LTN Discussion

[DulvilleRes]

I'm glad we agree that harassment/ targeting is abhorrent. it has been an extraordinarily unpleasant facet of this local issue.

On the facts, I have a reasonable working knowledge of Gilkes Crescent - the bulk of the houses have small short driveways, generally with room for a single vehicle, and some have no driveways at all. There is generally a reasonable amount of space in the street to park, and that includes people who don't live on the street parking to use the shops/ bars/ dropping off at JAGs, and also ad hoc businesses who long-term store csrs/ vans in the street they buy and sell.

There isn't a single household I have heard of who has 3 cars, let alone 4. It could be possible, but all the evidence I've seen is against it. So part of keeping the temperature down in this debate is to carefully consider whether what you hear might be true of not before repeating it.

[Penguin68]

Outwith any issues regarding either trust or accuracy of the various figures being presented in this debate, as to the efficacy, or otherwise, of the introduction of LTNs, the fatal flaw in the debate is to equate correlation with causation. 'A' happens and B happens does not mean that A caused B.

You may wish to further examine all the surrounding issues and then infer that A may (or may not) influence B, and to what extent, and there are perfectly good statistical tools that will help you with this - although I see no evidence whatsoever that any of these tools have been applied.

At the moment two sides are shouting to each other that 'My interpretation of limited (and broadly, as it stands, unanalysable) data is right, and yours is wrong, nah nah di nah nah...!'. The council and their supporters are no worse, nor better, than those who disagree with them. But neither have any right to claim that their opinion is more valid than the other. And no reliable figures support a decision to continue, or abandon, this experiment.

[goldilocks]

Picking up on these points because I think its interesting.

1. A lot of people on here are angry about fines - seen as a 'tax on motorists / unfair capital raising' etc. (heartblock you don't need to say this isn't what you think as I've said 'a lot' rather than 'all').

2. In response there seems to be a 'vote them out' approach being pushed - fine, this is the point of democracy - all good so far. People can be angry about the measures and the fines and can make this known at election.

3. However - here is the bit I struggle with. The conservative candidate was the founder of the Dulwich Alliance. The Dulwich Alliance didn't actually campaign for removal of measures, instead they have campaigned for timed restrictions with residents permits.

4. If such a thing was possible, it would likely just be the people who live within the area where filters apply, so the majority of people would still be restricted AND liable to fines on more roads - given how drivers have struggled to see multiple roads signs to date, it seems likely that this would result in even more fines.

The Dulwich Alliance policy is literally the Conservative governments approach to lockdown restrictions played out in transport. They want others to have to abide by rules, they want to be able to fine those who don't, but they also want to be able to do what they want as the rules shouldn't apply to them.

march46 Wrote:

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

> Do you support the Dulwich Alliance who are

> lobbying for a camera-controlled permit scheme

> @metallic?

>

> Presumably this is what the Conservative

> candidates for Dulwich Village will be promising

> also, given their close ties with ?the alliance?.

>

>

>

> Metallic Wrote:

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

> -----

> > ?1.472 million in fines paid from the Townley

> Road

> > Camera since it was put in. Even more

> apparently

> > from Dulwich Village camera looking north. What

> a

> > sin to punish decent working people with these

> > restrictions.

> > Figure sent to me by friends who received it on

> > the grapevine.

[heartblock]

1. LTNs are central conservative policy

2. Yes there are always people who want access to private cars at any cost, but the majority of individuals on ED Grove involved in the ED Grove Group campaigning for clean air and less traffic are completely focussed on the pollution/traffic aspect, schools and disability/elderly access - hence our letter to Southwark Council asking them to retain and extend traffic and pollution monitoring - pointing out that 4000 children travel to this road to be educated.

These LTNs haven't delivered a less polluted environment for me and my neighbours and having campaigned for green new deal and policy within MEDACT and the Labour Party for many years up to the point I left the LP over this debacle, I don't see anything but negatives from LTN in terms of making East Dulwich a cleaner, greener area and making us a cohesive community.

The local Labour Parties policy over green spaces, democracy, consultation and dubious contracts with property developers such as LandLease, do not encourage me to vote for them.

[legalalien]

Goldilocks - I could be wrong, but I think it's One Dulwich who were/ are campaigning for timed closures, coming out of the Our Healthy Streets consultation - I'm not sure that Dulwich Alliance are?

I know One Dulwich are members of DA but I don't believe they are the same thing, DA include several local residents' associations, and I think Clive Rates (the conservative candidate you mention) as involved with one of those residents' associations?

