West Dulwich LTN Action Group - needs your support

[Rashmipat]

West Dulwich LTN Action Group needs your help to challenge Lambeth Council in court! We need to raise £30k by Monday, 9th September – please donate here: https://gofund.me/ec59a9b3

We are fighting Lambeth Council’s proposal to impose a Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) on West Dulwich, which will cause increased traffic and pollution – just like their disastrous scheme in Streatham.

The council has manipulated data, ignored our legal letters, and failed to properly consult residents. We support reducing pollution, but not through a one-size-fits-all LTN that will create a problem which we currently do not have!

Your contribution will help us take the council to the High Court for a judicial review. It's time to hold them accountable for their misleading actions and poor decision-making.

Please donate, share our cause, and help us fight for a fairer solution. Together, we can make a difference – and if we succeed, you may even get your money back!

Donate here: https://gofund.me/ec59a9b3

[malumbu]

What are your proposals to reduce pollution?

[Penguin68]

Pollution levels (as regards car emissions) have already been substantially reduced through the ULEZ imposition locally (or the Mayor's claims are lies) - cars now having to drive longer will only add to short journey emission problems. Actually, pollution caused by private vehicles is substantially reduced anyway across London, and is far less in an area which might be considered an 'outer' suburb - as the old borough of Camberwell was compared to the old 'inner' borough of Southwark. South Lambeth is in the same position. The arguments about comparatively poor provision of public transport hold for West Dulwich as for other parts of Dulwich. And we know that locally LTN introduction has just forced traffic into other areas, as this almost certainly also will, simply shifting, and not alleviating whatever pollution issues remain. Note that LTNs in London have never, yet, exempted electric vehicles from their grasp.

[Spartacus]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

What are your proposals to reduce pollution?

If its only about pollution then won't the government drive to make all vehicles electric resolve that in a few years ? 

Stop banging that drum.as we all know it's more about removing private ownership of vehicles than pollution 

[malumbu]

It's using vehicles smarter.  Rather than maintaining the status quo. Behaviours are very entrenched.  As ever it's a shame that this time energy and cost that is put into fighting change by a few, is not directed into doing something positive.  As with other anti curbs on private motorists it appears to be a single issue campaign.  A quick search came up with some rabid stuff, some on Nextdoor.com but more informative stuff too.  It appears to be restrictions on a small number of cut through roads, that I don't know, but look forward to exploring by bike in due course.  I expect costs may be awarded against the group if they lose but let's see what happens. No, I am not supporting them.

[march46]

Hmmm…didn’t the (now defunct) Dulwich Alliance crowdfund almost £30k which was wasted / paid for expensive legal advice to achieve nothing?

 

[tiddles]

Good luck !! 

[Earl Aelfheah]

For the usual suspects, please may I suggest that you look into what is being proposed before jumping to opposing all and any change. The 'healthy routes' proposal for example seems a complete no brainer:

https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=8618

... To the OP - please could you clarify what is the substance of your objections? There are three separate, but related proposals from what I can tell. Are you opposed to all of them and if so why?

Edited September 6 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rashmipat]

thank you for all your replies. Honestly this is not about drivers V cyclist and turning this into a brexit v non brexit debate where everyone becomes divided and it then causes so much tension in the community. That's the last thing we want. 

1. We want the council to engage with it resident association - we have that right. They are reluctant to do so- god knows we have tried. They have made it really difficult despite the hours of effort and work we as citizens have put into evaluating this scheme. Moreover, we are all well qualified professionals with deeper knowledge and understanding than our local councillors that are pursuing this for thier own reasons. Its not about reducing pollution for them - i can only assume they have their own objectives. 

2. We want to be able to influence what happens in our area as we all have a common goal to change habits and encourage less driving etc
However, our overall objective is to reduce pollution in our area. We do not want to INCREASE pollution.

The council proposal for West dulewich is going to do just that. We have a data scientist on our road who has painfully reviewed their analysis and its fundamentally flawed. For example, they do not even count cars travelling at 6mph or less. So any increase in traffic will not be counted. They have relied on evidence that the LTN works by comparing pre LTN traffic data with traffic figures in covid. I can go on - but really we need to raise the funds.

I live in west dulwich - i work from home, i have an electric car which i rarely use, i cycle, - i just don't want the pollution - because my son already suffers from pollution issues. I would support the LTN if i thought it had a chance of working - but it's going to do the opposite and going to be painful to reverse. 

This is not my day job. please please help us to raise money so that we can stop the council and then be a seat at the table - so we can work together to get the best schemes for our area and not something imposed by contractors who have not even visited the area to understand its nuisances. 

