiddles? that make it worse and worse. It?s just exasperating. Only a few weeks ago you were expressing condolences to the family of a girl who died due to pollution- managing to ignore the fact her mother was expressing deep concerns that these ltn?s are making it severely worse for people living or using these now congested roads

[alice]

James - your message to heartblock above is meaningless if you cannot see that LTNs have caused that traffic.

[Rockets]

Cllr McAsh - many thanks for your response.

I trust you are asking why you haven't seen the map - it seems odd that the map as presented by Cllr Rose has not been sent to you as it directly impacts the majority of your constituents on the eastern side of Lordship Lane who will not be given a voice (or a weakened voice) in the review. Would you not agree that is imperative that those impacted negatively by the closures are given equal weighting as those who live in areas gaining from the closures in the review?

Yes, Cllr Browning and Cllr Hartley are lobbying to get the review area extended to cover their ward too.

P.S. did your comment to Heartblock come from a council playbook/Q&A on how to respond to such questions? ;-) I have always been impressed by how direct and matter of fact you are but that comment is straight from the politicians' playbook of how to avoid answering an awkward question and to bridge to something less negative! I think we can also read into that that many of your comments about wanting the LTNs assessed on their impact to all as maybe somewhat hollow, or perhaps have been over-ridden by directions from the council hierarchy on how to spin this?

[jamesmcash]

Hi all,

I get lots of emails from those on both sides of the debate. Contributions were similarly varied when we hosted the community engagement meetings. Some residents believe that the LTNs have made traffic much worse, and some think they have made it much better. In part, I think that's due to people living in different areas and using streets at different times. The constantly changing picture with lockdowns confuses things further. I suspect the true picture - across the whole area - is somewhere between the two.

The LTNs are supposed to reduce traffic overall, by making cycling and walking safer and more pleasant and by making car journeys a little less convenient. The objective is not to shift traffic around, but to reduce its total volume. There's loads of evidence to support this approach but it's clear that the effects depend on local conditions. If indeed the schemes have led to increased traffic then they are not successful. That's what we need to know more about.

I share your frustrations that we do not have these monitoring data yet, but until we do I am not going to second-guess them.

Best wishes,

James

[heartblock]

Well.. I have lived on EDG for 30 years and my eye, nose and lung monitors recorded a huge increase in idling traffic after the LTNs, during rush hour morning and evening, outside of lockdown. So, please can pollution levels be measured and monitored from March 2021 across a year in EDG. Can we have a proper assessment on inequality of health over the borough. Also please can the councillors engage with EDG residents and stop hiding inside LTNs where of course the residents are positive about their gated community. Nothing over the 30 years of being a resident has divided the community more than this inequality in clean air.

[legalalien]

"it's clear that the effects depend on local conditions. If indeed the schemes have led to increased traffic then they are not successful. That's what we need to know more about. "

And I would add also not successful if they result in essentially the same amount of traffic distributed in a much more uneven way.

People understand that it will take a while to get the monitoring data, and that the data being collected recently is not representative of a normal, non COVID situation, but knowing exactly what is being monitored and what success and failure look like would be a really good start. I appreciate this is probably out of your control.

[Sporthuntor]

Thanks for the update James. It seems that your comments reflect the institutional bias that has been a source of great frustration for many, with the tacit acceptance that LTNs are preferable (often based on highly contentious interpretation data like Waltham Forest). The bias is fuelled by the pre-determined agenda of the council (as evidenced by minutes of council meetings) and the fact that many of the pro-LTN groups are funded by Southwark Council and the Mayor?s office. Please can you step back from this approach and try to represent your constituents impartially rather than on party lines / biased pressure group inputs. Thanks!

[Rockets]

Cllr McAsh,

If the overall traffic has reduced (even by a small %) but because of the closures traffic, congestion and pollution has increased on roads neighbouring the closure area due to displacement would that be considered a success or failure?

What you have said can easily be interpreted as that if you can prove that there has been a decrease in overall traffic then you would consider this a success (regardless of displacement impact). Can you clarify please as this is an important point, especially for those residents living with the displacement and, to be honest, is a bit of a u-turn on your comments on wanting to ensure the measures are fair to all?

[tiddles]

Deleted

[Hoi Polloi]

Hello councillors,

Increasingly I am noticing utility companies fencing off several meters of one side of a road hindering free flow of traffic. These fenced off roads are used as storage yard for materials and equipment for several months.

I have to pay a license fee if I were to keep a skip outside my house which is no bigger than a small car and causes no obstruction.

I would like to know the amount of fees charged by the council to use part of the road as storage yard by these companies and why are they allowing roads to be used as storage yards?

[jamesmcash]

Hi all,

I would not for a second question your eye, nose and lung monitors heartblock! But no one's individual perceptions will be as accurate as holistic monitoring and modelling. For instance, it is much easier to spot individual traffic jams than it is to notice a smaller rise in traffic throughout the day. Moreover, without a birds-eye view, we cannnot compare effects across different streets or indeed identify the cause of these effects.

Longer-term monitoring for EDG sounds good. There's a vague plan to have a meeting for EDG residents - perhaps we can discuss there.

