LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[ed_pete]

OK - so

(a) you've failed to provide any evidence that "that's not the democratic process they claimed they would follow at the outset of this." You run the risk of undermining your own integrity by presenting opinion as fact.

(b) in a practical sense your efforts to change Southwark's stance on the LTN's are confined to posting on this thread.

Glad that's clear.

Merry Christmas everyone (anyone got a football ?)

[Artemis]

What are Rockets? options, in your view, ed_pete, given that Southwark asked for our opinions via consultations and interminable follow up feedback requests, and have roundly ignored all of them, as well as failing to take account of the vast bulk of the Equality Impact Assessment? If you can suggest any way in which Southwark will listen to the majority of respondents, I?m sure we?d love to hear it.

In my view, Rockets? integrity is far from undermined - he/she is continuing to ask questions which many of us would like answered. I for one would like to understand what the point of a consultation was if the views of the majority are not followed. You can argue the semantics of ?what is democracy? as much as you like, but if we weren?t to expect that the majority view would prevail, the consultation seems to have been a waste of valuable time, money and resource, paid for by our own council tax. Is that acting in the best interests of constituents? I would suggest not.

[CPR Dave]

Cllr McAsh,your post only makes sense if the central section of east dulwich gorve was one way.

[jamesmcash]

Hi CPR Dave

No, I was talking about both directions of travel.

Pre-pandemic, vehicles travelling on 'EDG central' must have been going to or from one of three locations to the east: Melbourne Grove north, Melbourne Grove south or EDG east.

In other words, vehicles travelling eastbound on EDG central must be going to MG north, MG south or EDG east, whereas those travelling westbound must be coming from these same locations.

My comments regarding the situation now are also about traffic in both directions.

With the LTN in place, the number of vehicles travelling between MG south and EDG central has dropped to almost zero, and the number of vehicles travelling between EDG central and MG north has plummeted too. This explains the figures on EDG central and EDG east: the drop in vehicles travelling between EDG central and MG (north or south) is greater than the increase in vehicles travelling between EDG central and EDG east.

travelling between is intended to cover both directions of travel.

Best wishes

James

[ed_pete]

@Artemis - if my comments, in relation to Rockets and this thread, came across as a criticism that wasn't the intention. On the one hand I was simply interested to find out whether or not this thread was their only activist outlet. By all means keep asking questions and providing commentary but I'm not convinced that you will ever have an official, i.e. council-approved, response or engagement via a thread on the EDF.

On the other hand regardless of who is presenting their argument or information, I prefer that we're provided with facts, as much as they can be verified by bunch of web forum users, and by stating that the council said they would behave in a particular way without being able to back it up is simply wrong. But hey, maybe I'm fussy.

[Rockets]

Artemis Wrote:

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

> What are Rockets? options, in your view, ed_pete,

> given that Southwark asked for our opinions via

> consultations and interminable follow up feedback

> requests, and have roundly ignored all of them, as

> well as failing to take account of the vast bulk

> of the Equality Impact Assessment? If you can

> suggest any way in which Southwark will listen to

> the majority of respondents, I?m sure we?d love to

> hear it.

>

> In my view, Rockets? integrity is far from

> undermined - he/she is continuing to ask questions

> which many of us would like answered. I for one

> would like to understand what the point of a

> consultation was if the views of the majority are

> not followed. You can argue the semantics of

> ?what is democracy? as much as you like, but if we

> weren?t to expect that the majority view would

> prevail, the consultation seems to have been a

> waste of valuable time, money and resource, paid

> for by our own council tax. Is that acting in the

> best interests of constituents? I would suggest

> not.

If the council begins to treat consultations as a box ticking exercise which have no bearing on what they do then we are all in big trouble.

And on the subject of protest I think a lot of people come on here because the council has shut down all other routes that would normally be available to have your say - for example there are no public meetings to discuss the measures, the online meetings they organise are now tightly managed (removing comments section etc) to ensure they try to control the narrative. And as Cllr McAsh has demonstrated time and time again here they divide and conquer by saying "sorry, you don't live in my ward so I can't help you" and when you go to your own ward councillor they say "ah, I can't help you because those measures are in Cllr McAsh's ward"! ;-)

For example I would love to know from Cllr McAsh why the decision was taken to suddenly put monitoring in on EDG Central - we had been told for ages that no monitoring could go in on Underhill Road because there "weren't enough monitoring strips" and yet MG can get some at short notice?

