LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[legalalien]

I completely understand why OneDulwich would take this approach to try and bring the Council to the table. It's an approach that forces the Council to recognise the consolidated opposition to the current scheme, rather than enabling it to fragment that opposition into support for various different measures, leaving the existing scheme as the most popular. (I've mentioned before the 1999 Australian republic referendum).

A discussion to try and reach a satisfactory solution is best reached when the current, flawed scheme is definitively off the table.

This will at least show whether people preferred the pre-scheme situation to the current situation, but doesn't attempt to pre-determine the final solution.

[exdulwicher]

I am also tired of reading how the mayoral elections are a clear mandate for LTNs. I think few had the appetite to strengthen the hand of the current Govt by voting in their reps and they are all frankly such liars we have no way of knowing they would have dismantled LTNs anyhow. But viewing a vote for Labour as mass mandating of LTNs. Nope.

As with many things, it can probably be argued both ways or with any number of underlying factors although currently very little that the Government does, no matter how incompetent seems to affect their polling much so it's not unreasonable to assert that a significant factor locally is LTNs.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2021/jun/02/the-evidence-is-in-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-are-popular

As a general rule, the percentages are normally something like 50% in favour of LTNs, 15-20% against, 25-30% neutral and 10% not sure (+/- a few % each way). Actually doesn't vary that much nationwide. Equally, you could point out that LTNs are generally favourably received as an abstract concept and opposed in the specific application. Although that's less to do with the principle of LTNs and more to do with the implementation...

Pick your point of view.

[flippit]

Surely this confirms that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, no matter how much taxpayers money you waste Southwark Council is deranged.

[Earl Aelfheah]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> I completely understand why OneDulwich would take

> this approach to try and bring the Council to the

> table. It's an approach that forces the Council

> to recognise the consolidated opposition to the

> current scheme, rather than enabling it to

> fragment that opposition into support for various

> different measures, leaving the existing scheme as

> the most popular. (I've mentioned before the 1999

> Australian republic referendum).

>

> A discussion to try and reach a satisfactory

> solution is best reached when the current, flawed

> scheme is definitively off the table.

>

> This will at least show whether people preferred

> the pre-scheme situation to the current situation,

> but doesn't attempt to pre-determine the final

> solution.

I don?t understand this. If they have an alternative proposal, why not lay it out. Why not encourage their supporters to all take part in the consultation and say ?I support the alternative proposal put forward by ?One Dulwich?.

[Earl Aelfheah]

What are they doing to ?encourage active travel? by opposing any changes and offering no alternative proposals? That is one of the things they say they?re strongly in favour of.

[exdulwicher]

What are they doing to ?encourage active travel? by opposing any changes and offering no alternative proposals? That is one of the things they say they?re strongly in favour of.

Ah, it's the same as my earlier post ^^.

They're strongly in favour of active travel as an abstract concept. So long as they don't need to change anything themselves... ;-)

In fact this goes back to some of the very early comments on this thread in the first 10-20 pages. Everyone is generally in favour of less traffic, less pollution, more equality and so on. Provided that everything stays just as it is for them.

[legalalien]

Rx3 is it really hard to understand? I can't speak for OneDulwich, but I'd suggest:

(i) the point I make above. OD are unimpressed by the way the council have "spun" survey results in the past, and can see the potential for a "divide and conquer". They won't be saying "80% oppose the existing scheme", they'll be saying "the existing scheme is the most popular option of eight different options" (for example, say where only 20% want the existing scheme, 10% want to go back to the old scheme, and everyone else wants some kind of variant)

(ii) one of the key concerns about the existing scheme is that consultation was inadequate, those in the wider area were not properly consulted, those not digitally engaged were not properly consulted, there was no proper EqIA, no objectively measured data - the list goes on. How can OD be expected to put up a proposal that is adequate/sufficient without going through that sort of process? It's not their job to do so, and if they do come up with a proposal it is subject to challenge on all the same grounds as the current scheme.

So it makes sense to adopt a "let's go back to the drawing board and try to come up with a solution with a legal/ adequate/ properly informed by data" process this time around.

That makes sense to me. I don't think you can take that approach to mean that OD (or others like me who will choose the "reverse the changes" option) don't support measures to improve air quality/ active travel etc.

[first mate]

I think, as exdulwicher has pointed out, you can support a principle in the abstract but be against forms of implementation. I think for many that is the case with these LTNs and the way the council is going about it.