I broadly agree with legalalien that it is not a success for the schemes to just move the same volume of traffic around different streets. In terms of traffic, we'd want to see it drop overall. That said, some streets are clearly better suited to high volumes of traffic than others: traffic movements which would be entirely acceptable on a motorway would be catastrophic on a cul-de-sac.

Rockets

In my previous post I said "If indeed the schemes have led to increased traffic then they are not successful."

I did not say "If the schemes have led to reduced traffic, however small, this will be considered an unmitigated success regardless of any negative effects."

In the scenario where traffic decreases overall (a key objective of the schemes) but at the cost of other problems (ie congestion on specific roads) we would need to weigh one against the other.

Hoi Polloi

Would you mind emailing me with details on this? Road space should not be used like this for months at a time. I'm happy to look into it.

Best wishes

James

[Spartacus]

James

With the roadmap announcement last night and all covid restrictions to be removed no earlier than the 21st June, is there any justification to keep or install new driving restrictions which were imposed under the partial reason of "to enable social distancing to keep people safe from Covid" past the 21St June ?

What's the councils stance on this ?

[Hoi Polloi]

Hello James,

the road next to old camberwell cemetery, Langton Rise, is fenced off months before Christmas.

[rjsmall]

jamesmcash Wrote:

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

> no one's

> individual perceptions will be as accurate as

> holistic monitoring and modelling.

I would agree that monitoring is more accurate than perception but only if that monitoring has a solid baseline to start with. If the monitoring starts after implementation then it cannot accurately measure the change that has taken place.

Modelling isn't always accurate - it uses theoretical inputs and pre-defined assumptions or theories as to what *may* happen. I'd say an individual's experience of the traffic is more accurate than a model as their experience actually happens.

[Siduhe]

Hoi Polloi Wrote:

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

> Hello James,

> the road next to old camberwell cemetery, Langton

> Rise, is fenced off months before Christmas.

That is for the replacement of the water main/pipe down Wood Vale and Melford Road by Thames Water - the works actively started late November and are scheduled to finish mid-March (with a three week break over Christmas). To be fair, it has been a mammoth job to do and keep the roads open and I'm very glad that they will be finished soon so we can get back to a more regular water supply and less drilling.

[Abe_froeman]

The modelling and monitoring is also limited to choice areas chosen by the council.

I live in GG ward east of lordship lane and the traffic on all roads in the triangle between Barry Road, East Dulwich Road and Lordship Lane has been made worse since the so-called "LTNs" were introduced.

There are two factors to this though - the first is obviously that Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Road have been gridlocked and drivers are seeking alternative routes through the area.

The second though is that the CPZs introduced north of East Dulwich Road and west of Lordship Lane have made a lot of people living there park their cars in this triangle. The council will have anticipated this and hoped that this will pressure people living in GG ward to join the clamour for a CPZ here too.

However, the unintended consequence is that there are now barely any empty parking spaces and far fewer passing places on narrow roads, so a single delivery of supermarket shopping can cause a long tailback on several roads.

There is no monitoring at all here and it seems that, despite the promises James has made, our voices will go completely unheard on the "LTNs".

[heartblock]

People don?t live, go to school, go to nurseries, walk to health centres on a Motorway James. They do all of these on a residential road like EDG. So my road and residents on this road are more ?suitable? for additional pollution? But residents on Calton Ave are not. No wonder Rosamund Kissi-Debra, calls LTNs out as an inequality in clean air for residents based on wealth and ethnicity.

[Rockets]

Heartblock what I find most upsetting and confusing is that you ae being told by a Labour councillor that your daily experience needs to be validated by holistic monitoring and modelling. It's also very worrying that if there has been a decrease on some roads but that has led to an increase on others roads that they will be weighed up against one another. So it sounds as if, for example, the council can prove a reduction in the village then the increased traffic on EDG may be considered by them as collateral damage.

It is really shocking that the Labour party is treating people like this - I remember a time when they would be rallying behind constituents in your position.

[Abe_froeman]

I wonder if the Labour party have realised that they have fallen for a massive Trojan Horse gifted by the tories and they are trying to pretend they always owned this.

I saw Mr Leeming on twitter complaining about Labour MPs or members criticising the Labour LTN policy . But they seem to have forgotten that the tories granted all the funding for this. It looks to me like they've given the Labour councils some rope to go and hang themselves with and Labour, remarkably, are pulling the noose ever tighter.

It seems even more obvious when you look at tory councils abandoning their LTN schemes...

[ab29]

I agree - it is really shocking that all of this is done by Labour. Have voted for them in the past but will never do so again - I would rather not vote at all.

Rockets, you are right saying that 'you ae being told by a Labour councillor that your daily experience needs to be validated by holistic monitoring and modelling' - they do not listen. Have the well-off citizens of ED promised some help to Labour party and/or Southwark Council to make them completely deaf to anyone but pro-closure lobby

?

[Rockets]

I think it is further proof of how far Labour has become removed from it's base. It is more interested in party politics than it is individual constituents or doing the right thing. It's really quite sad how far it has been wrenched from what it used to stand for - what is happening here is exactly what happened at national level to the party - lost touch with it's constituents and forged forward with plans that disenfranchised the electorate.