DulvilleRes

The Conservatives are campaigning in the May local elections heavily around issues of accountability from Southwark in relation to the LTN's. I'm finding this a bit of a stretch, given the track record of their party at a national level. Given that some local people have been profoundly affected by the rule-breaking in Downing Street, and some have gone on a very public record to record their disgust and distress both in Parliament and in the media, I would have thought the most accountable thing the prospective Conservative councilors could do for their community would be to resign membership of their party.

The LTN's don't seem to be having any negative impact on house prices on East Dulwich Grove. Average price of a property sold in June last year was ?717,000. The average price is now ?808,950.( Source: Zoopla) Whatever the rights and wrongs of official Southwark data on traffic levels post LTN v those who dispute it in the anti LTN lobby, some people are betting heavy on it not being an overwhelming problem.

I'm pretty sure that wooden horse will have a V8 motor purring away hidden behind the casing.

Is there any evidence, as some posters have claimed, that LTN's are having a beneficial effect on house prices within LTN's? I've seen nothing. If there is no evidence, it does feel a saddeningly divisive claim to make.

When a Conservative minister is saying owning a car is outdated 20th-century thinking, you know the writing is ultimately on the wall for the mindset of being able to drive anywhere in our own vehicle that many of us grew up with. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10298487/Owning-car-outdated-20th-century-thinking-transport-minister-Trudy-Harrison-says.html Fewer private car journeys is the way to reduce traffic on all streets, coupled with options such as car pools, public transport and walking/cycling, and I would have thought this is what the anti-LTN lobby should be campaigning for.

In the absence of a huge amount of data - it would be good to find it - my view is that cycling is exponentially up across the Borough, especially since lockdown. This is based on having cycled the route into Central London ( either via Walworth Road, or up the back via Brixton Road/ Kennington) most days. I've done this route in various iterations most of my life, and the sea change in the numbers cycling is extraordinary, as well as the range of people doing it. What is striking is the explosion in the types of bike people use - a lot of families using electric assisted bikes to get their kids to school, and also older people who for whatever reason could do with a bit of assistance. It is true to say there is a mini mountain range between Dulwich and routes to the West End/ City, but it can be avoided entirely by going via Herne Hill/ Brixton Road. For me a vision of the future is a reduction of traffic on all streets, which then becomes a self fulfilling prophesy - the more car free they become, the more appealing it is to cycle, and the faster the buses and essential traffic will go. For that to happen, people have to get out of their cars for private journeys.

It feels to me that the only thing that is going to reduce traffic on everyone's road is when there is a powerful disincentive to drive for private journeys that could be completed by active travel or public transport, and that seems to be happening. The LTN's are part of a package of other measures, such as ULEZ charges and reduced road space because of cycle lanes that might make people think twice about jumping into the most convenient form of transport ever devised. In the north of the borough I've noticed a complete sea change in the last 2/3 years of people's transport choices - there are huge numbers of cyclists on the road, and I've actually been caught up in a traffic jam of parents taking their kids to nursery/ school by push bike. That never happened before. Dulwich seems slower to catch on, but I don't see how the One Dulwich recommendation for things to 'return as they were' is really going to change anything. I completely get that people are opposed to the LTN's for a wide variety of motives, and some posters here don't own a car. However I would have thought that that oppositional energy would be better directed at finding ways of reducing private car journeys rather than getting on the Council's back, who are at least trying to so something.

The class war aspect of this debate is particularly puzzling and unpleasant, as clearly it has no factual basis. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that people living within LTN's support them because it makes their lifestyle nicer or increases their house prices. The class war assertions also start to look distinctly wobbly when viewed through the lens of anti LTN placards in the gardens of ?2m plus houses on East Dulwich Grove, and ?1m plus houses on the South Circular. Endlessly repeating a false assertion doesn't magically make it true. The LTN's are for everyone in the Borough to use and even enjoy, the vast bulk of which has lower income households than those around Dulwich, in or out of the LTNs. It has been very heartening to see people who have clearly travelled into Dulwich having a coffee outside one of the cafes or enjoying walking and cycling.

