LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Otto2]

LTN policy comes from the (Tory) gov't (see the previously referenced net zero report on .gov among others) and is being implemented locally by our elected (Labour) councillors. There is also participation in anti-LTN from the Reform UK party and they seem quite active re: the Dulwich LTN on social. I think [people from all political angles land on both sides of the debate but it is also going to be used as a tool in election campaigns.

I would like to see our environmental issues less played by politics and more addressed with the urgency they require in as apolitical a fashion as can be.

[AlexandHelenC]

Jenijenjen Wrote:

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

> Listening is not the same as having to accept the

> respondents? views to remove all LTNs which, let?s

> remember, formed a very small percentage of those

> consulted within the area.

>

> Once again, the anti LTN belligerence and threats

> of voting Labour out of office which is the aim

> and sub text of this entire thread. Well, we?ll

> see.

A far smaller percentage of those consulted within the area said they wanted to retain the LTNs.

[Spartacus]

Otto2 Wrote:

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

> A great deal of

> social re anti-ltn appears to come from Nigel

> Farage party members. Who I think are keen on

> dividing and conquering and creating political

> divisions over environmental issues.

WOW

That's a leap and pretty slanderous as you are making a sweeping statement about other people without any evidence

The pro lobby seem to be reaching the bottom of the barrel now.

[first mate]

Otto2 you are careful to use the word "appears" to qualify your statement which renders it an empty attempt to skew perceptions of those who are anti LTN. Please desist from this sort of nonsense. As we all know "appearances", especially on social media, can be deceptive.

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> Otto2 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > A great deal of

> > social re anti-ltn appears to come from Nigel

> > Farage party members. Who I think are keen on

> > dividing and conquering and creating political

> > divisions over environmental issues.

>

> WOW

>

> That's a leap and pretty slanderous as you are

> making a sweeping statement about other people

> without any evidence

>

> The pro lobby seem to be reaching the bottom of

> the barrel now.

[Otto2]

Okay - I am going to modify my previous post as it is perhaps obscuring my larger point which is:

I would like to see our environmental issues less played by politics and more addressed with the urgency they require in as apolitical a fashion as can be.

[ab29]

As Dougie said here once:

"The scheme is a failure, completely unfair and should be replaced with something else entirely (with proper consultation with all residents). (...) I don?t believe that the ideology of cyclists and the environmentally conscious should somehow trump the rights to clean air of a selection of unfortunate residents. If you cannot give clean air and quiet streets to everyone, then your scheme needs work. If you are giving wealthy residents clean air and quiet streets at the expense of a selection of (arguably less wealthy) residents, then your scheme is not fit for purpose. There is simply no acceptable excuse for forcing these measures on people.

Until a fair solution can be found, air pollution (as horrific as it may be) should be shared equally by all residents as it is all of our burden to bear (not just an unfortunate selection)."

[heartblock]

An interesting podcast with a left wing Labour Councillor. I hadn't thought about this aspect before. The richest person I know does not have a car, he travels by first class train and taxi, has a bike for exercise and weekends. My friend who is struggling can't afford train travel to visit his Mum in Devon and also makes some cash as a 'man with a van' in-between working as a night worker at Mungo's.

The councillor also talks about gentrification and demographics of certain areas. I think about East Dulwich Grove, having both wealthier at the village end and less wealthy with the small, garden less flats all getting together to campaign against the displaced and polluting traffic.

Whatever you opinion - this is a calm and interesting listen.

[Artemis]

Otto2 Wrote:

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

> Okay - I am going to modify my previous post as it

> is perhaps obscuring my larger point which is:

>

>

> I would like to see our environmental issues less

> played by politics and more addressed with the

> urgency they require in as apolitical a fashion as

> can be.

With respect, you are the one who brought up politics here. I do not see this as a party political issue and I think there are many differing political standpoints on both sides of the argument.

[Otto2]

Actually - with respect back - no - it came up before I posted - hence the post.

[Artemis]

Otto2 Wrote:

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

> Actually - with respect back - no - it came up

> before I posted - hence the post.

Apologies if I?ve missed something - I was referring to your rather surprising claim that ?a great deal of? anti LTN people were Reform Party members - I found it a little disingenuous to ask people to be more apolitical when you have just said something so political - not to mention inaccurate and inflammatory.

[Otto2]

I said "a great deal of social", not people.

