LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[ohthehugemanateeLTN]

Rockets Wrote:

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

>

> It was very myopic - the usual blinkered pro-LTN

> narrative

Yes I understand that taking you at your word and reading what your wrote is "blinkered". Possibly being against holocaust trivialisation is blinkered too. Hard to tell when you won't be clear. But that's kind of your way: you slip around between points latching hard on to one, dropping it quietly when it becomes untenable and latching hard on to another. Always trying to keep whoever you're arguing with on the move.

It's not a bad rhetorical trick to be fair to you. So if all you're interested in is winning some debate in the eyes of whoever you believe is watching then go ahead. Everyone's got to have a hobby. I do hope though that you understand that reality isn't affected by rhetorical techniques, so if you're aiming to actually find a working solution then such tricks hinder rather than help.

I strongly suspect you do not care.

> that many of us have been dissecting and

> depositioning for a very long time on here.

No: you've been voicing your strongly held opinions. It's overly generous to call your arguments a "dissection".

> By all means feel free to join the debate but

> you claim you have been lurking for a while so you

> will be well aware that many on the anti- side of

> the debate have provided their own suggestions for

> solutions

I've read the "solutions". They all fall into the categories I listed. Most of them are "do nothing and hope", with a side order of "do something known to not work and hope", with a sprinkling of "data is wrong, academics are bad and science doesn't work", just to add flavour.

> and gone to great lengths to answer many

> of the questions you have posed. Maybe check back

> in the thread.

I have and still reached this conclusion. You are not nearly as rational or convincing as you believe you are. Ultimately you're leaning on the righteousness of your cause and so there are basically two choices for you:

1. People agree

2. People disagree and are therefore blinkered

> Out of interest, and in the interests of balance,

> is there anything from the pro-LTN that you think

> is absurd?

Are you talking actions or arguments? I haven't seen any particularly absurd arguments.

I suspect you're trying to take my post about arguments, subtly reframe it to be about something else, then complain that I haven't addressed whatever is in your head, for you to then be able to declare how just awful all these pro LTN people are.

[DuncanW]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Everything Duncan..everything. So you live in an

> LTN, probably in a house with a garden and own at

> least one car I guess. Good on yer lad, it?s that

> way of thinking that has made Engerland the

> marvellous country it is today.

>

> If you are wealthy you can move into an LTN, if

> you are poor ... you have no choice but to stay

> living on your polluted ?main? road.

Heartblock - the fact you're missing is that I haven't once voiced anything to suggest that I am pro LTN.

Like most people on this thread, I am certainly in favour of reducing congestion and pollution and I'm open-minded about how we achieve that. I think that reducing private car journeys needs to be part of that, but understand there are different views on how effective LTNs are, and how significant the externalities are.

The points I'd questioned you on though were your claims that the people living in EDG, LL and Croxted are the poorest in Southwark, and that the council is a dictatorship. I tried to say it softly but the reality is both of those claims are objectively false - and the size or location of my home, doesn't change that.

The elected council, what you would no doubt call the MSM and assorted scientists seem to think LTNS do work, but as I have said before, residents of the affected roads deserve to have their voices heard. I just wish you could focus on constructing a more cogent and compelling case for removal of the LTNs, rather than these flights of fancy that seem to preoccupy you, and personal attacks based on your assumptions about other people's personal circumstances.

And by the way, living in a house with a garden isn't a way of thinking, is it? Or can you explain that to me?

[first mate]

But talking about use of rhetorical devices and generalisations, your post is wall to wall, extremely loose and arguably misleading paraphrasing in an apparent attempt to create an impression and affect perceptions about an individual poster.

You are not Rendel Harris returned are you?

ohthehugemanateeLTN Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> >

> > It was very myopic - the usual blinkered

> pro-LTN

> > narrative

>

> Yes I understand that taking you at your word and

> reading what your wrote is "blinkered". Possibly

> being against holocaust trivialisation is

> blinkered too. Hard to tell when you won't be

> clear. But that's kind of your way: you slip

> around between points latching hard on to one,

> dropping it quietly when it becomes untenable and

> latching hard on to another. Always trying to keep

> whoever you're arguing with on the move.

>

> It's not a bad rhetorical trick to be fair to you.

> So if all you're interested in is winning some

> debate in the eyes of whoever you believe is

> watching then go ahead. Everyone's got to have a

> hobby. I do hope though that you understand that

> reality isn't affected by rhetorical techniques,

> so if you're aiming to actually find a working

> solution then such tricks hinder rather than

> help.

>

> I strongly suspect you do not care.

>

> > that many of us have been dissecting and

> > depositioning for a very long time on here.

>

> No: you've been voicing your strongly held

> opinions. It's overly generous to call your

> arguments a "dissection".

>

> > By all means feel free to join the debate but

> > you claim you have been lurking for a while so

> you

> > will be well aware that many on the anti- side

> of

> > the debate have provided their own suggestions

> for

> > solutions

>

> I've read the "solutions". They all fall into the

> categories I listed. Most of them are "do nothing

> and hope", with a side order of "do something

> known to not work and hope", with a sprinkling of

> "data is wrong, academics are bad and science

> doesn't work", just to add flavour.

