LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Metallic]

I suspect the number crunchers re at this very moment doing data entry and finding out to their horror that the majority want a different outcome to the one in existence. I live in East Dulwich so I have a right to be on here, but if this was me talking about a system a mile from my home I would feel I could have an opinion but not a right.

[legalalien]

Ex-dulwicher, we might have to agree to differ as the tone of the email exchange doesn?t sound like ?discussing options? to me, it sounds like ?telling TfL what we plan to do?. The exchange including the TfL response is now up on the OneDulwich site, and TfL?s response seems to be: ?do this experimentally for six months? That doesn?t make sense when you?re spending a ton of money to rip up a pedestrian road island and expect us to spend lots of time and effort on light phasing etc?. (That?s how it reads to me anyhow, but I am of course biased).

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ee5b2552f1141316ee2efc9/t/60ffcc179d9d0801c426a297/1627376669464/FOI+July+2021+RE_+Dulwich+Village+_Calton+Avenue+_+Dulwich+Village+_Redacted.pdf

I actually think TfL have come across quite well in the various email exchanges that have been released and their FoI system seems to work well. I was amused to see that Southwark Councillors have requested that TfL copy Southwark in on any FoI responses involving the Dulwich scheme.

[fottos]

The closure of Gilkes Place is illegal and was carried out under two Southwark Council notices which stated reasons hat were groundless.

The first was a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) which is intended a made TRO for carrying out works on the Highway, for example a road closure, where the works are planned.

The second was an Emergency Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (ETTRO) which is intended to cover emergency works on the highway e.g. a burst water main or sink hole. An ETTRO is similar to a TTRO but where the works are urgent and unplanned.

Both were invalid because there has been no works carried out nearby for the last 3 months.

When Southwark could not refute this, they said it was part of the LTN consultation which it never was!

To do what they have done they should have issued an experimental order and carried out a consultation.

Southwark are without doubt a law unto themselves and can be equated to a totalitarian regime. Joe Public and other members of the chattering classes just dont count in their view - certainly not when they are up against the residents of Gilkes - several of which have close ties to the Council.

[fottos]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

>

> No just pointing out your ridiculous attempt to

> equate:

> - oil poured on planters, spray paint on road

> signs, fly-posting on all roads in the area,

> personally insulting stickers placed on people's

> front doors and elsewhere on their private

> property - naming them! - personally insulting

> posters on lampposts revealing private addresses -

> and naming again! - repeatedly destroying plants

> from planters..

What do you expect when the council act like a totalitarian state?

Plus there's always two sides in situations like this.

Your comments are unfounded speculation whereas we have irrefutable video evidence of vandalism by the Pro-LTN activists.

Have a look at this:-

Male about 5' 9"

Receding Hairline

Aged 30 - 40

Medium build

Back pack

Shoes with light coloured soles

Beige 3/4 length coat

Incident took place at 1am

Probably not the same imbecile, but another inside the perimeter of a a front parking area was damaged by someone removing a sign.

If you think you can assist with identifying this vandal please send a PM

[ohthehugemanateeLTN3]

fottos Wrote:

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

> What do you expect when the council act like a

> totalitarian state?

They don't. They are not, however obligated to do precisely what you wish. Many people such as myself like the LTNs a great deal. I like the one in Dulwich and I like the one in Brixton which makes travel via Herne Hill much better for me.

I will continue to support them and also vote for representatives who continue to support such measures.

> Plus there's always two sides in situations like

> this.

Well until now I didn't think there were. Most people here seem against vandalism, though you appear to be trying to justify it if it's for a cause you like.

> Your comments are unfounded speculation

In what way are pictures of the damage "unfounded speculation"?

[redpost]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Each device that accesses the internet is

> allocated a seperate and unique IP address (not

> just the router that is acting as the gateway) so

> unless the flatmates are sharing the same device

> then each device that logs-in is uniquely

> identifiable.

>

> Anyway, there are plenty of people on here who

> have expressed pro-LTN views and haven't been

> banned so your banning is obviously for something

> else. Sorry to break it to you but admin doesn't

> ban people on the basis of pro-LTN (or-anti) views

> and if they have barred your IP address then you

> have clearly breached the rules of usage for the

> forum.

>

> Getting banned in little under a day is very

> impressive! - that must be some kind of record!

Rockets - I'm amazed by your ability to make assertions on subjects with such concrete certainty & absolute authority, but in reality you know absoluely nothing about.

There are not enough ipv4 addresses available, that's why we have NAT and the prospect of ipv6.

Unless you explicitly request a static IP address (most ISPs don't support this) you will be allocated a leased address from DHCP that someone else on the same ISP could have been using yesterday/last week/last year.

[Metallic]

From legalalien: I actually think TfL have come across quite well in the various email exchanges that have been released and their FoI system seems to work well. I was amused to see that Southwark Councillors have requested that TfL copy Southwark in on any FoI responses involving the Dulwich scheme.

I understand that, unlike the secretive Southwark FOis, which are seen if applicants publish them but otherwise go in the bottom drawer of Southwark's rubbish department office, TfL actually publish their FOIs.

