LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[exdulwicher]

And here's the counter-argument, notably better researched than The Times one...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/16/claim-low-traffic-schemes-only-benefit-better-off-debunked-in-new-study

The cost differences quoted in The Time article are because the housing stock is completely different. If you're comparing grand Victorian houses in one street with council flats in another, the difference in price is right there (almost) irrespective of traffic. Equating house prices to rich/poor is very over-simplistic - reputable studies don't use it (or if they do, there's a mass of weighting applied for numerous other factors. It also don't account for things like social tenancies, rented properties etc - house prices themselves are a very simplistic measure which doesn't really explain or define who is rich/poor. There was an interesting article on broadly similar lines of how cities developed where the "east end" was generally the poor, the slums, the factory workers and the "west end" was generally the preserve of the wealthy, the landowners, the industry tycoons. It was down to the prevailing winds of SW to NE which meant that you built your nice house upwind of the stinky factories.

This myth of "only benefits wealthy areas" is a similar class war to a lot of other populist war cries of taking back control from unelected elites. Still, it's fascinating how society's concern for the poor, disabled and marginalised can lie dormant for so long, only requiring the installation of a few bollards and planters before it can be expressed...

[malumbu]

And once river crossings were improved many of the industrialists etc moved South to the farmlands of Dulwich. And in time when the gentleman' farms that they established were being sold on, to be developed partially for property, this led to much of the land being used for sport and recreation. Early arrival of the railways also had a big impact. Some interesting walks/talks about this. Just a bit of history, not contributing to the debate (and no, I don't live in the Village, could never have afforded, or wanted, to).

[Metallic]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

>

> This myth of "only benefits wealthy areas" is a

> similar class war to a lot of other populist war

> cries of taking back control from unelected

> elites. Still, it's fascinating how society's

> concern for the poor, disabled and marginalised

> can lie dormant for so long, only requiring the

> installation of a few bollards and planters before

> it can be expressed...

You are incredibly patronising to write this. You have no idea who you are talking about, or what anyone supports or works for outside the subject of trying to get rid of LTNs.

[alice]

Agree M. And exD your illogical meander through pseudo facts made me laugh out loud.

[exdulwicher]

Actually Metallic, I get to see this across a much wider range of transport issues, not just in Dulwich or Southwark or London and it's largely the same. A lot of it at the moment is being spread by astro-turfing of the various One... groups, helped by some slightly inflammatory press.

The broad outline is that "an area" is restricted and because of the layout of towns, the demographics of "residential areas" vs light industry or shopping or business districts etc, the accusation of pandering to a wealthy few is fairly easy to make. It isn't (wholly) accurate but there's enough half-truth or apparent truth in there to let it through unchallenged.

Meanwhile, the outraged people within the LTN who can no longer drive their SUV the 500yds to the primary school can't really complain too publicly about that because they come across as very entitled. That is the overall aim - unrestricted driving for residents, as evidenced by the continual calls for ANPR gates with resident permits - but to call for that is generally seen as selfish. So you get gas-lighting where the causes of others (no matter how tenuous) can be harnessed to call for the outcome that you actually want.

"what about the poor living on these roads that are now more polluted?"

"what about the elderly who can't walk far?"

Translation: I've never really cared one way or the other about them but they're a useful patsy so I can get my own way without appearing selfish.

As I say that's not a Dulwich issue or specific to any one individual on this forum, it's just what is happening now in what is rapidly, thanks to certain elements of the media, becoming a class issue and culture war.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/11/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-LTNs-London-car-street-cycling-walking-culture-war-pollution-gentrification

Most councils are not very good at handling this sort of thing which is why there are (quite valid in many cases) accusations that the consultation processes aren't up to scratch because they're more used to dealing with written feedback, not instant social media comments and fast-moving news. That then goes back into the feedback loop that the council aren't listening to "the poor, the deprived" and so on and the cycle continues.

[Rockets]

Ex - the irrefutable facts are that the Dulwich LTNs are displacing traffic from some of the least populated streets onto some of the most densely populated and visited streets in the area - that cannot be considered equitable.

The championing of the closures is coming from some voices from the heart of one of London's wealthiest areas - I do wonder if those given the opportunity by the council to give the deputation in response to the reopen the closures petition on the recent council meeting care for anyone beyond the Village borders - it certainly did not come across as so.

