Goose Green councillors - how can we help?

[Rockets]

But Cllr McAsh - we don't care about the distribution of wealth on mains roads across inner London we care about the distribution of wealth on the roads your council's measures are diverting traffic from and to.

How do the stats weigh when comparing Court Lane or Melbourne Grove to East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane? That's what you should be focussing on.

I find it incredibly disingenuous when you quote stats from across inner and outer London to desperately try to prove a point when your focus should be what is happening in your own back yard.

It is clear your measures are displacing traffic from some of the wealthiest roads in the area to some of the least wealthy.

Have you listened to the testimony of Felicia from the Lordship Lane estate given during the Dulwich Hill LTN meeting - if you haven't I suggest you should? She is living with the direct consequences of your actions and there are many more like her. That is not equitable. You know, I know it, the council knows it but you are desperately trying to cling on to your badly designed, ill thought out socially unjust LTN closures.

Will any councillor stand up for what is right?

[heartblock]

I don't think there is any point engaging with the Council or Councillors if you live on LL, EDG or Croxted. They know that they have a big vote for Labour in these areas, so don't have to try very hard, but they do want to keep hold of votes in the wealthier LTN areas. If they take the LTNs out, they risk losing their seats. It's about political ambition and power. Form Resident Associations and protest peacefully - vote wisely. I'm a very sad ex-Labour supporter :(

[Earl Aelfheah]

@jmaes - I am supportive of creating quiet routes for people to walk and cycle locally and that allow people to avoid busy main roads. But why are there timed closures on Dulwich Village road? This is not a quite side street being used as a cut through. If the Village high Street is to be restricted to traffic, why not Lordship Lane? I don?t get the rationale?

[Cora]

Yes, I agree Rahrah, Lordship Lane is the equivalent to the village road and is being turned into an extension of the south circular....shifting all traffic onto fewer roads isn?t solving a problem it is creating massive problems...

[rachp]

I don?t think our lungs care how much we earn- wouldn?t we all be better off cleaner air? Which requires less car journeys to be made overall. Feels like we need we need to raise our aims higher, from socially fair distribution of toxic emissions to less, everywhere, for everyone. Are we fighting the right battle?

[heartblock]

I?d support less everywhere, but that isn?t something Southwark is investing in, just easy cheap political greenwashing. Maybe if someone owns a car on Calton Rd they should pay for their second car parked on the rd? Maybe EDG and LL and Croxted could be one way and have a bike/cycle lane. Pedestrianise LL at the top end. See I?d be happy with all those. Southwark couldnt be bothered to pay for ?Boris? bikes, has turned down support for trams and has messed up bike lanes with poor design. If you can?t recognise political ambition dressed up with a bit of greenwashing paid by the Tory Gov, then you lack the political chops...

[Penguin68]

Which requires less car journeys to be made overall.

Rubbish. The amount of dangerous particulates is rapidly reducing (and is mainly from diesel engines) - petrol engines produce CO2 (yes, and other stuff, but nothing like the impact of NOx2), but this is not dangerous to health in and of itself (indeed without it we would have no vegetation). Electric cars (whose manufacture certainly may be polluting) do not pollute where they are driven (give or take tyre particles, not a significant problem). An electric/ hydrogen propulsion car population would have virtually no impact on levels of pollution where they are being used.

Actually, the major polluters around here are people, who are driving all pollutants. Perhaps we should stamp these out? Sir David Attenborough wants to see the world population reduced to a third (interesting to see how he proposes achieving that).

Are we, indeed, fighting the right battle?

[Sillyseason]

@James - re the below data on populations and the study you linked to. Afraid it is not correct and it wouldn't be good to mislead people.

See here:

The Tweeter who has delved into the raw data used in the study you linked actually shows that in Greater London - BAME are 26.9% more likely to love in main roads than white, Black 13.7, Asian 31.5%, Mixed other & Arab 44.3%. Inner London BAME 13.1% more likely, Outer London 36%. He has posted the raw data tables.

You can't help quoting from poor sources, so we won't blame you, but as someone who has written in the past that he cares about the social justice argument around LTNs and if they don't benefit the majority he would be keen to adjust/remove it is important to get the facts right and so everyone is very clear on who is benefitting and who is not.

