LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[hopskip]

The three Council consultation meetings regarding the Dulwich ETOs and the way forward are underway - final one in June, two took place in May. Are there public recordings for those of us who want to hear what was discussed at the earlier meetings? Please direct me to them if so. Our pre-Covid council meetings were recorded so there is no reason not to have this principle for the public record?

If this consultation is genuine, go to the promoted website:

https://dulwichreview.eventbrite.co.uk/

Scroll down and try to register for the June 19th event - our last chance. The link is no longer operating? Where are the recordings from the earlier two PUBLIC meetings? Who do WE ASK at Southwark?!!

How can we register for the June 19th meetings @ Dulwich Ward councillors?

[Earl Aelfheah]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Because Rahrahrah Southwark has given a binary

> choice in the consultation. Southwark has all

> along never listened or considered any alternative

> voices

?Overall, what would your preference be for the future of this measure?

a. Return it to the original state

b. Retain it as it is

c. Install a different kind of measure

d. Retain the measure, but modify/ enhance it with other features

If you answered c or d above, please explain briefly what you would like to see:?

This is not a binary choice.

?One Dulwich? could have published some alternative proposals and asked their supporters to tick option ?c? and link to it, or simply refer to it in the comments.

They have chosen instead to steer people towards no change / option ?a?. One Dulwich are making it a binary choice. Either support the measures in their entirely or reject them in their entirety;

Where is the alternative proposal they say they have made but Southwark are blocking?

[heartblock]

It's clear that Southwark will not remove the LTNs but will double-down on a poor decision influenced by external actors and individuals who live inside LTNs and have close connections to Southwark Labour.

Why is the temporary road closure at Gilkes for building works renewed? Why is the consultation a binary choice and written in such biased way?

[Earl Aelfheah]

It?s great that ?One Dulwich? want less pollution and more active travel - everyone does. What do they propose to achieve this? I read the FAQs and they talk about more analysis, getting a scheme everyone will support, more carrots not just sticks etc. But no specifics. Maybe I?m wrong, but it sounds a lot like kicking action into the long grass.

I honestly thought ?One Dulwich? would have developed a clear, actionable, alternative proposal that perhaps I could have got behind.

[Metallic]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> And some santander bikes for that route would be

> nice too - the idea of too hilly doesn't stack up

> - its a gentle slope along that way and being able

> to leave a bike at Brixton that you weren't

> worried about not being there for the return

> journey would be great.

Of course no one steals bikes anywhere else but Brixton. How very, um, middle class of you.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@heartblock I?ve quoted the consultation question above. It?s not binary. You might disagree with the way the consultation is constructed, but the only people making the choice binary (between ?approve of the scheme as is? or ?return to how things were before?), are One Dulwich.

[ab29]

3xRah: "It?s great that ?One Dulwich? want less pollution and more active travel - everyone does. What do they propose to achieve this? "

Countless number of times people like Rockets, Legal and others have come up with many ideas but you prefer to ignore it and repeat the same things over and over again, like a mantra.

So far you have done the cause no service, except reinforcing a stereotype of the know-it-all, arrogant cyclist. You have never showed any interest in those here who voice their concerns and who are badly affected by the road closures.

Also - there is a new thread called 'Air pollution in East Dulwich - what can we do?'- many ideas there.

[DulwichCentral]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> Also - there is a new thread called 'Air pollution

> in East Dulwich - what can we do?'- many ideas

> there.

Would that be electric cars and better public transport?

Even if ALL new cars were electric right now - it would still take 15-20 years to phase out combustion engine vehicles.

People can create as many threads as they like and spend as much time as they like pontificating - but showing some respect for those who are trying to do their bit a little more urgently would go a long way.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/03/climate-tipping-points-could-topple-like-dominoes-warn-scientists

'Tipping points occur when global heating pushes temperatures beyond a critical threshold, leading to accelerated and irreversible impacts. Some large ice sheets in Antarctica are thought to already have passed their tipping points, meaning large sea-level rises in coming centuries...

...The study suggests that below 2C of global warming ? ie in the Paris agreement target range ? there could still be a significant risk of triggering cascading climate tipping points,?

[legalalien]

Sorry DC, but that last comment reminded me of the attached cartoon :)

[heartblock]

Even the proponents of LTNs such as LCCs Simon Monk admit there is no data that shows LTNs reduce pollution.

[heartblock]

The Dulwich Society magazine editorial -latest edition

"the real losers are those that reside on roads where diverted traffic has been displaced to. Not only is there hugely more traffic congestion but there are risks of high concentrations of toxic fumes"

It goes on suggesting that the council should compensate us for the damage to our children's lungs by reducing our council tax, so people in the rich streets can carry on pretending they are living in the Cotswolds.

I wonder how much they think a child's health is worth....

