Rockets

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But DC - many people are not yet back to their > > offices or places of work either so if there is > > increased congestion now it is not unreasonable > to > > suggest that it will only get worse. > > > I thought all the traffic is key workers, carers > and people making essential journeys? Thats the > rhetoric expressed on here in defence of people > driving. Can't have it both ways ;) Er DC....the rules have changed a bit since the beginning of lockdown on essential journeys...shops are open, people aren't restricted on where they travel to and from etc etc...what's happening is what many of us predicted would happen...;-)

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are more cars on the roads because people > still aren't using public transport. > > If increased public transport is, as is often > stated here, a preferred alternative to LTNs, then > it follows that the current *reduction* of public > transport usage is having a negative impact and > the actual results of experimental low-traffic > measures can't be properly assessed until public > transport is running at pre-pandemic levels. But DC - many people are not yet back to their offices or places of work either so if there is increased congestion now it is not unreasonable to suggest that it will only get worse. You could also say that given these measures have been in for a long time and traffic is still as bad as it was when they first went in then they are not having the impact needed and should be removed. BTW I notice that Underhill Road now has a lot of monitoring strips in at various points.

Rahx3 - apologies, I wasn't accusing you of focussing just on cars - it was more of a general observation. The war-on-cars seems to be waged by (self) interest groups and councils (who give too much weight to said (self) nterest groups) whilst seemingly deliberately ignoring the macro issues - probably no doubt because they have gas fired boilers etc! ;-)

Ex- and Ab - let's hope whatever they are doing is done quickly. Any time there is a problem on the A205 it makes the LTN impact 10 times worse. I was on my run this morning up past Dulwich College as well when I saw the temporary lights (and the horrible queue back past the college - even though it was 6.30am!)

I see the A205 has roadworks which is causing yet more chaos around the Dulwich area - has the watermain gone again?

Rahx3 - the report you link to demonstrates how you cannot narrow the focus to just cars and that the problem is far greater than that - and actually those that do focus solely on cars probably do so due to their own confirmation bias (and I do include TFL in that). Look at what the report says: Firstly..... Research has shown that around 75 per cent of particulate matter pollution in Greater London is estimated to come from outside the city. And then the graphs show that in terms of NO2 and PM3. Look at NO2: Road Transport - 50% But within 50% that the worst offender is the diesel car with 24% After that the TFL bus fleet is the next largest contributor at 20% Then Rigid HGVs at 15% Van and mini bus 12% Petrol car 12% Outside of the 50% for road transport... Domestic Gas - 12% Commercial gas -8% Industry 7% So the continued use of domestic gas is as damaging as the use of the petrol car. And then when you look at PM3 sources: 53% comes from road transport.... ..of which taxis are the biggest contributor - 26% Van and mini bus - 17% Diesel car and petrol car on 14% each TFL bus fleet - 13% etc etc.... So you can see that we need to tackle this holistically and need to stop making it a war against the car as it is far bigger than that and the way councils, and the lobby groups, try to focus solely on private car use is a folly and actually diverts attention from the wider issues. And maybe, just maybe, for groups like TFL focusing on the car deflects attention away from their role in the problems as those charts show (and I appreciate they are from 2013) that TFL has oversight on a big part of the problem - the bus fleet and taxis. If we don't approach this with a clear-eye view of everything going on (domestic gas use, transport etc etc) you will never crack the problem.

Yes we are hoping we get one in the next wave of installs! It's been a good four or five year wait for us so let's hope we win the lottery this time! ;-)

If you don't want your slightly too small bike hangars we'll have them on our road we've been asking for them for years.....#bethankfulyouhaveone ;-)

Also, ensure you don't focus this solely on the car. Yes cars need addressing but there are many of here who blindly obsess about the cars' negative impact - often motivated by their own obsession with two-wheeled modes of transport! ;-) Cars account for 18% of emissions so there is a whopping 82% of emission sources that often get overlooked. I am glad you are looking at wood burning stoves etc but you need to take it further. You need to be discussing how each individual needs to assess their own impact beyond the car and wood-burner cause celebres. Often what happens is that those who have dumped the car, or don't (for example) use a wood burning stove, are happy to castigate those that do and it narrows the debate too much towards those areas of transgression. Broaden the debate about creating a consciousness around the continued use of fossil-fuel boilers or the reliance on products made on the other side of the world and shipped on huge cargo ships that in one journey pollute more than all of the cars in a single country.

