One Dulwich have met with Cllr McAsh

[goldilocks]

Well- it’s just the certainty that ‘clean air dulwich’ have met with cllrs on many occasions stated here by Heartblock, set against the overarching  position on this thread  that the council have ‘finally’ met with One Dulwich.  
 

Both are lobby groups so can see that they would want to meet to put their views forward but I’m not clear that a website depiction of their mailing list makes One Dulwich more ‘official’ than anyone else, or indeed that Clean Air Dulwich have been given different levels of access! 

[first mate]

Well, for example, the lobby group Southwark Cyclists are very chummy with councillors and it used to be the case that on their website you could see letters and messages between Councillors and SC advising further actions and congratulations on actions taken, suggesting regular dialogue was at play. And, by the way, a member of that lobby group who is active on this forum has a background in PR.

In addition, the way Cllr Williams and Cllr Rose took every opportunity to politicise and attack at the meeting with Clive Rates, pretty much deflecting from the reasonable questions posed, did not indicate a council with an open door, prepared to listen to views or evidence that do not "align" with theirs.

 

[CPR Dave]

Quite a few of the Clean Air Dulwich people have left London altogether.

[goldilocks]

Southwark cyclists also a lobby group- the fact they meet with the council isn’t a surprise.  I’m sure if you dig into this further there are lots of lobby groups trying to put their point across - but I’m still confused why people on this thread think that one dulwichs website map of their mailing list makes them any more valid than other lobby groups - eg it doesn’t mean they’re representative stakeholders 

[first mate]

Has anyone described OD itself as a stakeholder? Residents organisations might be described as stakeholders. Residents en masse are stakeholders, obviously. OD suggest some 2000 residents support the questions OD are currently asking. It may be of interest to observe that Southwark council are driving a massive borough-wide agenda to impose CPZ on all, on the basis of 48% of 1025 respondents, many of them do not live in Southwark.

On that basis we should not be surprised that James McAsh agreed to meet with OD and give them a hearing, as unlike the above, respondents do seem to live not only in Southwark but locally.
 

As you say, I am sure he is also meeting with other groups and so he should.

Edited July 6, 2023 by first mate

[heartblock]

Indeed Firstmate, cllrs should meet and be fair and equitable to all residential lobby groups and no special preference should be given to one group. 

As far as I can see, OD has a wide stretch across the borough whereas CAD is a few residents who live off roads that branch off ED Grove, who are very committed to not having traffic on their road, but not too fussed about dumping it on their neighbours-  Just my opinion based on minutes from council meetings going back to 2019....I won’t link as this thread isn’t about the past.

Anyways, let’s hope that cllr McAsh can involve his energy into tackling pollution, traffic and noise on Croxted, ED Grove, LL and Grove Vale and also look at ways of preventing any more accidents on these school rds and possibly fixing poor paving and poor road markings and signage. The roads in LTNs seem to have new paving, road tarmac and furniture.....the high residential density/school rds are very poorly looked after.

 

[Penguin68]

45 minutes ago, first mate said:

n all, on the basis of 48% of 1025 respondents, many of them do not live in Southwark.

To be fair to the council, they did make it clear that they were also researching those who worked in Southwark (but didn't, by definition, live there) - which is fine as they too are impacted by Southwark decisions and have a vested interest in Southwark. The fact that the 'research' was a disgrace and a sham is a different issue, but the stated objective is surely acceptable. However the 'interest groups' who also participated in the research (reading somewhat between the lines) did not necessarily have any stake or interest in Southwark at all.

[Rockets]

59 minutes ago, goldilocks said:

Southwark cyclists also a lobby group- the fact they meet with the council isn’t a surprise.  I’m sure if you dig into this further there are lots of lobby groups trying to put their point across - but I’m still confused why people on this thread think that one dulwichs website map of their mailing list makes them any more valid than other lobby groups - eg it doesn’t mean they’re representative stakeholders 

Southwark cyclists and LCC are stakeholders and have been the go-to lobby group the council actively engages. Remember the Peckham Rye LTN suggestions (can't remember what phase that was) and the fact the council prioritised input from Southwark cyclists over the emergency services and rejected emergency service input? 

 

I suspect the council's refusal to make DV permeable for emergency services  was because of pressure from lobby groups. And look how long it took for them to see sense - utterly shameful.

 

These are the things that created the imbalance that so many local people are angry with (and led to the very existence of One Dulwich and them getting over 2000 sign-ups) - the council only initially engaged with and took counsel and guidance from groups that supported its vision.

[Rockets]

And Southwark Cyclists really don't help themselves with tweets like this in relation to Anna Goodman taking down the anti-LTN petition poster and taking it home with her - talk about tone deaf and a ludicrous "justification defence".

 

[heartblock]

'Straightforward falsehoods' - so we are liars according to the Southwark arm of the LCC - nice. I like the 'without knowing the details' bit as well... jeez...