Additionally, it was Cllr McAsh who did say that the measures could only be deemed a success if all roads experienced a reduction in traffic and it is clear from EDG that that is definitely not the case.

[exdulwicher]

I for one would like to understand what the point of a consultation was if the views of the majority are not followed. You can argue the semantics of ?what is democracy? as much as you like, but if we weren?t to expect that the majority view would prevail, the consultation seems to have been a waste of valuable time, money and resource, paid for by our own council tax. Is that acting in the best interests of constituents? I would suggest not.

1) They're legally obliged to have consultations. They are not legally obliged to treat it as a referendum although it's usually a good way of getting a "sense check" of feeling. Interestingly, you can often see the tide of change as measures bed in, people get used to it and so on.

2) Consultations are not the SOLE answer to the scheme. They will be used together with data from the traffic monitoring, footfall, other engagement with schools / businesses etc.

3) Consultations are a known target for gaming. Lambeth found about a third of the respondents against the Railton scheme were duplicates: https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s133594/Appendix%20E%20Oval%20to%20Stockwell%20Consultation%20Report.pdf

(page 69 where they talk about data analysis).

Hackney found exactly the same, they discarded about 1/4 to 1/3 of the "anti" responses because they were suspicious. It's known that Ealing and RBKC had the same but unfortunately the council or whoever was doing their consultation didn't apply the checks. There was another well-publicised case in Newcastle:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2021/02/18/consultation-rigging-trolls-get-councils-goat-over-bridge-closures/

There's a certain irony in the anti-groups complaining that the council are undemocratic while simultaneously rigging the survey...

[Artemis]

@exdulwicher - you quote my words and then say ?there?s a certain irony in the anti-groups complaining that the council are undemocratic while simultaneously rigging the survey??. Are you suggesting that I have rigged a survey, which would be fraud and a criminal offence? If so, I would request that you withdraw that comment as it is untrue and deeply offensive.

[exdulwicher]

Nowhere in the above statement have I made any allegation against any individual on this forum or anywhere else.

I posted a link from Lambeth Council which explains why they've removed 1/3rd of the "anti" comments from the Railton scheme as there was clear evidence that it was duplicate statements designed to rig the outcome.

I pointed out that Hackney had done the same and there's a further link in there to another road closure scheme which had the same efforts to swing the result.

There are "elements of the anti-groups" that do this. There's a pattern to it that crops up time and again on these surveys, not just in Southwark or London but nationwide. At no point did I say anything about any individual. If you've taken it personally, I apologise - maybe I should have said "elements of the anti-groups" originally rather than just "the anti-groups".

The point remains that consultations which seem to be held up as some sort of gold standard of democracy, are far from it and the results should be used carefully alongside empirical data.

[Artemis]

Apology accepted- you quoted my words, which is why I took it personally. However I appreciate your response.

I do have concerns about any council removing responses simply because of similarities (rather than, say, fake email addresses, which I haven?t seen held up as a concern). It seems perfectly feasible that a lobby group might suggest appropriate responses to its members to achieve their desired joint objectives without anything sinister going on. I should point out I don?t say this from any personal knowledge- I responded to the consultation independently of any group. I would be interested to know the exact reasons why any council removed responses- one hopes the removals are fair and legitimate.

[CPR Dave]

"consultations which seem to be held up as some sort of gold standard of democracy, are far from it"

Something we can all agree on finally, given the debacle that has been the LTN consultation (and hte CPZ one before it)

[CPR Dave]

James your second post t still doesn't make any sense though, unless all the westbound is now doing a u turn in one of the closed roads, because there is nowhere for that traffic to drive through to if they don't go past the health centre. It's gated communities all the way up to Townely Rd.

[CPR Dave]

Unless the increase in the eastern section is explained 100% by people who live in the closed roads only being able to get out in their cars onto EDG.

That can't be the case though because they all cycle now and not a single one of them is a hypocrite.

