LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Tilt]

mr.chicken Wrote:

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

>

> It's amazing they would choose something like this

> that's divisive: the situation before was loved by

> everyone, and there were no divisions over that at

> all. I think we should go back to exactly how

> things were two years ago, that was perfection.

I've gone back numerous pages and I am none the wiser in trying to figure out whether your replies are sarcastic or not. If they are I'm not sure they're having the effect you think they are.

[mr.chicken]

Tilt Wrote:

>

> I've gone back numerous pages and I am none the

> wiser in trying to figure out whether your replies

> are sarcastic or not. If they are I'm not sure

> they're having the effect you think they are.

Maybe you should stop worrying about that? I'd reassure you, but you might simply think I'm being sarcastic about that, so it wouldn't really do any good.

It's only reasonable to call the new thing divisive if divisions didn't exist before. And on that I agree with you, everyone loved the traffic state before the LTN and there were no divisions. So we can consider the new one divisive. Do you not agree?

[Tilt]

mr.chicken Wrote:

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

> It's only reasonable to call the new thing

> divisive if divisions didn't exist before. And on

> that I agree with you, everyone loved the traffic

> state before the LTN and there were no divisions.

> So we can consider the new one divisive. Do you

> not agree?

Well, I rather think you're being deliberately simplistic. That said, having lived in ED for a decade I can't think of any other topic that people have talked about so much. People have always complained about traffic / parking / air pollution but those have been grumbles and nothing like the annoyance and passion that these road closures appear to have provoked...on both sides. So yes, this is definitely highly divisive when it comes to my experience.

Just to be clear, I'm fully behind changes to alleviate traffic and for us to get cleaner air. As I said, I don't really have a horse in this race: I neither own a car nor live on one of the streets that has been closed. However, what I have noticed is a significant increase in traffic on the route I use which is clearly a result of adjacent road closures. So, my observation is that there are probably better ways to achieve the aforementioned goals as opposed to a scheme which has not gone through (as far as I can see) appropriate consultation phases and is getting a lot of people very exercised.

Providing something that's been carefully and transparently researched with a full consultation of all affected areas would probably have much higher levels of support and therefore be better received. So, both better than it is now and better than it was, which I suppose is what your clumsy question is getting at. Isn't that win-win for everyone?

[Rockets]

Legal, I think the council has dug in for so long now and made such a mess of the implementation that wholesale changes will need to be made to restore local confidence in their ability to do what they are elected to do.

The fact councillors are suggesting there might be changes as "they are not perfect" (one questions why it took them so long to work this out when everyone else could work out what was going to happen before they went in) suggests they might tweak and then say...give it another 12 months.....

To have any impact on the displacement tsunami they have to reopen east west access so Court Lane/DV has to reopen and you then will need to remove the DV timed closures. They can probably keep Melbourne Grove.

It will be interesting if they pursue the rumoured creation of a one-way Court Lane/DV junction.

[Droid]

You have made the same point several times. It's beyond boring.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> 164 pages? You?re forgetting about the other 10 or

> more threads 😂

[Otto2]

For pollution data nerds...

https://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/sites/default/files/WalthamForest_Kings%20Report_310718.pdf

[alice]

Along with reopening court/ village allow calton to connect with village via gilkes place. This would simplify that junction.

[Otto2]

Here's a link to the results of the phase 3 consultation:

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/our-healthy-streets/our-healthy-streets-dulwich

[Earl Aelfheah]

alice Wrote:

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

> Along with reopening court/ village allow calton

> to connect with village via gilkes place. This

> would simplify that junction.

So reversing the LTN and opening up previously closed streets?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Droid Wrote:

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

> You have made the same point several times. It's

> beyond boring.

>

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > 164 pages? You?re forgetting about the other 10

> or

> > more threads 😂

I am boring. But at least I'm not gratuitously rude

[Earl Aelfheah]

Otto2 Wrote:

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

> Here's a link to the results of the phase 3

> consultation:

>

> https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/i

> mproving-our-streets/live-projects/our-healthy-str

> eets/our-healthy-streets-dulwich

I'm struggling to work out the various documents here. Does it suggest that most people are supportive?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Tilt Wrote:

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

> The sad thing is I desperately want to fight the

> climate crisis but putting in schemes like this

> with no consultation that are so divisive only

> alienates the people that we need to take along

> with us. Big failure by whoever thinks this is a

> good idea.

I agree the way this has been implemented without baselining and collecting / publishing proper data is a massive problem. I think this was in part the result of Central Government making funding available for such schemes to be bought forward contingent on moving quickly.

[Otto2]

Hi rahrahrah -

Overall, the LTN measures are overwhelmingly supported. Each measure is broken down into answers and some are less supported, but, for the most part, a majority in favour. The report also breaks down comments giving the percentages that responded in worries to specific issues. It also distinguishes between those in zone a, b, and c, borders, and "others" as far as responses which makes it an interesting read overall.