[legalalien]

Yes, they put them on the website, which makes their life easier as people can check the website before making a new request.

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information

A surprising number of people request sound files of bus and tube announcements.

[northernmonkey]

It would be infinitely better if Southwark had a public record of FOI requests -the amount of duplicates must be staggering. I suspect its annoying for all concerned - even councilors / officers as the information made public may be something they need. I think that the council has been asked about maintaining a log before but no progress has been made

[legalalien]

Even if they don?t have capacity to improve their system they could eg encourage people to make requests through a site like https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/. Although that would then expose delays in responding to requests which is probably not what they?d want!

(Just came across an interesting looking Open Democracy report on the state of FoI in the U.K. - https://cdn-prod.opendemocracy.net/media/documents/art-of-darkness-opendemocracy.pdf). Apparently ?stonewalling? by completely failing to reply to requests is on the rise.

[Rockets]

Another interesting update from One Dulwich - was this the "something else" the council were alluding to on the review forms:

As we move into the final weeks of the review of the Dulwich measures (the decision will be made in October), there is one central question: have Council officers already made up their minds what they plan to recommend?

Based on the following evidence, the answer seems to be yes.

Firstly, data analysts within One Dulwich (and the wider Dulwich Alliance) are working on the Council?s figures and uncovering a significant number of problems. If Council officers knew about these problems, it seems the late release of the traffic data (only four days before the original consultation deadline of 11 July) was intentional ? a tactical decision to make sure that no one responding to the consultation had time to raise awkward questions.

Secondly, the air quality data has still not been published. No one responding to the review survey had any information from the Council about whether the measures were increasing pollution on roads like East Dulwich Grove, Croxted Road and Lordship Lane.

Thirdly, the long-awaited Equality Impact Assessment was published two days before the extended deadline of 18 July ? again giving no one any time to respond. The EqIA was supposed to look at how the road measures affect groups in Dulwich with protected characteristics, like the elderly and disabled. This one, however, is an interim ?desktop review? ? in other words, an assessment made by someone sitting at a desk ? and it?s so general, and so incomplete, that it?s pretty meaningless. You can see our review of it here. Further engagement is planned, but nothing has been published about which organisations Southwark will consult. Meetings with elderly and disabled people have been postponed until August.

Finally, information has just come to light showing that Council officers had already decided on a new plan for the junction in the middle of Dulwich Village before the public consultation had closed.

An FOI (Freedom of Information) request to TfL (Transport for London), asking for any correspondence between TfL and Southwark Council about the temporarily closed junction, has revealed that Council officers were asking for TfL?s opinion on their new plan for the junction on 1 July.

Please note the date. Southwark?s email is dated 1 July ? that is, before the close of the public consultation (11 July, extended to 18 July), before public questions on the traffic data at a meeting with the Council on 13 July (please see a list of the unanswered questions on the Dulwich Alliance website), and before the various meetings with residents? groups in Dulwich in the week of 19 July.

In other words, the Council?s plan for amending the closure of Dulwich Village junction had been finalised without taking into account any views from the public.

So what is this new plan? It shares a remarkable similarity with a leaflet circulated not long ago by a coalition of lobby groups in favour of keeping Dulwich Village junction closed.

Council officers are proposing that emergency vehicles ? and only emergency vehicles ? should be allowed through the junction. In addition, they are proposing that cycles should have their own phase across the junction, and that the current staggered pedestrian crossing (between Harold George and the graveyard) should be removed. This new layout would apparently be temporary (for six to twelve months) ? although it?s hard to understand how physical changes to infrastructure like concrete pedestrian traffic islands could be temporary.

So does this new plan answer all the concerns that local people have raised?

It?s obviously welcome news that the Council is finally taking on board issues about access that the emergency services have been raising with them since the summer of 2020.

But this new plan for the centre of Dulwich ? because it is still a 24/7 closure for everything but emergency vehicles ? does nothing to alleviate the traffic displacement on to neighbouring roads, which creates worse conditions for thousands of children walking and cycling to school, and serious delays to public transport (and, ironically the emergency services).

It also does nothing to improve access for the elderly and disabled and those caring for them. It does nothing for key workers stuck in traffic jams, and nothing for local shops and businesses struggling to trade. It does nothing to help those from a wide area trying to reach after-school clubs, community and social groups, sports clubs, or dance and fitness classes, all of which are key to mental and physical health. It does nothing to address the spikes in congestion and pollution that are being caused by heavy increases in traffic on many local roads, including the South Circular.

At a meeting with residents? groups on Monday 19 July, the leader of the council, Cllr Kieron Williams, said that no plan had been decided.

Council officers, on the other hand, appear to have taken a decision already.

Over to you, Cllr Williams. This is not just about road closures. This is about whether Southwark Council takes decisions in the best interests of the people it serves.

It?s an issue of political leadership, and we badly need you to intervene.