[Rockets]

Many people have provided more details for them and still the post remains with no sign of a retraction.

 

What a weird world some of these people live in, talk about self-centred and blinkered. They really aren't helping themselves.

[mr.chicken]

On 27/06/2023 at 13:23, Rockets said:

we fully support the Council’s policies of reducing car use,

... but in practice will object in the strongest terms to anything the council does to actually reduce car usage.

 

[CPR Dave]

There's nothing at all logical about people stealing from shops. That's a very dangerous tweet from the cyclists.

If this activist was in a regulated profession she would have lost her livelihood for stealing that poster. 

If she was in my company she would have been summarily dismissed for this. Her pass would have been cancelled before she even got to work the next day. In my business we just can't trust people who thieve stuff that doesn't belong to them and nor will our customers.

 

[vladi]

Apparently Dr Anna Goodman  recently took part in a University of Westminster study, which received £1.5 million from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The description of the study read: “The study will look at whether the LTNs have increased levels of walking and cycling, whether the diversity of people walking and cycling changes, and any impacts they have on road injuries and air pollution.
When approached for comment about stealing the poster  she said she is engaged with local LTN schemes in a personal capacity but maintains a professional standpoint when conducting academic research.

So, that's all OK then.

"Yeah, Right"  - Bing

Edited July 8, 2023 by vladi

[malumbu]

In deed, good post, move on, nothing to see here 

[heartblock]

16 hours ago, mr.chicken said:

but in practice will object in the strongest terms to anything the council does to actually reduce car usage.

Wasn’t there data that showed that application for parking spaces had increased in an LTN area in a London Borough and there is little to no peer reviewed evidence that car ownership is decreasing anymore in London than it was post LTN. Also cycling increase that was occurring pre-LTN and continued at the same rate post LTNs is now flattening off and in some cases decreasing. 

Also the Bounds Green LTN data is showing an increased in miles driven and an increase in bus journey times, although they are not publishing the data on pollution ... one wonders why. The ‘spin’ that is attached to this negative data is also a joke.

i would love car use to reduce on East Dulwich Grove, Croxted, Lordship Lane and Grove Vale... wasn’t it supposed to ‘evaporate’ .

Cllr McAsh promised us that if our roads did not see a benefit, if traffic didn’t evaporate the ‘experiment’ would be judged a failure and they would be removed. Of course nobody said they would use a method of counting traffic, that could not accurately measure traffic that was log-jammed, idling and polluting our residential school streets.

yes less cars and traffic please... but on all roads, not just the the rds with individuals with privileged access to Southwark Council. 

 

[Rockets]

Heartblock, Anna Goodman's last (ahem) research of the Lambeth LTNs showed a 9% increase in parking permits within the LTN areas between 2020 and 2023. But it's Anna Goodman research so can't be considered impartial now! 😉

 

TFL's figures show cycling has increased 11% in London from 2019 and accounts for just under 3% of all London journeys - significantly lower than Will Norman's grandiose claims made during lockdown.

 

TFL's cost per new cyclist analysis would not be too healthy given the money invested in infrastructure. Does anyone know what that has been since Covid, 7 years ago Sadiq was claiming TFL were going to invest 770m up to 2021/2022 but that was pre-pandemic.

Edited July 8, 2023 by Rockets

[mr.chicken]

3 hours ago, heartblock said:

i would love car use to reduce on East Dulwich Grove, Croxted, Lordship Lane and Grove Vale...

No you wouldn't. You say you do, but you are not prepared to put more than lip service towards it. You do not have a single suggestion which is actually (a) practical to implement and (b) would reduce car usage.

3 hours ago, heartblock said:

wasn’t it supposed to ‘evaporate’ .

It did. LTNs have reduced car use compared to the rising car use everywhere else.

[heartblock]

41 minutes ago, mr.chicken said:

No you wouldn't. You say you do, but you are not prepared to put more than lip service towards it. You do not have a single suggestion which is actually (a) practical to implement and (b) would reduce car usage.

Yep  I would - I have, on this forum (suggesting local electric buses, support ULEZ, suggested banning all petrol engine cars London-wide, banning BBQs and wood-burners are a few)  - a simple search of my past posts will be testament et to this.

Outside of this forum as a cardio-repirtory specialist and activist promoting lung and heart health and researching into the diagnostics and therapies of pathophysiology of diseases caused by inflammatory response to infection, toxins (including pollutants) aging and familial traits....

.....but thank you for telling me what I think and do. I must remember that you know me better than I know myself...

Now everyone on this Forum will recognise you as a troll, you are exposed as an arrogant poster and not a serious person to have any discussion with. I can only imagine also probably someone who enjoys mansplanning to whoever can cope with listening to you drone on about how you know best.

