Latest One Dulwich update

[Rockets]

One Dulwich have sent their latest update.

 

One Dulwich

 

Campaign Update | 9 Sep

What Southwark is now saying about the Dulwich LTNs

 

As you know, we met Cllr James McAsh (who took over from Cllr Catherine Rose as the Council’s decision-maker on LTNs) in June, and raised our continuing concerns about missing data, traffic displacement, delays to buses, the impact on local shops and businesses, and discrimination against people with disabilities.

 

Cllr McAsh said he would respond within two months, and we received his reply on 24 August.

 

Basically, he hasn’t budged an inch. It seems more important to him to avoid disagreeing with his predecessor’s decision than to address the very real problems that these LTNs are causing in the Dulwich area.

 

There are three key revelations from Cllr McAsh summarised in three reports on our website:

 

1) traffic count data - the baseline data is “not a perfect comparison” with post-LTN data, so it’s impossible to tell if the LTNs have reduced or increased traffic;

 

2) air quality data cannot be reliably linked to specific local interventions, so it’s impossible to tell if the LTNs have improved or worsened air quality;

 

3) discrimination continues against those who have disabilities, or who are frail or housebound (and all those who care for them), as the Dulwich Village junction remains closed 24/7 all but emergency vehicles.

 

We have written to Cllr McAsh asking why he has so singularly failed to respond to the issues we raised in our meeting.

 

We will now pass all this information on to the Prime Minister’s review of LTNs. Separately, we are seeking advice about how the Council’s failure to take into account the needs of those with disabilities can be challenged. (Please get in touch if you have any expertise or experience in Public Law and can help with this.)

 

Please also encourage friends, family and neighbours to join us. We are continuing to campaign because there is no evidence at all that the Dulwich LTNs are meeting the Council’s aims to reduce traffic, make our air cleaner, increase active travel or improve road safety. The Council is not looking after the needs of the Dulwich community.

 

Best wishes,

 

The One Dulwich Team

[Spartacus]

I loved his reply below 

"Slow moving vehicles

Your follow-up email states: “Data is based on ATCs which cannot measure traffic travelling under 10km/hr, so do not record stationary traffic (in other words, heavy congestion).” Is this a reference to this Times article: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/flaw-inroadside-counters-for-low-traffic-schemes-j6wbwvzjn? A number of others have sent this to me but the criticisms in it are directed at MetroCount equipment, which Southwark Council does not use. Instead we use more expensive but more reliable counters." 

It doesn't admit or deny if the counters used are adversely effected by slow moving traffic just that they use more expensive but more reliable counters.

The wording feels like avoiding giving an answer on accuracy at low speed.

 

The full response is here https://www.onedulwich.uk/s/OD-email-re-BB-holders.pdf

[DulvilleRes]

Who are the principal shakers and movers behind One Dulwich? Who funds them? Despite asking on this forum, no one seems to know, including the people who slavishly post their every utterance. So much of the campaigning by the anti-LTN lobby is focused around transparency – when it comes to themselves, not so much. What is known is the local Conservatives fought the last local election on pretty well the single LTN issue, and leading local Conservatives were actively involved in anti-LTN groups in the run-up.

In this context, I found this article very interesting – as a campaigning tactic, local Conservatives across the country have been mimicking local newspapers and obscuring their true identity while doing so.

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/08/24/fake-newspapers-sent-by-political-parties-should-be-banned-voters-say/

When I read this it brought to mind the uneasy feeling I sometimes have reading the Roads and Transport section of the East Dulwich Forum, (the same feeling I get when a One Dulwich flyer arrives in my letterbox) - some posters profess they aren’t Conservative activists, but their long-term words and actions, their knowledge of local politics and relentless criticism of the council on every issue are virtually indistinguishable from what you would expect from a local Conservative activist. It could of course be that it is just a remarkable overlap of views and interests, but the question I ask myself is - are we being trolled? 
 

[malumbu]

I contacted One Dulwich to ask them what measures they would introduce.  Got a load of flannel back.  Let's face it, a single issue group with no alternative options for tackling poor air quality and climate change.  Pretending they care about it is just a front.

[Rockets]

At least they responded, ask the council for anything in relation to LTNs or CPZs and they ignore you...

[CPR Dave]

It was either naive or stupid for One Dulwich to believe this meeting would be held in good faith.

They should have just gone straight over the head of this guy. He comes across to me as a disingenuous timewaster.

[malumbu]

Because One Dulwich pretend to be in favour of action to reduce emissions, heavily caveated, but when asked come up with a load of words ignoring the question.  Hmm sounds like some on this forum.  Wouldn't energies be better spent campaigning for things to be done rather than stopped?  I'll cut and paste some words from them idc, and check the definition of flannel pdq

[Spartacus]

Malumbu 

What most people want is a proper consultation that takes local views and needs into account. Not the current council whitewashing to deliver something that clearly has massive impacts on so many.

