LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[northernmonkey]

Rockets - did you read the Dulwich Alliance 'report' on the commonplace? It wasn't' a report it was more of a 'here's some scenarios that could have happened that we've written up as though they're facts'.

The inferences made are just that - unless of course the Alliance have been hacking into the computer systems of the council and stealing personal information. lets assume this isn't the case though and just that instead, they cant actually substantiate claims made.

Finally - of course there are more negative comments on the commonplace - people who want something to change are more incentivised to comment.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> first mate Wrote:

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

> -----

> > In fairness, it was stated by the meeting chair

> > that supplementary questions would not be

> taken.

> > Clive asked if he could make one, and that was

> the

> > chair's response. I had thought that much later

> in

> > the meeting the reason for the response was

> > further qualified as Clive's question was

> > submitted late in day and not as expected, or

> > something like that.

>

> Do Clive and Cllr Williams have some previous -

> the way Cllr Williams addressed Clive suggested

> so? He was abruptly dismissive - as if he was

> expecting it.

>

> I think the downgrading of the Commonplace was

> that the Dulwich Alliance got to it first and the

> council realised they had no way to manipulate the

> data from then on. Either that or no-one had

> looked at what was being posted and didn't realise

> that the sentiment was, in the majority, against

> the closures.

>

> I think the council are on the ropes on this one

> and they can't make it go away. The Dulwich Hill

> ward meeting will be very interesting as the

> council can't expect a group of pro-closure

> supporters from closed roads from turning up and

> trying to filibuster the duration of the meeting

> as the Melbourne Grove residents did. Dulwich Hill

> is one of the key displacement zones and there are

> not many who are benefitting from the closures.

[alice]

Thing is about dulwich hill - there will be some who want to displace the displaced traffic /block their streets. In a kind of ?if you can?t beat them join them?.

[Rockets]

NorthernMonkey - yes I did read the report and I am glad someone has done some area wide analysis. I liked the way they combined both the East Dulwich and Dulwich Village element linking the two - which the council steadfastly refuses to do and tries to divide and conquer by dealing with each set of closures in isolation.

The methdology makes it clear how they built the report - you might not like it but it's clear that the majority of comments left on the Commonplace website (to which councillors have been encouraging people to leave their comments as they said it would be used to judge local sentiment) is against the closures.

Have you used the Commonplace website? Have you seen how biased it is towards leaving comments supporting the closures and measures? It's actually quite difficult to leave anything other than glowing praise for the measures so these stats speak volumes.

And remember, we were repeatedly told by both the council, the councillors and the pro-closure lobby that it was a "small, vocal minority" who were opposing these closures. With each passing day it seems they all got that assessment badly wrong.

The Dulwich Hill zoom call will probably be a good barometer for wider area sentiment over the Melbourne Grove one.

[Spartacus]

Rockets, you are right in all you say but I can bet that as people have to register for the zoom call, either pro people will be picked or some other way of silencing the anti participants will be found (pre registered questions only will be one thought)

The council have an agenda (after all they have a "Deputy Cabinet Member for Low Traffic Southwark" and that role needs something to do) so don't expect this to be a simple opportunity to object to the councils vision as they are only allowing 35 minutes for residents comments and questions...

[Earl Aelfheah]

Metallic Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > As a pedestrian I spend half my time having to

> > walk in the road. There is so little room for

> > those on foot or on bike. You look up and down

> > most streets and can see how much space is

> given

> > over to car storage and car lanes. Cars are

> > literally everywhere. I can?t understand who

> > thinks that too much space is being allocated

> to

> > cycling and walking and not enough to motor

> > vehicles.

> Your post doesn't make any sense! Only

> pedestrians should be on the pavement and if a

> little deference was given to each other, as

> happened in the first lockdown, there wouldn't be

> a problem for you.

I wasn?t suggesting people should ride bikes on the pavement. I?m suggesting that cars dominate almost all public space to the detriment of people either travelling by foot, or bike, who inevitably get squeezed out. I don?t get who thinks cars aren?t currently given enough priority over public space.