It is also worth mentioning that one of the local Cllrs said that no EqIAs were done on any of these LTNs so there has been no assessment whatsover of who is impacted, not consulted with any local elderly or disabled groups and as far as we can see or have read on here have done nothing to engage with any since, so it is a bit much to try and play down impacts on any groups you bring up, when you simply have no clue.

It is weird that all we ever hear from Cllrs is playing down of obvious problems, with emergency services, with congestion, now with disabled, with BAME, with local businesses. Who I understand have stated on Twitter that they are definitely and only moving because of the road closures on Melbourne Grove, which you didn't mention in your summary.

It's almost as if you and perhaps other local Cllrs have already made their minds up what the outcome of the review will be before it has even started.

Which is a bit of a turnaround from things you were posting last year. Why have you changed your position?

[heartblock]

Southwark can't be bothered to to do their own research and EqIAs, so they quote manipulated data from a pro-LTN research paper, but even this data when re-analysed does show that disabled, elderly and BAMR residents are more likely to live on 'main' rds than white. Position has changed because it is seen by the Labour Council political suicide to remove LTNs now. So folks...they will stay whatever the 'facts' are. Absolutely no point even questioning or consulting now, they will not listen to core Labour voters only to those they fear may vote for other political parties. We all know it's really about political ambition now.

[malumbu]

Penguin 68 - I've made the point that pollution from cars is generally reducing, and will fall further when the ULEZ comes in. But even at the legal limits people still die from poor air quality. I don't believe that this is an argument against LTNs as in time things will adjust, and some will drive less.

As for CO2, record levels are leading to a climate emergency, affecting life as we know it on this earth. We are already seeing climate change, species will be wiped out, huge swathes of the world will be under water, climate change is already affecting the crops that we grow. So this will affect our health one way or another.

But your point on human activities (population, but I would take if further) is a good one. But not sure how far Southwark should go on population control, and reducing many of the activities that are damaging our planet such as urbanisation, deforestation, mineral extraction, air travel etc etc. I think that they are best placed in reducing local carbon emissions through transport policy, housing and the like. But I expect that they are already doing things right in terms of sustainable procurement policies and aim of zero carbon.

[Rockets]

Funny how the focus is heavily on cars when gas boilers are thought to be responsible for up to 14% of all emissions. In cities gas boilers are the biggest producer of nitrogen dioxide.

[rachp]

I don?t think our lungs care how much we earn- wouldn?t we all be better off cleaner air? Which requires less car journeys to be made overall. Feels like we need we need to raise our aims higher, from socially fair distribution of toxic emissions to less, everywhere, for everyone. Are we fighting the right battle?

[heartblock]

Londoners living, working, visiting and going to school near to a busy road are exposed to far greater levels of air pollution than elsewhere in the capital. This is a particular case for the Red Routes, where, in comparison to an average road in London levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollution are 57% higher and levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) are 35% higher.1 The Red Routes will also likely be some of the last areas in the UK to meet air quality thresholds as recommended by the World Health Organization.

In December 2020, an inquest in London recorded what is thought to be the world?s first case of air pollution listed as a direct cause of death. Nine-year old Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debra, who had persistent asthma attacks in the last two years of her life, had grown up only 25 metres from the South Circular, a busy Red Route. This case highlights the consequences of health inequities; Ella was a young Black girl and research has shown that people who are racialised as Black are disproportionately exposed to higher levels of air pollution.2 Additionally, the legal implications of this case are groundbreaking for moving air pollution policy forward.

link https://www.globalcleanair.org/files/2021/03/EDF-Europe-Centric-Lab-Rethinking-Londons-Red-Routes.pdf

[malumbu]

This is becoming like wac-a-mole. I'm desperately trying not to post. Most of the time there is little point as the dozen or so of you who are obsessed by the LTNs have closed minds. But then you post something ludicrous and it is difficult not to respond.

So firstly it is nice when I see other like minded people talking about the need to reduce car use. But then it is like the bully in the playground when you are pleased that other kids are being picked on - your turn now RahRah and Otto to get grief(great respect to your views).

I find it so difficult to debate with the hard core, as your views are:

Southwark is corrupt

Southwark is incompetent

Southwark is in the pockets of the rich.

