LTN Discussion

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

It is clear there are a fair number of people that object to the LTNs. You'd be insane or stupid to deny it. At the same time, neither that self-evident fact nor the results of the consultation (edit: and certainly not the drum-banging on this forum!) show that a majority of residents in a specific area object to the LTNs.

1) the consultations and notifications have always been aimed at people living or working in the area, and open to anyone with an Internet connection or the price of a postage stamp. Those who responded are not necessarily residents or people who work in Dulwich.

2) LTNs have been widely publicised and the Council actively sought comment from groups or stakeholders that weren't strictly local. OneDulwich is part of a constellation of groups with similar branding across London. As none of the groups publish their funding (as far as I can see) it's impossible to conclude see whether that's just a coincidence or something else. 🧐 Equally, drivers groups have encouraged people outside the area to criticise the LTNs in emails to the council - as of course they are perfectly entitled to. It would be nuts to conclude that there weren't a significant volume of non-resident submissions.

https://oneealing.co.uk/similar-campaigns/

https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2021/11/02/southwark-ignores-dulwich-objections/

(Anecdotally - and therefore of no value - some of the most pissed off people I have come across were parents of private schoolkids for whom the drive to drop their kids off in Dulwich was less convenient).

3) people who are pissed off about something are more motivated to write in. People who are positive or indifferent about something are less likely to engage. No-one ever calls the council to compliment them on the bins getting picked up on time! 🤣

OneDulwich's attempt to position itself as the kingmaker in forthcoming elections shows admirable ambition but they're not quite Kevin Spacey in the earlier seasons of House of Cards yet!

[legalalien]

Although, DKH, I suspect that it's also true that people who are pissed off about something are more motivated to vote in local government elections - so there may be some truth in One Dulwich's claim!

[CPR Dave]

They aren't kingmaker but they can help co-ordinate a tactical vote to drain the swamp.

If you're worried about where their supporters come from, you can check on their own map:https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters

There are more than enough supporters there to swing the vote one way or another.

[Rockets]

DKHB - the beauty of this is we won't actually know if you are right or we are right until such time as there is a definitive way to measure local sentiment.

On one-hand you say the consultation was open to manipulation but if you cast your mind back to the consultation itself (I presume you filled it in) the council went out of their way to try to ensure they were capturing the views of residents who lived within the LTN area, outside the LTN area (but within the wider Dulwich localilty)and those who were outside of the Dulwich area and they went to great length to delete any duplicate entries (from both sides of the argument). The council published the results of the consultation on a street-by-street basis so they must have had a high degree of certainty that the numbers were accurate.

In the interest of balance yes people from both sides of the argument were encouraging people to have their say: Southwark Cyclists, LCC and plenty of local pro-LTN activists were using social media to encourage their members and contacts to "have their say" in consultations and I personally feel that there would probably have been more interference with the local process from the pro-LTN community than the anti because the pro-LTN community had a well established lobby programme in place and can rely on fanatics to respond far more than the anti-LTN community.

Your anecdotal evidence will probably differ from everyone else's - that's not to say its wrong. For example I was very pleasantly surprised (when we moved to within the area most benefitting from the LTNs) that our neighbours were very much anti- them (not I hasten to add because of inconvenience but because of the injustice and ludicrousness of them). And the number of familiar local faces from our street during the protest at the junction was wonderfully reassuring as well. I had always presumed (wrongly) that those areas closest to the Village that were benefitting the most from them would be in support of them - but that doesn't appear to be the case.

To Legal's point I am hearing of lots of people who have been motivated by the council's handling of the LTNs to ensure they vote in May - most of whom never cared about who was representing them at the council level.

Due to the council's mishandling of this whole process May becomes the only channel a lot of people feel they have to have their voice heard especially now they know the council is going to make them permanent despite local resident opposition - and that, for our local councillors is the very worst case scenario as the LTN debacle could be their lasting political legacy and actually cost them their seats.

[Penguin68]

It is clear there are a fair number of people that object to the LTNs.

Just for the record, objecting to the specific LTNs imposed on East Dulwich and objecting to the principal of LTNs is not the same thing. And Councils maintaining some LTNs whilst substantially changing or removing others (following trial and requests for feedback) is not the same class of activity as Southwark making very minor changes, but otherwise maintaining all their LTNs - which I believe they have done, at least as they impact us in ED - outwith and ignoring any local feedback which doesn't fit in with their plans.

The principal of lower traffic neighbourhoods, where for instance traffic is diverted from passing schools or neighbourhoods where previously there has been very high level of particulate pollution leading to lowered health outcomes, is very different from LTNs which divert traffic away from leafy areas of the borough and towards schools.

People who object to specific LTNs should not, necessarily, be pilloried as those wholly against alleviating traffic caused health issues. Walking or cycling may contribute to personal health regimes (for those fit enough to walk or cycle) but encouraging personal fitness is very different from litigating against the alternative - which LTNs may well do.