Join the community and Spread the word and help us reduce driving and pollution together

https://gofund.me/cf421082

 

LTN Poster Flyer.pdf

[Penguin68]

12 hours ago, march46 said:

Hmmm…didn’t the (now defunct) Dulwich Alliance crowdfund almost £30k which was wasted / paid for expensive legal advice to achieve nothing?

Well, in the overall area, resistance to Southwark has kept some roads open which were scheduled to close, have got Southwark to step away from universal borough-wide CPZs and have indeed excluded two wards from any proposals - and done so without needing an expensive court case or cases. Sometimes a good legal argument and threat of judicial review backed by that argument do have an effect,

[Earl Aelfheah]

Please can you explain which of the three proposals you are against, which elements and why? For example, are you objecting to the 'healthy streets phase 3' plan? Also, what (if any) counter proposals do you have, or is it just a blanket objection to any change? 

Also, could you please provide details of the 'alternative' data analysis that has been done by 'someone on your street'?

Wow, I just looked at that flyer. Absolutely ridiculous and unevidenced claims. You're claiming that there will be an

Quote

increase in the chances of residents and visitors being in a collision by over +1000%

???!?

Perhaps you have serious, evidenced objections, but I'd suggest that you need to explain which elements of the three proposals you oppose and stop printing nonsense like the above if you want to be taken seriously. 

Edited September 6 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

The issue is changing habits.  I've worked in sustainable transport for over a decade and behaviours are so entrenched. We all know people who drive at times when there are other options out of habit, convenience, or perceived convenience  the Heathrow study a few years ago put up lots of nice soft incentives to support sustainable travel including lift sharing and made bugger all difference.  Some of the local private schools do a lot to make it difficult to park yet parents still find a way.  And those parking on the zig zags outside the state schools. This isn't just about parents but these are the easy examples.  So I am in favour of harder intervention although think that it is wrong for the government to leave it just to local authorities.  And meanwhile the motor industry still wants us to trade up to bigger vehicles.  It is a shame that some paint this out as cyclists Vs drivers.  And frustrating that when you are doing your part you suffer.  With time I hope things do change and that the new government play their part.

Edited: Heathrow was about reducing driving to work, commutes tend to be longer than many around here and far more people drive.  Useful study anyway.

Edited September 6 by malumbu

[snowy]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Wow, I just looked at that flyer. Absolutely ridiculous and unevidenced claims. You're claiming that there will be an

???!?

Perhaps you have serious, evidenced objections, but I'd suggest that you need to explain which elements of the three proposals you oppose and stop printing nonsense like the above if you want to be taken seriously. 

Apparently the 1000% statistic is made by comparing the accident statistics of the quieter roads that are due to be filtered and then extrapolating that to the arterial road that aren't being filtered and not applying any pro rata calculation. Its all quite bizarrely creative. 

Edited September 6 by snowy

[snowy]

The Judicial Review is now apparently on the consultation exercise according to their social media account 

Edited September 6 by snowy

[Rashmipat]

i agree we have to change habits - its just cutting side roads off pushing traffic to boundary does not reduce pollution. Drivers find a way through or they will sit in traffic . Hopefully more people will switch to electric but the ltn is not going to reduce pollution. 

The council has tried to bamboozle residents with 3 different plans al  released at the same time - with questionnaires designed to make you answer in ca certain way.

Such an old school way of surveying where you are trying to blatantly decive the public - andf they think they are being clever in doing so. It's ridiculous. Lambeth cant be honest - a bit like their ceo..

[raptortruckman69]

Good luck with the appeal.

Don't listen to the obvious fakers. Habits don't change. I'm not going to become a lycra lout just because someone blocked a road  it's intuitively obvious that traffic is pushed to the boundary road. The so-called statistics that call this into question are obviously wrong, because they go against what is clearly reality.

[malumbu]

Fortunately I expect that you are not typical of many drivers around here.  The residents opposing the LTN recognise we need to reduce car journeys.  It's views like yours that make this challenging and the reason we need road closures, traffic calming and speed cameras.

Rashmipat out of interest how do you and residents feel we should reduce car journeys?  

 

[Spartacus]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Rashmipat out of interest how do you and residents feel we should reduce car journeys?  

 

Explain your rational for wanting a reduction in car journeys.

If it's purely pollution then in a few years that won't be an issue as we should all be driving electric vehicles.

If its reducing collisions and accidents, again technology is starting to remove that risk.

So what's your main drive to reduce car journeys ? 

 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

It’s complete nonsense that electric vehicles will solve pollution: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/electric-cars/running/do-electric-vehicles-produce-more-tyre-and-brake-pollution-than-petrol-and/

Traffic jams (regardless of how that traffic is fuelled) cost the economy billions: https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/economic-impact-congestion-london

Traffic noise pollution kills: https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2023/06/29/noise-pollution-mapping-the-health-impacts-of-transportation-noise-in-england/

But, to be fair, if your position is that what we have now is OK and we shouldn’t try to fix anything - well, at least that’s honest.