I'm bowing out. I amended my post as I saw it was being misinterpreted and I am sorry it continues to be.

[bonaome]

I have searched the Southwark site and this thread and I cannot find the data and collection details supporting the decreased traffic counts, increase in cycling and reductions of pollution the council claims are the effect of the LTNs. Would someone share the direct links to the relevant report/data?

[heartblock]

There is no evidence that outside of the lockdown/London-wide reduction in traffic and pollution, that the Dulwich LTNs have contributed in any significance way to a reduction in pollution.

Traffic and bus journeys reduced across London, while after 5 x LTNs in Dulwich both traffic and bus journey times increased on two residential school roads at the same time - looking at Southwark own data.

There is no data in any 'research' published that proves with significance that LTNs reduce pollution and therefore have a positive impact on the environment.

There is an increasing body of thought that in fact, LTNs create a maze of roads, encouraging longer journeys and more idling traffic, with a detrimental increase in air and noise pollution on the less affluent residents in London.

[Rockets]

Jenijenjen Wrote:

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

> This is the definition of a referendum:

>

> ?a general vote by the electorate on a single

> political question which has been referred to them

> for a direct decision.?

>

> This is not what the LTN consultation was about.

But it was a consultation, which, by definition is:

What is consultation? Consultation is technically any activity that gives local people a voice and an opportunity to influence important decisions. It involves listening to and learning from local people before decisions are made or priorities are set.

jenijenjen - given that definition and given 68% of people responded saying remove the measures can you tell us how the council arrives at the conclusions they have? To me it looks clears the council has given a small minority of the community the opportunity to influence the decision......which is not what consultations are supposed to act upon.

[legalalien]

A couple of thoughts on the consultation issue - something I'm trying to get straight in my own head, particularly as I spent most of my formative years in another country where the role of local government is (but maybe wasn't historically) quite different.

My expectation of local government is that it differs from central government in that it deals largely with local services and local issues and has a closer relationship with its constituency than central government does. I have an expectation that ward councillors represent constituents in council policy formation in a much more direct way than, for example, MPs do at Westminster. I expect local councillors to have more sway in very local issues than I expect MPs to do, as they operate at a more macro level. Is this just me or do other people feel the same? I get the impression that they do? Maybe views are split on this?

Increasingly it seems that councils are becoming involved in/ trying to be involved in policy making that is more suited to a central government level - eg macro policies on climate change, active travel, probably other things. Councillors are whipped to follow national party lines.

The statutory processes of consultation that apply to local government are much more suitable to the former model than to the latter model, as they're designed to give local people control over decisions that (just) affect local issues. They are not well designed to address higher level policy strategies.

The argument that those in favour of the council's approach should be making (being generous here- devil's advocate and all that), is that everyone was given a chance to give input on the Movement Plan. Now that the Movement Plan is in place, it trumps/ limits the field for consultation on measures to implement the Movement Plan. In other words, the high level strategy (CPZs, get rid of cars) is no longer open for debate, local consultations on specific measures need to be viewed against that background.

The problem I have is that the consultations/ engagement on the high level strategies have been (in my opinion) fairly inadequate and captured by organised lobby groups. So there isn't widespread resident buy in when the detailed local measures come to be considered.

Is the system fixable/ improvable? And how?

[Jenijenjen]

?given that definition and given 68% of people responded saying remove the measures can you tell us how the council arrives at the conclusions they have? To me it looks clears the council has given a small minority of the community the opportunity to influence the decision......which is not what consultations are supposed to act upon.?

I am unable to find the official figures but from memory just under 30,000 people were invited to participate in the consultation of which 7,000 responded I.e. just over 25%. Of this 25% it?s been said that two thirds were against the LTNs which brings the percentage down to 17%. Can the opinions of this small minority be allowed to influence the decision? The council has listened and made sensible tweaks with the exception of the DV junction which they wish to remain closed which in my opinion is a mistake - the concept and execution of Dulwich Square is just tacky in so many ways. Now had this been a referendum, what this 17% wanted would have carried more weight. But it wasn?t a referendum, it was a consultation, they work differently.

And to the person who accused me of being a troll, this is a very good example of the belligerence I was talking about. It might be a good idea for you to check the meaning of the word troll as well.

[legalalien]

The thing is Jen, that the permanent closure of the junction and Dulwich Square thing is what many of the opponents of the scheme are against. Turn that into a timed closure based on new timings, have a discussion about school holidays, some progress would likely be made pretty quickly. I think, anyway.