[ab29]

I was walking this morning form Horniman towards Dulwich Library and there was a solid, hardly moving traffic starting around Wood Vale. 10am on Saturday, not a weekday, not rush hours. This stretch of LL is now a complete bottleneck most of the day.

Shifting traffic from richer roads to the poorer ones (usually more densely populated and more polluted) by closing roads and being very precious about it does not improve air quality.

How about banning households from owning more than one car and banning ownership of SUV in London to start with - this would have much more effect and quicker.

[alice]

Banning inroad parking in the broad avenues with off road parking. Thus limiting number of cars per household and creating safe space for bus/bike lanes.

[Penguin68]

banning households from owning more than one car and banning ownership of SUV

1. If households have more than one car in action at the same time then they probably need more than one car to achieve their ends. Cars which are parked up may annoy you, but if they're not moving then they have nothing to do with the title of this thread 'our healthy streets'. Some people keep a small run-around for use in town, and a larger family vehicle for longer journeys. If they kept only one car it would be the big one - which they would then use locally as well as for longer journeys. That's a win for you, is it?

2. SUVs occupy no more space on the road than most vans, estate cars, people carriers etc. Your hatred of SUVs is a class, not an environmental hatred. Most SUVs (they are a modern type of car) - other than diesel - have as low emissions as any other car that will 'pass' the ULEZ (and ones that don't will be banned within the inner areas inside the North and South Circulars). In the (admittedly very few) years when we have ice and snow locally then SUVs - if the are 4WD - are able to negotiate local hills which other cars (and buses) can't. I've seen this happen.

[DulvilleRes]

I took a brief and informal snapshot to see where anti-LTN support was coming from and how deep it was on some of the roads affected by displaced traffic, as expressed by people putting up posters and placards opposing the LTNs.

I walked East Dulwich Grove in its entirety, Lordship Lane from the East Dulwich Tavern to the junction of the South Circular/ Dulwich Common, and Dulwich Village down to the junction with East Dulwich Grove. Where I could find the information, I also checked out house values on Zoopla ( some have no values entered) and took the midpoint of those Zoopla estimates. All in all, it was pretty interesting.

Clearly, many caveats. A poster or placard is only one indication of support or otherwise, posters and placards could be put up for a variety of motives and reflect a range of views, Zoopla is very broad and often inaccurate, some people might not be allowed to put up posters in terms of their leases/ tenancy agreements etc, some people might not own the property they are in, my maths at times can be crap, I might have missed some. So this exercise is intended to be informal, broad and indicative, a personal view and nothing more.

East Dulwich Grove between the junction with Dulwich Village and Townley Road (Alleyns) had relatively strong anti LTN support, and the average house price, where an estimated range was given, of those displaying a poster or placard was over ?2 million.

East Dulwich Grove to Lordship Lane, support was weaker, average house/ property price was of those displaying a poster, where an estimated range was given, was ?1.1 million. The average property price given on Zoopla for East Dulwich Grove as a whole is ?717k.

Lordship Lane from the East Dulwich Tavern to Dulwich Library is 0.8 miles, and I found the lack of support for the anti-LTN lobby as expressed by posters and placards, particularly striking. When I counted, only 8 businesses on the entire stretch were displaying a poster or placard, and only 5 residential properties. Clearly, all the caveats mentioned above and probably some others apply, but what I also found striking was other kinds of posters such as Black Lives Matter and in support of the NHS were on display. On the Lordship Lane Estate, facing Lordship Lane, there wasn't a single anti-LTN poster to be seen in the flats.

Dulwich Common/ South Circular to Dulwich Village - there was a cluster of posters/placards in the houses near the junction with Lordship Lane, and where I could get an indication of value, the average house price of those displaying them was ?1.44 million. Again strikingly in the large concentration of flats opposite in McCleod Court and Maxwell Court, there wasn't a single poster or placard.

Dulwich Village from the South Circular down to East Dulwich Grove, posters and placards were relatively sparse, and the average house price of those displaying them where I could find it, with all the caveats, was ?3.72m.

With all the above-stated caveats, this exercise (apart from giving my ton of Covid flab a workout) posed for me a couple of questions:

- are a lot of people who oppose the LTNs on roads I walked affected by displaced traffic likely to live in a high-value property?

- is support for the anti-LTN lobby from potentially lower-income groups living on roads I walked affected by displaced traffic currently weak?

In the light of some of the 'for the many, not the few' style rhetoric coming out of some of the anti-LTN lobby in recent days, this gave me pause for thought. Clearly, it would be good to hear a range of views as to what people think, particularly the people affected.

[first mate]

So, if you don't display an anti LTN poster in your window you are obviously neutral or pro? Is that what you are saying?