>

> > and gone to great lengths to answer many

> > of the questions you have posed. Maybe check

> back

> > in the thread.

>

> I have and still reached this conclusion. You are

> not nearly as rational or convincing as you

> believe you are. Ultimately you're leaning on the

> righteousness of your cause and so there are

> basically two choices for you:

> 1. People agree

> 2. People disagree and are therefore blinkered

>

>

> > Out of interest, and in the interests of

> balance,

> > is there anything from the pro-LTN that you

> think

> > is absurd?

>

> Are you talking actions or arguments? I haven't

> seen any particularly absurd arguments.

>

> I suspect you're trying to take my post about

> arguments, subtly reframe it to be about something

> else, then complain that I haven't addressed

> whatever is in your head, for you to then be able

> to declare how just awful all these pro LTN people

> are.

[luvLTNrichguy]

ohthehugemanateeLTN Wrote:

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

> So I've been lurking a while, and I'd like to

> collect together my "favourite" anti LTN arguments

> to illustrate their sheer absurdity.

< ..............

Oh yippee the (self selected) adult is now in the room to put all us anti-LTN nutjobs in our place.

The arrogance is palpable.

You have (as many in the pro-LTN lobby continue to do) completely failed to address or acknowledge the biggest issue which is at the heart of the anti-LTN debate. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have simply misunderstood what this is and that's the reason you didn't include it in your smackdown.

The current measures disproportionately filter the area's traffic onto streets that have not been fortunate to be selected to be an LTN. The worst affected roads (LL and EDG) have all seen increased air pollution (as have been measured) as a result of the measures. These roads have schools, nurseries etc on. Do you not care about those children?

This is quite simply social injustice and any benefits that the LTNs might have perceivably brought are unfortunately outweighed by the unfair and frankly dangerous side effects.

Here's my own personal view on what the problem is and what the solution should be:

Successive governments have made the repeated mistakes that the way to affect real change is to tax and penalise people for continuing to go about their lives in ways they have done for years - whereby what actually works is to make the alternative more attractive, easier, cheaper, quicker etc.

Taxation is necessary, but not without actually making viable alternatives.

Additionally, I feel that successive governments have fantasised about making London like European cities where cycling is a huge part of getting around but inexplicably seeming to fail to realise that London is not like any other european city. As such a vast and spread out place, I personally do not believe that cycling can or will EVER have the mass-uptake that is necessary to reduce car journeys significantly enough to positively effect climate change in London.

What we need is a balanced measured approach that is centred around public transport.

? Return train services and reduced frequency bus services

If the pandemic is making people not want to use public transport - then the answer is not to decrease it (and make it more crowded) but to increase the frequency of bus and train journeys so that there is more space.

Then discount all public transport services and advertise the fact.

Over the last 10 years (in this area alone) we have lost train services and bus frequency have been reduced. That is a fact. That can easily be reversed.

If train companies don?t want to play ball, then you pull the franchise contract and nationalise them.

? Introduction of significantly more bus routes for the areas of the borough which are poorly served by public transport.

We all know where these areas are - and they tend to be the areas with higher levels of car ownership.

? Make public transport 24/7 every day of the year

Easier said than done, but this would be a radical move that would make a big difference and would help reduce the number of private taxi journeys made (see below)

? Higher taxation of private car companies and a program for private car drivers to re-train as a bus or train driver (or other jobs within PT)

It?s unlikely that improving public transport alone will encourage people out of taxis because they are just so cheap. Far too cheap.

So the approach would be to pass legislation that ensures a proper living wage for drivers. A tax on profits for the taxi firm (which is used solely for investment in public transport).

And then make it almost untenable for black cab drivers to continue to use diesel cabs. Start by subsidising the lease of electric cabs to make it financially viable for drivers to ditch their old vehicles. Then after a little while, introduce a diesel cab tax - but ONLY after drivers have had a proper incentive to make the switch.

? Government-sponsored car sharing

Zipcar have done this well with the flex system. The government could put in place a similar system - or perhaps invest in or purchase out-right Zip-car. Nationalising a scheme like this would make it much easier to deal with local authorities and providing the necessary parking. It would also be cheaper and therefore viable for more people.

Most people in London don?t actually need to own a car because they only make a few journeys a year. We could drastically reduce car ownership with a wide-spread car sharing scheme.

The revenue could then be used to help to pay for things like 24/7 public transport and investment in more of those services.

I?ll just finish by saying that I used to have a very reliable and quick way of getting to Peckham Rye station (and then onto work). Number 12 bus every 3-5 mins. Straight up Rye lane - took about 10 minutes in normal morning rush hour traffic.

Now, the bus has been reduced to every 8 minutes. They?ve closed Rye Lane. Thankfully i have legs that work well and so I can get off at Nigel road and comfortably walk the rest of the way. But it has more than doubled the journey time.

