LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[DulwichCentral]

alice Wrote:

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

> Your a) and b) are meaningless and therefore not

> disputed. (Except for the word ?even?. In answer

> to c) Your blocked roads are clear precisely

> because other local roads are not.

Alice my response was to your question on the previous page (just in case that wasn't obvious) which was:'If the Entire Neighbourhood saw this [the gridlock] how come 70% are against blocking roads?'

So my answer does make sense, but just to clarify:

a) the **entire** neighbourhood are not against the filters because (@Rockets) 68% of people who responded to the survey is not the **entire** neighbourhood - nor was the survey the **entire** consultation process - I'll come back to this.

b) not all those who opted to remove the measures live in the area - @Alice the word 'even' refers to the fact that some of those who responded the survey - see a) - don't live in the area so it is therefore **even** less likely to be the **entire** neighbourhood who are against the measures as you suggest.

c) I assume some people don't care that there was dangerous gridlock because they choose to deny it existed. @heartblock has said there was no gridlock on Calton Avenue - which is blatantly untrue. To deny that reality is equivalent to not caring that it existed.

Importantly - to return to my original point - pretending this reality didn't exist whilst simultaneously inventing an alternative fictitious 'reality' i.e. the council put in the filters for their wealthy mates - is not only misleading and divisive it also means (@Rockets) that if @Heartblock is prepared to deny reality then how can @Heartblock's 'reality' be believed as to what is happening on EDG?

The data shows that traffic has risen on a relatively small section of EDG and has fallen on the rest of EDG.

Having little faith in @heartblock's perception of reality I am more likely to believe the council's data on EDG than @heartblocks perception of gridlocked traffic which is distorted by an unrealistic obsession with class.

And finally @Rockets the views expressed in the survey you refer to are just that; 'views' or 'perceptions'. I hope the above illustrates why views or perceptions and their subjectivity are not *entirely* reliable as a deciding factor in a consultation.

[heartblock]

There is no data showing any fall in traffic on EDG.

I go back to - deny the actuality because accepting that ED Grove, LL and Croxted are significantly worse means that a quiet road is at the cost to other families.

Faith not required, the facts published by Southwark giving an overall rise on top of an already busy road of 28% more traffic daily on ED Grove is neither a view or perception.

[legalalien]

I agree.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> A road was busy at times - it is now not busy at

> any time because that roads traffic is now added

> to another roads traffic which was busy at times -

> and people on the closed road are very happy with

> that situation and will keep saying that traffic

> will evaporate and the other road is fine, it

> isn't more polluted and hasn't got more idling

> traffic for a longer time each day because they

> don't want their road to be busy at times ever

> again and they don't want the LTN removed.

>

> I do understand - if I lived on Calton I might

> feel the same, unfortunately I can't afford a 2

> million pound house on Calton and could only

> afford a flat on ED Grove at the time. Many flats

> on ED Grove and schools and nurseries and health

> centres. Margy and lovers of the LTNs can say what

> they want - traffic is worse on ED Grove and

> everyone knows this - but to admit this will admit

> that LTNs have failed the test that Councillor

> McAsh said was important - that other residents

> should not be subjected to more pollution as a

> result of LTNs and they are.

[KidKruger]

This perpetual theme though, about 2 (then 3!) million pound houses, several cars, holiday homes, etc. does distract from the important points being made about the unfairness of these LTNs.

Unless one knows all those residents personally, has checked Zoopla for prior house sale prices, and checked with DVLA the vehicle ownership for each house, there?s no basis for such gross generalisations.

It?d be perhaps less verbose and more accurate to just say ?wealthy people? or ?wealthier than me?.

[heartblock]

Just to remind people - NOx is toxic, measured on Croxted Rd on Friday at 5pm - 66.49ppm. The increase in traffic on Croxted is a direct result of LTNs in the Village - as Margy has indicated. Why is NOx at this level a problem?

NOx has direct effects on human health.

It can cause breathing problems, headaches, chronically reduced lung function, eye irritation, loss of appetite and corroded teeth.