The council has responded to the consultation - they have proposed to make sensible adjustments, such as concessions for Blue Badge holders and an ambulance gate in Dulwich Square. In the light of this, and the fact that tactically the anti-LTN lobby was recommending the 'return things to how they were' for any objection to the LTN's, the current level of opposition to the LTN's from those who responded to the survey has not been tested. My understanding is that the central government stipulation is that the LTN's remain in place for a year to see how they work. So rather than blaming the Council for everything, I think a more nuanced approach would be to see how well they work. I think currently, as we emerge post covid, there are so many variables on traffic flow. A lot of people still balk at public transport on grounds of personal safety, and certainly many workplaces, mine included, risk assess that the preferred means of covid safe transport is driving solo in a car. So a year gives it all a chance to settle down to something more approaching 'normal'. Ultimately I see the LTN's as part of a raft of measures that, if as a community we are serious about climate change, are coming down the track to change our relationship with the motorcar. When people drive less, it will follow there will be less traffic on any road. I can imagine for many people growing up in a generation where the private car was a powerful means of freedom and independence, and indeed a symbol of success, learning to adapt to measures that prevent them driving at will is going to be hard. But the world is changing fast.

I thought 250 - 300. I did a partial headcount, as I was genuinely interested, and then 'zoned' it up when I got to 100 according to space occupied. Anyone who was there will know that that was the accurate figure range. Trying to suggest it was 1000 is just a bit silly.

Artemis - the council, as a result of listening to the consultation, is going to allow emergency vehicles through Dulwich Square. I thought it was great that people were out protesting, as other posters have pointed out, that right is currently under threat. The time I was there, it felt pretty well run, though I do find the incessant graffiti on signs a bit depressing. A few people have mentioned why weren't the councilors not there, and whilst I can't speak for them, I wouldn't blame them for not coming. Even in the last couple of days I heard of one of them being targeted at their home address by person/ persons of anti LTN sentiment. Over the summer, the Police have had to be involved with anti LTN people getting targeted. Clearly, this might be down to as little as one individual who has no formal affiliation with the anti LTN groups, but it is fair to say aspects of this local issue have been surprisingly nasty. Listening to what I did of the speakers and looking around the attendees, I was surprised how relatively upmarket it all felt, and how the demographic skewed over 50 - very few young people there, and very few people from a BAME background. It didn't really reflect the make up of the borough as a whole. Given the demographic of Dulwich, this is probably to be expected, but it didn't feel like some kind of broad-based egalitarian inspired uprising to me, as some of the anti-LTN rhetoric suggests. A cynic driving by who didn't know some of the complexities of the issues might be forgiven for thinking 'The rich folk of Dulwich want to keep driving their cars'. I'm hoping that the sensible adjustments the council has proposed are implemented - emergency vehicle access, Blue Badge holder access - and have had time to bed in, the LTN's might be seen as part of the radical shift we're all going to have to make to address the climate crisis. Given that the UK contributes only 1% of the global carbon emissions, it does feel like a long hard road ahead, but fair play to the Council for trying to do something. It would be great if they were given a chance.

What is consistently ignored in quoting the statistics for local people opposing LTN's is that One Dulwich was recommending at the time of the consultation that if respondents had some objection to some aspect of the LTN's, such as ambulance response time, or Blue Badge Holder concerns, they should tick the box for 'return to original state'. That does not necessarily translate to a blanket rejection of the LTN's. To completely ignore this feels a tad disingenuous to me. Now the council has made some sensible adjustments, such as making accommodations for both ambulances and Blue Badge Holders, how many of those people who ticked the 'return to original state' box would be happy with the LTNs? Only time will tell after the new measures have had a chance to bed in, and conditions have returned to something near normal after the pandemic.

Something that the road protests have thrown up as a by product is the revelation that there is appears to be a comparative surge in traffic because of covid. Some commentators have noted that there are more people in their cars than usual because of the reluctance with many to use buses or trains to avoid exposure to the virus. I certainly know from my work the official Health and Safety advice we get in some specific instances is to avoid public transport where possible, and to ideally drive alone in cars, and I know that this kind of risk assessment is commonplace elsewhere. The question is what bearing does this have on the volume of traffic on the roads around the LTN's? It feels to me that in order to get an accurate picture on traffic increases/ reduction, the Council are going to have to wait until the pandemic has abated somewhat.