It would be much easier and quicker for me to drive and park in Choumert Grove car park - and if I was rich and didn?t mind the parking cost then I?d probably do that just for convenience.

That is not progress. That is not incentivising people to get out of their cars. That is just a counter-productive measure made by people who have clearly not joined up their thinking.

My wife has been pregnant in the last year, but still working every day and using Peckham Rye to get to work. That has become increasingly impossible particularly with the heat and so she?s been forced into using a zip car flex in the morning to drive and park at Denmark Hill (not always possible obviously due to varying locations of cars) . And I?ve then had to drive our car to Peckham Rye to collect her in the afternoon.

What other choice do we have that does not involve a car of some kind? That is a direct consequence of the measures put in place - and something we are powerless to do anything about.

Public transport is a far more effective tool than cycling in the war against climate change and it?s time we got our priorities right in my view.

[heartblock]

So Duncan, do you live in an LTN? Easy..just a 'yes' or a 'no' will suffice.

[Rockets]

Ok, here we go.....

* Studying traffic for decades, reaching a conclusion and acting on that is biased (if it's not pro car). Academics are never allowed to make use of their knowledge.

I presume this is based on our de-positioning of ex-London Cycling Campaign head of policy Rachel Alrdred's "evidence" of success of the LTNs and other various reports on the benefits of LTNs. Do you not think that there is a slight conflict of interest there and that we are right to question the impartialness of the reprots?

* Washable chalk pavement drawings are as bad as engine oil in a planter, spraypaint graffiti covering legally binding road signs and other expensive vandalism

They are not on the pavement and they are not all chalk. If you wander down Lordship Lane you can see them. The vandalism of the signs in people's gardens just because they don't support the LTNs - you have overlooked that. My message was clear - the idiots on both sides have to stop being idiots.

* Lordship lane was a low traffic near pollution free zone before LTNs.

Nonsense. That's your interpretation - no-one has ever claimed that. What we are claiming though is that pollution was not as bad as it is now.

* ...as was East Dulwich grove

See above

* Cyclists are to be despised

No-one has ever said that. I am a cyclist and don't self-loathe because of it.

* Whatever an anti-LTNer's current mood is completely outweighs all data because that's collected by the illuminati lizard men or some other conspirators.

It's the pro-LTN supporters who keep talking about conspiracies and us supposedly holding conspiracy theories. What we can say is that the council has made a right pig's ear of the process and this opens them up to criticism and accusations that they are manipulating the process to their advantage.

* In fact, no hard data or science counts. Only stories. Preferable angry ones. But not from pro LTN people.

Show us some hard data that can't be torn apart. Do you think what the council has shared is hard data - the monitoring sites east of Lordship Lane are missing yet their supporters, and the councillors themselves, are using this to demonstrate that the LTNs are working.

* Despite decades of study and observations in practice well known traffic enfineering effects like induced demand and its inverse don't actually exist [en.wikipedia.org])

Please share with us how this is working in Dulwich.

* While nudges have a strong track record of failing to ever work, they're going to work this time. Because reasons

Not sure what this question is trying to say, it looks like you didn't finish the point.

* We ought to go back to the way it was 18 months ago because the massive car growth over the last 40 years which shows no sign of slowing will some how sort itself out if we do nothing

No one wants to go back to how it was - we want measures that actually address the problem for everyone - not just make it great for a few but a lot worse for a many more.

* More traffic will lead to less pollution

No-one has said this. We are concerned about more traffic down fewer roads leading to more pollution on those roads.

* Why cut pollution? Just make everyone breathe their fair share.

Again, no-one has ever said that.

* Whatever we had at the moment before lockdown happened was the peak of fairness and if we ever move a millimetre away from that for any time at all the it's clear we're all rich scum who hate poor people

Again, not sure what this question is trying to say.

* An LTN which applies to everyone from anywhere going to anywhere is a gated community but a residents permit system which excludes outsiders somehow is not. Lots of non car owning anti-LTNers seem to want residents driving permits.

* Quiet, traffic roads with ambulance gates are worse for emergency vehicles than the clogged roads we used to have

The DV junction doesn't have an ambulance gate. The increased congestion on the roads outside the LTN area are causing delays to emergency services.

* You're not allowed an opinion if you have a car (I don't so I am I guess?)

Again, not sure what the point is here.

* All old LTN measures are absolutely fine and no one minds them at all. I mean no one stated this, but there are ones dotted about but over very many messages, not a single anti-LTNer has suggested ripping up old road closures to increase traffic. So the message is clear.

But the old LTNs to which you refer didn't all arrive at once and close off the major east/west route across Dulwich did they. Nor did they arrive without any form on consultation or implemented using the Covid pandemic as the "excuse".

* And my particular top pick because it's so astonishingly offensive that it's actually sickening (why yes I am Jewish) is that the plight of car drivers is just like the Jews in Germany in the 1930s:

No-one said this..... Someone made (what I thought and said at the time was) a clumsy, over-to-top analogy about the ideological indoctrination of schoolchildren in 1930s Germany on the back of Southwark council briefing school children on LTNs.