In Britain alone, known NO2 emissions have been estimated to kill 23,500 people every year, according to aerosol science professor Ian Colbeck and have been officially implicated and recorded as an official cause of death due to a peak in pollution for one child in South London.

So, although I am sure many people are very happy about their gated, quiet roads, maybe, just maybe they should spare a little thought for the corresponding implications for their neighbours.

[legalalien]

I?m in favour of ignoring house prices and wealth and concentrating on issues of air quality, noise pollution and the effective management of road traffic / public transport. But given the council has now formally adopted the ?socioeconomic duty? into its constitution it should be considering and adopting measures to reduce inequalities that result from place of residence, among other things. I?m fine with councils introducing things like the socio economic duty, if they do then I expect them to take it seriously and act accordingly, not treat it as a good PR opportunity.

[DulwichCentral]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Just to remind people - NOx is toxic, measured on

> Croxted Rd on Friday at 5pm - 66.49ppm. The

> increase in traffic on Croxted is a direct result

> of LTNs in the Village - as Margy has indicated.

> Why is NOx at this level a problem?

>

> NOx has direct effects on human health.

>

> It can cause breathing problems, headaches,

> chronically reduced lung function, eye irritation,

> loss of appetite and corroded teeth.

>

> In Britain alone, known NO2 emissions have been

> estimated to kill 23,500 people every year,

> according to aerosol science professor Ian Colbeck

> and have been officially implicated and recorded

> as an official cause of death due to a peak in

> pollution for one child in South London.

>

> So, although I am sure many people are very happy

> about their gated, quiet roads, maybe, just maybe

> they should spare a little thought for the

> corresponding implications for their neighbours.

Agree that improvements are needed on Croxted Road. Shame you cannot accept that this was the situation for 1000's of schoolchildren passing through the roads leading to Dulwich Village. Anyone who supports what has been done - supports *more*. That's the difference.

[heartblock]

What does 'more' mean?

LTNs?

Move the pollution onto another road. It's kicking a can down the road rather than tackling the actual problems. LTNs do not solve anything, they just move the problem onto someone else.

[DulwichCentral]

People including myself have outlined what *more* means repeatedly here - scroll back and see - other measures as well as LTNs. You can either support the council doing more - or you can spend your time and energy demanding what has been done is removed and people who now have safe routes will lose them. That's your democratic choice. But in the meantime please drop the fictitious 'council did it for their posh mates' baloney because it's not constructive.

[heartblock]

LTns have not reduced pollution, so still unsure how more LTNs will make anything any better. Indeed removing them in Ealing appears to have made idling traffic jams evaporate, so yes remove and introduce some of those excellent ideas, such as more public transport, safer cycling and encouraging the private schools to be more imaginative about how children travel long distances to those private schools.

Knowing some of the vocal residents that have been asking for gated roads pre-LTN and then those same residents roads being chosen for those LTNs rather than school roads seems to me not fictitious or baloney, but that's just my opinion and others may of course disagree.

[Penguin68]

I can remember times when almost every road in Dulwich has been plagued with queues of standing traffic (over the last 34 years I have lived here) - normally the consequence of road and utility works or emergencies, accidents, sometimes selfish or terrible parking, with traffic diverting (or being diverted) to the nearest passable route - often inappropriate in terms of width etc. With the problems dissipating over time as the obstructions are eventually removed or dealt with. And there have always been rush-hour pressures, as you would expect in an inner city borough (as Southwark is).

This is different. The embuggaration is permanent (the council hopes) and intended, and is worse in rush hours but not specific to these. The roads which have been permanently relieved of traffic were, mainly and for most of the day, relatively traffic free (save when they were an escape route for other road problems). Of course they carried more traffic recently (in non lockdown circumstances) than they did when I first moved here, but that is true of every road (save perhaps the South Circular - already full) around here.