I also refer you to the impassioned plea from a resident from the Lordship Lane estate to the councillors on the recent Dulwich Hill ward LTN call - she was not gas-lighting - she was reporting on the direct impact the closures were having on her family and neighbours due to the displacement and increases in pollution.

The fact that these measures are being promoted, executed, supported and defended by councillors who pretend to represent fairness for all is what makes this even more galling. I would expect it from the Tories, not from Labour.

As someone who works in planning and is seemingly on the pro-closure lobby it is easy for you to sit there and say "oh, well this and that is because of media manipulation" - it's a bit like the council's repeated claims that any opposition was a "small and vocal minority". Both are utter nonsense and a tactic to try and deposition any dissenting voices. As a resident of East Dulwich I have seen, with my own eyes, the impact these closures have had and I do not think they are fair.

Did you happen to walk down (either end of) Lordship Lane before the most recent lockdown and see the traffic for yourself - I know you are ex of Dulwich but I am hoping you are basing your inputs on this on your first-hand experience of what is happening on the ground in the area?

[Abe_froeman]

Ex-D, I don't think anybody on here apart from you and Malumbu gives a stuff about the LTNs outside East Dulwich tbh.

[malumbu]

Really? I got the impression that you wanted all LTNs to fail, not just ED, you seem to take every opportunity to find kindred spirits in other boroughs.

[legalalien]

As noted above, I find conducting the argument at the macro level unhelpful - I'd love it if people could stop generalising and focus on each scheme on its merits. Tbh I suspect the Dulwich scheme is a bit of an outlier - it's very large, in an area with poor public transport and few east- west routes, and described from the outset as "complex".

I'm not sure what the consequences for this sort of devolved approach would be on the big picture (are they all flawed? Do some make sense?) because I've only looked at the LTNs near me. When discussing generally I extrapolate from what I see locally, which is probably wrong, and people in different LTNs seeing different things and with opposing views probably do the same thing.

I read the DfT external consultants'report about previous studies on modal shift etc, referred to in the Times this morning. Was going to post the Times link, but refrained because (i) felt that they were slightly cherry picking and (ii) having read the underlying report there is lots of room for everyone else to as well - the main thing I took away from it was that there really isn't any / enough hard data about what works to generalise even on a city basis, let alone anything concrete enough to add usefully to a discussion of the LTNs in Dulwich.

End of the day, I just want the council to comply with statutory requirements, monitor and get as much hard evidence as they can, and be as transparent and accountable as possible in a timely fashion (and if they do that genuinely and it means an outcome I wouldn't choose , then I'll give loser's consent); our local councillors to operate with an open mind and comply with their obligation to represent constituents whose views don't accord with their own as well as those whose views do; a system of local government where councillors have more independence and less whipping.

And maybe a world where people could acknowledge the flaws in their own arguments and recognise the need for nuance (that's not directed any anyone / any side of the argument in particular). On which note I'll continue to stay off Twitter!

ETA: sorry about the earworm 😉

[Siduhe]

End of the day, I just want the council to comply with statutory requirements, monitor and get as much hard evidence as they can, and be as transparent and accountable as possible in a timely fashion (and if they do that genuinely and it means an outcome I wouldn't choose , then I'll give loser's consent)

This, this, a thousand times this!

As someone who cycles and walks more than I drive - I was pretty open minded about the LTNs (and still am to the concept). But the way that Southwark has gone about this exercise is at best, thoughtless and at worst wilfully blind to the inequities and knock-on effects.

Like several posters I was really cheered to hear Catherine Rose accept that it would be necessary to monitor some of the streets and areas further away from the LTNS at the recent Dulwich Hill ward meeting.

But the formal response from the Council to my enquiry about the precise area that is being looked at? Well it doesn't include Underhill, Melford, Wood Vale which were the streets mentioned in the meeting and there are "no plans" to increase the monitoring to a wider area, and yes they've spoken to Councillor Rose and are "aware" of the discussion at the meeting.

[Rockets]

I agree totally....what I am worried about is the council being less than transparent and less than accountable and I fear they are trying to buy time with the publication of the review to try and manipulate the review to their advantage.

Siduhe - can we assume then that the council are reverting to the review area shared by Cllr Rose - did they give you a copy of the map? I am actually starting to wonder who is actually in control of this process at council level.