[DuncanW]

I'm not giving you information about where I live. I think I made that clear earlier.

You're obviously not going to engage on the matters of substance I asked you about. That's fine, it's up to you.

I genuinely hope everything works out for you. I would not like to be in the situation where I felt my road was becoming more congested and polluted.

[ohthehugemanateeLTN]

luvLTNrichguy Wrote:

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

> ohthehugemanateeLTN Wrote:

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

> -----

> > So I've been lurking a while, and I'd like to

> > collect together my "favourite" anti LTN

> arguments

> > to illustrate their sheer absurdity.

>

> Oh yippee the (self selected) adult is now in the

> room to put all us anti-LTN nutjobs in our place.

Woah there tiger. I might be old enough but I never claimed adulthood.

I do not recall ever having conversed with you, so I wouldn't know if you are a "nutjob" or not. How would I? Perhaps you're suggesting that all anti-LTN people are nutjobs. I could argue that's a little harsh.

> The arrogance is palpable.

You're welcome!

> The current measures disproportionately filter the

> area's traffic onto streets that have not been

> fortunate to be selected to be an LTN.

It is as always not quite as simple as that.

There are a lot of factors. Firstly, LL and EDG were already polluted messes. I remember LL frequently having traffic at a standstill before the LTNs. Second, you appear to be claiming that traffic is only moved, and therefore there is no elasticity in demand. This is not correct.

> The worst

> affected roads (LL and EDG) have all seen

> increased air pollution (as have been measured)> You have (as many in the pro-LTN lobby continue to

> do) completely failed to address or acknowledge

> the biggest issue which is at the heart of the

> anti-LTN debate. I'll give you the benefit of the

> doubt and assume that you have simply

> misunderstood what this is and that's the reason

> you didn't include it in your smackdown.

>

Increased pollution since when?

> as

> a result of the measures.

So you claim.

> These roads have

> schools, nurseries etc on. Do you not care about

> those children?

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children! Oh, the huge manatee.

> This is quite simply social injustice and any

> benefits that the LTNs might have perceivably

> brought are unfortunately outweighed by the unfair

> and frankly dangerous side effects.

Then we should be doing more not less. Spreading an unjustly large amount of pollution is not a solution. It's like trying to make a dog turd disappear by stamping on it really hard. I'd also like to point out that the rise of satnav has moved a lot of pollution around. Is that fair? Things are always in a state of flux, but there is a trend for more cars and more pollution and that certainly isn't fair.

Finally, traffic deaths are down as a result of LTNs. If you want to resort to wily hyperbole let me ask you: how many people are you prepared to kill to get what you want?

Does that really help?

> Here's my own personal view on what the problem is

> and what the solution should be:

>

> Successive governments have made the repeated

> mistakes that the way to affect real change is to

> tax and penalise people for continuing to go about

> their lives in ways they have done for years -

> whereby what actually works is to make the

> alternative more attractive, easier, cheaper,

> quicker etc.

> Taxation is necessary, but not without actually

> making viable alternatives.

That sounds like an opinion rather than anything with any evidence. The thing is in many cases alternatives do exist. If your journey is short enough that LTNs are a pain in the neck, then you can walk, bike, scoot or make use of one of the electric alternatives. People will always default to what is convenient. The government has to change what is convenient to alter what people will do.

And for all your hyperbole about "thinking of the children" do you really feel people should not be penalised for filling the lungs of those children with toxins? I can engage in wild hyperbole all day. It's fun.

> Additionally, I feel that successive governments

> have fantasised about making London like European

> cities where cycling is a huge part of getting

> around but inexplicably seeming to fail to realise

> that London is not like any other european city.

> As such a vast and spread out place, I personally

> do not believe that cycling can or will EVER have

> the mass-uptake that is necessary to reduce car

> journeys significantly enough to positively effect

> climate change in London.

London is not a wildly exceptional place. I'm not likely to cycle from Dulwich to Bow, but then one generally doesn't need to do that much. Getting around locally is an entirely different matter. And now we get on to the wildly impractical, where perfect becomes the enemy of good. The thing is no scheme will ever be perfect, and that means some people will lose out, as some people were losing out before LTNs.

And we're seeing new tools like cheap electric transport, something essentially new in the last 5 years. Suddenly longer distances and hills matter a lot less.

> What we need is a balanced measured approach that

> is centred around public transport.

> [...]

> If train companies don?t want to play ball, then

> you pull the franchise contract and nationalise

> them.

Sure but that won't happen. The trains are not in the hands of TFL, let alone the council. And the Tory government is pretty disinclined to hand more power to a labour controlled organisation. So this won't happen any time soon, whether or not it's a good idea. So we need PRACTICAL solutions that have to take into account reality. If we don't the growth of cars will continue and we'll all be choked out, pollution and traffic wise.