[exdulwicher]

2. SUVs occupy no more space on the road than most vans, estate cars, people carriers etc. Your hatred of SUVs is a class, not an environmental hatred. Most SUVs (they are a modern type of car) - other than diesel - have as low emissions as any other car that will 'pass' the ULEZ (and ones that don't will be banned within the inner areas inside the North and South Circulars). In the (admittedly very few) years when we have ice and snow locally then SUVs - if the are 4WD - are able to negotiate local hills which other cars (and buses) can't. I've seen this happen.

There are numerous articles from numerous sources which say you're wrong. SUVs weigh more than "average" cars, they emit more pollution, they take up more space (while often having less usable space inside than a comparable estate car), they're more dangerous in general to pedestrians / cyclists etc and the idea that anyone in an urban environment "needs" one for the one day a year when there's a bit of snow on the ground is insane. And if we're going on anecdotes of seeing these things get up hills, I've seen far more in ditches and hedges because the drivers assume that "4WD" = "I can drive in snow and rain and the car will sort out everything for me". Winter tyres make more of a difference than 4WD.

https://www.wired.com/story/suvs-are-worse-for-the-climate-than-you-ever-imagined/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56647128

https://inews.co.uk/news/suv-car-drivers-warning-environmentalists-buy-city-report-945611

The massive rise in the sales of SUVs over the last 10-15 years has completely negated any decrease in emissions from the uptake in EVs / hybrids.

[alice]

How easy would it be to ban the swollen SUVs from inside the north/south circulars.

[heartblock]

Try mode average for ED Grove...and yes, much of the rental in ED Grove are not allowed to put up posters..

During local and national elections very few posters go up.... I think the number of posters voicing that LTNs are causing more traffic on our roads is incredible.

I haven't seen even one poster up - from the local Labour Party campaign for LTNs that was sent round to members.

It went along the line that car ownership was bad... I suppose it is difficult for the SUV or Diesel car owning properties on Melbourne, Derwent and Calton to put such a poster..

[flippit]

@ penguin68,

You may be clouding the issue of emissions. The main pollution culprits are not SUVs ( or cars) but big 4x4s.

Whilst there is no clear definition of what a SUV or cross-over really is, it is worth understanding that SUV?s are usually car-derived. They can be 4x2 or have the ability to adapt to a 4 wheel drive. They are really life-style cars with a higher body lift that hints at being a 4x4. Mostly they are not. Think of models such as Qashki or Mocka .

Proper 4x4s are invariably bigger, heavier. They have larger engines and so, in absolute terms, have much higher emissions. Think of Range Rover, Volvo, Mercedes and BMW 4x4s.

More significantly, the emissions of any vehicle are massively higher whilst the engine gets warmed up. So its short journeys on the school run that really pollute big time.

So let us persuade the yummy mummies to ditch the big 4x4 and go electric. They can easily afford it- especially if they can afford public school fees.

[Penguin68]

So let us persuade the yummy mummies to ditch the big 4x4 and go electric.

Be careful what you wish for - in autumn 2022 the Hummer EV SUV is launched - wider than the 'between parked cars clearance' of most ED residential streets - but all electric. It's a beaut - I'd love to be able to afford one just to drive it through (and I do mean through) Dulwich Village to hear all the brains exploding.

There are a number of all electric SUVs already on the market, as well as many hybrids.

I do take your point (I wish others would) that there is a difference between the big SUV 4x4s and the smaller ones. However many do have highly engineered engines and, if petrol, comparatively low emissions compared with other, less engineered and older cars still allowed to drive without fiscal penalty come ULEZ.

[flippit]

@Penguin,

I still don't think you've not quite got it between SUV's and 4x4s and as an automotive engineer, I can't quite grasp what you mean by "highly engineered" and "less engineered" engines.

Engineering (and design) competence ( and efficiency)in vehicles is at a pretty consistent standard across all the major vehicle manufacturers ( Toyota, VW, BMW, Ford, Chrysler, Volvo, Mercedes, Renault etc etc).

They each continuously progress the efficiency of their engines and hence all are within close margins because the have to achieve enforced standards in USA, Europe, Japan etc or face massive penalties. If they don't comply with standards, they soon go out of business.

So these days, the cubic capacity of the engine of any vehicle is directly related to the emissions it produces. The same applies whether the engine is in a motor bike, car, SUV or 4x4 unless it is a hybrid or pure EV.

That aside, the worst polluters are diesel 4x4s driven on short runs. Sort them out by installing ANPR controlled zones that exempt pure EVs.

[legalalien]

You?re having a laugh? That?s the least scientific thing I?ve ever heard.

But if we?re going to go with this kind of pseudo-data: I have a poster and three near neighbours have commented that they agree with me but that I?m ?very brave? to put a poster up. So based on that, let?s multiply the number of posters by four to estimate support (I haven?t seen another poster in my street so we wouldn?t be double counting). Or possibly let?s assume everyone in my street agrees with me as they haven?t put a pro LTN poster up. To be fair I haven?t done a half hearted google of their property values, so I may be misinterpreting. I have however walked along the roads mentioned regularly over the past decade.