[legalalien]

Rahrah that?s because you are trying to imagine an objector to the schemes that I don?t think exists - one who is fighting for car dominance on some sort of principled basis. I haven?t seen people on here expressing that view although I think several have been told by others that that?s what they think. Pretty much everyone I?ve come across objects to the elements of this particular LTN on the basis is is poorly designed - they don?t object to LTNs in principle. Which is why this debate goes nowhere - if supporters respond to specific concerns about design with generalisations about the desirability of active travel, or nationwide statistics, that doesn?t address the specific arguments being made, so doesn?t convince.

Have been bombarded with ?Neom? promotions on Sky this morning - looks like they are building a new urban planning utopia in Saudi... https://whatistheline-newsroom.neom.com/the-line-launch-media-kit-361021. Interesting.

More mundanely, latest Southwark News update at https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/surgeries-say-road-closures-are-hampering-vaccine-rollout-as-new-coalition-calls-for-camera-controlled-permit-scheme-to-replace-low-emission-neighbourhoods/

[first mate]

Agree with legal. Repeated attempts by a handful of posters to frame any objector to current LTNs as an uneducated, unthinking, physically lazy and rabid petrol-head is now wearing thin. It is not constructive and does not add to the debate. It looks like an attempt to derail or distract.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Rahrah that?s because you are trying to imagine an

> objector to the schemes that I don?t think exists

> - one who is fighting for car dominance on some

> sort of principled basis. I haven?t seen people on

> here expressing that view although I think several

> have been told by others that that?s what they

> think. Pretty much everyone I?ve come across

> objects to the elements of this particular LTN on

> the basis is is poorly designed - they don?t

> object to LTNs in principle. Which is why this

> debate goes nowhere - if supporters respond to

> specific concerns about design with

> generalisations about the desirability of active

> travel, or nationwide statistics, that doesn?t

> address the specific arguments being made, so

> doesn?t convince.

>

> Have been bombarded with ?Neom? promotions on Sky

> this morning - looks like they are building a new

> urban planning utopia in Saudi...

> https://whatistheline-newsroom.neom.com/the-line-l

> aunch-media-kit-361021. Interesting.

>

> More mundanely, latest Southwark News update at

> https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/surgeries-say

> -road-closures-are-hampering-vaccine-rollout-as-ne

> w-coalition-calls-for-camera-controlled-permit-sch

> eme-to-replace-low-emission-neighbourhoods/

[northernmonkey]

Which components of the report did you like?

- was it where they used the comments given as though each one was made by a different individual when there is no means of knowing this from publicly available data, in reality many of them could have been made by the same people?

- or perhaps it was where 1100 comments opposing were taken to mean that 'dulwich has spoken and its a no'? - looking at the population of the dulwich wards (gg, dulwich village etc) its in excess of 40k so 1100 isn't really a ringing endorsement for that view!

Was it the bit where a group of people who opposed the changes analysed whether responses should be excluded from their analysis?

I see that in that perpetuating the myth that this is analysis that puts the council on the back foot that it helps your narrative, but in reality this is a disingenuous analysis that doesn't stand up to any degree of scrutiny. It was however presented in a nice report so if you didn't bother to read it you could think it was credible.

I think that opposition to schemes is understandable, its a change, and debating the points is healthy. However, I find such blatant disregard for any facts really hard to reconcile.

Just in case its not clear - the 'Dulwich Alliance' report on the data is a work of fiction and hope and is poorly constructed to support their own arguments.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> NorthernMonkey - yes I did read the report and I

> am glad someone has done some area wide analysis.

> I liked the way they combined both the East

> Dulwich and Dulwich Village element linking the

> two - which the council steadfastly refuses to do

> and tries to divide and conquer by dealing with

> each set of closures in isolation.

>

> The methdology makes it clear how they built the

> report - you might not like it but it's clear that

> the majority of comments left on the Commonplace

> website (to which councillors have been

> encouraging people to leave their comments as they

> said it would be used to judge local sentiment) is

> against the closures.

>

> Have you used the Commonplace website? Have you

> seen how biased it is towards leaving comments

> supporting the closures and measures? It's

> actually quite difficult to leave anything other

> than glowing praise for the measures so these

> stats speak volumes.