[Bicknell]

thanks for input @Jenijenjen

you will never get 100% of people to respond. 25% is really high (havent checked yr figures but happy to go with)and southwerk said they were happy with this. so its a good snapshot of local feeling

you run a consutlation, get25 per cent, thats good

question is what you do with results

tw0 thirds of those who took part from all 3 ltns said go back to what it was

but southwark just puts in minor changes

is that ok?

agree with you about dv juncton. cause of all the problems imho. not necessary, not wanted. no idea why council insists on keeping it

[heartblock]

The problem is that Southwark is using the 'success' and the 'majority' support of the LTNs based on their 'research' as an excuse to not remove the LTNs, because if it's a 'success' and 'supported' the government will fine them for removing.

The issue is they have not achieved anything other than diverting traffic onto already polluted residential roads and are according to their own consultation not supported by responding residents. Southwark have mis-reported findings, used dubious baselines and failed to report basic data sets - all in order to misrepresent the actuality in order to blame central government for being made to keep the temporary changes.

It's downright weird behaviour from a Labour run council.

[legalalien]

It?s downright weird behaviour but it?s consistent across the Labour councils. So probably head office policy rather than Southwark going off on a frolic?

[Jenijenjen]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> The thing is Jen, that the permanent closure of

> the junction and Dulwich Square thing is what many

> of the opponents of the scheme are against. Turn

> that into a timed closure based on new timings,

> have a discussion about school holidays, some

> progress would likely be made pretty quickly. I

> think, anyway.

So this is how people should have responded to the consultation instead of the blanket ?remove everything? as advised by One Dulwich, who as I said earlier shot themselves in the foot by not treating the exercise as a consultation where different solutions could be explored.

[Rockets]

Jenijenjen Wrote:

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

> ?given that definition and given 68% of people

> responded saying remove the measures can you tell

> us how the council arrives at the conclusions they

> have? To me it looks clears the council has given

> a small minority of the community the opportunity

> to influence the decision......which is not what

> consultations are supposed to act upon.?

>

> I am unable to find the official figures but from

> memory just under 30,000 people were invited to

> participate in the consultation of which 7,000

> responded I.e. just over 25%. Of this 25% it?s

> been said that two thirds were against the LTNs

> which brings the percentage down to 17%. Can the

> opinions of this small minority be allowed to

> influence the decision? The council has listened

> and made sensible tweaks with the exception of the

> DV junction which they wish to remain closed which

> in my opinion is a mistake - the concept and

> execution of Dulwich Square is just tacky in so

> many ways. Now had this been a referendum, what

> this 17% wanted would have carried more weight.

> But it wasn?t a referendum, it was a consultation,

> they work differently.

>

> And to the person who accused me of being a troll,

> this is a very good example of the belligerence I

> was talking about. It might be a good idea for you

> to check the meaning of the word troll as well.

Then what's the point of consultations? And I remind you that the council used feedback from the OHS consultations (to which about 100 people responded) as justification for the closures in the first place.

They can't have it both ways!

To Legal's point the issue now is that party politics weighs heavy on local politics so our councillors are far more happy keeping their paymasters happy than the electorate....

[heartblock]

Unfortunately the way Southwark set up the Consultation this option wasn't given - at no point did they offer this. Certainly many people added such comments into free type, but these comments have not been included in the report. I imagine many of that two thirds against LTNs commented in the free type - I certainly did by suggesting local buses, cycle lanes and timed closures, but looking through the consultation I could not find a tick box for any of this.

[Rockets]

Jenijenjen Wrote:

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

> legalalien Wrote:

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

> -----

> > The thing is Jen, that the permanent closure of

> > the junction and Dulwich Square thing is what

> many

> > of the opponents of the scheme are against.

> Turn

> > that into a timed closure based on new timings,

> > have a discussion about school holidays, some

> > progress would likely be made pretty quickly. I

> > think, anyway.

>

> So this is how people should have responded to the

> consultation instead of the blanket ?remove

> everything? as advised by One Dulwich, who as I

> said earlier shot themselves in the foot by not

> treating the exercise as a consultation where

> different solutions could be explored.

But there was no option to do so......

[Jenijenjen]

Yet the Record of Decision dated 1 October 2021 quotes the number of specific comments / objections.