And then you add it's the lycra clad extremists who are driving the agenda.

And finally 'I'm going to put barriers in the way of why I wont reduce me car use'.

If our starting point was how are we (realistically) going to reduce car use then we could have a proper conversation. I'll repeat my views - you have to add some inconvenience (and possibly additional cost). And then in time some of us will change our behaviour. Which roads you restrict access to is a decision for somebody else - TfL and the boroughs responsibility, I'm not particularly interested in how they work with you but if you have constructive proposals on which roads to restrict then I am sure that would be useful in the exercise. Or maybe draconian costs for those using our roads.

Then Rocks you offer me another gem. Bringing gas boilers into the debate. Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter at the roadside are primarily from road transport, in particular (but progressively less so, due to the new generation of cleaner vehicles) from diesel cars. Gas boilers do not congregate to create pollution hotspots but gently waft their emissions well spaced out from each other.

Heartblock, it makes me weep when you use these tragic circumstances to pursue an agenda - apologies if you are just stating information but I want to know what the solutions are. The outcome of the inquest will hopefully be even better information on the harm from poor air quality, and for those most vulnerable interventions to move them away from the hazard. What do you precisely want to do? Close the main roads through and around London? Move all the houses? Bury the main roads underground? If you want greater equality - an admirable thing - how do we achieve this without a political move to the left and ultimately a single party state?

[rachp]

Yes, it?s really depressing. I live a stones throw from Lordship Lane, my kids are at school/nursery on LL and EDG. I?m not poor and I?m not black. And it wouldn?t make me feel much better if some of the toxic fumes my kids breathe were shifted elsewhere in my neighbourhood, even to the roads of those who are richer than I am. We walk around our neighbourhood, we breathe the air on court Lane when we walk to the park and we breathe the air on lordship lane when we walk to school M-F. So everyone, in my community, doing their bit with the capacity they have, to bring down total pollution levels is what would make me feel a lot better.

[Abe_froeman]

For other ex-Labour voters who are also completely disillusioned by James's recent posts and the attitude of the rest of the council to this issue, Sean Bailey has promised to remove all LTNs and review them if he wins the Mayoral election in May.

Holding your nose a voting Bailey in and Khan out will now be the fastest way to get rid of LTNs and make the places we live peaceful and clean again.

[snowy]

Bailey wouldn?t have the authority as Mayor to remove LTNs. They?re a Local Authority scheme which the mayor has no control over. He also has very little chance of being elected.

[snowy]

Unless suggesting voting for Bailey is an April Fool?

[heartblock]

Ella?s mother Rosamund put this report and her support of it up on Twitter. I report the exact words she herself has supported and tweeted...with no edits. So you weep at her agenda, not mine.

[Nigello]

London Mayor is a vanity post. It has no real power, at least when compared to great world cities like NYC. All these layers of politicians serve politicians, mainly, and their supporters. I am minded not to vote.

[Sillyseason]

jamesmcash Wrote:

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

> Equity and LTNs

> It is true that main roads do not benefit from

> LTNs in the same way that side streets do. But it

> is not true that poorer people are more likely to

> live on main roads. In fact, the opposite is true:

> 4.5% of households with an income below ?20k live

> on main roads compared to 5.8% of middle-income

> and 4.6% of high income households. Black and

> white people are equally likely to live on a main

> road (4.9% each), with asian people slightly less

> likely to and Arab, Mixed and Other more likely

> to. If you have a disability that limits travel,

> you are slightly less likely to live on a main

> road than those who do not.

Just to add to this the Southwark?s Streetspace Plan in response to TfL?s London Streetspace Plan 14 July 2020 states

KEY ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

16. The key issue is that social distancing has greatly reduced public transport capacity (to 13-15%, TfL 11 May 2020) and to therefore avoid a significant increase in driving the borough needs to enable a substantial modal change to Active Travel modes and to discourage private motor vehicles from returning. This is required to discourage higher levels of driving than before the lockdown, which will increase congestion and pollution and create greater impacts for everyone, especially our most vulnerable communities which tend to live on busier and more polluted streets.

So Mr McAsh seems to be disagreeing with his own councils observations and one of the reasons given for desire for modal shift in the first place. It is curious as it identifies congestion and pollution as being a potential problem and who it impacts the most, yet this is a problem exacerbated by the LTNs...