> ? Introduction of significantly more bus routes

> for the areas of the borough which are poorly

> served by public transport.

> We all know where these areas are - and they tend

> to be the areas with higher levels of car

> ownership.

Sure, but this isn't in the hands of the council. It might be doable. But you know what makes buses work really well? Traffic restrictions. I remember the P4 taking over 20 minutes to transit Dulwich Village at rush hour. Now it zips through.

> ? Make public transport 24/7 every day of the

> year

> Easier said than done, but this would be a radical

> move that would make a big difference and would

> help reduce the number of private taxi journeys

> made (see below)

That's going to be expensive. Also, how much would it help? The majority of pollution is in the day, and this would reduce it most at the emptiest times. I mean sure, it would be nice, but worth the cost?

> ? Higher taxation of private car companies and a

> program for private car drivers to re-train as a

> bus or train driver (or other jobs within PT)

Is that within the power of TFL to execute?

> It?s unlikely that improving public transport

> alone will encourage people out of taxis because

> they are just so cheap. Far too cheap.

> So the approach would be to pass legislation

Anything that requires a coordinated approach across 3 levels of government of opposing parties may as well be wishing for unicorns. What we need is something that can actually be executed by the existing power structures today. LTNs can, but this cannot.

> Then after a little while, introduce a

> diesel cab tax - but ONLY after drivers have had a

> proper incentive to make the switch.

Or announce the incoming tax a few years ahead. That provides the incentive.

> ? Government-sponsored car sharing

> Zipcar have done this well with the flex system.

> The government could put in place a similar system

> - or perhaps invest in or purchase out-right

> Zip-car. Nationalising a scheme like this would

> make it much easier to deal with local authorities

> and providing the necessary parking. It would also

> be cheaper and therefore viable for more people.

> Most people in London don?t actually need to own a

> car because they only make a few journeys a year.

> We could drastically reduce car ownership with a

> wide-spread car sharing scheme.

> The revenue could then be used to help to pay for

> things like 24/7 public transport and investment

> in more of those services.

Sure but that won't happen any time soon. The tories making a new nationalised industry?

> I?ll just finish by saying that I used to have a

> very reliable and quick way of getting to Peckham

> Rye station (and then onto work). Number 12 bus

> every 3-5 mins. Straight up Rye lane - took about

> 10 minutes in normal morning rush hour traffic.

> Now, the bus has been reduced to every 8 minutes.

> They?ve closed Rye Lane. Thankfully i have legs

> that work well and so I can get off at Nigel road

> and comfortably walk the rest of the way. But it

> has more than doubled the journey time.

Have you looked into alternatives like a push scooter? I got one for lockdown to avoid public transport and I find I can handily beat many forms of it now.

But again, this seems to be a TFL problem related to covid.

> It would be much easier and quicker for me to

> drive and park in Choumert Grove car park - and if

> I was rich and didn?t mind the parking cost then

> I?d probably do that just for convenience.

> That is not progress. That is not incentivising

> people to get out of their cars. That is just a

> counter-productive measure made by people who have

> clearly not joined up their thinking.

>

> My wife has been pregnant in the last year, but

> still working every day and using Peckham Rye to

> get to work. That has become increasingly

> impossible particularly with the heat and so she?s

> been forced into using a zip car flex in the

> morning to drive and park at Denmark Hill (not

> always possible obviously due to varying locations

> of cars) . And I?ve then had to drive our car to

> Peckham Rye to collect her in the afternoon.

> What other choice do we have that does not involve

> a car of some kind?

More buses won't make the heat go away. I commuted to school for 7 years in the 90s long before LTNs and buses were stinking hot in the summer too then. Reverting the LTN won't change that. But the thing is, your wife is temporarily pregnant and needs special consideration. I don't really see a problem with that in general. Have cars available for when they are really needed, not a quick, walkable jaunt to the shops.

> That is a direct consequence

> of the measures put in place - and something we

> are powerless to do anything about.

I thought you said it was TFL cutting services, not the LTN.

> Public transport is a far more effective tool than

> cycling in the war against climate change and it?s

> time we got our priorities right in my view.

Cycling in London remains a mess. The police don't take theft seriously, there's inadequate bike parking and cycle routes are all disconnected. No wonder it's not working now.

[ohthehugemanateeLTN]

first mate Wrote:

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

> But talking about use of rhetorical devices and

> generalisations, your post is wall to wall,

> extremely loose and arguably misleading

> paraphrasing in an apparent attempt to create an

> impression and affect perceptions about an

> individual poster.

The only individual poster I quoted was Spartacus and what I quoted was quite specific. I'm astonished at the lack of willingness from people on the same side of the argument as him to call out that behaviour. And yes I believe that does reflect on you personally as well.

Otherwise I've engaged in a little light hyperbole, but I don't believe there are any misleading generalisations in there. Perhaps you would care to discuss some of them?

[Earl Aelfheah]

.

[ohthehugemanateeLTN]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Ok, here we go.....