There's no point in anyone suggesting alternative ideas unless the council is open to them.

 

[first mate]

Spartacus' point stands though. We need a proper consultation where a complete range of options on CPZ are given, including no to CPZ. We also need a council that listens to all its residents. They are not doing either.

Edited September 12, 2023 by first mate

[ab29]

13 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

It was either naive or stupid for One Dulwich to believe this meeting would be held in good faith.

They should have just gone straight over the head of this guy. He comes across to me as a disingenuous timewaster.

Mostly naive. They are way too polite also. 

[exdulwicher]

9 minutes ago, first mate said:

Spartacus' point stands though. We need a proper consultation where a complete range of options on CPZ are given, including no to CPZ. We also need a council that listens to all its residents. They are not doing either.

That would be just as disingenuous as no consultation, you're providing answers that simply aren't an option.

Link here to an article in SE22 magazine from Cllr McCash which mentions the CPZ being in the manifesto.

https://twitter.com/CleanAirDulwich/status/1698991374614368326?t=bNTkkVq8bntxjgDwOFQzhQ&s=19

There's further reasons why it's needed - reallocation of roadspace for various other purposes (EV charging bays, cycle hangers, parklets etc) general nudging away from cars most of which tie in with the overall Mayor's London transport strategy and Southwark's declared climate emergency and their own streetspace strategies.

So having "no CPZ" as a possible answer isn't an option, there's going to be a CPZ.

A lot of public consultation, in it's current form, is a waste of time; it's an insult to the population (most of whom are being asked questions that they're not equipped to answer because they're not experts) and it's an insult to the experts who have dedicated their time and careers to the matter in question (this applies to most consultations, not just transport or roads). But consultations are done, the results come out and then something else happens because the "answers" that were given are nonsense. That corrodes the trust between the authorities and the population.

So to prevent, or at least minimise that, you don't ask open ended questions and you don't provide impossible options. It's like asking your kids what they want for tea; sooner or later you're going to get an answer of "brontosaurus on toast" or "a bucket of ice cream" and the kid is going to be disappointed when that turns out not to be an option. 

So you don't ask the open ended "what do you want for tea?", you ask a much more focused "do you want fish & chips or pizza?" Both of those are reasonable options, a choice has been given but it doesn't permit stupid answers.

It's still a valid consultation. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it any less valid.

[first mate]

Sorry Ex, or should we just call you "Daddy" from now on? I cannot see where Cllr McAsh makes reference to CPZ in the manifesto in the article you link to? There was no mention of CPZ in the manifesto.

Borough-wide CPZ was never a given. A 'no' option is perfectly reasonable in a consultation on the matter, in fact I believe that Nunhead residents were told by councillors that they would have the option to say 'no' to CPZ in another consultation, but that CPZ would happen anyway.

So explain then why the about turn on including the, as you frame it, irrelevant and "stupid" option to say no to CPZ? Why would the councillors bother?

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

On 09/09/2023 at 11:56, Rockets said:

We have written to Cllr McAsh asking why he has so singularly failed to respond to the issues we raised in our meeting

Whatever the councillor's response was, the shadowy OneDulwich "group" had no intention of accepting it. (Well, maybe if he had performed hari-kiri they would have taken it into account). OneDulwich is just a conga line of Sealions. They're not good faith actors. There is no position except rejection of any measures that interfere with cars, and their espoused concern for disabled drivers doesn't extend to getting out their way!

"Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.^[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate",^[5] and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.^[6]"

^{https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning}

 

^{Has OneDulwich published details of its funding and membership yet? Or have we all just accepted the only identifiable "member" is a single, former PR executive with a bee in his bonnet?}

[Rockets]

DKHB - do you expect every group who tries to have a voice in local debates to publish their funding and membership details? Are you asking the same of Mums for Lungs or Clean Air Dulwich?

 

And to be fair...your definition of sealioning could well be applied to many of those who support the measures too! 😉

[heartblock]

There are some reasonable requests from OneDulwich, that Cllr McAsh said he would address and he so far has not addressed these issues.

Other Cllrs also promised to press Southwark to find ways of taking the added pressure of diverted traffic away from Croxted - and so have achieved nothing - although I note this was a pre-local election promise.

I really can't understand anyone's objection to having clarity, openness and transparent information - especially when it relates to residents physical and mental health.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

16 hours ago, heartblock said:

I really can't understand anyone's objection to having clarity, openness and transparent information 

Yes, absolutely, the OneDulwich guy should get on board!