I seem to recall that the One Dulwich advice/ recommendation at the time of the consultation to people with any kind of objection to the LTN's was to tick the box on the consultation 'return to original state'. This being the case, the question remains - how many of the people who ticked that box - 65% - would now consider themselves satisfied by the council's proposed sensible adjustments? A lot of the anti-LTN lobbying focused on emergency service response times, and the position of Blue Badge Holders, and these issues have been addressed. It would be misleading, in the light of this, to say that 65% of people have rejected the LTN's in their entirety. In my view that 65% would by definition have a spectrum of views on what they want changing. I also don't think a pile on the current councillors, as some are suggesting, is going to change much. I can't see any of the major parties embracing a state where little is done about reducing car use and encouraging active travel. Returning things to fully as they were is not a great look when so many people are concerned about climate change.

The test for a Council to remove the schemes looks tough to me. The Secretary of State for Transport says in an open letter to local authorities: "Over the last year, cycling has risen by 46%. In 2020, we saw the highest level of cycling on the public highway since the 1960s, and the greatest year- on-year increase in post-war history. Many people have started cycling for shorter journeys, saving appreciable amounts of pollution, noise, CO2 and traffic danger. In some cities the delivery bike has become as normal a sight as the delivery van. Even after these remarkable rises, according to one leading retailer, a further 37 per cent of the population now wants to buy a bike. These things have been made possible, in part, by hundreds of school streets, pop-up cycle lanes, and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods implemented under the Government's Emergency Active Travel Fund (EATF) and under statutory Network Management Duty guidance. For all the controversy these schemes can sometimes cause, there is strong and growing evidence that they command public support I do know that a few councils have removed, or are proposing to remove, cycle schemes installed under the fund, or to water them down. Of course I understand not every scheme is perfect and a minority will not stand the test of time, but if these schemes are not given that time to make a difference, then taxpayers? monies have been wasted. Schemes need time to be allowed to bed in; must be tested against more normal traffic conditions; and must be in place long enough for their benefits and disbenefits to be properly evaluated and understood. We have no interest in requiring councils to keep schemes which are proven not to work, but that proof must be presented. Schemes must not be removed prematurely, or without proper evidence and too soon to collect proper evidence about their effects" I take a couple of things out of this 1. Southwark couldn't do anything now to remove the LTN's - simply not enough time has elapsed to assess them 2. If the evidence shows that cycling is up, and car use is down in the long term, I can't see how Southwark could challenge the LTN's. In its latest set of proposals it looks to me like Southwark has listened to local feedback, and wants to make some sensible adjustments. The level of anger directed at them and the councillors seems misplaced.

I think you may be misreading my post. The Council can't get rid of LTN's, even if they wanted to, so a lot of the anti LTN anger is misdirected at them. The point I was making is within this overarching framework that lies outside their control, the Council have made a number of changes that directly reflect the feedback they have been getting, presumably via the consultation and wider anti LTN campaigning. That feels like democracy in action to me. Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting dulvilleres > On June the 7th (your last post) said > "As to where anti LTN support comes from, and how > deep it is, I hope the consultation will shed some > further light. What has dogged constructive debate > around this divisive issue has been hard data. > Even allowing for the fact that some people feel > the consultation has limitations in it's terms of > reference, it will still probably offer up some > comprehensive insights for everyone." > > Now the hard data about where the anti LTN support > and how deep it is (basically the whole area) you > now try and say that the consultation is in fact a > fair representative of the views of local > residents. > > It's not.

I've just read the Council's review, and it feels pretty fair-minded and responsive to me. A lot of the anti LTN campaigning was at one point was focused around emergency vehicle response times, and that has been addressed, as has Blue Badge holders/ disabled access. There seem to be measures in play to try and reduce congestion on Croxsted and East Dulwich Grove. I also read the government guidance referred to in the review - the council, even if they wanted to, couldn't get rid of the LTN's at this point. Despite all the 'vote them out' sentiment, I can't see any major existing party at either a national or local level who would want to roll back on increases in active travel/ reduction in car useage. In terms of the Climate Crisis, it isn't a great look, and ultimately the move to a carbon-neutral country I think will be supported by a national majority, especially with younger people. I've found the tone of this debate around the LTN's dispiriting - unnecessary personalization of the issues, even Police involvement for some of its excesses. Given the overarching context that the LTN's or some form of alternative serious traffic reduction isn't going to go away, I would have thought the best way forward is to accept the new reality, and try and collectively make it work as best as possible.

