LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Otto2]

This research (and ongoing) is well-intentioned - a focused study on equity in active travel infrastructure. It also has been undertaken by academics who are highly regarded in their fields. It contains recommendations to ensure equity. Insinuating these academics are corrupt is just awful.

[Rockets]

Ex- I wasn't calling for Aldred's research to be peer-reviewed + Snowy insinuated that I didn't understand peer-review and I merely pointed out that Aldred's report is Under Peer Review thus depositioning Snowy's suggestion that my argument was not credible because Aldred has had work peer-reviewed previously.

I think it is clear where the Dulwich Alliance funding came from (anti LTN supporters) what's less clear is where the funding for Aldred's report came from - anyone hazzard a guess where.....?

And the bottom line is the Guardian isn't dressing up DA's research and presenting it as fact. They would look at it and say this isn't balanced, which is fair enough. Shame they don't apply the same measure to pro-closure research don't you think? 🤔

Anyway, judge for yourself how impartial Aldred might be...she served as London Cycling Campaign Policy forum lead from 2012 to 2018 and helped develop their policy on LTNs......

[PeterW]

Hi everyone, I'm the Peter Walker mentioned in this message. I came across this thread by chance (like 90% of EDF users I'm mainly here for the plumber recommendations). I'm not going to dive into the main argument, but can I make a factual point of correction: this idea I'm some sort of "adviser" to Southwark, or an open activist, is completely false, and comes down to a (perhaps deliberate) misunderstanding by some anti-LTN types elsewhere a while back.

My only interaction with Southwark (beyond, obviously, paying them council tax) is I got asked by councillors to speak, with lots of other people, and some committee meeting a while back. From memory it was the environment one. I was asked along as a local, but also a local who has written about cycling/active travel issues. The sentiment on reducing consultation is somewhat of a mangling of what I said, in part due to the compression of the minutes. I've never argued against consulation; my only point was that it shouldn't become a means whereby a noisy minority can indefinitely delay or veto every project ? councillors have to accept that complete consensus from every local is almost certainly impossible. This isn't a massively contoversial view, if easy for me to say, having never stood for elected office.

Similarly, I never "advised Southark to put in modal filters". My only stated view at the meeting was that, if any local areas wants to boost cycling and walking numbers then it's not just a matter of building separated bike lanes on main roads, but also making smaller residental streets more human-friendly. Part of this is (properly enforced) lower speeds, but part of it is measures to disincentivise some short, one-person car journeys (about a third of London car trips are less than 2km), not least so the roads are more free for those who really need to drive. And part of this tends to involve modal filtering. Again, this isn't some weird personal belief, it's happened in the UK for about 50 years, and is ubiquitous in lots of other countries.

So yes, this means that while I think LTNs (or whatever you call them) will inevitably be part of the mix of a modern city, they're not the only element, and nor is every LTN, as designed and installed, immediately perfect. My views on cycling and active travel and very public, but I make every effort for stories I write to be accurate and fair. If you think they're not, rather than casting inuendos here, by far the best course of action is to contact the Guardian's excellent and independent readers' editor office. I am, I should stress, purely speaking here as an individual and a local, one who was a bit surprised to see my reputation traduced on such a normally friendly and construtive local forum.

Thanks for indulging me, back to the arguments.

and guardian article by peter walker, lives in champion hill, aslo never open about conflict of interest, advised southwark to put in modal filters (thats planters to you and me) and to reduce consultation to get changes done faster -see page 6 of minuites here:

[Spartacus]

Thank you Peter

I would also like to temper your statement of "I've never argued against consulation; my only point was that it shouldn't become a means whereby a noisy minority can indefinitely delay or veto every project ? councillors have to accept that complete consensus from every local is almost certainly impossible."

As it has to apply both ways, so that a small vocal minority can't influence a consultation against the wishes of the masses. It needs to work both ways to avoid consultation bias.

