LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Penguin68]

Questions you should ask yourself when looking at 'comparative' statistics:-

Was the actual question (or method of data capture) the same?

Was it undertaken over a similar time period?

In similar conditions (topography, climate/ weather, time of day etc.) ?

Within a similar area or location, or where the populations were comparable?

Where overall social or political conditions (i.e. lockdown etc.) were similar.

If the answer to any of these is 'no', then the basis of comparison will be flawed, to some (or a huge) extent.

And don't allow correlation (things move up, or down, when other things move up or down) to be confused with causation. They may be causal (weight goes up as food intake increases) of course, but they may each have e.g. a common cause but not themselves be linked, or they may not be linked at all.

[heartblock]

Yes causality and confounding factors .... so what causes more cycling ...nice weather.

Confounding factor, why less traffic....a pandemic and shutdown.

Maybe Southwark didn?t have enough cash to invest in real research, so someone?s 5 year old child did it?

[DulwichCentral]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Exactly....I think living in a gated road may

> diminish one?s common sense? Maybe?

You mean a gated community like the anti-LTN 'One Dulwich' want? They've been campaigning for timed restrictions with **residents permits** all along - since the beginning of the very long consultation OHS since 2019 which they now deny ever happened - even though they were there at the meetings! It beggars belief!

Then - because they still haven't got their own way - they stamp their feet and tell people to select 'remove all measures' in the council survey - whilst STILL campaigning for their own little Gated Community.

What they want is restrictions which would cause the SAME issues they claim the current scheme causes - EXCEPT with no inconvenience to themselves - so they can still drive round Dulwich in their massive SUVs.

Then - to top it all - I see their latest poster says 'We've been conned' - the irony!

The sooner people wake up to the reality that a small elite group in the heart of Dulwich Village are doing the conning the better.

[Rockets]

When it comes to the council's analysis of data from the LTNs review the saying: "Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story" comes to mind.

It's scary the way they have manipulated the data, and data analysis, to give them the headline they so desire and, whether you are pro- or anti-LTNs everyone should be very concerned that this is the way the council analyses and presents data. If they are doing it with this what else are they doing it with?

[alice]

DC One fact is indisputable. The Dulwich Village LTNs have made life even better for those in the wealthiest, greenest part of Southwark.

[Huggers]

and yet local overground train services have been cut in half- if you want people to stop using their cars you ramp up public transport, you don't cut it.

[alice]

no bus routes, no bike lanes on Court Lane.

[DulwichCentral]

alice Wrote:

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

> DC One fact is indisputable. The Dulwich Village

> LTNs have made life even better for those in the

> wealthiest, greenest part of Southwark.

One Dulwich; the people opposing the LTNs who are on the residents associations of the wealthiest streets in Dulwich

do not think the LTNs have made their lives even better - they are totally affronted that they are inconvenienced by the LTNs.

That is why they have conjured up a campaign to get other people to oppose the LTNs. They want restrictions *WITH PERMITS* for themselves. They even submitted a proposal for this to the council whilst telling people to select remove all measures. The cheek of it is astounding.

[alice]

So you would be Ok with opening Court Lane to Village?

[heartblock]

I live on ED Grove in a flat, so how does that fit in your picture DC.... where do you live?

[ab29]

"They want restrictions *WITH PERMITS* for themselves." - eh??

I live on Lordship Lane, a very noisy and very polluted road. I have to put up with increased traffic, air pollution and noise because people on Calton Ave are too posh to put up with five vehicles passing down their precious road, having several cars and amazon deliveries daily!

Wake up FFS!

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> alice Wrote:

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

> -----

> > DC One fact is indisputable. The Dulwich

> Village

> > LTNs have made life even better for those in

> the

> > wealthiest, greenest part of Southwark.

>

> One Dulwich; the people opposing the LTNs who are

> on the residents associations of the wealthiest

> streets in Dulwich

> do not think the LTNs have made their lives even

> better - they are totally affronted that they are

> inconvenienced by the LTNs.

>

> That is why they have conjured up a campaign to

> get other people to oppose the LTNs. They want

> restrictions *WITH PERMITS* for themselves. They

> even submitted a proposal for this to the council

> whilst telling people to select remove all

> measures. The cheek of it is astounding.

[intexasatthe moment]

Off subject a bit does anyone remember (from the distant past ) what the rationale for closing Gilkes Crescent was ?

[DulwichCentral]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> "They want restrictions *WITH PERMITS* for

> themselves." - eh??

>

> I live on Lordship Lane, a very noisy and very

> polluted road. I have to put up with increased

> traffic, air pollution and noise because people on

> Calton Ave are too posh to put up with five

> vehicles passing down their precious road, having

> several cars and amazon deliveries daily!

Yes One Dulwich people who live on some of the wealthiest quietest streets in Dulwich Village want timed restrictions with permits for themselves - unbelievable isn't it! So selfish.