Edit - direct link:

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/42203/OHS-Phase-3-Consultation-Summary-Report.pdf

[Pierre]

I still think it's good that _something_ has been started, even if it's not the perfect solution. It's working for _some_ streets and it's helping encourage people to think twice about driving a journey if they don't need to. And that is a good thing - it's the start of reducing _unnecessary_ car use, which is what we all want.

I lived a street away from Catford gyratory a few years back and the air quality was utterly disgusting, round the clock. But nobody in the expensive houses further away was claiming "all streets matter" then, because they could still drive (and queue) down the back streets and feel smug about avoiding the worst of the traffic. A lot of this manufactured outrage feels like hypocrisy because some people have been slightly inconvenienced. I'd bet any money that if the LTNs were abolished, the dirty roads would still be dirty and congested (they always were) and this fake concern for their inhabitants would evaporate as people happily jump back in their cars to dodge the speed bumps and queue for the corner shop.

[rjsmall]

I think it is a stretch to say that the LTN measures are overwhelmingly supported. Looking at the results I would say the objective is supported but the implementation and methods are not.

It is curious that the questions regarding Melbourne Grove and Burbage Road split the "% in favour" results into two separate values. Also interesting is that respondents within the Burbage Road consultation zone are not in favour (46% for vs 47% against)

(The values don't add up to 100% as the "Not sure" response has been disregarded)

[Rockets]

Otto2 - proceed with caution - you're about to reopen a can of worms and reignite the debate on who actually responded to the consultations back in 2019 and 2020! ;-)

I refer you to the below from One Dulwich and their report as when detailed analysis was done it was clear it was anything but overwhelming support!

https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/who-closed-dulwich-village-junction-bias-misleading-data-and-selective-reporting

Who closed Dulwich Village junction? Bias, misleading data and selective reporting.

10 May

On 21 March, after a Freedom of Information (FOI) request released the data, we shared the disconcerting news that Southwark?s claim of popular local support for closing Dulwich Village junction in early 2020 was not supported by the evidence. The results of Phase 2 (October and November 2019) were based on a tiny handful of responses, many from outside the Dulwich area, from Hammersmith to Islington to Croydon. The very small group in Dulwich who supported the closure was tightly clustered round the junction itself ? and cannot be said to represent local residents? views.

This is important because (in the confusing history of Dulwich road closures), Phase 2 apparently gave the green light to Phase 3 (spring 2020), which ended up as the closures we have now. The Council says that these past consultations somehow justify the current measures ? not only the 24/7 closure of Dulwich Village junction, but also the excessive five-hours-a-day restrictions and the massive fines.

But the results of Phase 2 don?t support this picture at all. In fact, the more we looked into the data from Phase 2, the more uneasy we became. Only 1.3% of voters in Dulwich Village ward supported the 24/7 closure of Calton Avenue. The survey was so badly set up that people could select up to eight options, which not only inflated the figures but also led to contradictory answers ? closing a road, for example, while making it one way and adding timed restrictions.

Online responses from outside the area were favoured over paper responses from local workshops. Some results show evidence of manipulating the data to make it fit. In their published summary, for example, the Council referred only to those voting in favour, while leaving out those who preferred alternatives, or those who didn?t want any change at all ? a bit like reporting only Yes votes in a referendum, but leaving out all those who voted No.

You can read all about the poor process, misrepresentation of data, evidence of bias and selective reporting in the full report here.

Two key questions follow on from this:

Has Southwark Council given the local community misleading information so far?

Does Southwark Council have the necessary skills and resources to run a public consultation?

These issues matter, because Southwark is about to embark on yet another public consultation into road and traffic in the Dulwich area. The leader of the Council has promised us a fair and transparent process, which we have every right to expect.

One Dulwich is encouraging everyone to respond to the new consultation.

But we will challenge anything in the process or the final results that shows bias, misleading data, or selective reporting.

[Otto2]

"But we will challenge anything in the process or the final results that shows bias, misleading data, or selective reporting."

Okay. This is a fresh report - go for it.

I'm not a data expert by any means but I think it looks like it was done with care and I'm not inclined to react conspiratorially at this point.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Otto2 Wrote:

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

> Hi rahrahrah -

>

> Overall, the LTN measures are overwhelmingly

> supported. Each measure is broken down into

> answers and some are less supported, but, for the

> most part, a majority in favour. The report also

> breaks down comments giving the percentages that

> responded in worries to specific issues. It also

> distinguishes between those in zone a, b, and c,

> borders, and "others" as far as responses which

> makes it an interesting read overall.

>

> If you are on a laptop, the link to the phase 3

> report is in the right column, on a phone it is

> further down the page.

>

> https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/i

> mproving-our-streets/live-projects/our-healthy-str

> eets/our-healthy-streets-dulwich

Thanks, that's really helpful

[first mate]

Just went to the link and said it cannot be found?

[rjsmall]

This is the direct link to the report https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/42203/OHS-Phase-3-Consultation-Summary-Report.pdf

[Bicknell]

phase 3 report

bias, missleading data and selective reporting

to check this out will need raw data

Guess that will mean another FOI.