I’ll add you to my Troll section who no longer illicit or trigger any reply from me. (I imagine a cage with Goldilocks, Mal and a rather scruffy and disappointed-with-his-life, old rooster)

 

Thank you Rockets, I couldn’t recall where the parking thing originated from.

[Bic Basher]

Just to add on the electric buses issue.   Lordship Lane will see the 40 and 185 receive fully electric buses, but that still leaves the 176 and 197 using hybrids and the P13 using fully diesel vehicles.

 

 

[Rockets]

Bravo Heartblock - swatted another pesky troll with consummate ease 😉 - there are a lot of them on here - it's troll swatting season on the EDF!

 

The only time pro-LTN lobbyists look back at what people have said in the past is to try and dig out "incriminating" posts that are anything but (I am looking at you Earl!!! 😉

 

Edited July 8, 2023 by Rockets

[exdulwicher]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Bravo Heartblock - swatted another pesky troll with consummate ease 😉 - there are a lot of them on here - it's troll swatting season on the EDF!

It's not trolling at all, it goes back to the central point of OD "being fully in favour of reducing car use" while suggesting stuff that is:
a) not in Southwark council's power or responsibility
b) not practical
c) might be workable given sufficient time/funding which isn't (yet) available

1 hour ago, heartblock said:

Yep  I would - I have, on this forum (suggesting local electric buses, support ULEZ, suggested banning all petrol engine cars London-wide, banning BBQs and wood-burners are a few)  - a simple search of my past posts will be testament et to this.

- Electric buses - yes they're coming but every local authority wants them, there's a limited supply of them and there is not the funding to buy them all. It's a process which will be played out over the next 5+ years to replace the existing fleet.
- ULEZ - excellent, good to see support for it but that is PART of the bigger picture. Replacing every car on the road currently with an electric vehicle solves "pollution at tailpipe" issues; it does not solve parking, congestion, road danger, tyre and brake particulates...
- banning all petrol engine cars in London is not practical and would requires billions in scrappage scheme - it's quicker, cheaper and easier to just restrict journeys of ALL cars.
- BBQs/wood burners - nothing to do with Southwark Council, TfL or transport, probably mostly unworkable and a classic bit of whataboutery - look at the problem OVER THERE ->>>

[first mate]

"banning all petrol engine cars in London is not practical andwould requires billions in scrappage scheme - it's quicker,cheaper and easier to just restrict journeys of ALL cars."

But a central driver of CPZ , say the council, is to "incentivise" people to give up their cars (including electric cars) by charging according to weight and size. Now, if the aim is relinquishment of vehicles this implies the charges will be made to really, really hurt, so much so that people will have to get rid of their cars. What then happens to all those cars?

If lots of people don't get rid of their cars won't all of this been for nothing?

Or is it really the case that the council have found a great 'green' rationale with which to maximise revenue but secretly they do not expect a huge number to relinquish their vehicles? Which is it, do you think?

Also, the council say they intend to get behind a big increase in club car vehicles, so won't that partly offset any private cars relinquished?

In regard to woodburners, this is something the council say they are looking at, as they are disproportionately responsible for air pollution. No doubt the same is true for bbqs but woodburners are something this council are looking at.

Edited July 8, 2023 by first mate

[heartblock]

LTNs = Greenwashing.

It was a Tory invention taken up by some very foolish Labour Councils to please residents with privileged access to Cllrs living in already relatively quiet rds.

So far no empirical peer reviewed evidence to equate the LTN intervention with any reduction in harmful pollutants and the data coming out of Bounds Green shows a complete failure - but the spin from Haringey is fit for a Boris Johnson party denial.

Increases in accidents and traffic on boundary rds, cycling down by 22% with residents saying LTNs discourage cycling...speeding up in both LTNs and boundary ads. At least they conducted a review - all be it without EqIAs.

McAsh also needs to review the current state in ED and come up with ideas to reduce traffic and car use across the borough

 

[exdulwicher]

42 minutes ago, first mate said:

Or is it really the case that the council have found a great 'green' rationale with which to maximise revenue but secretly they do not expect a huge number to relinquish their vehicles? Which is it, do you think?

Also, the council say they intend to get behind a big increase in club car vehicles, so won't that partly offset any private cars relinquished?

On average, each car club vehicle in the UK replaced 22 private cars. Shared mobility (be that bikes, scooters or cars) is absolutely the way forward and if you can use a car on a pay-per-use basis, it frees people from the sunk costs of owning a car like insurance, depreciation etc and makes people think much more about their journeys.

You need something like CPZ and/or ULEZ to start that transition as well otherwise, even if there's an LTN in place, people will often tend to hang onto their cars "just in case" - even if they're using it less. And CPZ also allows the council to create more specific parking bays for car club parking - one of the major problems with them at the moment is the limited number of parking spots.