Likewise, because you support an idea the fact that you cannot proffer a perfect, ready made solution does not mean you are against its implementation in any shape or form. You can know what you don't want and be clear when something is not working, without simultaneously knowing the solution.

If DA tries to focus on solutions at this juncture they know it will dilute the message to the council, which is to stop their bull in a china shop tactics and start proper, democratic consultation. The council is also extremely adept at divide and rule and myriad suggestions about 'what to do' would probably be like manna to them, a bit like their street by street consultation on CPZ (except for certain streets like Melbourne Grove).

[exdulwicher]

(ii) one of the key concerns about the existing scheme is that consultation was inadequate, those in the wider area were not properly consulted, those not digitally engaged were not properly consulted, there was no proper EqIA, no objectively measured data - the list goes on. How can OD be expected to put up a proposal that is adequate/sufficient without going through that sort of process? It's not their job to do so, and if they do come up with a proposal it is subject to challenge on all the same grounds as the current scheme.

It's an Experimental Traffic Order. The consultation runs in parallel with the scheme.

The issue of how the consultation is being done, biases either way, who can answer it and so on is a bit separate to be honest but this is standard process for ETOs. As pointed out by me and others on this thread several times, it is generally better to consult on an actual live scheme that can be relatively easily adapted than it is to consult on an idea, water it down, re-consult, obtain the necessary margin and then build either something that is near ineffective or something that wasn't the outcome of the consultation anyway.

The idea that it's invalid because people weren't consulted in advance is totally bogus, it's being used as a sort of "look how undemocratic and uncaring our council is" stick whereas this is just the normal process of every ETO.

There's a consultation going on.

Again, arguments about HOW it's being done is a slightly different issue but it certainly doesn't have to be done in advance.

[legalalien]

But exdulwicher, this is a non- standard case where the experimental traffic order approach superseded an existing consultation that was proceeding in a particular way. I don?t think that background can be overlooked, nor the unseemly haste with which the council latched onto a COVID justification and the availability of TFL funding to implement their preconceived scheme. Add to that the fact that the local councillors seem to have their fingers in their ears when it comes to listening to people during this post-implementation phase - I think my logic still applies. If they?d shown any sign of publicly acknowledging eg problems in Croxted Road, or suggesting that there was any possibility of reopening the Village Junction if the data supported that - we might be in a different place. They haven?t as far as I can tell, and some of their likes and tweets on Twitter seem to indicate that their minds are already made up (not that they are the actual decision makers - I know).

ETA so what we have is a horrible hybrid. If at the start the Council had said ?we?ve collected all this baseline data, we think we?ve come up with a good solution, we?ve considered the interests of the elderly, disabled, boundary roads, we?ve spoken to TfL and Lambeth. We?re going to put in an experimental scheme, measure what happens to traffic in this way, consider it after 6 months and will modify if anyone experiences more than x degree of negative outcome...? we would be in a much different place.

[Plough Man]

@legalalien

I am with you all the way. You have a certain clarity of though whereas Rah3 I think just works at being deliberately obtuse. I no longer read his/her contributions.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Rx3 is it really hard to understand? I can't

> speak for OneDulwich, but I'd suggest:

>

> (i) the point I make above. OD are unimpressed by

> the way the council have "spun" survey results in

> the past, and can see the potential for a "divide

> and conquer". They won't be saying "80% oppose

> the existing scheme", they'll be saying "the

> existing scheme is the most popular option of

> eight different options" (for example, say where

> only 20% want the existing scheme, 10% want to go

> back to the old scheme, and everyone else wants

> some kind of variant)

>

> (ii) one of the key concerns about the existing

> scheme is that consultation was inadequate, those

> in the wider area were not properly consulted,

> those not digitally engaged were not properly

> consulted, there was no proper EqIA, no

> objectively measured data - the list goes on. How

> can OD be expected to put up a proposal that is

> adequate/sufficient without going through that

> sort of process? It's not their job to do so, and

> if they do come up with a proposal it is subject

> to challenge on all the same grounds as the

> current scheme.

>

> So it makes sense to adopt a "let's go back to the

> drawing board and try to come up with a solution

> with a legal/ adequate/ properly informed by data"

> process this time around.

>

> That makes sense to me. I don't think you can

> take that approach to mean that OD (or others like

> me who will choose the "reverse the changes"

> option) don't support measures to improve air

> quality/ active travel etc.