As to where anti LTN support comes from, and how deep it is, I hope the consultation will shed some further light. What has dogged constructive debate around this divisive issue has been hard data. Even allowing for the fact that some people feel the consultation has limitations in it's terms of reference, it will still probably offer up some comprehensive insights for everyone. Without disrespecting the views and experience of those living on the roads affected by displaced traffic, there is another way of looking at the LTNs. Currently, they appear to be characterized by some in the anti LTN lobby as 'gated communities'. This isn't true - they are simply shut to cut through motorized traffic. They are open to anyone for any other kind of purpose. I was really struck yesterday by the large numbers of people who were out yesterday, enjoying the park and the shops. The benches in the plaza were full pretty well all day with people having a picnic/ coffee, I saw a family teaching a kid to ride a bike on a quiet neighbouring road. Many of those people most likely come from outside the area. This last few months of lockdown has made me realise just how little open public space there is - Dulwich Park was so crowded at times it resembled a prison exercise yard. A LTN is a traffic-free oasis for all to enjoy, not just 'the few' as they have been charactersied in the some of the anti LTN descriptions. My feeling is over the coming years there will be a real shift in how urban space in relation to the private motor vehicle is viewed. Last week I also worked in Manchester, where large parts of the centre where I was were pedestrianised, and it was great. The LTNs as a common amenity for everyone I think is a contributory factor in the debate.

@legalalien - the anti-LTN lobby seems to me to have shifted into trying to present the LTN issue as some kind of class war - the rich people in their enclaves shifting traffic and pollution onto their lower-income neighbours. Short of having access to who actually supports Dulwich Alliance or access to councilor's correspondence, it is hard to get a measure of the depth and range of support for the anti-LTN stance in the streets I mentioned affected by displaced traffic. Can Dulwich Alliance demonstrate a wide level of support, especially amongst those who 'have the least', as their rhetoric goes? I think the Council's consultation could be particularly valuable in this regard and should be supported by anyone serious about getting the fullest possible picture. In the absence of any other kind of metric, I think poster displays are a starting point, and on Lordship Lane, and in the rented and owned property of the Lordship lane estate, it is virtually non-existent. What can be demonstrated is that support is strong for the anti-LTN stance with people who live in high-value property on the streets affected by displaced traffic.

I took a brief and informal snapshot to see where anti-LTN support was coming from and how deep it was on some of the roads affected by displaced traffic, as expressed by people putting up posters and placards opposing the LTNs. I walked East Dulwich Grove in its entirety, Lordship Lane from the East Dulwich Tavern to the junction of the South Circular/ Dulwich Common, and Dulwich Village down to the junction with East Dulwich Grove. Where I could find the information, I also checked out house values on Zoopla ( some have no values entered) and took the midpoint of those Zoopla estimates. All in all, it was pretty interesting. Clearly, many caveats. A poster or placard is only one indication of support or otherwise, posters and placards could be put up for a variety of motives and reflect a range of views, Zoopla is very broad and often inaccurate, some people might not be allowed to put up posters in terms of their leases/ tenancy agreements etc, some people might not own the property they are in, my maths at times can be crap, I might have missed some. So this exercise is intended to be informal, broad and indicative, a personal view and nothing more. East Dulwich Grove between the junction with Dulwich Village and Townley Road (Alleyns) had relatively strong anti LTN support, and the average house price, where an estimated range was given, of those displaying a poster or placard was over ?2 million. East Dulwich Grove to Lordship Lane, support was weaker, average house/ property price was of those displaying a poster, where an estimated range was given, was ?1.1 million. The average property price given on Zoopla for East Dulwich Grove as a whole is ?717k. Lordship Lane from the East Dulwich Tavern to Dulwich Library is 0.8 miles, and I found the lack of support for the anti-LTN lobby as expressed by posters and placards, particularly striking. When I counted, only 8 businesses on the entire stretch were displaying a poster or placard, and only 5 residential properties. Clearly, all the caveats mentioned above and probably some others apply, but what I also found striking was other kinds of posters such as Black Lives Matter and in support of the NHS were on display. On the Lordship Lane Estate, facing Lordship Lane, there wasn't a single anti-LTN poster to be seen in the flats. Dulwich Common/ South Circular to Dulwich Village - there was a cluster of posters/placards in the houses near the junction with Lordship Lane, and where I could get an indication of value, the average house price of those displaying them was ?1.44 million. Again strikingly in the large concentration of flats opposite in McCleod Court and Maxwell Court, there wasn't a single poster or placard. Dulwich Village from the South Circular down to East Dulwich Grove, posters and placards were relatively sparse, and the average house price of those displaying them where I could find it, with all the caveats, was ?3.72m. With all the above-stated caveats, this exercise (apart from giving my ton of Covid flab a workout) posed for me a couple of questions: - are a lot of people who oppose the LTNs on roads I walked affected by displaced traffic likely to live in a high-value property? - is support for the anti-LTN lobby from potentially lower-income groups living on roads I walked affected by displaced traffic currently weak? In the light of some of the 'for the many, not the few' style rhetoric coming out of some of the anti-LTN lobby in recent days, this gave me pause for thought. Clearly, it would be good to hear a range of views as to what people think, particularly the people affected.