And the traffic has not dissipated. It has moved and, in effect, concentrated in fewer roads, which have, by happenstance and poor planning rather than malice I suggest, been those with higher population density and more sensitive (i.e. state schools, medical facilities and so on etc.) occupants. But rather than admit, as so many other London Councils have done, that there were unintended consequences our council has decided to tough it out, because they care nothing for their electors in the south of the borough.

Even if you agree (and I'm prepared to) that the intended consequences were worthy of serious consideration and were 'well intended' it's not turned out that way. And the disdain with which our opinions are treated is absolutely not well intended.

[alice]

It still amazes me how some are still clinging onto the hope that somehow their posts are persuading us readers that somehow Dulwich LTNs are a fair and just use of such government funding.

[malumbu]

Heartblock - I would welcome your views on this report from 2018 (Department of Health Adviory Committee on medical effects of air pollution). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/734799/COMEAP_NO2_Report.pdf It is a long and difficult read, and there is much disagreement between the medical experts. I hoped to summarise the main points but this defeated me. The estimate in 2013 was "the mortality burden of long-term exposure to the air pollution mixture in 2013 in the UK was an effect equivalent to 28,000 to 36,000 deaths at typical ages". That is if pollution was reduced to zero there would be tens of thousands less deaths. However deaths are not purely due to pollution but a combination of factors, such as living conditions, diet/obesity, smoking/alcohol, respiratory health and the like.

I think that the 23,500 was the government's position a few years ago on nitrogen dioxide exposures. Neither Colbeck or Essex seem to be quoted in the report, but it will represent the views of many academic and medical institutions in the UK. The principle issue appears to be whether pollutants acts individually or collectively. A second point is the impact of ultra fine particulate matter (PM2.5) vs nitrogen dioxide (NO2) including how they impact collectively. NOx is the collective term for nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide. The former quickly converts to the latter, which is hazardous to human health. Toxic is an emotive word, and suggests that we are all falling down dead like a chlorine or sarin attack. Emissions are measured in terms of NOx whilst ambient concentrations (ie the stuff we breath in) as NO2. Nitrous Oxide (laughing gas) can be apparently quite fun (judging by the metal canisters you see on the street), is not particularly harmful it human health, not produced in great amounts in the internal combustion engine, but a nasty greenhouse gas.

NO2 is emitted from various industries, power generation, domestic central heating, as well as road transport - the latter being a particular problem due to proximity to people. But there will still be an element of what we breath in from other sources.

We cannot eliminate pollution, but manage it to acceptable levels (as decided by society through our democratic institutions including the EU and UN). Where we hit those acceptable levels there will still be an impact, there isn't a dangerous level of pollution (as often quoted) vs a safe level of pollution. There is a legal vs illegal level, but the legal level will still have an impact.

Anyway, do have a read. The chair was Prof Frank Kelly, formerly of Kings College (including running the London Air Quality Network) and he is now at Imperial. The Committee is independent and Prof Kelly and other members have been and will be critical of government policy.

[None of this is to say that pollution is harmless, and society shouldn't do something about it, rather that it is bloody complex]

[DulwichCentral]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Knowing some of the vocal residents that have been

> asking for gated roads pre-LTN and then those same

> residents roads being chosen for those LTNs rather

> than school roads seems to me not fictitious or

> baloney, but that's just my opinion and others may

> of course disagree.

So you are still trying to spin the yarn that the only reason those roads got measures was because residents asked for them. Nothing to do with the dangerous gridlock that existed there for years. It's a shame you don't care about the lungs of the children who had to walk through that every day - for years.

Would the same accusation be thrown at Croxted Road residents if improvements are made there?

Anyway thought for the day which seems relevant here:

Brandolini's Law - also known as the bulls**t asymmetry principle, is an internet adage that emphasizes the difficulty of debunking false, facetious or otherwise misleading information: 'The ammount of energy needed to refute bulls**t is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it'.

PS Let's see what the on-going monitoring says for EDG.

[Rockets]

DC - there is certainly a weight of evidence that it was the lobbying done by a few vocal local residents and self-interest lobby groups like Southwark Cyclists that influenced the council's decision-making process here (and during OHS) - it's all documented in various council meetings on the matter (from a time when councils and councillors actually held meetings).