[legalalien]

Yes, the results of consultation should be used carefully, but the point is that they should be used, with views acknowledged and not ignored completely. It feels (to me and apparently to quite a few others) as though the consultations have only been done because they are a legal requirement and not with a genuine open mind and a desire to improve predetermined plans. Whether that?s true, or a perception caused by poor communication by officers and councillors (in particular councillors on social media), who knows?

Cllr Rose has said in a couple of recent meetings that the council need to learn from the Dulwich experience. I take that as an acknowledgment that it has been handled somewhat less than perfectly. Ex-D I note you haven?t responded to my suggestions that repeat ETMOs on champion Hill and failing to include school input on MGN (resulting in revocation and the temporary traffic order) aren?t things that inspire confidence. Not that you have to, of course!

Leaving aside everything else, I?d have a lot more respect for the council if they could put their hands up and organise some meetings allowing people to vent about process and discuss - not the substantive details of this scheme - but how they can improve what seem to be fairly poor engagement processes. I would be happy to volunteer time for that sort of process review exercise. I wonder whether it sits with the transport department or the cabinet member in charge of engagement generally? There seem to be similar problems with housing issues.

As Christmas approaches, maybe time to spend time reflecting on and trying to better understand each others? perspectives and dialling things down a bit? Just finished a documentary on Amazon Prime entitled ?The Street? from 2019, dealing with gentrification in Hoxton and different perspectives on that. Well worth a watch.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Street_(2019_film)

All the best to everyone for the festive season, in difficult times.

PS I will of course get out a map at some point and try to understand the central EDG ?Bermuda Triangle? issue. I?m going to guess it?s parents on the way to private schools choosing Townley Road over Melbourne Grove and left into EDG - that would seem consistent with the original rationale of removing the MGS closure to relieve pressure on Townley?

[Rockets]

Legal - I think you hit the nail on the head. The council are forced to consult (which is a sorry state of affairs to start with and probably shows they would prefer not to - and this is, of course, not just a Southwark thing).

Sometimes, when the people agree with the council the council heralds this as a great victory - "thanks for your feedback, we listened and we delivered" and when you look at Southwark's consultation it is littered with examples of this. Of course it becomes more tricky when the people don't agree with you and that's where we are with the Dulwich LTN consultation process.

It is clear that the council's methodology is incredibly confusing, their data collection random, sporadic and unsatisfactory and they are having to piece together a positive story from a thousand different sources. Even Cllr McAsh seems to be confused by the rational and collection of data for EDG Central and it's magical appearance to help justify the council U-turn. I hear some are submitting FOIs in relation to this so maybe over time the truth will out.

The council has failed, spectacularly, at communication with its constituents over this and let's hope they learn their lesson. As I have said before they got away with it for years but now their every move is being scrutinised.

It is also telling that a few people (I suspect the closed street resident groups) are being briefed on said data and collection and there seems to be a co-ordinated and concerted effort to try and get the story out there that this is some sort of victory.

It seems that the very worst of Westminster politics is being deployed in local area politics too.

I too plan to look at the claims for the EDG Bermuda Triangle - nice name by the way - as, whilst I understand the rational for fewer cars cutting down Melbourne Grove I don't get that they were all going along EDG. It definitely is something that needs lots of eyes on it and scutiny of how the council arrived at the Sept 19 inflated numbers given there was no monitoring then.

[jamesmcash]

Hi CPR Dave,

The counter on EDG central is just slightly west of the intersection with Melbourne Grove.

This means that all vehicles which are counted on the EDG central counter are doing one of the following three things:

X) travelling between EDG central and EDG east (either eastbound from EGD central to EDG east, or westbound from EDG east to EGD central)

Y) travelling between EDG central and MG north (either eastbound from EDG central to MG north, or westbound from MG north to EDG central)

Z) travelling between EDG central and MG south (either eastbound from from EDG central to MG south, or westbound from MG south to EDG central)

We know that traffic is higher on EDG east, suggesting that X has risen.

We know that traffic is lower on MG north, suggesting that Y has fallen.

We know that traffic is lower on MS south, especially in the tiny section north of the planters (which intersects with EDG), suggesting that Z has fallen to almost zero.