>

> And remember, we were repeatedly told by both the

> council, the councillors and the pro-closure lobby

> that it was a "small, vocal minority" who were

> opposing these closures. With each passing day it

> seems they all got that assessment badly wrong.

>

> The Dulwich Hill zoom call will probably be a good

> barometer for wider area sentiment over the

> Melbourne Grove one.

[Spartacus]

I'm curious Northern

The report was created using the website the council asked people to leave their comments on. If the data showed a massive level of support for the scheme (with 1,100 comments) would you be touting it as proof that the scheme should stay or be extended ?

[first mate]

Next it'll be the Commonplace hoax or Commonplace fake news.

[legalalien]

Having just read one of TfL's recent FoI request responses on its website, it seems that even the traffic experts can't agree on what is going on with traffic on London's minor roads. Check out email C. Hopefully ex-dulwicher can come along and opine....

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-1884-2021

[Rockets]

NorthernMonkey - I like all of the report.

Your accusations of wrong-doing do not stand the test of scrutiny as each of them can equally be applied to the way the council has manipulated data throughout years of "consultations".

I am not for a moment saying that two wrongs make a right but what Dulwich Alliance is doing is based on complete mistrust of the way the council is handling it. They have taken data that is from a website that is publicly available and one where the council has encouraged the community to leave their comments.

Of course, the council could issue a strongly worded rebuttal if they believe the Duwlich Alliance have manipulated the data. To date, they haven't.

In fact, Cllr Rose tried to address their analysis by saying that Commonplace "evolves" and is part of the process. She could have easily issued a rebuttal if she felt the analysis was manipulated. She didn't. That speakers volumes. What she instead did was do what the council has been doing for the duration of this process and issued a "wait and see" directive. It's akin to their "let it bed in" narrative they have tried to push.

What was also slightly concerning was Cllr Williams' assertation that they were "finalising" the design of the review. Surely if you are due to publish something in a couple of weeks, as the council is promising, the design of the review should have been determined by now. That suggests to me the council might be having to tweak the findings.

Good on the Dulwich Alliance for taking the time to do this - it shows how strongly people feel about this and it demonstrates that the council cannot just hope this issue goes away and are being forced, by their constituents, to be accountable.

The pressure is mounting for the council to prove that the LTNs are 1) supported by the majority of the Dulwich community 2) are actually delivering what they promised they would 3) not impacting anyone negatively in terms of displacement and increased pollution

I think the council will struggle to reach the threshold on any of the above points and from their actions I think they know that. And from your de-positioning of any resistance I think you know that too.

[Siduhe]

I've taken a look through the attachments to the FOI request and this (from email C) does rather jump out. It underlines the difficulty of relying on general figures and statistics to support specific local changes and why we do need some proper, transparent monitoring of effects of the current LTNs - not just in their direct area but on nearby roads. What is said in this email is very much contrary to what has been said as "fact" in support of the LTNs. So who do we believe and how can anyone make an educated decision about what is the right thing to do without being aware of some of the potential weaknesses in the data?:

I know that you are incredibly busy but a minor bombshell has just dropped into my area. I'm passing it on - first for your awareness - as it might well come to you separately like a bolt from the blue. But also because, in the medium term, we will have to develop a TfL position on it (for things like estimates of mode share etc.)

It concerns the DfT traffic estimate for London, As you can see from Colin's e-mail below, the DfT have undertaken their decennial benchmarking exercise, and have decided that road traffic in London risen by 18% over the decade, instead of falling by 2%. They have also revised the back series. It is clear that this is a re-calculation exercise, rather than a real observed change, but nevertheless it will stand as the 'authoritative' estimate for traffic volumes in London over the last decade.

As you can imagine, this will cause us many problems. For a start, the Active, Efficient and Sustainable mode share would take a nosedive, were we to simply accept these new numbers. And likewise our 'story' of what has happened to traffic in London over the last decade would have to be rewritten. Similarly, expressed in terms of emissions, we'd have about 20% more air pollution than we currently reckon.