Now what has happened is that since the measures went in everyone in Dulwich has become aware of them and many have looked into how we got here. The majority don't like the measures (some like you, do like the measures) and those against the measures (which bar those roads benefitting most in the area) are a majority.

The problem is that those, like you, who like the measures are now outweighed by those who do not like them and it seems that those few who do support the measures (and are living on car free roads) are, understandably, reluctant to admit there might be problems being caused elsewhere and are taking a deliberately blinkered view. These were the same people telling us...they need time to bed in, evaporation takes months....and yet 15 months on things have got no better and there is no sign that any evaporation has taken place.

The more I read your posts the more it does look like NIMBYISM - you're happy that your son doesn't need to walk down a congested road but you seem to care little about those who now have to walk down even more congested roads so you don't have to.

Passing the problem to someone else isn't dealing with the problem is it - it's called sweeping it under the carpet?

P.S. I am glad you have cited Brandolini's law - do we take it that you do, in fact, believe that the council's data is BS to begin with.....at last, some progress....;-)

[DulwichCentral]

ah rockets - how did I know you would join in with your own particular yarns. I'm sure Heartblock is perfectly capable of responding with their own.

The only 'Self Interest groups' I saw speaking at the OHS meetings were people from Dovercourt AKA One Dulwich HQ - who's sole concern was that the gridlock from elsewhere would start coming down their road. Hence the formation of One Dulwich - based entirely on NIMBYism.

Not sure how you arrived at me believing the council's data is BS. I don't. I think more monitoring needs to be done because traffic has been erratic over the last year. However - I am more inclined to believe traffic count strips in the road than the deluded 'views' of people who deny there was ever a problem in the first place.

Let's see what ongoing data on EDG comes up with shall we? If things are improving I hope you don't cry 'data data hang on no not that data' again.

PS you have no idea where my son has to walk now.

[Rockets]

DC because we are all here to call out the hypocrisy.....

Ah, so you were one of the small number of vocal advocates during the OHS consultations - that makes sense.

Are you not even slightly concerned that the measures you so support are causing misery for thousands of Dulwich residents? It seems not. It seems you are only concerned about your world and everyone else can just live with the consequences - that is very sad and, unfortunately, very reflective of the views of many of the pro-LTN lobby.

You'll probably then retort that we need more measures - can you answer me this question: in the two years since this started what has the council done beyond throwing in a load of road blocks that have endangered lives and increased traffic congestion and pollution?

[heartblock]

If ED Grove traffic and pollution just even goes back to pre-LTN levels, so not even any improvement at all from the traffic before LTNS -which wasn't great but at least it was not idling down the whole stretch - and if those inside LTNs still have a gain - I will be more than happy for all LTNs to stay and I will be happy that others have a better experience and will not mind in the least why certain roads were chosen.

It's the increase of pollution and traffic and noise and the slowness of the 37 bus when I occasionally use rather than walk that has happened after the LTNs that makes me sad - but as I say even a return to pre-LTN traffic will do for me.

This morning was a mare - with a lorry outside my house belching fumes while stuck in the queue that idled slowly from LL all the way down to Village.

malumbu - interesting article - nobody really agreed, which is pretty typical when looking at multifactorial causation - it is always difficult in any pathology. I will try and dig out something interesting about how particulates and nitrogen dioxide are implicated - interesting physiology.

[heartblock]

By the way DC - continual posts about how I don't care about young children and their lungs isn't really adding to the thread.

I spent a long time working in a paediatric cardiorespiratory unit and I'm content with my career dedicating myself to the health and wellbeing of others, including very difficult times with end of life care for some very young people.

I suggest that this avenue isn't terribly helpful, as I am sure we all want the same thing in this area - cleaner, less polluted roads, fewer cars and cleaner air for residents. I do disagree with you about how the traffic on Calton and Court was, it is just that a disagreement and I do understand that once given a better environment for your road, it would be very difficult to not support keeping it - as I say, if I was in your position I might very well want to keep an LTN.