>

>

> * Studying traffic for decades, reaching a

> conclusion and acting on that is biased (if it's

> not pro car). Academics are never allowed to make

> use of their knowledge.

>

> I presume this is based on our de-positioning of

> ex-London Cycling Campaign head of policy Rachel

> Alrdred's "evidence" of success of the LTNs and

> other various reports on the benefits of LTNs. Do

> you not think that there is a slight conflict of

> interest there and that we are right to question

> the impartialness of the reprots?

You're saying that acting on the results of research represents a conflict of interest.

> * Washable chalk pavement drawings are as bad as

> engine oil in a planter, spraypaint graffiti

> covering legally binding road signs and other

> expensive vandalism

>

> They are not on the pavement and they are not all

> chalk. If you wander down Lordship Lane you can

> see them. The vandalism of the signs in people's

> gardens just because they don't support the LTNs -

> you have overlooked that. My message was clear -

> the idiots on both sides have to stop being

> idiots.

I overlooked no such things. The washable chalk was included in that as just as bad. I do not in any condone vandlism but that still doesn't make washable chalk equivalent to engine oil in a planter.

>

> * Lordship lane was a low traffic near pollution

> free zone before LTNs.

>

> Nonsense. That's your interpretation - no-one has

> ever claimed that. What we are claiming though is

> that pollution was not as bad as it is now.

Yes that was hyperbole. LL was frequently rammed before covid. And people have dropped bus journeys, leading to more traffic.

> * ...as was East Dulwich grove

>

> See above

>

> * Cyclists are to be despised

>

> No-one has ever said that. I am a cyclist and

> don't self-loathe because of it.

That it literally not true. See:

ab29 Wrote:

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

> And what is a plan for the "meantime', while we

> await these "everywhere walking spaces"?(I do not

> mention cyclists as I truly despise them because

> of the LTNS) - gassing people that happen to live

> on LL, Croxted, EDG etc to death with extra car

> fumes?

> * Whatever an anti-LTNer's current mood is

> completely outweighs all data because that's

> collected by the illuminati lizard men or some

> other conspirators.

>

> It's the pro-LTN supporters who keep talking about

> conspiracies and us supposedly holding conspiracy

> theories. What we can say is that the council has

> made a right pig's ear of the process and this

> opens them up to criticism and accusations that

> they are manipulating the process to their

> advantage.

Well if you talk about all data and academics as if they're part of a giant conspiracy, what do you expect?

>

> * In fact, no hard data or science counts. Only

> stories. Preferable angry ones. But not from pro

> LTN people.

>

> Show us some hard data that can't be torn apart.

> Do you think what the council has shared is hard

> data - the monitoring sites east of Lordship Lane

> are missing yet their supporters, and the

> councillors themselves, are using this to

> demonstrate that the LTNs are working.

You've only torn it apart in your own mind, and the minds of others with motivated reasoning.

> * Despite decades of study and observations in

> practice well known traffic enfineering effects

> like induced demand and its inverse don't actually

> exist )

>

> Please share with us how this is working in

> Dulwich.

Well, if you'd actually read any research you'd know it takes time but is very widely observed. I'm sure you have plenty of evidence that all traffic engineers are wrong. Or are part of a conspiracy...

> * While nudges have a strong track record of

> failing to ever work, they're going to work this

> time. Because reasons

>

> Not sure what this question is trying to say, it

> looks like you didn't finish the point.

Nope. It's complete.

>

> * We ought to go back to the way it was 18 months

> ago because the massive car growth over the last

> 40 years which shows no sign of slowing will some

> how sort itself out if we do nothing

>

> No one wants to go back to how it was - we want

> measures that actually address the problem for

> everyone - not just make it great for a few but a

> lot worse for a many more.

Also literally not true. One Dulwich is proposing going back to how it was.

> * More traffic will lead to less pollution

>

> No-one has said this. We are concerned about more

> traffic down fewer roads leading to more pollution

> on those roads.

That was an inferred point. All the "solutions" are ones that are either unimplementable or don't seriously push people out of cars, which will not slow the traffic growth. Since you're not suggesting anything to reduce cars and are against pollution it's fair to conclude you think more cars leads to less pollution.

> * Why cut pollution? Just make everyone breathe

> their fair share.

>

> Again, no-one has ever said that.

You sure about that?

> * Whatever we had at the moment before lockdown

> happened was the peak of fairness and if we ever

> move a millimetre away from that for any time at

> all the it's clear we're all rich scum who hate

> poor people

>

> Again, not sure what this question is trying to

> say.

It wasn't a question. It's definitely been implied and more or less stated outright a few times.

> * An LTN which applies to everyone from anywhere

> going to anywhere is a gated community but a

> residents permit system which excludes outsiders

> somehow is not. Lots of non car owning anti-LTNers

> seem to want residents driving permits.

>

>

> * Quiet, traffic roads with ambulance gates are

> worse for emergency vehicles than the clogged

> roads we used to have

>

> The DV junction doesn't have an ambulance gate.