The data show that traffic on EDG central has fallen while traffic on EDG east has risen. This makes sense so long as the combined reduction in traffic on Y and Z is greater than the increase X. And this makes sense regarding the data we have.

None of this assumes anything about what the vehicles do when they are west of the health centre (which may be before or after, depending on the direction they are travelling) but a similar logic will be at play there regarding the side streets that cars can enter/exit EDG before reaching the EDG south counter.

I hope that helps.

Best wishes

James

[CPR Dave]

"The data show that traffic on EDG central has fallen while traffic on EDG east has risen"

That only makes sense if all of the additional traffic in "EDG east" stats and finishes before the counter at the health centre.

It can only be the selfish people that live in the closed roads that account for the difference.

[goldilocks]

Its not the different choices made - its that the base count for that section wasn't included before as (like many on this thread) people assumed it would be the same as at the junction with Lordship and its not the case.

I'd also note that the reduction in traffic at the central section is even more impressive when you consider that the vaccination programme has been run with TJ as a hub centre for Southwark GPs so has generated lots of extra trips for people getting to appointments, especially given the absurdly ample parking on site.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Yes, the results of consultation should be used

> carefully, but the point is that they should be

> used, with views acknowledged and not ignored

> completely. It feels (to me and apparently to

> quite a few others) as though the consultations

> have only been done because they are a legal

> requirement and not with a genuine open mind and a

> desire to improve predetermined plans. Whether

> that?s true, or a perception caused by poor

> communication by officers and councillors (in

> particular councillors on social media), who

> knows?

>

> Cllr Rose has said in a couple of recent meetings

> that the council need to learn from the Dulwich

> experience. I take that as an acknowledgment that

> it has been handled somewhat less than perfectly.

> Ex-D I note you haven?t responded to my

> suggestions that repeat ETMOs on champion Hill and

> failing to include school input on MGN (resulting

> in revocation and the temporary traffic order)

> aren?t things that inspire confidence. Not that

> you have to, of course!

>

> Leaving aside everything else, I?d have a lot more

> respect for the council if they could put their

> hands up and organise some meetings allowing

> people to vent about process and discuss - not the

> substantive details of this scheme - but how they

> can improve what seem to be fairly poor engagement

> processes. I would be happy to volunteer time for

> that sort of process review exercise. I wonder

> whether it sits with the transport department or

> the cabinet member in charge of engagement

> generally? There seem to be similar problems with

> housing issues.

>

> As Christmas approaches, maybe time to spend time

> reflecting on and trying to better understand each

> others? perspectives and dialling things down a

> bit? Just finished a documentary on Amazon Prime

> entitled ?The Street? from 2019, dealing with

> gentrification in Hoxton and different

> perspectives on that. Well worth a watch.

>

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Street_(2019_f

> ilm)

>

> All the best to everyone for the festive season,

> in difficult times.

>

> PS I will of course get out a map at some point

> and try to understand the central EDG ?Bermuda

> Triangle? issue. I?m going to guess it?s parents

> on the way to private schools choosing Townley

> Road over Melbourne Grove and left into EDG - that

> would seem consistent with the original rationale

> of removing the MGS closure to relieve pressure on

> Townley?

[jamesmcash]

Hi CPR Dave

Me: "The data show that traffic on EDG central has fallen while traffic on EDG east has risen"

You: "That only makes sense if all of the additional traffic in "EDG east" stats and finishes before the counter at the health centre."

No, this is not correct. Traffic going between EDG east and EGD central has almost certainly risen. But traffic between EDG central and MG (north and south) has fallen more than the rise in traffic between EDG central and EDG east. So this produces an overall net reduction in traffic on EDG central.

Best wishes

James

[CPR Dave]

I'm sorry but that is an utter crock.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

ed_pete Wrote:

----------------------------------------------> I'm

> not convinced that you will ever have an official,

> i.e. council-approved, response or engagement via

> a thread on the EDF.

This is correct. The EDF "voice" belongs to whichever "enthusiast" has most time to bash away at the keyboard. It is not representative of anyone in particular. Although the forum is remarkably popular (for which the admins should be commended), the vast majority of East Dulwich residents don't post on this forum or thread, and most aren't even aware of the forum's existence.