[legalalien]

So really - what a consultation needs to do, is be designed in such a way that it accurately identifies what most people feel about proposals (ie no skewed questions), but more importantly, in a way that allows the decision-maker to collect enough information to make a properly informed decision, in particular, knowledge about the likely impacts on all of those affected. It isn't, after all, a referendum - I think everyone accepts that. And then if the decision-maker makes a decision that is clearly against the wishes of the majority of those consulted, they should be required to give a transparent, reasoned justification for their decision. (ETA actually they should do that in all cases). The design needs to make sure that everyone involved has equal levels of transparency and opportunity to give input throughout the process ie from an early stage, before a "de facto" decision is made, and that there is adequate and unbiased collection of critical data.

That's what most of the people complaining about the council on here want, I think - it just isn't being delivered. And even if some of it is being delivered, it certainly doesn't appear that way - which is a problem in itself.

The thing is, Peter, you say you were "asked along as a local". You can't really believe that's true - what other "locals" are randomly asked along to speak at council meetings? No-one else gets a chance to speak at them without applying to make a deputation and if they are accepted, being given an extremely limited window. You were asked because you were a potentially influential journalist with an interest in active travel issues - who those present and taking the minutes thought of as a "cycling campaigner" and someone those who issued the invitation would like to have "in the tent", surely? You must see the impression it gives? If you look back to the meeting, the people invited were a lady from a Play Street charity, you and Simon Munk of LCC apparently together, and a lady from Living Streets London. There is no suggestion of inviting anyone to give an alternative perspective.

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6464/Printed%20minutes%20Wednesday%2004-Dec-2019%2019.00%20Environment%20Scrutiny%20Commission.pdf?T=1

Lastly - a plea not to use the term "anti-LTN types". This kind of language, which suggests that everyone either supporting or against the specific LTNs with which this thread is concerned share the same views and are vehemently in favour or against each and every LTN in the world, is a big part of the problem imho.

[Otto2]

I'm disheartened with the personal attacks - on anyone who has extensive knowledge of modal shift initiatives that are relevant to the discussion -- attempts to repaint these individuals as dishonest is very witch hunt-ish.

Thanks for the clarification Peter.

"if any local areas wants to boost cycling and walking numbers then it's not just a matter of building separated bike lanes on main roads, but also making smaller residental streets more human-friendly. Part of this is (properly enforced) lower speeds, but part of it is measures to disincentivise some short, one-person car journeys (about a third of London car trips are less than 2km), not least so the roads are more free for those who really need to drive. And part of this tends to involve modal filtering. Again, this isn't some weird personal belief, it's happened in the UK for about 50 years, and is ubiquitous in lots of other countries.

So yes, this means that while I think LTNs (or whatever you call them) will inevitably be part of the mix of a modern city, they're not the only element, and nor is every LTN, as designed and installed, immediately perfect."

[Earl Aelfheah]

Well said Otto2.

[DulwichCentral]

@legalalien to be fair please can you tell @rockets off too? I expect he'll be along shortly with his 'pro-LTN lobbyists' language?

Lastly - a plea not to use the term "anti-LTN types". This kind of language, which suggests that everyone either supporting or against the specific LTNs with which this thread is concerned share the same views and are vehemently in favour or against each and every LTN in the world, is a big part of the problem imho.

[legalalien]

Happy to :)

Wrote:

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

> @legalalien to be fair please can you tell

> @rockets off too? I expect he'll be along shortly

> with his 'pro-LTN lobbyists' language?

>

> Lastly - a plea not to use the term "anti-LTN

> types". This kind of language, which suggests that

> everyone either supporting or against the specific

> LTNs with which this thread is concerned share the

> same views and are vehemently in favour or against

> each and every LTN in the world, is a big part of

> the problem imho.

[Nigello]

PeterW sounds rational, fair, candid and reliable.

[richard tudor]

How much influence did Peter W weld in getting Champion Hill Closed?

Which meant people had to go on a round the houses route to get to Denmark Hill. A road that was mostly unused after rush hour was over.

A road that will remain closed for nother 18 months because they need new figures.

If Townley Road can be closed for a nominated period why can Champion Hill not have the same.

Peter W, Mr Barber any comments.