The problem is it comes at a cost to others and this has been admitted by some LTN advocates - they have just said that more traffic should go onto roads like ED Grove and Croxted. I may disagree with this, but I do admire their honesty.

[rachp]

alice Wrote:

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

> It still amazes me how some are still clinging

> onto the hope that somehow their posts are

> persuading us readers that somehow Dulwich LTNs

> are a fair and just use of such government

> funding.

People on both sides of this debate keep posting views to persuade others of the merits of their position in the hope/belief that if their posts are persuasive enough, people are going to change their original position. Whilst there may have been some minor shifts in views, most people have taken a position and are sticking to it steadfastly, interpreting and choosing evidence that supports this. That's one of the reasons why this thread is at 263 pages.

[Spartacus]

rachp Wrote:

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

> alice Wrote:

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

> -----

> > It still amazes me how some are still clinging

> > onto the hope that somehow their posts are

> > persuading us readers that somehow Dulwich LTNs

> > are a fair and just use of such government

> > funding.

>

> People on both sides of this debate keep posting

> views to persuade others of the merits of their

> position in the hope/belief that if their posts

> are persuasive enough, people are going to change

> their original position. Whilst there may have

> been some minor shifts in views, most people have

> taken a position and are sticking to it

> steadfastly, interpreting and choosing evidence

> that supports this. That's one of the reasons why

> this thread is at 263 pages.

This is the truth and there will be some minor

Shifts between both points of view but the majority are sticking to their views

[heartblock]

If they work and traffic and pollution are shown to decrease on all roads in the designated area, including boundary residential roads I will happily change my mind and support the policy.

[Rockets]

Heartblock - that was, afterall, what they claimed these measures would deliver from the outset.........

[ab29]

"most people have taken a position and are sticking to it steadfastly, interpreting and choosing evidence that supports this."

I have not 'taken position' - LTN and its consequences have been forced on me. As to evidence, I can see it form my windows.

This has never been a discussion between two equal sides - how could it be? You have people who are not impacted in any way or benefit from the road closures and those who now have more pollution, dirt and noise on their doorstep.

[DulwichCentral]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> By the way DC - continual posts about how I don't

> care about young children and their lungs isn't

> really adding to the thread.

>

> I spent a long time working in a paediatric

> cardiorespiratory unit and I'm content with my

> career dedicating myself to the health and

> wellbeing of others, including very difficult

> times with end of life care for some very young

> people.

>

> I suggest that this avenue isn't terribly helpful,

> as I am sure we all want the same thing in this

> area - cleaner, less polluted roads, fewer cars

> and cleaner air for residents. I do disagree with

> you about how the traffic on Calton and Court was,

> it is just that a disagreement and I do understand

> that once given a better environment for your

> road, it would be very difficult to not support

> keeping it - as I say, if I was in your position I

> might very well want to keep an LTN.

>

> The problem is it comes at a cost to others and

> this has been admitted by some LTN advocates -

> they have just said that more traffic should go

> onto roads like ED Grove and Croxted. I may

> disagree with this, but I do admire their honesty.

What makes you think Calton avenue is my road? It's not.

Whilst your career is clearly admirable and I absolutely respect what you do - it actually makes it harder for me to understand why as a medic you are / were happy for 1000s of schoolchidren to walk through gridlocked, polluted and dangerous streets up until the changes had an impact on your road. An impact the data is saying only affects a small section of EDG and more data needs to be gathered.

You say that if further data shows EDG has returned to it's original state then you'll be happy. Personally I'd like to see more done there anyway. i.e. a protected cycle lane to link up Lordship Lane, Dulwich, Half Moon Lane and Brixton LTN.

The people who genuinely want a reduction in traffic don't see this as exclusively either 'us' or 'them' who gets it. They see it as an ongoing process. There may be people as you say who just think well I'm OK now so I don't care what's going on down the road. That's a shame if that's the case.