Not sure where you get your 5 vehicles a day figure from. Before the measures there was gridlock from one end to the other up to five hours a day on Calton Avenue, Townley Road, Dulwich Village, and Court lane - for YEARS. Angry drivers overtaking at speed and pulling out onto Townley road on the wrong side of the road. Thousands of schoolchildren using this route.

Oh and the One Dulwich alternative scheme they submitted to the council has been deemed dangerous and confusing to drivers which would incur even MORE fines! Ask them if they care about that?

[Rockets]

One Dulwich people (all 2,000 of them) seem to be located all across Dulwich. I am sure the founders may be located within the LTN area but then again, so are some of the small vocal minority of supporters of the LTNs (see what I did there ;-) ), so an accusation of selfishness could easily be levelled at them too.

Yes Calton, Court Lane and DV was always an awful junction but, to be fair, it got a lot worse when the council put their previous "improvement" measures in. Those measures turned a busy junction into a massively congested polluting junction that made it more dangerous than it had ever been for all road users. After those measures went in lots of people told the council that the junction had become more polluted and dangerous but they did nothing about it (even though they admitted it had in their own report on the junction works). Why?

You also have to ask why the junction was so busy in the first place? Well, because it is one of the only east/west routes across Dulwich. So by closing it they forced traffic to find other routes and that's where we are today. And people on here have been saying, from day one these plans were mooted, that the measures would merely cause displacement and any modal shift would not be sufficient to positively impact displacement traffic - funny how people on the forum were able to accurately predict what was going to happen but the council couldn't. Again, why?

[Artemis]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> ab29 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > "They want restrictions *WITH PERMITS* for

> > themselves." - eh??

> >

> > I live on Lordship Lane, a very noisy and very

> > polluted road. I have to put up with increased

> > traffic, air pollution and noise because people

> on

> > Calton Ave are too posh to put up with five

> > vehicles passing down their precious road,

> having

> > several cars and amazon deliveries daily!

>

>

> Yes One Dulwich people who live on some of the

> wealthiest quietest streets in Dulwich Village

> want timed restrictions with permits for

> themselves - unbelievable isn't it! So selfish.

>

> Not sure where you get your 5 vehicles a day

> figure from. Before the measures there was

> gridlock from one end to the other up to five

> hours a day on Calton Avenue, Townley Road,

> Dulwich Village, and Court lane - for YEARS. Angry

> drivers overtaking at speed and pulling out onto

> Townley road on the wrong side of the road.

> Thousands of schoolchildren using this route.

>

> Oh and the One Dulwich alternative scheme they

> submitted to the council has been deemed dangerous

> and confusing to drivers which would incur even

> MORE fines! Ask them if they care about that?

There are 2000+ members of One Dulwich, so I think it is mildly disingenuous to suggest that ALL of them want one thing. Most have presumably joined because they are fed up with the gridlock, pollution, bus delays and emergency service diversions. Many of those who live on the wealthiest, quietest streets already have restrictions on their roads?. It seems really unhelpful to get into this ?these people all believe A/these people all believe B? - I wouldn?t presume to understand why all those pro-LTN and all those anti-LTN hold the beliefs they do, or what they want. It?s not simple, and to suggest that it is (like the prevalent: ?Pro-LTN = pro active travel/Anti-LTN = wants to be able to drive everywhere? fallacy) could stoke division where my view is that we should be working to find common ground rather than suggesting that anyone who doesn?t hold your view must be selfish and wrong.

[march46]

It's a bit much to refer to them as 'members' - that would infer they have meetings with minutes, a committee, votes, a constitution etc...

The truth is it's simply a mailing list with zero transparency.

Many of those on their mailing list are likely to not even be 'supporters' but signed up initially just to understand their point of view. I'm still trying - they say they want "timed restrictions, not permanent closures" but also call for all the schemes to be scrapped despite many of them being timed restrictions. Confused?!

[march46]

Artemis you mention common ground, does anyone know why One Dulwich / Dulwich Alliance isn't supporting the timed restrictions being reduced? It seems like a good compromise.

[Rockets]

March - well there is a bit more transparency than we get from the council as One Dulwich asks people when they sign-up to receive information about the campaign if they can plot their postcode on their map. So there's a high probability that that map does accurately reflect the pan-Dulwich sentiment against the council and their LTNs.

You might be confused about what One Dulwich are calling for but we all know what happened. The council did not offer timed restrictions option on their review so One Dulwich were forced to call for the measures to be removed (which is the closest option the council offered in terms of timed restrictions - the closures will need to be removed for timed closures to go in surely......)

Anyway, Saturday and the protest at the junction at noon will be interesting and will probably demonstrate the weight of feeling and how many of those 2,000 people still feel strongly about the closures. I know lots of people who have said they are fed-up with the way the council is ignoring the views of their constituents and are really angry with the way the review has been presented - and to be honest if the One Dulwich mailing list didn't exist they probably would not how the council has been manipulating the review process.