DulvilleRes Wrote:

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

> I took a brief and informal snapshot to see where

> anti-LTN support was coming from and how deep it

> was on some of the roads affected by displaced

> traffic, as expressed by people putting up posters

> and placards opposing the LTNs.

>

> I walked East Dulwich Grove in its entirety,

> Lordship Lane from the East Dulwich Tavern to the

> junction of the South Circular/ Dulwich Common,

> and Dulwich Village down to the junction with East

> Dulwich Grove. Where I could find the information,

> I also checked out house values on Zoopla ( some

> have no values entered) and took the midpoint of

> those Zoopla estimates. All in all, it was pretty

> interesting.

>

> Clearly, many caveats. A poster or placard is only

> one indication of support or otherwise, posters

> and placards could be put up for a variety of

> motives and reflect a range of views, Zoopla is

> very broad and often inaccurate, some people might

> not be allowed to put up posters in terms of their

> leases/ tenancy agreements etc, some people might

> not own the property they are in, my maths at

> times can be crap, I might have missed some. So

> this exercise is intended to be informal, broad

> and indicative, a personal view and nothing more.

>

> East Dulwich Grove between the junction with

> Dulwich Village and Townley Road (Alleyns) had

> relatively strong anti LTN support, and the

> average house price, where an estimated range was

> given, of those displaying a poster or placard was

> over ?2 million.

>

> East Dulwich Grove to Lordship Lane, support was

> weaker, average house/ property price was of those

> displaying a poster, where an estimated range was

> given, was ?1.1 million. The average property

> price given on Zoopla for East Dulwich Grove as a

> whole is ?717k.

>

> Lordship Lane from the East Dulwich Tavern to

> Dulwich Library is 0.8 miles, and I found the lack

> of support for the anti-LTN lobby as expressed by

> posters and placards, particularly striking. When

> I counted, only 8 businesses on the entire stretch

> were displaying a poster or placard, and only 5

> residential properties. Clearly, all the caveats

> mentioned above and probably some others apply,

> but what I also found striking was other kinds of

> posters such as Black Lives Matter and in support

> of the NHS were on display. On the Lordship Lane

> Estate, facing Lordship Lane, there wasn't a

> single anti-LTN poster to be seen in the flats.

>

> Dulwich Common/ South Circular to Dulwich Village

> - there was a cluster of posters/placards in the

> houses near the junction with Lordship Lane, and

> where I could get an indication of value, the

> average house price of those displaying them was

> ?1.44 million. Again strikingly in the large

> concentration of flats opposite in McCleod Court

> and Maxwell Court, there wasn't a single poster or

> placard.

>

> Dulwich Village from the South Circular down to

> East Dulwich Grove, posters and placards were

> relatively sparse, and the average house price of

> those displaying them where I could find it, with

> all the caveats, was ?3.72m.

>

> With all the above-stated caveats, this exercise

> (apart from giving my ton of Covid flab a workout)

> posed for me a couple of questions:

>

> - are a lot of people who oppose the LTNs on roads

> I walked affected by displaced traffic likely to

> live in a high-value property?

> - is support for the anti-LTN lobby from

> potentially lower-income groups living on roads I

> walked affected by displaced traffic currently

> weak?

>

> In the light of some of the 'for the many, not the

> few' style rhetoric coming out of some of the

> anti-LTN lobby in recent days, this gave me pause

> for thought. Clearly, it would be good to hear a

> range of views as to what people think,

> particularly the people affected.

[alice]

I tried to get a poster from fashion conscience. They didn?t have any left. Now multiply my 1 visit by the bustling crowds that some say now ?enjoy? Melbourne grove. Surely that means it?s reasonable to conclude that the length of my road would be covered in posters. Had they been available.

[DulvilleRes]

@legalalien - the anti-LTN lobby seems to me to have shifted into trying to present the LTN issue as some kind of class war - the rich people in their enclaves shifting traffic and pollution onto their lower-income neighbours.

Short of having access to who actually supports Dulwich Alliance or access to councilor's correspondence, it is hard to get a measure of the depth and range of support for the anti-LTN stance in the streets I mentioned affected by displaced traffic. Can Dulwich Alliance demonstrate a wide level of support, especially amongst those who 'have the least', as their rhetoric goes? I think the Council's consultation could be particularly valuable in this regard and should be supported by anyone serious about getting the fullest possible picture.

In the absence of any other kind of metric, I think poster displays are a starting point, and on Lordship Lane, and in the rented and owned property of the Lordship lane estate, it is virtually non-existent. What can be demonstrated is that support is strong for the anti-LTN stance with people who live in high-value property on the streets affected by displaced traffic.