Not that we are minded to accept the numbers, especially in the light of your own traffic series. I can't remember clearly whether you were involved in our deliberations with the DfT a decade ago when this last happened. We eventually got them to revise their estimates for London, and I think that they have now forgotten this revision and reverted to their old method (although we are trying to confirm this). The crux of the issue last time, as I recall, was that the estimates for London were scaled by national trends, and we could clearly see that London was not following the national trend. The impact of changes in flows on minor roads was also important - as in London this has been very much downwards, in contrast to the rest of the country.

We'll consider this further and keep you in the loop. In the meantime, beware journalists claiming that London's traffic has increased by 20%.

[Rockets]

Wow, every email, every bit of analysis, every FOI strikes another blow to the pro-closure lobby and the "facts" they have used to prop up their assertations. The house of cards is beginning to wobble.

Perhaps some of our dear friends on this forum from the pro-closure lobby might like to comment........;-)

[Siduhe]

To be clear, I don't know what the "facts" are here - DfT could be correct or TfL could be correct or the facts may be entirely different. But where I completely agree is that this emails shows that no-one can sensibly rely on one set of data to the exclusion of everything else, which is why we need a clearly articulated and transparent approach to monitoring and analysis in our local area.

I have, however, watched the changing narrative on the Commonplace sites from the Council with dismay. I was positively directed to leave comments on those sites by our local councillors to highlight some specific issues with the impact of LTNs in my road - as were several of my neighbours - and we all left similar comments broadly in support of LTNs but expressing specific points that needed to be addressed about spill over traffic and the fact that cycling had become far less safe on our set of roads as traffic was using it as a cut through to the South Circular. But now it appears that little of that feedback will be taken into account as the overall narrative isn't sufficiently positive.

For my own part, it's the unwillingness at the Council or pro-LTN group to even consider that there are some adverse impacts of the current measure and some changes that could be made to help the rest of us that is really frustrating. And I'm not talking about totally reversing the LTNs, I'm just asking for some basic monitoring which is across other streets that are being impacted.

[northernmonkey]

Siduhe - are you in Dulwich Hill ward? I ask because if so there is a public meeting on this issue - there's a separate thread on it. Would definitely be worth joining if so.

I also think that comments on issues that need to be considered are exactly what the council said would be looked at and considered. I don't think that there are any pro LTN groups who think that there aren't additional things that need to be done as part of this - its just waiting for the council to work through these in terms of engagement / funding.

Siduhe Wrote:

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

> To be clear, I don't know what the "facts" are

> here - DfT could be correct or TfL could be

> correct or the facts may be entirely different.

> But where I completely agree is that this emails

> shows that no-one can sensibly rely on one set of

> data to the exclusion of everything else, which is

> why we need a clearly articulated and transparent

> approach to monitoring and analysis in our local

> area.

>

> I have, however, watched the changing narrative on

> the Commonplace sites from the Council with

> dismay. I was positively directed to leave

> comments on those sites by our local councillors

> to highlight some specific issues with the impact

> of LTNs in my road - as were several of my

> neighbours - and we all left similar comments

> broadly in support of LTNs but expressing specific

> points that needed to be addressed about spill

> over traffic and the fact that cycling had become

> far less safe on our set of roads as traffic was

> using it as a cut through to the South Circular.

> But now it appears that little of that feedback

> will be taken into account as the overall

> narrative isn't sufficiently positive.

>

> For my own part, it's the unwillingness at the

> Council or pro-LTN group to even consider that

> there are some adverse impacts of the current

> measure and some changes that could be made to

> help the rest of us that is really frustrating.

> And I'm not talking about totally reversing the

> LTNs, I'm just asking for some basic monitoring

> which is across other streets that are being

> impacted.

[Rockets]

I agree with both of you and it does seem that the council seems to be changing the rules of engagement at every opportunity. I very much suspect that this is because the feedback and data they are seeing coming in from both the local residents and their monitoring doesn't back their position of unwavering support for the measures they have put in.

Cllr William's comments on "finalising" the design of the review this close to publication should be ringing alarm bells for everyone on both sides of the argument.

[Siduhe]

Thanks northernmonkey - no Dulwich Wood. And our ward councillor (who is heavily involved in the LTNs) was the one who directed us to use Commonspace as the appropriate way to register feedback. Hence some of the frustration when the feedback on our road (Underhill/Melford) as recorded on Commonspace is so clear and consistent and we are still being told there are no plans to even look at it as part of the LTN review.