[Rockets]

march46 Wrote:

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

> Artemis you mention common ground, does anyone

> know why One Dulwich / Dulwich Alliance isn't

> supporting the timed restrictions being reduced?

> It seems like a good compromise.

Because it is window-dressing that doesn't address the fundamental issue - the permanent closure of the DV junction which is the root of all of the displacement issues.

[march46]

But Rockets several of the schemes are timed restrictions (Townley Rd, Dulwich Village, Burbage Road and Turney Rd). Do One Dulwich support these? I assume so but don't seem to be able to find an answer anywhere.

Their blanket call to 'reopen the roads' seems disingenuous and confused if that is not what they really want, it's also unhelpful in terms of moving the debate forward / finding common ground.

Their slogan is "timed restriction, not permanent closures"

[Artemis]

My understanding is as Rockets said, and that the One Dulwich response is as a result of the drafting of the consultation. I am not involved in the running of One Dulwich, so I cannot speak for them (although I support their aims). From my own perspective, I think the failure to introduce any timed restrictions at the Court Lane/Calton Avenue junction means that the issues that are causing suffering and problems are not going to be eased, so it does not seem a good compromise to me. It?s ironic that the junction was not nearly so problematic/dangerous until Southwark started making changes a decade or so ago, and that is now used as an argument as to why timed restrictions won?t work.

[DulwichCentral]

@Artemis - my point is that of the 2000 people signed up to One Dulwich it is unlikely they are all fully aware what One Dulwich actually want ie timed restrictions with permits **for those living in Dulwich Village**.

It's not unreasonable to assume many of the 2000 are people who would drive through the area and are annoyed by the fines - do they realise that by supporting the One Dulwich agenda they would still get fined?

Presumably @rockets supports the 'One Dulwich alternative scheme' which the council have rejected as dangerous and confusing and doesn't mind that a large proportion of the 2000 supporters are unwittingly signed up to still being fined.

[march46]

There was room in the consultation for alternatives to be proposed, it's not true to say there was no option other than 'remove it all'.

See Option C - install a different kind of measure (with a comments box to explain)

Instead they seem to have chosen divisive and disingenuous campaigning, and are continuing down this path rather than seeking common ground.

[Artemis]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> @Artemis - my point is that of the 2000 people

> signed up to One Dulwich it is unlikely they are

> all fully aware what One Dulwich actually want ie

> timed restrictions with permits **for those living

> in Dulwich Village**.

>

> It's not unreasonable to assume many of the 2000

> are people who would drive through the area and

> are annoyed by the fines - do they realise that by

> supporting the One Dulwich agenda they would still

> get fined?

>

> Presumably @rockets supports the 'One Dulwich

> alternative scheme' which the council have

> rejected as dangerous and confusing and doesn't

> mind that a large proportion of the 2000

> supporters are unwittingly signed up to still

> being fined.

My own concern is damage to the environment from increased pollution caused by idling traffic, excess miles driven because of road blocks, problems caused to the elderly and their carers and delays caused to emergency services. My own perspective is that I rarely drive anywhere so the fines are neither here nor there for me, and if (I say ?if?) fines reduce pollution, all well and good. To suggest that many people supporting One Dulwich are only concerned about fines is again making a broad assumption that people?s views are based on selfishness or financial concerns. I don?t think that?s a fair assumption.

I can actually see the logic, however, of permits for those living in Dulwich Village - if your work or caring responsibilities require you to drive, it doesn?t seem environmentally friendly that you have to take a long detour to your house, simply because the Council has decided to block you in, or selfish to ask to be allowed to drive home. I?m not sure why @DulwichCentral finds that so mind bogglingly selfish. No more selfish than those living on LTN roads being happy that they have fewer cars driving by. I don?t live in Dulwich Village, for the record.

[Rockets]

One Dulwich have called, repeatedly, for timed restrictions across the whole of Dulwich. They have bee continually ignored by the council - it's documented here: https://www.onedulwich.uk/mission

It's clear the council were hoping this would all just wash-over and people would lose interest and that their repeated public de-positioning of anyone who dared question their LTNs as "a small, vocal minority" would have turned into just that. But it didn't. Opposition to the measures grew and grew to the point where nearly 70% of those in Dulwich who responded to the review said "take them out".

And March - let me turn your question around - why do you think the council didn't put an option of a timed closure in the review? Surely, given the weight of public support behind a group asking for timed, not permanent, closures then some concession needed to be given? But no, the council offered, keep them as is, do something else (the something was unspecified), remove them and then ignored the fact nearly 70% of people said remove them.

But as Cllr Rose keeps repeating and repeating: apparently "it wasn't a ballot". Well what on earth was it then?