[Rockets]

Peter,

Welcome to the most entertaining and engaging thread on the forum and we appreciate your input - things get a bit heated on here but we all love each other dearly! ;-)

You are being seen, quite rightly, as a mouthpiece for the pro-LTN lobby and, whilst I appreciate that you are catering to the readership of the Guardian, you cannot be surprised that some are suggesting that there could be more balance and scrutiny applied to your reports?

For example, do you know who funded the recent Rachel Aldred report?

Also looking at your Twitter feed https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1367451540680830976 you are very dismissive of anyone who dares have an opinion that differs from your own - your post earlier today signing up to NextDoor and then the pile on from people like Simon Munk because people are discussing LTNs on there demonstrates why people feel there is an agenda to deposition and belittle anyone who dares question LTNs. I personally believe that the attitude you, the council and your cohorts are taking with the "we're right and you're wrong" attitude is galvanising more and more support against these measures. Combine that with the council's refusal to engage in any proper dialogue and I believe long-term harm is being done to the much needed and urgent debate on climate change and the role that cars and other vehicles play in that.

Whilst I appreciate Twitter are personal comments that attitude transmits to your articles (the use of immotive language like: seemingly demolishes the main argument by opponents of such schemes) and I am not sure you can be surprised people deposition your position when you are so willing to deposition and belittle others.

As a local resident you are no doubt aware of the problems these measures have created - both in the sense of creating huge displacement issues and dividing the community. You must also be aware that a large number of local residents across Dulwich feel that they are being ignored by the council and forced to live with the negative displacement of these measures as the council panders to a group of lobbyists, many of whom happen to live on some the wealthiest streets in London - if I do say so myself a more traditional Guardian article if I ever saw one.

I also do love the deep irony of a journalist claiming: "That's not what I said" in relation to the minutes of the Southwark meeting - I thought that was only ever said to journalists not by them!

The minutes are pretty compelling, here are the minutes from that meeting (page 6 is where these issues are discussed) and one excerpt pasted below:

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6464/Printed%20minutes%20Wednesday%2004-Dec-2019%2019.00%20Environment%20Scrutiny%20Commission.pdf?T=1

Peter Walker asked if there was scope for experiments. The transport

policy officer that that there was and Southwark is undertaking schemes

with 18 months experimental orders, which can be repeated.

The cycling campaigners advised that there is a need for conviction and

leadership, given the climate emergency and that car owners are not the

majority.

[Rockets]

Well said Trevor....

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/04/how-low-traffic-schemes-fuel-inequality?__twitter_impression=true

[malumbu]

Well that has put the cat among the pigeons. I was trying not to post on this thread, as there are too many closed minds. But in the last few weeks it was good to see that there were others who tried to bring in some balance.

I've given my views a number of times, but just to reiterate them if we are serious about tackling climate change we need to reduce the number of cars on our roads. Call me a pro LTNer or whatever, I'd rather be known as an environmentalist.

I've not read, nor feel like I needed to read, the Guardian articles, as I'm pretty informed already. I've just deleted some comments about issues with some of the coverage about emissions in the mid 10s as this doesn't help the discussions here. But I can't comment on the more recent articles, which as said don't influence me. I do read articles in more specialist publications and post them on here from time to time.

Back to the topic, one area I have been involved in in the past is consultations. You get strong views on either side, and where people are particularly angry this tends to be against rather than for. But in almost all circumstances these are still the minority and most people just get on with their lives and get used to it. As I have for a variety of traffic initiatives since I moved here 30 years ago, you grumble a bit, and then it becomes the norm.

[SE22_2020er]

Dear Rockets,

A quick reply to your post above, saying that:

"Welcome to the most entertaining and engaging thread on the forum and we appreciate your input - things get a bit heated on here but we all love each other dearly!"

I may be the only one with this view, and if so I apologise for raising this, but I'm afraid that I find your constant postings and put downs of other peoples' posts very aggressive. I for one have not dared to post on this thread, with what I would hope to be useful and interesting comments, in fear that you will slap me down because they are different to your views.