[Metallic]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> London Mayor is a vanity post. It has no real

> power, at least when compared to great world

> cities like NYC. All these layers of politicians

> serve politicians, mainly, and their supporters. I

> am minded not to vote.

Well Khan seems to manage to choose LAS ceo, and TfL links to people who are his stooges.

[ab29]

snowy Wrote:

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

> Unless suggesting voting for Bailey is an April

> Fool?

It seems as he has been commenting on LTNs so definitely a candidate to consider:

"The Conservative candidate for the London Mayor has become the latest voice to weigh in on Crystal Palace?s traffic furore, pledging a temporary ban on the low traffic networks (LTNs) which have drawn outrage and fury in London?s south-east if elected."

[heartblock]

Dear James,

When will residents on East Dulwich Grove revive a leaflet about the LTN consultation?

[jamesmcash]

Dear all

Thanks for your comments. Let me respond to them in turn.

Overall improvements and social justice

I don?t think our lungs care how much we earn- wouldn?t we all be better off cleaner air? Which requires less car journeys to be made overall. Feels like we need we need to raise our aims higher, from socially fair distribution of toxic emissions to less, everywhere, for everyone. Are we fighting the right battle?

We need a balance. You're right that the overall goal has to be to improve air quality and reduce emissions overall. Afterall, our planet faces existential threat from climate change. But if these changes require sacrifices then those sacrifices should be shared.

Village and Lordship Lane

When comparing different streets we cannot just look at what is on them, we must look at how they fit in with the wider network (including bus routes). Closing Lordship Lane to motor traffic would require substantial changes elsewhere in the network. That's not to say it can never be done, but it would be difficult.

Is this something that people are keen to see? I would have thought this would be much more controversial than the changes to Melbourne Grove but I'm happy to look into it if there's a desire for that.

Data and evidence

In my post above, I shared evidence about the demographic composition of inner London streets, written by academic experts in the field. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d30896202a18c0001b49180/t/5fb246b254d7bd32ba4cec90/1605519046389/LTNs+for+all.pdf

Sillyseason accused me of misleading people by quoting incorrect figures from "poor sources". They then quote different figures, from an anti-LTN twitter account.

I always take a critical approach to what I read, and I don't take academics' words as gospel. But it's quite odd to suggest that academic research is a "poor source" but a twitter campaign account is not. That's not to say that you'd always believe the former over the latter but surely you'd need some reason to have more faith in the findings of the twitter campaign?

It's actually quite hard to compare the two sets of figures because the tweeter has showed them in a completely different format (risk ratios etc instead of proportions of each demographic living on each given type of street). Moreover, lots of those figures are for Greater London, whereas the ones I quoted are for inner London (as Southwark is an inner London borough).

That said, it's good to be having these debates. I hope that when the evaluation process is properly launched next month, the council will be able to provide some better data for Southwark specifically.

Red Route research

Thanks, heartblock, for sharing this (https://www.globalcleanair.org/files/2021/03/EDF-Europe-Centric-Lab-Rethinking-Londons-Red-Routes.pdf). We're already doing a few of the report's recommendations (reallocating space to people and deprioritising road traffic, introducing signalised junctions) but I appreciate that there is much more to do.

LTNs and the Tories

The Tories are indeed committed to removing LTNs. They have done so in some of the boroughs they control (K&C, Wandsworth). I don't think they have the right approach on this. Fortunately, we live in a deomcracy where you can have you choice at the ballot box.

East Dulwich Grove newsletters

I'm sorry and surprised to hear you have not received the newsletter heartblock. 18,000 were delivered in hard copy and EDG was definitely on the distribution list. If you want one then you can request a hard copy or access it online. There will be another one coming out next month too.

Cycle hangars

The council has launched a page where you can request cycle hangars on your street. This follows a major investment in funding new hangars announced earlier this year. Sign up here: Cycle hangar sign up

https://cyclehangarsinsouthwark.commonplace.is/

Peckham West CPZ permit extension

A few people have contacted me because they purchased a permit for the Peckham West CPZ last April and are now being charged for a new one, despite the zone not coming into effect until June. If this applies to you then let me know by email and I will get your permit extended by a few months.

Best wishes,

James