[Rockets]

This is very telling..... remember, this is the consultation done in early 2020 so to interpret this as the LTN measures are supported is wholly inaccurate. This consultation happened before any of the measures went in but I actually think this suggests the main review will not be an easy ride for the council and the LTN supporters. I am actually really encouraged by this.

Take a look:

Whilst 81% support the overall objective within the consultation zone - this drops a lot to only around 50% (+/- 5%) supporting the specific measures. Remember this was before any of the LTNs went in.

Also once you get to the borders - i.e. those likely to be impacted most by the closures it swings a lot towards a negative sentiment - those people won't be swayed to the positive now things are so bad. "Others" is interesting as well as this probably shows the input of groups beyond the area - cyclists, taxi drivers etc.

I think, on the basis of this combined with the broader awareness of the negative impacts of these measures since this consultation was done (remember this concluded months before the measures went in and any of the impact was felt) the council is in big trouble and will struggle to get majority support for the measures.

The list below from the report is quite telling and probably shows why "others" is broadly very supportive of the measures:

Responses were received from many community organisations, businesses and

other representative bodies. In all cases, these were asked to encourage their

members to respond individually. Nonetheless, organisations who supplied a

corporate response are listed below:

Online responses (titles as given):

Lambeth Cyclists

Mayflower Gardens

Herne Hill Velodrome Trust (Charity based on Burbage

Rd)

Hanbury Hill

Croydon Living Streets Group

Old College Tennis Club

Dulwich Podiatry Ltd

Harold George hairdressing and beauty

Camberwell Plant Hire Ltd. t/a Premier Plant Hire

United Cabbies Group

Southwark Community Sports Trust

Langley Dog walking

Stradella and Springfield Residents' Association

Dulwich College

Crystal Palace Transition Town Transport Group

Turney Residents Assoc

Cypress Cyclists

Dulwich tennis club on Gallery Rd

Dulwich Village Church of England Infants School

Email and other responses provided by:

Turney Road Residents Association (survey)

London Cycling Campaign

Dulwich & District U3A

Dulwich Society

Dovercourt Road North Residents Association (survey)

Dulwich Village Residents association (survey)

Stradella and Springfield Residents Assocation

Dulwich Village, College Road and Woodyard Lane Residents Association (survey)

Dulwich Estate

Burbage Road Residents Association (survey)

Dulwich & Herne Hill Safe Routes to School Group

Clean Air For Dulwich

Lambeth Cyclists

Eynella Road residents (survey)

60

Mums for Lungs

Propensity to Cycle Tool (PCT) authors

Southwark Cyclists

Metropolitan Police (Road Safety)

[spark67]

I have started cycling again nervously after being injured by a van pulling out of a junction without looking at the end of 2019 on the south circular, while I was cycling to work (I have permanent damage now too)...And I have found the roads I used to cycle on horrendous, especially Lordship lane, you just feel like you are surrounded by traffic and fumes, with frustrated drivers at the wheel (recipe for disaster as I have found out)

Yes there are a few quiet side streets, but None are on my route to work, and if they are youre on them for about half a minute.... I see nothing here from my personal experience thats benefiting commuting cyclists as claimed.

maybe other people have a different experience, but its not mine.

[march46]

There's a link to the recent council newsletter about the changes here in case anyone missed it.

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dulwich-review/supporting_documents/Dulwich%202nd%20Newsletter.pdf

[northernmonkey]

Is there a possibility that the roads you used to cycle on are no longer the best ones for cycling? For example, i saw a post stating that the LTNs were a problem because the cycling numbers on Lordshop lane and goose green roundabout had dropped. I think that actually this proves that they are working as they are providing a safe cycling route and have removed cyclists from what is an unsafe roundabout for them regardless.

I never used to go along Melbourne Grove as it was a narrow road with double parked cars and took a lot of cut through traffic so it wasn't safe. Now its a joy to cycle down so i would always go down either Colwell or one of the other streets at the bottom end and cycle through that way. If i needed to go east towards Peckham I would probably use Melbourne, Ashbourne and across the roads between Lordship and ED Road.

Finally - as you've just returned to cycling, you might be interested to try out the Southwark cycle buddies scheme - or the cycle confident lessons paid for by the council. They can help with best routes for a specific journey. I am very sorry to hear about your injuries from being knocked off your bike and can imagine it must have been very hard to start cycling again after that.

spark67 Wrote:

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

> I have started cycling again nervously after being

> injured by a van pulling out of a junction without

> looking at the end of 2019 on the south circular,

> while I was cycling to work (I have permanent

> damage now too)...And I have found the roads I

> used to cycle on horrendous, especially Lordship

> lane, you just feel like you are surrounded by

> traffic and fumes, with frustrated drivers at the

> wheel (recipe for disaster as I have found out)

> Yes there are a few quiet side streets, but None

> are on my route to work, and if they are youre on

> them for about half a minute.... I see nothing

> here from my personal experience thats benefiting

> commuting cyclists as claimed.

> maybe other people have a different experience,

> but its not mine.