If Cllr Rose said she believed the area should be increased (BTW is there a recording of the meeting available so we can see what was said?), the Dulwich Hill ward councillors saying that they are trying to get the area increased and Cllr McAsh saying it isn't true that the area is limited to west of Lordship Lane only - it makes you wonder what on earth is going on?

And we must remember details of the review were promised this month and it now looks as it it is delayed until next month. My only hope is that the council is having to have a rethink/redesign of the review as they realise a lot of people will be scrutinising the minutia of detail within it.

It was shocking (but maybe not a shock given the way the council operates) that the draft of the review map shared by Cllr Rose shared was as limited as it was. The review is flawed from the start if the roads and areas soaking up the displacement aren't covered.

[alice]

Absolutely - In that Dulwich Hill meeting it was clear that councillors saw the need to widen the review area. Without that and the promised Equalities Impact Assessment any review will be meaningless.

[Abe_froeman]

"what I am worried about is the council being less than transparent and less than accountable and I fear they are trying to buy time with the publication of the review to try and manipulate the review to their advantage."

This is a really unhealthy but wholly typical relationship between residents and this council, I fear.

If the council could show with data that this scheme achieved their aims and that people's lived experience of traffic having become intolerable on their own streets was misconceived then I think more people would get on board.

But if the council obfuscates, moves the goal posts, changes and hides the consultation terms of reference and data, and generally behaves in a way that looks shady, then that trust deficit will chasm

[exdulwicher]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Ex-D, I don't think anybody on here apart from you

> and Malumbu gives a stuff about the LTNs outside

> East Dulwich tbh.

I don't think that's true at all - numerous other schemes have been referenced, compared and learnt from. People on here have used examples from outside Southwark to repeat FOI requests, learn how to use them, how to measure parameters, how to petition the council to pause schemes, consult and so on.

Similarly, examples have been held up as good/bad/indifferent, the way things should/should not be and I think that it's very important that everyone from councils to residents to what might loosely be termed "through traffic" can see the positives and negatives of both individual schemes and the bigger London / TfL picture. What's good in one area might not work in another and vice versa.

You personally might not care but that doesn't mean that it's not a factor.

The recent court case about TfL's Streetscape plans was widely referenced and noted on here so plenty of people are looking beyond the planter on their street and at the wider view.

[Abe_froeman]

Nobody on here is using examples of FOI requests and council petitions to ask Southwark council to cancel schemes that aren't in Dulwich, let alone using this for LTNs outside the borough.

That's an absurd proposition.

[legalalien]

Here's the agenda for next week's South Multiward forum meeting.

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=6871

It will be

- announcing funding decisions on the list of applications for Cleaner, Greener, Safer funding (list of applicants attached to agenda) - about ?250k in total. A few cycle parking things that people might be interested in

- announcing funding decisions on the list of applications for the Neighbourhoods Fund, I think ?10k per councillor. List of applicants also attached, including a ?3k application from Friends of Dulwich Square for a minimusic festival on the square, the aims of which are " To bring the local community together, support local businesses and showcase local musicians & artists. The closure of the junction in Dulwich Village has been controversial and has caused divisions with some in our community. The concept of a mini music festival on the newly formed public space is to demonstrate the positive potential of this new community space that was once a dangerous and polluting road junction. We hope to encourage footfall to help support the local businesses in Dulwich Village."

Lastly, approving the allocation of "Devolved Highways Funding" for particular highways projects suggested by the local community(As I understand it, local councillors hold the purse strings on this funding pot). Here's the link to the list.http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s93813/Appendix%201.pdf. No entirely clear to me whether they all get funded (about ?140k available)

Anyone know /want to guess what the following are:

East Dulwich Square

Dulwich Village Cycle Roundabout ( something to do with the Burbage Roundabout, or will it go around "Dulwich Square"?)

"Measures to complement the Streetspace programme".

College Road and Huntsslip road safer routes masterplan (its the word masterplan that makes this sound sinister!)

More seriously, worth taking a look, as seems to give an indication of things that are being proposed by the community / considered. Various road calming and cycle parking measures, the proposal for traffic lights/ ped crossing at LL/EDG junction, a proposal for less pollution on EDG. You can't see the details, but if anyone feels strongly about any of them (for or against), may be worth emailing the relevant councillors to share views in advance of the meeting/decision.

[alice]

The idea of a mini music festival on a blocked road. Disgraceful.