@heartblock - You've made a mistake, I never used the phrase you picked out. it was another poster. Have a look back through the thread.

@heartblock - you are to right to highlight any instances, if true, where you think this debate has strayed over respectful and acceptable lines. You are also right to highlight that things are boiling over, and I think there comes a point, that whatever one's point of view, a bit of perspective is needed by some people as to whether the ends justify the means. I also think we all have a responsibility as neighbours to try and reduce the temperature around the LTN debate. As I know from experience, engaging with councils can be a frustrating and at times opaque business, but that is the way forward. It could be a very long game, but that is how things are done democratically.

Clearly, someone more expert than me should decide, but putting up distressing personal notices on individual's homes or the street in which they live looks like potentially intimidation or harassment to me, both of which are criminal offences. Even if they aren't, it really is deeply personalized and unpleasant. I heard of a third incident - someone spotted trying to remove the barriers on one of the local streets. Again, I'm not the expert, but I would imagine that is an offence as well. It also strikes me as dangerous - had the barriers remained down, someone who was used to them being up might not have been so on the lookout for traffic when crossing the road, especially when that road is close to a local school. Whether that person's actions were connected or not to the LTN debate, short of them ending up in court, there is no way of knowing. Any debate around the LTNs should be directed through the proper channels - starting a constructive and civil local discussion, engaging with the council, lobbying and demonstrating. However, for some people this doesn't appear to be enough. There is an unsettling level of antagonism, personalization of the issues and potentially breaking the law that seems to be OK - it is not OK.

There needs to be a bit of context and balance on reporting on anti-social behaviour by people arguing for and against LTN's. I've seen no mention on this thread of a couple of troubling incidents at the end of the week before last. In the first one, a deeply unpleasant and personal notice was posted on the front and side doors of an elderly lady with a pro LTN point of view. In the second similar one, a woman living nearby, with a pro LTN viewpoint, had an equally unpleasant and personal notice put up in the street in which she lives. This is beyond the level of any kind of reasoned debate amongst neighbours about local issues, and tips I would think into criminal law. @legalalien made a very good point about keeping it civil - I think the sometimes antagonistic tone on this thread doesn't help.

Clearly there are a lot of arguments flying around about consultation/ representation, but I think there is a simple bottom line - if we're going to tackle the climate emergency, where do we start? An obvious place for me is unnecessary short car journeys, and the creation of LTNs certainly helps reduce that by creating a disincentive for default car use. I'm inconvenienced by a number of the effects of the LTN, but I buy into the fact that if there is to be a major shift in thinking as to how we live in the future, we have to start somewhere. Plenty of smokers were railing against banning smoking in pubs - a couple of decades or so on, how many of us miss those days?