LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Abe_froeman]

.

[Abe_froeman]

They certainly behave like they're in some sort of cult

[malumbu]

Exactly Abe, four wheels good, two wheels better. Repeat after me.

I thought that my dear readers would be interested in an article from the now PM in 2014 about how wonderful London air will be as clean as the alps. Sadly behind the DT paywall.

And what was it again? Yes, four wheels good, two wheels better. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/forget-saharan-dust-londons-air-can-pure-alps/

[heartblock]

The thing is that it isn?t a joking matter, people are being lied to about how LTNs improve air quality across the borough and people die as a result of an increase in particulates and NO2 levels. So tied, and dedicated to these lies that they cannot see or hear the truth.... even when a clean air campaigner such as Rosamund is highlighting the facts.

[alice]

I predict that we will see the end of many LTNs over the next months.

[malumbu]

Heartbeat - look at my previous posts where I have put informed pieces on how London air quality has generally improved since the second world war. I find it ridiculous that anyone says that a local authority has an agenda of 'killing people. It's a shame that the article on the then Mayor of London is behind a paywall, as he had a number of good points and ambitions.

Facetious comments tend to be in reaction to daft posts like accusing those advocating cycling, and its multitude of benefits, of being in a cult.

[heartblock]

There has been an improvement in terms of soot related to wood and coal burning, but a rise in particulates and noxious gas associated with vehicles. Data has been poorly collected and consultations across boroughs have ignored guidelines. It is a matter of life or death and I personally as an asthmatic do not find anything amusing or funny about this subject.

[heartblock]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1328805094649974790.html

[@Woodwarde]

For those of you having trouble signing the Southwark epetition to:

End the 24/7 closures around Dulwich Village junction and Melbourne Grove and implement an area-wide, camera-controlled permit scheme that allows fair and reasonable access.

Try this:

The Southwark site has two levels of logon. One level of logon is My Southwark used for Council tax etc. The confusing thing about the Southwark web pages is that the Sign In at the top right of the pages is in fact only for My Southwark and cannot (at present) be used for epetitions.

There is a separate logon for signing epetitions and if you use the same email address, then I recommend you use a different password.

So, to sign a petition, go to following URL, or navigate through Google to the list of Southwark epetitions

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionListDisplay.aspx?RPID=774370146&HPID=774370146&VM=2&$LO$=1

Ignore the Sign in at the top right of the page; just scroll down and click the petition. You will be asked to sign in. You may need to Register or reset your password. You can use the same email address as you use for My Southwark but use a different password. And finally if you do reset your password, check your Junk email in case your notification goes there.

Hope this helps! Please reply here if so.

[Northern Star]

In the Dulwich alliance proposal, who would be able to get a permit?

[Spartacus]

Question

What happened to the last online petition ?

[heartblock]

Signed....

[Gabe]

On balance, I'm in favour of the Low Traffic Neighborhoods. I am personally inconvenienced a little when I drive but we get the benefit when we cycle or walk. I appreciate quite a few people need to drive and that LTNs concentrate traffic on main roads, which is bad for the people that live along them.

But we have to do something at some point. Undoubtedly, there are many people making spurious car and van journeys that could easily be replaced.

It's going to be hard to make a judgement on the LTNs until public transport use is back to more normal levels. I'd keep them for now.

[northernmonkey]

The question as to who would get permits is a good one and one in relation to which I can't see any information on the Dulwich Alliance site.

Would this just be permits for people who live in the roads that either have the filters or between those who do? For those people who live on the peripheral roads or those just next to them would they have permits too?

A lot of the support on the One Dulwich website comes from areas to the East of Lordship Lane - would those people be able to have permits to drive through the village - if not how does this address that concern?

Mrs D Wrote:

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

> In the Dulwich alliance proposal, who would be

> able to get a permit?

[Spartacus]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> Question

> What happened to the last online petition ?

Found it

Closed a few weeks ago with over 3000 signatures , was there any feedback on this or was it dismissed by the council ?

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?id=500000049

[northernmonkey]

It was heard at the last council meeting - there was a thread on it somewhere.

I'd imagine there is a lot of overlap between the signatories and one Dulwich membership - and looking at the map of addresses, I do wonder how many of them would get a permit under the One Dulwich / Dulwich Alliance plans? My initial sense is not many!