Clearly you feel very strongly about your views on the LTNs as shown by the fact that you've posted in the high 100s of times on this thread alone. But please, take a look back on your posts in the light of the day ask yourself whether you'd like to be the recipient of them and whether it's fair for you to drown out people who have different views to you. It's OK for other people to have their own views, and just because they are not the same as yours does not make them invalid or wrong.

Maybe I am wrong in hoping for a respectful grown-up discussion where it's OK for people to have different points of view and try and find common ground between their views. At the moment, this thread is like a playground shouting competition which is not helpful, enjoyable or even particularly interesting.

Yours,

Very frustrated of East Dulwich

[Otto2]

Thank you SE22_2020er - you are not alone with that view.

[Bicknell]

sorry you feel that way Se22 and @Otto2. i dont think Rockets is doing anything diffrent from anyone on this thread - listens, and replies, puts forward other suggestions. basically southwark has set us up to argue. thats why i think the next stage has got to be proper consultation. southwark said they would announce teh rreview in february. anyone know whats happening?

[ab29]

Agree - Rockets is anything but aggressive; in fact, I don't know where he finds patience to keep replying (politely) to some individuals here ;)

Bicknell Wrote:

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

> sorry you feel that way Se22 and @Otto2. i dont

> think Rockets is doing anything diffrent from

> anyone on this thread - listens, and replies,

> puts forward other suggestions. basically

> southwark has set us up to argue. thats why i

> think the next stage has got to be proper

> consultation. southwark said they would announce

> teh rreview in february. anyone know whats

> happening?

[Rockets]

SE22_2020er - I am sorry you feel that way but people feel passionately about this on both sides and I think my tone is no different from anyone else's involved in the debate - wherever they stand in it - and you have to admit I try to inject a bit of brevity every so often to try to lighten the tone.

Some of us are just trying to counter some of the arguments being put forth in support of these measures - is that wrong - especially as the council is limiting proper discussion and community engagement on the matter?

At the end of the day if you don't like the thread you don't have to engage - that's the beauty of these forums but it's the number one thread in terms of posts and views so some people seem to be interested! ;-)

[Otto2]

Rockets - It would be good to hear what your vision is for tackling the very real problem we will face in having too many cars on the road in London based on population growth estimates and subsequent damage to the environment and people. How would you encourage the people that can change to change? There's an abundance of academic study given to this topic -- perhaps there are papers and data you can cite to back up your vision?

[Rockets]

Otto2 - there are a lot of posts from me on this thread about just that subject but, in summary (and these are my thoughts for Dulwich):

1) Investment in transport infrastructure (I know this is long-term but PTAL scores are very low in Dulwich). Without public transport infrastructure you cannot expect people to get out of the car.

2) Integrated cycling infrastructure. Bikes and cars have to coexist. Make it easier for people to make modal shift but not by closing roads to through traffic as that doesn't fix anything - it makes things worse.

3) Cycling support infrastructure. Cycling cannot remain the domain of those with space to store bikes. There needs to accelerated investment in giving every household access to bike storage. Without it cycling will remain only accessible to the most wealthy.

4) Proper commitment to EV infrastructure - but I appreciate many in the cycle lobby don't want this (as demonstrated by the minutes of the meeting posted earlier in the thread). But if emissions are the problem we are tacking then tackle them.

5) Means tested road pricing.

6) Do nothing in isolation. Do a proper area-wide approach and include everyone in the debate and give equal weighting to all road users.

7) Don't put measures in place that cause more problems than they solve and divide a community.

8) Be transparent with the plans and put proper monitoring in place to determine what is working and what is not. Do not be afraid to admit that something is not working.

[malumbu]

There are definitely lots of 'ives' - not aggressive, but obsessive and emotive. The 'Southwark is corrupt, incompetent, and in the pockets of the rich' is a prime example. I find it difficult to get into proper debate on this thread about how we tackle carbon emissions from cars - it's as much about reduced demand as technology. There are exciting times ahead as we move into 'mobility as a service' and the current model of car ownership and use may soon be a thing of the past. Connected and autonomous vehicles will be a massive game changer. https://www.smmt.co.uk/industry-topics/technology-innovation/connected-autonomous-vehicles/ Yet I feel that many views on this thread are backward.