[Rockets]

Let's not forget how quickly the council did a U-turn on the Phase 3 and Phase 4 parts of the programme around Peckham Rye etc. They didn't do that because of a change in policy, they did that in reaction to the weight of public opinion within the areas where they had rolled out the LTNs and the objections from the emergency services etc.

[ab29]

I do object the very idea of LTN as it has made my life much worst - more traffic, more pollution, more noise in front of my home.

Unless the whole London can be closed off to traffic or all cars are replaced with electric ones the so-called LTN is only harming people (with the very few exceptions).

Saying this as someone who does not drive, has never owned a car and walks pretty much everywhere.

[Penguin68]

I do object the very idea of the LTN as it had made my life much worst - more traffic, more pollution, more noise in front of my home.

No, you are objecting to a specific LTN - the one that diverts traffic passed you. Not to the very idea of LTNs - everyone else of which does not impact your home at all.

If you said it made everyone else's life worse (which you don't, and which it would be difficult to substantiate) that would be objecting to the 'very idea' of LTNs.

[ab29]

Well, how can a road closure not affect someone out there?

[ab29]

I think LTN makes majority of people worst off - displaced traffic, slowing down the buses, waiting at the bus stops on more polluted roads, walking down these more polluted roads etc. And, in the end, if all you do is pushing traffic from one road to another, how is this better for overall air pollution? It;s not. And this affects everyone.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

@legalalien: that's a very valid point. The key question will be whether the Tories can capitalise on the issue (and overcome the fact that LTNs generally are a Tory initiative, and the general toxic stench around the Tory brand nationally). But even having a couple of Tory councillors after the fact doesn't mean the LTNs are necessarily going to go away.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Just for the record, objecting to the specific

> LTNs imposed on East Dulwich and objecting to the

> principal of LTNs is not the same thing.

In theory, yes. In practice, not for OneDulwich (which advocated an "against all LTN measures" position in the consultation), and certainly not for the "Freedom for Drivers Foundation".

[ab29]

Am going to vote Tories - I really am this angry.

Have never done it before and could not do so on the national level but locally,anything to shake the Sauron's Tower (=Southwark Council).

[legalalien]

DKH I agree about the LTNs not going away. It may be just me, but I won?t be voting on the issue of LTNs, I?ll be voting based on the behaviour of local councillors during the process around the LTNs, in light of the extensive opposition from local constituents.

[Rockets]

Legal - second that. LTNs were here for good the moment they went in, my vote will be about how the councillors treated their constituents throughout the process and if it help affects change I hope all councillors learn that you cannot treat your constituents like that and, hopefully, every constituent will benefit in the future.

[kissthisguy]

I find myself in half or whole agreement with this latest flurry. Traffic displacement occurs in every LTN scheme, as, in fairness, even Simon Munk of the London Cycling Campaign has admitted! The extent to which this happens, and the extent of the attendant harms (which given LTNs offload pollution from one road to another, is guaranteed in some form) will differ from one LTN to another. There will be various influential factors affecting displacement, one of the most significant of which is public transport availability. Private car ownership is also key, as is the availability of private hire Santander cycles, escooters or car clubs. Then there's topology and social geographical factors such as vulnerable population distribution which will impact on ethicacy or fairness of schemes.

So, for example, if you were just looking at southwark, you might say, ok, up by City hall there's outstanding public transport, low private car ownership, great cycle hire, a big vulnerable population in the from of a hospital but unlike King's it doesn't still on a four-lane road, and(relatively) few primary schools. Seems like a good candidate.

But when you look at Dulwich it's really hard for it to succeed because the underlying setup is all wrong: poor public transport, very high car ownership, no Santander hire and one of the biggest school populations in South London (which all sit on one of the obvious displacement routes!). The school population is also tricky because private school catchments are large and given the poor public transport, that population generates traffic (and being wealthy has the means to do so). Just look at termtime versus holiday time, a world of difference in traffic. So I suppose where I land is that LTNs in the way they've been done (the single blunt instrument of road closures) are quite harmful in general. Some more than others.

[kissthisguy]

On the election, of course there are the two most obvious (but smallest?) camps: pro (who generally experience a direct benefit - though to @Rockets earlier point a few pages back, there are those who benefit who are against) and antis (generally those who experience harm or object on fairness grounds) but for me there's a big grey middle who are neither beneficiaries nor the harmed. So far so normal, you may say, BUT this is Dulwich and there was a consultation, and people here expect to be listened to and not be taken for mugs, as it were. So yes I agree for many it will come down not to political parties but how people feel they've been treated (by cllrs, in the consultation) and so on. It has all the markings of an emotional choice election. The standard political allegiances may be suspended for once.

[Peckham Park]

It looks like the two new Conservative council candidates in the Village are supportive of change to the current LTN proposals https://www.southwarkconservatives.org.uk/news/dulwich-conservatives-announce-candidates-dulwich-village-ward

[Rockets]

My goodness Lambeth really over stepping the mark on this one....forcing residents to remove the Stop the closures signs. That is a really bad look.