[legalalien]

Very little consideration or feedback tbh - it was raised at the cabinet meeting and there was a general commitment to do some consultation - see minutes here http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6663/Printed%20minutes%20Tuesday%2020-Oct-2020%2016.00%20Cabinet.pdf?T=1

Then one of the Lib Dem councillors raised the issue at the Council Assembly meeting on 25 November and didn?t get a very helpful response - see question 6 here: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s92306/Members%20question%20time%20with%20responses.pdf

There were several public questions asked at this morning?s cabinet meeting, which have apparently been given written responses - those don?t seem to be up on the website yet. You can see the meeting on YouTube at

from about 7:20 onward - I half- listened to the first bit and it seems as though there will be further evidence gathering / analysis/ consultation kicking off in early February... some reference to discussions with undefined ?stakeholder groups? happening.

I don?t believe OneDulwich/ the new alliance thing have a fixed proposal on permits - their point is that there should be a proper community discussion to consider and decide that point. I?d imagine some suggestions would be more controversial than others...

[legalalien]

I suspect that many of those supporting One Dulwich and opposing the closures are doing so in response to the traffic problems caused on surrounding roads, rather than because they want / need to drive through the LTN area - so their personal entitlement (or otherwise) to a permit is neither here nor there.

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> It was heard at the last council meeting - there

> was a thread on it somewhere.

>

> I'd imagine there is a lot of overlap between the

> signatories and one Dulwich membership - and

> looking at the map of addresses, I do wonder how

> many of them would get a permit under the One

> Dulwich / Dulwich Alliance plans? My initial

> sense is not many!

[malumbu]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> There has been an improvement in terms of soot related to wood and coal burning, but a rise in particulates and noxious gas associated with vehicles. Data has been poorly collected and consultations across boroughs have ignored

> guidelines.

Heartblock and others, if you are going to talk about pollution then please do your homework. By all means express your concerns about the LTN. I'm a road user both on two and four wheels, and half my journeys are through Southwark. I'm also a strong believer in that action must be taken to reduce car use, because of climate change. That will screw the planet up and have a much greater effect than pollution hotspots on local roads.

And for those with asthma and other respiratory disease there is a text alert for poor air quality days: https://www.airtext.info/

A repeat of my previous post, please take time to read including the reference material:

We've had particulates in our air since the world was formed. We've had anthropogenic pollution ever since we've discovered fire. There was pollution pre and post industrial revolution. It didn't start in 2020 with LTNs. Worth having a read of this [www.gov.uk]

As a society we decide what is acceptable in terms of the balance between quality of life (including the basics of food and shelter) as well as mobility, and the health risks that this presents. There is no such thing as perfect air quality as there is a background from natural sources. We legislate (as we can't achieve this must through good citizenship) to reduce pollution including the Clean Air Acts of the 1950s, removal of lead and sulphur from road fuels from the 1980s, caps on total emissions from different sources, maximum roadside concentrations of pollutants, and pollution reducing technology including vehicles, energy and industry.

Even if you moved to an agrigarian way of living you would still get pollution from animal waste and someone would still have to smelt iron for your horse shoes, and the nails and implements to build your houses and harvest your crops.

I'm happy to see less vehicles on the road as it improves my life in many other ways, and if that is a bit of a inconvenience to some I feel that this is a price worth paying.

To say that Southwark don't care about your health is just absurd. Southwark have to monitor air quality and take action by law and have pollution monitoring on the OKR and E&C - I expect as these are the busiest roads in the borough [www.southwark.gov.uk] Closest national monitoring station is Honor Oak, which I expect would be a good proxy for LL. [uk-air.defra.gov.uk]

Separately we've met legal limits for streetside particulates for a number of years in the UK. We're also blessed with predominantly westerly winds bring in clean air from the Atlantic rather than polluted air (coal burning and heavy industry) from central Europe. Latest levels of PM10 = 27 microgrammes per metre cubed [www.iqair.com] - against the maximum (mean) of 40. For the UK to be more ambitious you need to ban the most polluting vehicles - which the ULEZ will do (in addition to the strengthening of the Low Emission Zone for heavy vehicles) and address other sources in particular by banning burning of all wood and liquid/solid fossil fuels in the home

[Spartacus]

Thanks's legal

So the council appear to have paid lip service only to a 3000 plus signature petition.

That's hardly listening to the public or running proper consultations.

Didn't Grant Shapps say he would personally intervene where councils aren't listening to or consulting with stakeholders.

This potentially could be such a case 🤔

[northernmonkey]

By this logic people are supporting One Dulwich because they are concerned about displacement onto other roads. If the One Dulwich /Dulwich Alliance plans are put in place to allow for timed restrictions with a permit system for local residents this will mean that residents can can pass through filters but no one else.