The council engagement is not a referendum. Neither is it restricted to Dulwich residents. In addition to some pissed off locals, who certainly exist in significant numbers, there are also plenty of people who live outside Dulwich who resent not being able to drive through Dulwich on the way to work or to drop their kids off in Dulwich.

[CPR Dave]

This is quite a staggering admission.

"messageRe: LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

Posted by jamesmcash Today, 07:55PM

Hi CPR Dave

Me: "The data show that traffic on EDG central has fallen while traffic on EDG east has risen"

You: "That only makes sense if all of the additional traffic in "EDG east" stats and finishes before the counter at the health centre."

No, this is not correct. Traffic going between EDG east and EGD central has almost certainly risen."

[legalalien]

I don?t really understand this as have been I?ll and not read data properly so apologies.

EDG central is now less than EDG East or South as I understand it.

Do we know what EDG central was historically or not? Or has this always been the case or is it a new development or do we not know?

If we don?t know then how can we say it?s not due to different choices of route? And the thing about reducing pressure on Townley Road must have had some basis in the data?

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> Its not the different choices made - its that the

> base count for that section wasn't included before

> as (like many on this thread) people assumed it

> would be the same as at the junction with Lordship

> and its not the case.

>

> I'd also note that the reduction in traffic at the

> central section is even more impressive when you

> consider that the vaccination programme has been

> run with TJ as a hub centre for Southwark GPs so

> has generated lots of extra trips for people

> getting to appointments, especially given the

> absurdly ample parking on site.

>

>

> legalalien Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Yes, the results of consultation should be used

> > carefully, but the point is that they should be

> > used, with views acknowledged and not ignored

> > completely. It feels (to me and apparently to

> > quite a few others) as though the consultations

> > have only been done because they are a legal

> > requirement and not with a genuine open mind and

> a

> > desire to improve predetermined plans. Whether

> > that?s true, or a perception caused by poor

> > communication by officers and councillors (in

> > particular councillors on social media), who

> > knows?

> >

> > Cllr Rose has said in a couple of recent

> meetings

> > that the council need to learn from the Dulwich

> > experience. I take that as an acknowledgment

> that

> > it has been handled somewhat less than

> perfectly.

> > Ex-D I note you haven?t responded to my

> > suggestions that repeat ETMOs on champion Hill

> and

> > failing to include school input on MGN

> (resulting

> > in revocation and the temporary traffic order)

> > aren?t things that inspire confidence. Not that

> > you have to, of course!

> >

> > Leaving aside everything else, I?d have a lot

> more

> > respect for the council if they could put their

> > hands up and organise some meetings allowing

> > people to vent about process and discuss - not

> the

> > substantive details of this scheme - but how

> they

> > can improve what seem to be fairly poor

> engagement

> > processes. I would be happy to volunteer time

> for

> > that sort of process review exercise. I wonder

> > whether it sits with the transport department

> or

> > the cabinet member in charge of engagement

> > generally? There seem to be similar problems

> with

> > housing issues.

> >

> > As Christmas approaches, maybe time to spend

> time

> > reflecting on and trying to better understand

> each

> > others? perspectives and dialling things down a

> > bit? Just finished a documentary on Amazon

> Prime

> > entitled ?The Street? from 2019, dealing with

> > gentrification in Hoxton and different

> > perspectives on that. Well worth a watch.

> >

> >

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Street_(2019_f

>

> > ilm)

> >

> > All the best to everyone for the festive

> season,

> > in difficult times.

> >

> > PS I will of course get out a map at some point

> > and try to understand the central EDG ?Bermuda

> > Triangle? issue. I?m going to guess it?s

> parents

> > on the way to private schools choosing Townley

> > Road over Melbourne Grove and left into EDG -

> that

> > would seem consistent with the original

> rationale

> > of removing the MGS closure to relieve pressure

> on

> > Townley?

[CPR Dave]

Who knows, but even our local councillor is now saying it's ok for EDG to carry more traffic because Melbourne Grove has less traffic.

Heartblock was right all along.

[jamesmcash]

I think we both know that I did not say that...

Best wishes

James