[raptortruckman69]

@Rashmipat don't let them get to you. Soon they will start trying to provide "evidence" to make you doubt your sound common sense.

Forewarned is forearmed I say, so here are the articles you are likely to see when people try to "prove" you "wrong" by claiming LTNs are a net benefit.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/19/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-boundary-roads-london

 

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-impacts-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-feb-2024-acc.pdf

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2023/01/19/study-londons-ltns-reduce-motor-traffic-on-residential-streets-but-not-main-roads/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64319027

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65f400adfa18510011011787/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-research-report.pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213624X23001785

Notice how the government, the mainstream media and academia are all in cahoots. We know boundary road traffic is higher than before the LTNs went in because we have to drive on those roads now when we didn't before even to go a short distance and we can see it with our eyes. It's all fakery to push an agenda.

Edited September 8 by raptortruckman69

[Spartacus]

3 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

It’s complete nonsense that electric vehicles will solve pollution: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/electric-cars/running/do-electric-vehicles-produce-more-tyre-and-brake-pollution-than-petrol-and/

Traffic jams (regardless of how that traffic is fuelled) cost the economy billions: https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/economic-impact-congestion-london

Traffic noise pollution kills: https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2023/06/29/noise-pollution-mapping-the-health-impacts-of-transportation-noise-in-england/

But, to be fair, if your position is that what we have now is OK and we shouldn’t try to fix anything - well, at least that’s honest.

Interesting 

The RAC Report is actually debunking the myth that electric vehicles are producing higher levels of brake and tyre emissions. 

The road noise report is easy to debunk if we all go electric, as they are so much quieter than petrol or diesel cars. 

The impact of traffic jams is about the only point that sort of stands on its own two feet, however with modern technology (jam avoidance map systems) and the potential of the introduction of self driving cars, i suspect it's only a short lived argument. 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

43 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

 

The RAC Report is actually debunking the myth that electric vehicles are producing higher levels of brake and tyre emissions…

…and then goes onto explain in some detail the nature of non-tailpipe pollution that electric and fossil fuel vehicles alike produce. The RAC is not known for its sandal-wearing, yoghurt-weaving, anti-car propaganda.

Electric vehicles and “modern technology” are not going to eradicate air and noise pollution and congestion as serious concerns. (If you think they will - invest heavily in properties along the South Circular - you’ll make tons of money!). Increased autonomous vehicle usage and increased population in London is going to increase the demand for journeys at all times of day.

[Rockets]

Interesting that Southwark is lauding the amount of money they are investing in EV charging points....has the penny finally dropped for them? They spent years fighting anything on 4 wheels but now seem to be far more embracing of them.

[yogiandbubu]

I have seen the flyer and I have to be honest, I don’t understand which one ( or all) of the proposals you are against to. 
There are data collected on local traffic through the years (official data monitoring published by the council) and we had so many consultations about these changes when everybody had the chance to reply to.

Now that they have finally decided to do a trial to see what works best and, as they say, are ready to modify them if necessary, I really don’t understand what this complain is about.

the traffic is already displaced to side roads where cars speed knowing there is no control . We’ve had so many car accidents in the area and some very serious. Crossing the road has become impossible.

I can’t believe you think that the current situation is fine.

 

https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/tfl-impacts-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-feb-2024-acc.pdf

[malumbu]

Quick summary.  Traffic reduction is good because it means: less pollution, less carbon emissions, space can be allocated for other purposes, more attractive environment, reduction in accidents/improvement in road safety, more walking and cycling (health benefits), more efficient use of our transport network and global resources (fossil fuels, raw materials, energy). 

Move to electric vehicles (EVs) will reduce emissions of nitrogen dioxides, the main cause of early deaths and poor health due to air quality.  But as others have discussed they are not a solution, congested roads full of EVs are not what is needed.  Non-tailpipe emissions from road vehicles is complex, particles of road and tyres may be relatively inert when we breath them in but still end up in our rivers seas and being ingested by animals including us.  Heavier vehicles worsen this -  driven in part by the manufactures willing us to supersize our vehicle fleet, and the extra weight of batteries in EVs. 

Most drivers don't drive smoothly, increasing road, brake and tyre wear.

Of course if you don't believe that there is climate change, poor air quality, increased obesity and type 2 diabetes due to diet and lack of physical exercise, and you don't care about a nicer environment, or don't  believe that reduction in road traffic will help address this, then a bit of a pointless debate

Nice post yogiandbubu

Edited September 9 by malumbu