> The increased congestion on the roads outside the

> LTN area are causing delays to emergency

> services.

It could do,but the anti-LTNers are much more in favour of reopening it than keeping it closed but adding a gate, because that would keep the LTN. It's almost like ambulances are a red herring designed to appeal to emotions.

> * You're not allowed an opinion if you have a car

> (I don't so I am I guess?)

>

> Again, not sure what the point is here.

Really? You didn't notice anyone basically having a go at LTN residents with cars as not having valid opinions? Because I did.Maybe you haven't actually been following the threads really well.

> * All old LTN measures are absolutely fine and no

> one minds them at all. I mean no one stated this,

> but there are ones dotted about but over very many

> messages, not a single anti-LTNer has suggested

> ripping up old road closures to increase traffic.

> So the message is clear.

>

> But the old LTNs to which you refer didn't all

> arrive at once and close off the major east/west

> route across Dulwich did they.

People have been whining about DV and court lane have they not? Gilkes cresent for example provides a parallel route to DV and was closed long ago.

> Nor did they arrive

> without any form on consultation or implemented

> using the Covid pandemic as the "excuse".

Given you seem unaware of what actually happened, I claim you just invented that on the spot because you like the way it sounds.

>

>

> * And my particular top pick because it's so

> astonishingly offensive that it's actually

> sickening (why yes I am Jewish) is that the plight

> of car drivers is just like the Jews in Germany in

> the 1930s:

>

>

> No-one said this..... Someone made (what I thought

> and said at the time was) a clumsy, over-to-top

> analogy about the ideological indoctrination of

> schoolchildren in 1930s Germany on the back of

> Southwark council briefing school children on

> LTNs.

You take a mild reading of holocaust trivialisation. I don't. I love in particular how you're telling a Jew how they ought to feel about it. Do you have any other opinions on how I should feel about such things? This is clearly about indoctrination of children leading and the persecution of drivers, with analogy of indoctrination of children persecution of Jews (and some other groups). It's not just clumsy and over the top,it's way way worse.

[alice]

There has never been an answer to why the Dulwich LTNs were positioned to benefit the wealthiest.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Because they weren't?

[legalalien]

Frankly I'm more concerned about the fact that Southwark were asking TfL to meet and discuss removing the staggered pedestrian crossing in the Square of Shame (indicating a preference for permanent closure) weeks before the consultation even closed (see attached, am sure many will have seen on twitter). Also mystified that there was apparently no need to consult TfL before making the initial closure... but now there is a need (were someone's knuckles rapped?).

Two options: (i) local councillors and the Cabinet Member / Council Leader were aware of officers trying to progress this before the consultation exercise completed and comments were considered (seems like bad faith to me); or (ii) the local councillors and /or Cabinet Member/ Council Leader weren't aware of what the officers were discussing with TfL - in which case maybe they should be making some noise and calling them out?

Link to another recent FoI on TfL website for completeness - https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-0574-2122, seems Helen Hayes might be starting to show some interest.

[legalalien]

PS have been tied up with other stuff recently but looks like there's a decision notice on an experimental order to open Rye Lane to buses and timed deliveries. Haven't read properly yet.

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s100450/Report%20Reopening%20Rye%20Lane.pdf

[exdulwicher]

There has never been an answer to why the Dulwich LTNs were positioned to benefit the wealthiest.

Partly this is a manufactured culture war, a little bit of dead cat designed to inflame opinion a bit. Houses in DV itself for example are vastly more expensive than anything in Calton Avenue yet positioned right on the main road through the village. Even EDG has a huge range of housing from the large double-fronted properties towards RPH end to the much smaller flats and houses at the LL end so claiming that "EDG = poor people having pollution imposed on them" is demonstrably false. Plus you've got existing LTNs along Gilkes and the relatively modest houses in the cul-de-sacs of Great Spilmans and the back of EDG by Greendale. It's a very Daily Mail thing to do, judging people on the perceived value of their house and it doesn't help the debate.

Part of it is that the wealthiest are the cause of the problem - they own more / bigger cars, they drive them more, they consume more. Make it more difficult for them to drive 500m to the school (having already established that school run is a major problem in the Dulwich area) and you have a huge gain without impacting "the poor people".

[Earl Aelfheah]

Isn't there a council estate on East Dulwich Grove which is in an LTN?

Mostly it's wealthier households who own cars. Many of those displaying 'clean air for all' (the most objectively ridiculous double speak btw), banners along Dulwich Village Road and EDG have big driveways with 2 or 3 cars in the drive.

It doesn't really feel like those against LTNS are the less well off, fighting the more affluent.

[Rockets]

Manatee

I will pick you up on a couple of things:

> You're saying that acting on the results of research represents a conflict of interest. Nor did they arrive

> without any form on consultation or implemented

> using the Covid pandemic as the "excuse".