[goldilocks]

Clive Rates (conservative candidate) was the founder of the Dulwich Alliance. The Dulwich Alliance circulated a poster that literally said 'yes to permits, no to 24/7 closures' - so that sounds pretty clear on timed closures.

Clive is also chair of the Dulwich Village Residents Association. Incidentally this association submitted a proposal to the original council consultation suggesting timed restrictions.

So that's 2 separate instances where Clive Rates has been personally involved in campaigning for timed restrictions for a very limited (yet also undefined) group of Dulwich Village residents.

[legalalien]

I'm pretty sure that the Dulwich Alliance poster said "no to 24/7 closures" and said nothing about "yes to permits". I just googled it to see the image. So I think you might be mistaken about that? Is anyone on here from DA who could advise? I can see a One Dulwich image with "yes to permits".

Did the DVRA suggest timed restrictions, or resident permits? I don't know the answer to that, btw.

Personally I don't care if Clive Rates personally supports timed restrictions and or resident permits, as long as he understands the difference between his personal preference, and the need to represent the views of residents. Not understanding that difference seems to be what has gone wrong to date.

Am hoping the LD and Conservative canvassers might call by so I can see the whites of their eyes and decide how to vote!

[march46]

The Dulwich Alliance petition on Southwark's website called for an 'Area-wide, camera-controlled permit scheme' https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=500000057&RPID=774218585&HPID=774218585

[Spartacus]

Came across this today which asks are Electric Cars the next "diesel scandal" ?

http://a.msn.com/08/en-gb/AATxAda?ocid=se

Makes some interesting points, not convinced by it but an interesting proposition.

[goldilocks]

I'm 100% sure I'm correct though. I'm not mistaken.

I just think its interesting that Clive is now campaigning for a different one than the one he has personally put forward as chair / founder of two separate organisations.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> I'm pretty sure that the Dulwich Alliance poster

> said "no to 24/7 closures" and said nothing about

> "yes to permits". I just googled it to see the

> image. So I think you might be mistaken about

> that? Is anyone on here from DA who could advise?

> I can see a One Dulwich image with "yes to

> permits".

>

> Did the DVRA suggest timed restrictions, or

> resident permits? I don't know the answer to

> that, btw.

>

> Personally I don't care if Clive Rates personally

> supports timed restrictions and or resident

> permits, as long as he understands the difference

> between his personal preference, and the need to

> represent the views of residents. Not

> understanding that difference seems to be what has

> gone wrong to date.

>

> Am hoping the LD and Conservative canvassers might

> call by so I can see the whites of their eyes and

> decide how to vote!

[Rockets]

It is going to be interesting to hear from all the candidates on their stance on LTNs (amongst other things) - although I suspect a lot of Dulwich folk will focus on LTNs as that is very much the issue at the heart of local life right now.

I suspect all candidates will adapt their position to the one that they think will secure them the most votes. For example, I suspect LD candidates know they have to nuance their messaging around them as they have traditionally been supportive.

Bottom line is a lot of people are waiting to determine where their vote against Labour will go in May.

[legalalien]

If you say so. I looked at the ones here, and as I say, I have no insight into the residents association. Although in light of your comment I?ve now looked at their website.

This does mention resident permits but that seems to be in response to a council proposal for such permits?

http://dulwichra.org.uk/index.php/dulwich-village-ra-submission/

https://dulwichalliance.org/posters/

I personally like it when people modify their views, particularly when they are trying to represent people. In fact I expect them to, to some extent.

[Rockets]

Yes and I think any councillor has to adapt their views for council life - look at some of the incumbents and I am sure their personal/union/work views are not expressed/are restrained whilst in office.

[goldilocks]

I guess that is one way of looking at it.

Alternatively, you could say that there is someone who has set up two local organisations and then used these to lobby the council for a plan for permits for local people to drive through filters keeping anyone who doesn't live in Dulwich Village out, who has now decided to stand in local elections and thinks that there are more votes in adopting a different stance.

Its not even possible to claim that Clive has been backed into this by virtue of standing for the Conservatives given that the infrastructure changes were pushed through under mandates from Conservative central government in order to prevent a 'car led recovery'.

Its a calculated 'play' to maximise the chance of votes, whilst knowing that even if elected their promises to remove all measures won't even be within their control unless there is a widespread shift of control in Southwark overall.

[Rockets]

Goldilocks - of course it is a tactical play. He is a politician. He, like every other councillor, will do what they think will get them votes.

The same rational is why the Lib Dems are saying they are the only ones who can create a widespread shift in Southwark's overall control + they are playing that hand whilst the Tories play the we will make changes.

What's not surprising is that they are both promising to listen to constituents - something they both know is the Achilles heal for Labour.