Meanwhile, someone is spending and taking lots of money spreading anti-ULEZ sentiment through fake accounts on social media. 🤔

https://valent-projects.com/news-and-insights/evidence-of-online-manipulation-in-uk-public-debate/

[heartblock]

The response that Cllr McAsh promised was on LTNs, nothing to with with ULEZ.  Please keep the thread on topic.

9 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Meanwhile, someone is spending and taking lots of money spreading anti-ULEZ sentiment through fake accounts on social media. 🤔

https://valent-projects.com/news-and-insights/evidence-of-online-manipulation-in-uk-public-debate/

 

[legalalien]

“There's further reasons why it's needed - reallocation of roadspace for various other purposes (EV charging bays, cycle hangers, parklets etc) general nudging away from cars most of which tie in with the overall Mayor's London transport strategy and Southwark's declared climate emergency and their own streetspace strategies.”

I’ll say it again, I don’t think the council should be using their quite specific powers to designate parking spaces to progress these broader policy objectives - I don’t think the powers they have are intended to be used for these purposes. I’m coming to the view that if a council finds itself without adequate powers / tools to achieve the policy outcome it wants, it’s probably because the things it wants to do are without the proper scope of council activity ie there is overreach by the council. There are lots of things that councils do that duplicate or go beyond policies that seem to me best dealt with by central government - a sort of scope creep.  Which would help explain why councils keep running out of money. If central government funds things it thinks are the job of local government, and councils have made themselves responsible for a lot more, then there’s inevitably  going to be a mismatch. 

[Penguin68]

There are clearly issues to do with Council funding which need addressing, even for well-run councils, but attempts to use traffic measures as a way of boosting funding, through fines and charges, when these stand outside the law as proscribed, and where they are not subject to the usual external checks for proper governance is simply wrong.

Local Councils are not allowed to undertake social or fiscal engineering which fall outside their legal remit. There are suggestions, possibly well founded, that Southwark is acting, or trying to act, outside its legal powers. If so it is irrelevant whether you support their long-run intent or not - it would be illegal.

The law circumscribing how monies 'earned' through traffic measure can be deployed are clear and restrictive. As are the reasons why traffic measures can be deployed at all.

Forgetting (if you can) the dubious methods, in some opinions, that Southwark are deploying in defence of their actions, or to weasel them through, (their method), it is still possibly the case that what they are trying to do, for whatever reason, is not actually within their legal powers.

[first mate]

LA and P68, spot on. This requires further examination.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

On 20/09/2023 at 12:41, Penguin68 said:

There are suggestions, possibly well founded, that Southwark is acting, or trying to act, outside its legal powers.

It is, of course, possible to suggest any old cobblers, as proven by the OneDulwich guy and several thousand unhinged posts on here. 🤷

[first mate]

On the contrary, Legal Alien makes a very balanced and convincing case for overreach of legal powers by this, and possibly other councils. They are moving forward on the assumption that they will get away with it. Let's see.

[exdulwicher]

3 hours ago, first mate said:

On the contrary, Legal Alien makes a very balanced and convincing case for overreach of legal powers by this, and possibly other councils. They are moving forward on the assumption that they will get away with it. Let's see.

This argument that "the council are overreaching their legal powers" has taken on the same sort of myth as some of that Magna Carta "freeman of the land" nonsense that was doing the rounds during Covid...

The council have a statutory duty to manage the roads in the borough that don't come under the jurisdiction of National Highways or TfL (and even there, they all have to work together). That includes maintenance, lighting, pavements, traffic orders (for things like roadworks, street parties, markets etc) and also the basics that people rarely think about - parking be a big one in that. Paid for vs free, unlimited vs time limited and so on. If a road has unlimited free parking and it's filling up to the detriment of residents, tradespeople etc then putting in some form of restriction is a logical way of dealing with some of the issues - not all of them all of the time but many of these measures work together. Councils have been doing CPZ for decades - the main point of one is actually to avoid loads of signage and street clutter from painting out individual bays and putting parking meters etc in, it's not some radical new idea.

It's not an overreach of legal powers, it's doing their statutory duty.

[Spartacus]

9 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

If a road has unlimited free parking and it's filling up to the detriment of residents, tradespeople etc then putting in some form of restriction is a logical way of dealing with some of the issues - not all of them all of the time but many of these measures work together.

Therein lies the crux of the matter, many of the roads that are being considered for a Borough wide CPZ don't currently have parking issues hence why it may well be an over reach of legal powers.

Well argued in favour of not imposing a CPZ ex, hats off for joining the revolution 

[Rockets]

Councils have been removing parking spaces for ages - the extension of double-yellow lines to the maximum permissible in Dulwich over the last few years is a prime example - in a desperate attempt to create parking pressures to help justify CPZs. The laughable thing is the only ward not getting a CPZ is the ward where there are some parking pressures due to the proximity to the Lane...go figure...