>Given you seem unaware of what actually happened, I claim you just invented that on the spot because you like the way it sounds.>

Trust me - it is you who are unaware of what happened. The measures were all implemented to aid "social distancing". In fact, if you scroll back far enough you will probably find a councillor post claiming just that when the measures were first mooted.

>People have been whining about DV and court lane have they not? Gilkes cresent for example provides a parallel route to DV and was closed long ago >

Because the council's own numbers suggested 7,000 cars a day used the DV junction - we all flagged our concern when we realised that LTNs don't deliver anything more than single digit % reduction in vehicles and we did the maths and tried to work out where all that traffic was going to travel to.

>Also literally not true. One Dulwich is proposing going back to how it was.>

Again, if you had been paying attention you would know the history behind that and the fact that one Dulwich and Dulwich Alliance were left with no option as the council did not engage with them or give people any option other than: Change it....but the council did not give any idea what that change would be. Surely, even you would agree that you need to understand what you are voting for? "Change" is a little vague don't you think?

And I am not going to go back and forth with you on Spartacus' post - it wasn't my post and, as I said at the time, I didn't agree with them using that analogy. Please stop trying to tar everyone on this forum who doesn't agree with your view on LTNs with the same brush - we have seen that tried before and it is an underhand tactic.

If anyone wants to judge for themselves the thread in question starts on page 177.

[legalalien]

Gilkes isn't an "existing LTN" unless the proposed Gilkes Place closure goes ahead. Looks like it has been approved today subject to call-in

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s100334/APPENDIX%2016%20GILKES%20PLACE.pdf

I think the Gilkes one is experimental based on Table 1 in the report and the Network Management recommendation referred to (although confusingly the relevant appendix also refers to consultation on an (ordinary) TMO. There's a note in the report that "Gilkes Place ? the proposed ETMO does not preclude the Gilkes Place/Gilkes Crescent

junction not being considered as part of the overall Dulwich area review. However, the junction

can not be opened before the review is completed on safety grounds. " This seems to be in response to a suggestion that the Gilkes experimental order be deferred until after the overall Dulwich review had been completed.

[Rockets]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Frankly I'm more concerned about the fact that

> Southwark were asking TfL to meet and discuss

> removing the staggered pedestrian crossing in the

> Square of Shame (indicating a preference for

> permanent closure) weeks before the consultation

> even closed (see attached, am sure many will have

> seen on twitter). Also mystified that there was

> apparently no need to consult TfL before making

> the initial closure... but now there is a need

> (were someone's knuckles rapped?).

>

> Two options: (i) local councillors and the Cabinet

> Member / Council Leader were aware of officers

> trying to progress this before the consultation

> exercise completed and comments were considered

> (seems like bad faith to me); or (ii) the local

> councillors and /or Cabinet Member/ Council Leader

> weren't aware of what the officers were discussing

> with TfL - in which case maybe they should be

> making some noise and calling them out?

>

> Link to another recent FoI on TfL website for

> completeness -

> https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-

> of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-

> 0574-2122, seems Helen Hayes might be starting to

> show some interest.

Very interesting that they finally want to allow emergency vehicles access to the DV junction. I heard they have had their knuckles rapped about that as well.

[alice]

alice Wrote:

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

> There has never been an answer to why the Dulwich

> LTNs were positioned to benefit the wealthiest.

flurry of responses cannot answer the question.

[ab29]

So what happens now? The consultation is finished - are we waiting for the council to publish the results? Or perhaps they have no intention of doing so?

[legalalien]

I hate to be a kicker,

I always long for peace,

But the wheel that squeaks the loudest,

Is the one that gets the grease.

- Josh Billings (Henry Wheeler Shaw)

(disclaimer - provenance of this saying is unverified...)

alice Wrote:

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

> alice Wrote:

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

> -----

> > There has never been an answer to why the

> Dulwich

> > LTNs were positioned to benefit the wealthiest.

>

> flurry of responses cannot answer the question.

[legalalien]

If they were already discussing alternative plans with TfL before the consultation closed, then it's all a bit of a sham.

For those who are in favour of the LTNs - I'd be interested to hear whether you think the council's and councillors' (if different) behaviour/ process around this project helps your cause or hinders it. If you are confident in the data/ that the LTNs work, then I suspect that the way the council has handled things might well be a cause of frustration - rather than letting the facts stand on their merits, they're sullying the pro-LTN argument by not following due process. I'd be pretty annoyed.

ab29 Wrote:

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

> So what happens now? The consultation is finished

> - are we waiting for the council to publish the

> results? Or perhaps they have no intention of

> doing so?

[Rockets]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> So what happens now? The consultation is finished

> - are we waiting for the council to publish the

> results? Or perhaps they have no intention of

> doing so?

I think that all probably depends on whether the extension to the deadline and subsequent fevered door-knocking by councillors has managed to swing the result their way.....

But in all seriousness who knows....I am not sure they know themselves. They published interim results that was missing data from large parts of the most impacted areas so how do they manage the publication of that missing data?

This has all been a lesson in council free-form jazz...just make it up as you go along.....