[smooch]

As a cyclist the increased pollution and traffic jams caused by the amusingly named LTN?s is a nightmare

[Earl Aelfheah]

Extreme weather to become the norm: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/29/extreme-weather-will-be-the-norm-and-uk-is-not-prepared-report-warns

If we're not happy with measures which reduce car use, we could swap the SUVs out for kayaks in time?

[hpsaucey]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Extreme weather to become the norm:

> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/29/extr

> eme-weather-will-be-the-norm-and-uk-is-not-prepare

> d-report-warns

>

> If we're not happy with measures which reduce car

> use, we could swap the SUVs out for kayaks in

> time?

Yes - yet another wake-up call! How many more will we ignore?

HP

[Penguin68]

If we're not happy with measures which reduce car use, we could swap the SUVs out for kayaks in time?

I recognise that this is hyperbole and satire, but by concentrating attention on the comparatively very small contribution to global warming made by carbon-fuelled SUVs (particularly in the UK) compared with other sources of CO2 we will lose sight of those much more significant contributors to increased greenhouse gas levels. And LTN's are not really about global warming but about particulate pollution reducing air quality - a CO2 rich atmosphere is not poisonous in that way.

In fact, (outwith the Covid-19 impact) the UK carbon position (and CO2 is just one greenhouse gas) has been improving significantly https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-co2-emissions-have-fallen-29-per-cent-over-the-past-decade.

Clearly there is still a job to do.

[Rockets]

Yes I do wonder how many people who wage war on cars sit in houses with gas fueled boilers churning out all sorts of nasties...

It would be refreshing to see people put as much energy into tackling all climate change contributors not just focussing on one of them.

[hpsaucey]

'Improving significantly' re: the UK's carbon position is still not improving fast or far enough.

Yes plenty of other greenhouse gasses of concern and improved modelling is needed wrt them as well; and also the unintended (toxic) consequences to the atmosphere of potential moves to a hydrogen economy etc.

This is one thread on LTNs which are about the impact of having/not having them, air pollution, vehicle use, CO2 and climate change (relative importance of which depends on your personal viewpoint perhaps). Perhaps we need others on reducing carbon in other areas of (local) lives if people think there's a risk of sidelining other major CO2 contributors?

HP

[first mate]

Indeed and one of the early and highly vociferous cycle campaigners seemed to have travelled the world several times over...Wonder how many plane flights that adds up to?!

[hpsaucey]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Indeed and one of the early and highly vociferous

> cycle campaigners seemed to have travelled the

> world several times over...Wonder how many plane

> flights that adds up to?!

ooh - who was that?

HP

[Earl Aelfheah]

We should probably ignore the contribution local car journeys make to the climate crisis as they?re not the *only* contributor. It makes sense, because it?s been well established that the most effective way we can tackle the climate crisis is through whataboutery, deflection and rhetorical device, rather than action on the sources of pollution.

[Nigello]

Maybe the person who criss-crossed the globe on aeroplanes has no or only one child, is vegetarian or vegan, doesn't have a car, cycles most places, gives to charity and meticulously recycles or reuses stuff? It isn't a good idea to demonise one single thing when, in fact, air travel isn't anywhere near as big as a bad-boy as others are, and is making headway in lighter aircraft, greener fuels, more efficient use of aircrat, etc.

[legalalien]

On the boiler issue I think most people are waiting for a solution to become more ?mass produced? and therefore cheaper/ understand whether hybrid / air source/ heat source is going to be the way forward (like VHS / Beta and CDMA/GSM, it?s good to know what the generally accepted new technology is going to be). It would be good to have a thread on this in the lounge. If I get a chance I?ll try and find some useful sources of info and start one if no one else does.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I'm absolutely sure Rockets will have an argument for why cars don't contribute to climate change and the evidence is fake, but:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200317-climate-change-cut-carbon-emissions-from-your-commute

[Earl Aelfheah]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Maybe the person who criss-crossed the globe on

> aeroplanes has no or only one child, is vegetarian

> or vegan, doesn't have a car, cycles most places,

> gives to charity and meticulously recycles or

> reuses stuff? It isn't a good idea to demonise one

> single thing when, in fact, air travel isn't

> anywhere near as big as a bad-boy as others are,

> and is making headway in lighter aircraft, greener

> fuels, more efficient use of aircrat, etc.

Agreed. It probably is wise for us to pursue policies that generally reduce air travel, cut car usage etc though.

[hpsaucey]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> On the boiler issue I think most people are

> waiting for a solution to become more ?mass

> produced? and therefore cheaper/ understand

> whether hybrid / air source/ heat source is going

> to be the way forward (like VHS / Beta and

> CDMA/GSM, it?s good to know what the generally

> accepted new technology is going to be). It would

> be good to have a thread on this in the lounge. If

> I get a chance I?ll try and find some useful

> sources of info and start one if no one else does.

Great idea re: thread and agree - people waiting on emerging tech. Would also help if government policy had a clear and practical plan for homes in general. In the meantime we just keep on building ones which are not resilient to climate change impacts and will have to be adapted/retrofitted in various ways presumably.

HP