[first mate]

I hope it is challenged. Very Big Brother.

[kissthisguy]

Unbelievable. Authoritarian and lacking in confidence - it's not the thing you do when you've won the argument!

I hope it is challenged. Very Big Brother.

[legalalien]

One of the Colston 4 was on Politics Live yesterday and suggested that their main defence had been based on the decision in Ziegler that sometimes, depending on particular circumstances, the human right to freedom of expression can provide a lawful excuse for breach of criminal law, there the active obstruction of a highway. Would be interesting to see how that argument stacks up here where there?s no obstruction at all?

https://caat.org.uk/news/the-ziegler-case-direct-action-the-law/

[legalalien]

I note that the post box address for the Lambeth enforcement department is in Winchester - as usual council actions being taken by teams remote from the situation on the ground (admittedly less significant than scheme design being carried out remotely but there is a theme)....

Slightly tongue in cheek, from a quick look at the regs the requirement for consent seems not to apply to

CLASS E

An advertisement relating specifically to a pending Parliamentary, European Parliamentary or local government election or a referendum under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000(1).

(See reg 1(3), reg 4(2) and Schedule 1).

Would writing ?Vote Labour Out in May 2022? on the sign solve the problem I wonder?

Also, it?s worth noting that the council have discretion effectively not to enforce these regs if public amenity etc is not affected (see Reg 3(3)), so it?s not a simple case of saying that ?of course the council should enforce the law).

Regs here

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/783/contents/made

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

kissthisguy Wrote:

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

> when you look at Dulwich it's really hard for

> it to succeed because the underlying setup is all

> wrong: poor public transport, very high car

> ownership, no Santander hire and one of the

> biggest school populations in South London (which

> all sit on one of the obvious displacement

> routes!).

Dulwich does have good public transport: it has a bunch of train stations and useful buses (some of them 24 hour). The main problem with buses is the number of private cars that are in their way on roads where there isn't space for a bus lane. When the Dulwich Village bus gate is working, the P4 flies from the South Circular to North Dulwich; when it's not, you can sit in traffic for 20 minutes easily.

All of London is suffering from the rise in Uber/PHVs and Amazon deliveries. But Dulwich is a particular problem because its population is richer (so there's more car ownership) and older (so there's a feeling of entitlement to drive anywhere and anytime, and who see owning a car as a matter of prestige).

This is aggrevated by the private schools that market to rich parents across London but don't require them to use public transport or use the school bus. In fact, there are a number of older kids that drive themselves and their friends to school! The private schools (where many more kids "commute" by vehicle) around here tend to finish term earlier and start term later than the state schools (where overwhelmingly kids commute on foot/bike). In those shoulder weeks when state schools are in but private schools are out, there is faaaaaar less traffic in Dulwich. The problem is not the schools (we are lucky to have such a big industry in the area - much preferable to any other), it's their transport policies.

The reality is that we have a city of millions of people in it and it's choking on the discretionary use of millions of private cars. Buses will not improve significantly until more cars are out the way. We are never going to get a tube. There is no solution that only involves discomfort to other people: we are all going to have to suck it up. If people were really concerned about the transport needs of disabled people or ambulances or.those who really need cars, or wanted to reduce pollution near schools, they'd be in favour of more aggressive solutions to reduce car use.

But that's not what OneDulwich or the Drivers Freedom Foundation want.

[Rockets]

DKHB - Dulwich does not have good public transport - it's PTAL scores are some of the lowest in the whole of Southwark so can we just put that to bed once and for all. Even the council admitted as much in their transport report of 2018 (and they stated that LTNs should only be deployed in areas with good PTAL scores so why they thought Dulwich would be a good place for them is anyone's guess).

I agree with you that Uber/PHVs and Amazon is driving vehicle use rates in London and I agree that private school traffic is a major issue in the area. But the residents of Dulwich have little control over that and why should we be punished and have to live with more congestion and pollution? Are we expected to "suck up" the pollution as part of the war on pollution. Those journeys don't go away by throwing in a roadblock, they just go a different route and become longer and more polluting.

You say that and then contradict yourself by suggesting that the city if choking on the discretionary use of millions of cars when private car ownership and use is declining (albeit slowly). Ironically the much heralded Waltham Forest LTN led to a significant increase in car ownership within the LTN area - mainly due to gentrification I hasten to add but not a good look for the LTN at all.

So DKHB - what is the solution - do you think LTNs reduce PHV and deliveries? Do you think LTNs stop parents driving from Streatham to Alleyns? Your previous post highlights why so many of us were against these measures because given the nature of the Dulwich area they were never, ever going to succeed and what you have said just validates that position.

[Moovart]

I believe it's to do with laws on advertising boards, same way estate agents have to take their signs down within a certain time when a property is sold.

Could be this rather than a direct attempt to suppress freedom of expression.

It may be that it would be ok to indefinitely display the poster in the front window, just not on a billboard but someone who knows the law better than me can hopefully confirm.