I've shared my own experience of a time when I was obsessive about a planning decision. I took to social media. I considered the local authority were useless. It became personal. I badgered the national and local media (the latter backfired spectacularly with a counter piece in the South London press. People would cross the street when they saw me. I wasn't aware about how obsessed I had become. I'm still not happy with the planning decision but there became a time to move on. And learn from my behaviours.

[Otto2]

Thanks Rockets -

Some good points. Quick thoughts -- I like 3) in particular especially as it seems odd that cars can park in the spaces on my street but there is no provision for people who cycle. As for 4) - I agree, but, we still need to cut the number of cars overall as there simply is not room given population growth, and, pollution/particles from tyres are actually a huge problem when it comes to our health. 6) - it is a shame that it is a borough by borough approach and some joined up planning would be welcome. 7)Let's work on that division here! 8) I see many reports and studies are coming out -- change is slow, monitoring is ongoing, and we should read and learn - I agree.

2) -- "closing roads to through traffic as that does not fix anything - it makes matters worse" --

With my own eyes, have seen an increase in many a small person of late use these areas to travel, to learn how to ride a bike, to alter their travel routes. I've also seen more children playing outside. I've seen leisurely strolls. I have seen in increase of active travel across generations and abilities.

[Penguin68]

The biggest problem is that Southwark's plans make no allowance for the fact that the borough is not uniform. The North is well served by public transport (some parts are very well served) with tubes and buses that traverse the compass. It is also flat, which makes cycling far easier for the less fit.

The South, where we are, is very hilly and poorly served by public transport. Its car ownership is much higher, but then it mimics that of Bromley - similar in nature. Things here are further apart - so 'walk it or cycle it' is a less acceptable mantra, particularly for the more elderly and infirm (or indeed those with a handful of toddlers to cope with). We are only 'inner London' because of a stitch-up which meant that the old Borough of Camberwell was subsumed by Southwark, which carries that title and topology.

So a single policy (that which looks sensible if you are sitting in Tooley St surrounded by good public transport and no hills) looks less sensible here.

And it doesn't help that the streets which you can readily cut-off from the real world are those where the (most) wealthy live, and the streets onto which the traffic is diverted are where the state schools and the less wealthy are. And (despite the current low levels of traffic associated with continuing lock-down) when the economy and society releases there are going to be bad levels of traffic in those streets - which will get worse over time.

[Bicknell]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Otto2 - there are a lot of posts from me on this

> thread about just that subject but, in summary

> (and these are my thoughts for Dulwich):

>

> 1) Investment in transport infrastructure (I know

> this is long-term but PTAL scores are very low in

> Dulwich). Without public transport infrastructure

> you cannot expect people to get out of the car.

> 2) Integrated cycling infrastructure. Bikes and

> cars have to coexist. Make it easier for people to

> make modal shift but not by closing roads to

> through traffic as that doesn't fix anything - it

> makes things worse.

> 3) Cycling support infrastructure. Cycling cannot

> remain the domain of those with space to store

> bikes. There needs to accelerated investment in

> giving every household access to bike storage.

> Without it cycling will remain only accessible to

> the most wealthy.

> 4) Proper commitment to EV infrastructure - but I

> appreciate many in the cycle lobby don't want this

> (as demonstrated by the minutes of the meeting

> posted earlier in the thread). But if emissions

> are the problem we are tacking then tackle them.

> 5) Means tested road pricing.

> 6) Do nothing in isolation. Do a proper area-wide

> approach and include everyone in the debate and

> give equal weighting to all road users.

> 7) Don't put measures in place that cause more

> problems than they solve and divide a community.

> 8) Be transparent with the plans and put proper

> monitoring in place to determine what is working

> and what is not. Do not be afraid to admit that

> something is not working.

Agree, rockets - good points.

and agree with penguin too.