[Nigello]

LTN in Private Eye's podcast https://www.private-eye.co.uk/podcast/58 15' in

[northernmonkey]

Thats really frustrating for you.

Just out of interest why now do you think that the comments won't be taken into account during the review?

From listening to the youtube playback my take was that Cllr Rose's comments on the commonplace were related to whether they could be used in the way that they had been attempted to be reflected by Dulwich Alliance and that it was a rebuttal of their 'clearly Dulwich has spoken' line. However, (worryingly , yes Rockets) the review parameters are still not clear and I had thought that comments such as yours would be precisely the ones that they would need to consider as part of that review - where additional impacts have been identified. Have you been specifically told it won't be part of the review?

Siduhe Wrote:

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

> Thanks northernmonkey - no Dulwich Wood. And our

> ward councillor (who is heavily involved in the

> LTNs) was the one who directed us to use

> Commonspace as the appropriate way to register

> feedback. Hence some of the frustration when the

> feedback on our road (Underhill/Melford) as

> recorded on Commonspace is so clear and consistent

> and we are still being told there are no plans to

> even look at it as part of the LTN review.

[malumbu]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Agree with legal. Repeated attempts by a handful of posters to frame any objector to current LTNs

> as an uneducated, unthinking, physically lazy and rabid petrol-head is now wearing thin. It is not

> constructive and does not add to the debate. It looks like an attempt to derail or distract.

Trouble is to the casual reader it does look like this:

Dismissive of arguments for reducing traffic, improving cycling and walking facilities

Jumping on every fragment of data to justify your cause

Scathing comments about public servants

Always having a reason for people not changing their behaviour

The data that concerns me? Global Carbon levels are increasing, the world is warming up, sea levels are getting higher, the weather is becoming more extreme, swathes of the world suffer from either too much water or not enough, geopolitical instability, reduced biodiversity/increased extinctions......

Part of the answer is reduced traffic, not just reduced fossil fuels but less vehicles, less journeys, smarter transport. If Covid is not an opportunity for a reset, when is?

I've acknowledged that the ULEZ and some elements of LTNs may be a big stick. I've explained that Road User Charging would be the best incentive/disincentive for reducing car use on a national scale but that this was scuppered (and the environmental cause put back) as this is a rare occasion when people power did influence governments - who see upsetting motorists as a vote loser.

I've also shared personal experience of how traffic controls have affected me, but that with time my behaviour changed. Whether I use the bus, car or cycle these LTNs have an impact on me too, I don't have a special pass for driving through Court Lane or Melbourne Grove. Buses still get caught up in traffic at Goose Green

Affordable motoring in the 1950s and 60s was liberating. But car is king cannot go on forever. Hoping that in a few years time with mobility as a service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobility_as_a_service our streets will be very different

[Rockets]

I think everyone can agree that all we want is some clarity from the council - they are dithering over every aspect of these measures and even the most pro-closure supporter must be wondering what the council is up to.

It's almost as if they put them in and had no strategic plan in place to back them up. A couple of councillors thought it good to leverage "social distancing" for these personal vanity projects and now the council can't find a way to make them stick.

As I have been saying from the outset, the complete mis-management of this project by the council is likely to have long-term implications on the appetite for and ability to execute any future traffic and pollution control measures. That, I am afraid, is probably going to be the long-term legacy of this ill-thought out programme and we should all be holding the councillors accountable for that.

[ab29]

Local elections still taking place in May apparently - not voting Labour so they lose their monopoly on Southwark council would be a good start.

[legalalien]

I think this May we only vote for the Mayor and London Assembly (not the Council)? I?ve just realised how little I know about the London Assembly and the voting process - hadn?t appreciated it was a sort of mixed member proportional system. Not sure I?ve ever seen any campaigning for assembly members as opposed to the Mayor.

[Pugwash]

if you are a member of a political party you will be sent information about the Assembly members. You do not vote by ward but by borough if I remember correctly.Caroline Pidgeon is one of the members representing Southwark and has done for a number of years. She is a Lib Dem and also lives in ED.