[malumbu]

Yay! Reclaim the streets, takes me back to the last century when life was more fun! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reclaim_the_Streets

[Nigello]

I agree that the mini music festival on that particular site is a bit Marie Antoinette. I would prefer the money used to help make the stretches of road that are now closed appear less "redundant". Bigger planters could be put in, trees planted, etc.

[malumbu]

And another one, although Critical Mass will be on hold until we return to 'normality' https://www.cyclinguk.org/local-campaigners/ctc-local-campaigners-information-kit/campaigning-skills-and-tactics/tactics-an-11

I've also seen groups roller blading en masse

[legalalien]

Nigello - I'm guessing it doesn't really make sense for the Council to do that, until such time as the relevant orders are made permanent - as there's a risk that the expenditure could be wasted. (Or to look at it another way, spending the money now makes the whole "experiment" appear to be a fait accompli, and could open the decision-maker up to challenges of pre-determination /bias when the final decision on whether to make the closures permanent is made.)

[DulwichCentral]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> "Most Dulwich residents can afford a

> taxi".....honestly every time Julie Greer opens

> her mouth or tweets something it further exposes

> how myopic and self-centred the pro-closure lobby

> is. If I was a Labour councillor I would be

> distancing myself from them and their bizarre

> views of life through their bizarre village-lens

> but, of course, many are neighbours of certain

> local councillors so probably they share the same

> bizarre views of life beyond Dulwich Square.

You continually complain that the only people benefiting from the closures are the wealthy elite of Dulwich Village. Then when someone suggests that the wealthy elite of Dulwich Village can afford a taxi to the Dr's - you're outraged.

Can't have it both ways ;)

[alice]

Dc looks like you?re planning to: new shiny bike only route at Carlton/Court/Village Junction also a venue for proposed musical celebrations.

It?s a road.

Oh no it?s not.

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > "Most Dulwich residents can afford a

> > taxi".....honestly every time Julie Greer opens

> > her mouth or tweets something it further

> exposes

> > how myopic and self-centred the pro-closure

> lobby

> > is. If I was a Labour councillor I would be

> > distancing myself from them and their bizarre

> > views of life through their bizarre

> village-lens

> > but, of course, many are neighbours of certain

> > local councillors so probably they share the

> same

> > bizarre views of life beyond Dulwich Square.

>

> You continually complain that the only people

> benefiting from the closures are the wealthy elite

> of Dulwich Village. Then when someone suggests

> that the wealthy elite of Dulwich Village can

> afford a taxi to the Dr's - you're outraged.

>

> Can't have it both ways ;)

Or alternatively maybe I am highlighting the myopic and blinkered view of some of the pro-closure lobbyists who live in the Village who are happy to make wide sweeping generalisations and assumptions about their fellow residents in Dulwich? i.e. if I can afford a taxi to the doctors then everyone else must be able to or if I can store my bikes in my garden thanks to my big garden and nice side-return then by goodness everyone else surely can....do I need to go on? ;-)

Time after time the pro-closure lobby shows scant regard for anyone other than those in their immediate vicinity and echo chamber. They fail to acknowledge that displacement is happening or having a negative impact on residents streets at the end of their road and the recent deputations to the council highlighted this point very powerfully (and the fact the council left them unchallenged speaks volumes too).

[Spartacus]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > "Most Dulwich residents can afford a

> > taxi".....honestly every time Julie Greer opens

> > her mouth or tweets something it further

> exposes

> > how myopic and self-centred the pro-closure

> lobby

> > is. If I was a Labour councillor I would be

> > distancing myself from them and their bizarre

> > views of life through their bizarre

> village-lens

> > but, of course, many are neighbours of certain

> > local councillors so probably they share the

> same

> > bizarre views of life beyond Dulwich Square.

>

> You continually complain that the only people

> benefiting from the closures are the wealthy elite

> of Dulwich Village. Then when someone suggests

> that the wealthy elite of Dulwich Village can

> afford a taxi to the Dr's - you're outraged.

>

> Can't have it both ways ;)

At the moment, just because someone lives in a house worth 1 or 2 million, it doesn't necessarily follow that they can afford to take taxis everywhere

They may be struggling to pay the mortgage or have other financial constraints

That said, why won't the council do a proper and lawful consultation on LTNs ?

Are they running scared that residents will disapprove of the schemes forcing the clique of people who do want LTNs to have to back down ?

If there isn't a consultation soon then what little faith there is in the council being unbiased will be eroded and the elections a year from now could be a bloodbath!