How will this help? .

For the permit system to address the concerns it must either mean that

a) all the traffic people have concerns about relates to local residents from SE21 driving around the local area.

or

b) a much wider group of SE London residents believe that they would be eligible for permits too.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> I suspect that many of those supporting One

> Dulwich and opposing the closures are doing so in

> response to the traffic problems caused on

> surrounding roads, rather than because they want /

> need to drive through the LTN area - so their

> personal entitlement (or otherwise) to a permit is

> neither here nor there.

>

>

> northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> -----

> > It was heard at the last council meeting -

> there

> > was a thread on it somewhere.

> >

> > I'd imagine there is a lot of overlap between

> the

> > signatories and one Dulwich membership - and

> > looking at the map of addresses, I do wonder

> how

> > many of them would get a permit under the One

> > Dulwich / Dulwich Alliance plans? My initial

> > sense is not many!

[exdulwicher]

So the council appear to have paid lip service only to a 3000 plus signature petition.

Southwark Council's website says that Southwark is home to more than 314,000 people so a 3000 signature petition is a little under 1%.

Quite the opposite then - if they act on a 3000 signature petition, that's ignoring the 99% of people who haven't responded.

Even if you focussed it right down to Dulwich Ward (population 11,255 according to ONS: link https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/london/wards/southwark/E05011100__dulwich_village/ ) it's 26% opposition. That's assuming of course that everyone opposed lives/works in Dulwich Ward; the reality is that there's always some cross platform signatures from "outside".

[Spartacus]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> So the council appear to have paid lip service

> only to a 3000 plus signature petition.

>

> Southwark Council's website says that Southwark is

> home to more than 314,000 people so a 3000

> signature petition is a little under 1%.

>

> Quite the opposite then - if they act on a 3000

> signature petition, that's ignoring the 99% of

> people who haven't responded.

>

> Even if you focussed it right down to Dulwich Ward

> (population 11,255 according to ONS: link

> https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/london/wards/s

> outhwark/E05011100__dulwich_village/ ) it's 26%

> opposition. That's assuming of course that

> everyone opposed lives/works in Dulwich Ward; the

> reality is that there's always some cross platform

> signatures from "outside".

Oh dear

So you are dismissing out of hand a petition that's equivalent to 26% of the population of the area it represents which incidentally is a lot more people than the council say wanted schemes like this.

By the same argument you use, the cyclist and pro LTN lobby also uses "outside" signatures so that negates that as an argument.

The council seem to play fast and loose with statistics, let's look at the response to the CPZ consultations as a clear example and yet you are dismissing a response of 26% of the area against the LTNs in favour of what percentage exactly supporting the LTN scheme ? (As they say at school, show your workings)

This is exactly why a consultation is required to see what the real level of support and objections there are and then actually listen to the people or are you denying that this is needed and things will improve once drivers all take up cycling, including the elderly, disabled and otherwise physically incapacitated ?

[Rockets]

Ex- really! You can tell you have worked in council consultations previously! Your warping of stats is worthy of an honorary Southwark Council OHS Consultation medal for services to misrepresentation!

That petition showed, quite clearly, that there was a group of people who were against the way the council had gone about their deployment - it may be 1% of the overall Southwark population but there's not another e-petition that the council has run on its website that has had more people sign. Given some bright spark on the pro-closure lobby then decided to set their own e-petition up in support of the closures and managed to gather about 60 signatures probably aptly shows the balance of local weight of feeling towards these closures.

Yes the council paid lip service to the e-petition but that was always going to be the case - they have never wanted to have any sort of proper debate on the LTNs. They have been hoping the problem goes away and people lose interest but, perhaps most worrying for them, a new group has been set-up, 650 people have managed to negotiate their new confusing log-in system and signed another petition against it, 1800 people are signed-up for OneDulwich and hundreds of sets of eyes are waiting in eager anticipation to cross-examine the council's monitoring methodology, data and reports that they are promising sometime in the future. All at the same time as they head towards council elections in under 18 months. The longer the current lockdown goes on the worse it is for the council as, at some point life will begin to return to normality and the queuing traffic will return and the council will be back in the cross-hairs - and that will probably be under a year before the local council elections - and politicians start getting very angsty - especially as many will be looking to those elections as a bell-weather for Labour under Keir. Let's be honest, they've got themselves into a right mess and it was all of their own making and they keep digging the hole deeper and deeper.

[DulwichCentral]

The petition with 3000 signatures accepted signatures from outside Southwark though didn't it? So ex dulwicher is being generous with 1%.