[Earl Aelfheah]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> I completely understand why OneDulwich would take

> this approach to try and bring the Council to the

> table. It's an approach that forces the Council

> to recognise the consolidated opposition to the

> current scheme, rather than enabling it to

> fragment that opposition into support for various

> different measures

Is it possible that there isn?t a consensus for measures that support active travel and discourage car use amongst ?One Dulwich? supporters? It?s easy to get support for ?keep things as they are?. Much harder to actually rally people around an alternative. That isn?t likely to change once the current schemes are removed. It?s a manifesto of inaction.

[legalalien]

I don?t know. I suspect there is a consensus around the idea of measures around active travel and that exactly what form those measures take needs to be hammered out. Many people won?t get their initial idea of a perfect solution, but hopefully something more equitable can be worked out. Yes, hard work, but likely to get more buy in with more engagement and a more transparent process involving objective data. The fact that something is difficult doesn?t mean it?s not the right thing to do. (On the flip side, I do get why those who feel strongly may have been tempted to take short cuts in the interests of getting something done.)

[heartblock]

Honestly it is so frustrating to be constantly labelled by people like rahrahrah as wanting the status quo. Many of us follow Rosamund Kissi Debrah, Choked Up and Green accounts because we want...demand a reduction in pollutants, especially in areas that have illegal levels of pollution historically.

This straw man argument that we want things to stay the same...no reduction in pollution or car use is flawed.

Why do I oppose the current LTNs.. because I believe they increase pollution, increase idling and do not contribute to active travel in this area.

If people like Mums for Lungs and other pressure groups really cared about pollution and green spaces, they would be down at Bells, Greendale etc, campaigning against building on open, green spaces.

It is about privileged, gated communities.. we all know it..and nothing about pollution reduction.

So take out the LTNs

Monitor levels of traffic and pollution

Cease building on green spaces

Come up with a plan that is fully consulted and EqI assessed and number one priority - reduce pollution on rds with illegal levels of pollution

[Jellybeanz]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Honestly it is so frustrating to be constantly

> labelled by people like rahrahrah as wanting the

> status quo. Many of us follow Rosamund Kissi

> Debrah, Choked Up and Green accounts because we

> want...demand a reduction in pollutants,

> especially in areas that have illegal levels of

> pollution historically.

> This straw man argument that we want things to

> stay the same...no reduction in pollution or car

> use is flawed.

>

> Why do I oppose the current LTNs.. because I

> believe they increase pollution, increase idling

> and do not contribute to active travel in this

> area.

>

> If people like Mums for Lungs and other pressure

> groups really cared about pollution and green

> spaces, they would be down at Bells, Greendale

> etc, campaigning against building on open, green

> spaces.

>

> It is about privileged, gated communities.. we all

> know it..and nothing about pollution reduction.

>

> So take out the LTNs

> Monitor levels of traffic and pollution

> Cease building on green spaces

> Come up with a plan that is fully consulted and

> EqI assessed and number one priority - reduce

> pollution on rds with illegal levels of pollution

HEAR HEAR excellently and succinctly put.

This is all about those on roads with LTN restrictions benefitting selfishly and councils profiteering from drivers not knowing about road changes and new restrictions.

Everyone wants less pollution, it's a no brainer. BUT it must be done with community involvement and in a sensible and measured way. I don't see pollution sensors on Lordship Lane or through Dulwich village to monitor impact or additional pollution from more traffic on the main road. Nor do I see any monitoring of how buses are affected. Of course journeys by bus are now even more sluggish and congestion on main roads means anyone walking around, shopping and so on is subjected to even worse pollution.

I really really hope the councils start to listen to their communities and stop putting money before lives under the guise of cleaner air and better health, as it is just a myth.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> legalalien Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I completely understand why OneDulwich would

> take

> > this approach to try and bring the Council to

> the

> > table. It's an approach that forces the

> Council

> > to recognise the consolidated opposition to the

> > current scheme, rather than enabling it to

> > fragment that opposition into support for

> various

> > different measures

>

> Is it possible that there isn?t a consensus for

> measures that support active travel and discourage

> car use amongst ?One Dulwich? supporters? It?s

> easy to get support for ?keep things as they are?.

> Much harder to actually rally people around an

> alternative. That isn?t likely to change once the

> current schemes are removed. It?s a manifesto of

> inaction.

Rahx3 - I am sorry you are completely wrong on this. If the council had agreed to publish an alternative then I am sure One Dulwich would have been happy to urge supporters to vote for that alternative. Of course, no such offer was forthcoming from the council and all we are left with is an inadequate review that, from the moment of its inception, was designed to try and give the council a mandate to continue this disastrous experiment.