The decision for the "anyone but Labour" vote is whether they want to try and destabalise the Labour control in Tooley Street or try to get the LTNs removed/redesigned.

Given what is happening in other parts of the borough and tbe anti-Labour sentiment in some parts I do wonder if the Lib Dems might garner a lot of votes.

Hopefully we will get to hear more substance from all candidates.

Labour are clearly in trouble locally, hence their canvassing efforts over recent days. They know they have created a problem for themselves over the handling of the LTNs.....that small vocal minority might bite back in May!

[goldilocks]

The Lib Dems are doing their normal thing of saying - 'us - oh, no, we wouldn't have done that thing like that, we'd have listened' whilst entirely refusing to say what their view is at all.

They're the political equivalent of a stripper saying 'i can be whatever you want me to be honey'.

[Rockets]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Still waiting for a response to what Rockets said

> about data manipulation by council.

I think I must be right given the defeaning silence! ;-) Usually someone comes to the council's defence.

A 7% swing would severely weaken their claim that the LTNs are a success.

Throw into that the in or out of school holidays question between the pre and post scheme monitoring and the fact they borrowed some data on cycling from an "independent party", we presume Anna Goodman's cycling analysis which I think was dissected pretty convincingly when it was published, then the monitoring report has an unhealthy serving of smoke and mirrors.

But of course no-one can ask the council as they refuse to engage with people on answering questions about the LTNs or the report.

[Metallic]

march46 Wrote:

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

>

> Presumably this is what the Conservative

> candidates for Dulwich Village will be promising

> also, given their close ties with ?the alliance?.

>

>

>

> Metallic Wrote:

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

> -----

> > ?1.472 million in fines paid from the Townley

> Road

> > Camera since it was put in. Even more

> apparently

> > from Dulwich Village camera looking north. What

> a

> > sin to punish decent working people with these

> > restrictions.

> > Figure sent to me by friends who received it on

> > the grapevine.

The tories are campaigning to open the junction at Calton/Court. Which would be a lot better than leaving it for a few residents to have a quiet life in my opinion. I think One Dulwich and the Alliance have evolved what they want but I'm only going on leaflets.

[Waseley]

The Lib Dems and strippers. Thread has now got a lot more exciting. ...

[kissthisguy]

Goldilocks seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. As far as I understand it, Mr Rates was chair of a residents association (Dulwich Village, College Road, Woodyard Lane) as such he presumably had a mandate from those residents to represent their view (this may or may not be his view). He co-founded the DA which formed its own position on the closures (again this is a group of people, not an individual). He is now a Conservative candidate and presumably they have taken a view as to what they consider to be the best solution (for what frankly is a mess) in Dulwich and are standing on that platform. I don't quite see the issue here. Are you saying that he should now be presenting the views and interests of his previous residents association as Conservative party policy?

*Of course* people's views evolve - given the externalities, new info, practical reality and so on. A less conspiratorially-minded view is that, having seen how the council behaves and the paltry modifications that were made, and the harm that continues to be caused, the only logical conclusion is to say rip it out and start again!

[legalalien]

Kissthisguy I think you mean ?of course SOME people?s views evolve..?. Some people?s views patently don?t, which has made conspiracy theorists of us all.

Which is why I think votes may boil down to how much voters feel they can trust individual candidates.

[kissthisguy]

@legalalien I cling to optimism! Let's say *most* people's views evolve; the bell-shaped curve and all that. Of course there are outliers at either end.

And yes, trust will be key. Labour has squandered it in the most egregious way. I can't be doing with LibDem flim-flam on this issue and agree with @Goldilocks' characterisation of them (at least what I've seen of the candidates in DV); James Barber was at least competent and pretty dedicated).

[CPR Dave]

James Barber also listened when a consultation proved that closing Melbourne Grove would be disastrous and took it no further.

[kissthisguy]

CPR Dave Wrote:

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

> James Barber also listened when a consultation

> proved that closing Melbourne Grove would be

> disastrous and took it no further.

Interesting. If James Barber ran again I think he'd get in. So for those disappointed in Labour, tactical voting would suggest LDs in Goose Green and Conservatives in DV.

[kissthisguy]

From the Times this morning [?]

Rush hour traffic is a third lighter than pre-pandemic levels

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rush-hour-traffic-is-a-third-lighter-than-pre-pandemic-levels-0x0sfw6gs

Relevant bit:

"London?s morning rush hour congestion decreased by 21 per and evening rush hour by 19 per cent compared with pre-pandemic levels in 2019." Any Southwark claims of LTN "success" needs to be seen in this context.