Unfortunately for the council, people are not stupid. I am sure many were like me and viewed the review documents and thought I am not going to tick "install a different type of measure" when the council is giving me no indication what that measure is likely to be. I don't trust the council enough (given their recent track record) to give them that authority and mandate.

It is what many of us on here have been warning you about - that the council's mismanagement and deliberate attempts at manipulating the process to their advantage risked backfiring and setting back the climate change debate by years. And so here we are - lots of people are having to vote for returning to things as they were because the council is not giving them any alternative. You can't say we didn't warn you.....

[Plough Man]

@ heartblock,

With you all the way. A very succinct and accurate assessment of the real consideration. Keep going and don't be put off by the spurious utterings of the minority who live in the newly created "gated" communities that have been created by LTN measures.

There are thousands of of kids walking to schools in Dulwich (7 schools & preps in total). It is these young folks who are most vulnerable to the effects of increased pollution.

The privileged wealthy residents of Court Lane, Calton Avenue and Gilkes Crescent are benefitting at the expense of the school pupils. Shame on them. They are soo, so selfish.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Honestly it is so frustrating to be constantly

> labelled by people like rahrahrah as wanting the

> status quo. Many of us follow Rosamund Kissi

> Debrah, Choked Up and Green accounts because we

> want...demand a reduction in pollutants,

> especially in areas that have illegal levels of

> pollution historically.

> This straw man argument that we want things to

> stay the same...no reduction in pollution or car

> use is flawed.

>

> Why do I oppose the current LTNs.. because I

> believe they increase pollution, increase idling

> and do not contribute to active travel in this

> area.

>

> If people like Mums for Lungs and other pressure

> groups really cared about pollution and green

> spaces, they would be down at Bells, Greendale

> etc, campaigning against building on open, green

> spaces.

>

> It is about privileged, gated communities.. we all

> know it..and nothing about pollution reduction.

>

> So take out the LTNs

> Monitor levels of traffic and pollution

> Cease building on green spaces

> Come up with a plan that is fully consulted and

> EqI assessed and number one priority - reduce

> pollution on rds with illegal levels of pollution

[Bicknell]

yes @heartblock and yes @plough man @rockets @legalalien @jellybeanz

you probably havnt seen them but theres faqs on theduwlich alliance website @rahrahra

https://dulwichalliance.org/surveyfaqs/

if the council rigs the survey, what do you expect. lets start again and find a solution thats fair for ALL

[mr whyte]

rahrahrah isn't interested in faqs or facts - he/she is waging a one-person war against the dulwich alliance, using the standard LCC tactics

[Earl Aelfheah]

I?m not accusing everyone who has issues with the current LTN as wanting to maintain the status quo. But One Dulwich as an organisation are literally campaigning to ?return things to how they were?. This is what is so disappointing

[Earl Aelfheah]

mr whyte Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah isn't interested in faqs or facts -

> he/she is waging a one-person war against the

> dulwich alliance, using the standard LCC tactics

How so?

[heartblock]

Because Rahrahrah Southwark has given a binary choice in the consultation. Southwark has all along never listened or considered any alternative voices, we all know the consultation is not an exercise in consulting, but to rubber stamp their own entrenched decision.

I actually voted Green rather than Labour...in the hope that they would tackle illegal levels of pollution....something this council ignores and even worse, increases on already polluted roads.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I?m not accusing everyone who has issues with the

> current LTN as wanting to maintain the status quo.

> But One Dulwich as an organisation are literally

> campaigning to ?return things to how they were?.

> This is what is so disappointing

Rahx3 - but they have no option. Your ire should actually be aimed at the council for organising such a manipulative review. To be fair, if more of the pro-LTN lobby had stood-up and reviewed what was happening objectively then we would not be where we are but many were happy to go along with the council's lopsided and biased implementation of these measures.

Surely you can acknowledge that the review is skewed massively towards getting the result the council wants and is not at all balanced?

[legalalien]

Meanwhile, Peckham Vision and others are expressing very similar concerns about aspects of the Council?s approach to the Old Kent Road (see attachment). These actions aren?t in Dulwich but are right in our backyard and the governance/ engagement issues are the same.

[Plough Man]

Must be serious if the Boomers are out protesting! Bet he was on the CND marches.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> So this is what they are supporting, just to be

> clear:

>

> https://twitter.com/cleanairdulwich/status/1398750

> 505501872128?s=21