I agree that sunny days wandering through quiet streets are lovely and days like the sunny weekend they really come into their own. I was walking through the DV junction during the wet days preceding the sunny weather and there wasn't a soul in sight. Now the schools are back, even on a sunny day like today, there are, outside the school drop-off and pick-up time, very few people around - very few cyclists, very few pedestrians. So, the question you have to ask yourself is whether the devastation being felt outside of the LTN areas is worth it for those idyllic moments and I am not sure it is, because every time I enjoy Dulwich Village I am torn because I know and understand what is happening to Lordship Lane (for example). If there is a magical way to create that feeling across the whole of Dulwich then sign me up but I have yet to see any suggestions that don't create a nirvana for some and a living hell for others. P.S. Whilst walking (and choking) down Lordship Lane at the weekend I noticed that some of the idiotic wing of the pro-LTN lobby have taken a leaf out of the idiotic wing of the anti-LTN lobby by graffitiing "love LTN" signs (LTN within a heart shape) at a few locations on Lordship Lane.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m not accusing everyone who has issues with the > current LTN as wanting to maintain the status quo. > But One Dulwich as an organisation are literally > campaigning to ?return things to how they were?. > This is what is so disappointing Rahx3 - but they have no option. Your ire should actually be aimed at the council for organising such a manipulative review. To be fair, if more of the pro-LTN lobby had stood-up and reviewed what was happening objectively then we would not be where we are but many were happy to go along with the council's lopsided and biased implementation of these measures. Surely you can acknowledge that the review is skewed massively towards getting the result the council wants and is not at all balanced?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > legalalien Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I completely understand why OneDulwich would > take > > this approach to try and bring the Council to > the > > table. It's an approach that forces the > Council > > to recognise the consolidated opposition to the > > current scheme, rather than enabling it to > > fragment that opposition into support for > various > > different measures > > Is it possible that there isn?t a consensus for > measures that support active travel and discourage > car use amongst ?One Dulwich? supporters? It?s > easy to get support for ?keep things as they are?. > Much harder to actually rally people around an > alternative. That isn?t likely to change once the > current schemes are removed. It?s a manifesto of > inaction. Rahx3 - I am sorry you are completely wrong on this. If the council had agreed to publish an alternative then I am sure One Dulwich would have been happy to urge supporters to vote for that alternative. Of course, no such offer was forthcoming from the council and all we are left with is an inadequate review that, from the moment of its inception, was designed to try and give the council a mandate to continue this disastrous experiment. Unfortunately for the council, people are not stupid. I am sure many were like me and viewed the review documents and thought I am not going to tick "install a different type of measure" when the council is giving me no indication what that measure is likely to be. I don't trust the council enough (given their recent track record) to give them that authority and mandate. It is what many of us on here have been warning you about - that the council's mismanagement and deliberate attempts at manipulating the process to their advantage risked backfiring and setting back the climate change debate by years. And so here we are - lots of people are having to vote for returning to things as they were because the council is not giving them any alternative. You can't say we didn't warn you.....

Rahx3 - yes you can leave comments for suggestions but that has no impact on the results. The council has, by their design of the review document, left people with no option other than to register their disapproval of the measure by selecting return them to their original state. No one wants to have to do this but they are being shoehorned into doing so by the badly (probably deliberately so) designed review documents. We have been here before and the council basically pays lip service to the comments and suggestions left and focuses the results on how people registered their thoughts by the options presented. I don't want the measures removed completely but that is the only way many can effect any change thanks to the council and their attempt to manipulate the review.

Completely agree - the lunatic fringes of both sides need to stop being idiots - whomever is vandalising the planters needs to stop, whomever is tearing down the anti-LTN signs needs to stop. It's a bit like when someone started cutting the monitoring strips - I really question what their intention is and whether they actually considered what they were doing. A time for a few to engage brain before action.

And Rahx3 - to be fair it was the council's previous interventions that made the DV/Court Lane junction the mess you show in your tweet - I am not trying to say it was perfect before but the alterations they made increased pollution and congestion and also made the junction a lot less safe for all users of it.

Does anyone know what Southwark's rules on bike sheds are? Can you build an "out-building" in your front garden without issue? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57159538

The review document is a joke, it's shameful in its brazenness - designed not to gauge local opinion but to prove the success of the project. It is no surprise that groups like One Dulwich are saying they are left with no option but to suggest that everything returns to normal. This council is totally out of control and is clearly manipulating the review and the review process..but did we expect anything else from them?

Latest update from One Dulwich. Dear all, Dulwich Review survey ? deadline 11 July Since our last update, we have joined with other groups in the Dulwich Alliance to make a formal complaint to Southwark Council about the many and serious failings of the Dulwich Review survey. You can read our complaint here. We are also sending out a leaflet from this weekend recommending that you choose ?Return to the original state? on the questions in the survey asking about the road measures themselves. You may find this surprising, given that we have throughout been pushing for ANPR timed restrictions as a reasonable alternative to 24/7 closures. But this survey ? despite reassurances from Southwark in February ? doesn?t offer this as an option for Dulwich Village junction (even though the 24/7 closure here is the cause of area-wide traffic displacement). No alternative measures (not even dedicated cycle lanes or school streets) are offered for any of the locations. Overall, the survey is so flawed, and so biased, that we believe choosing complete removal of all the measures is the only way to get the Council to listen to the local community and understand the valid reasons behind our objections. You can read our reasons for supporting this position by going to www.dulwichalliance.org/SurveyFAQs. Majority of Court Lane doesn?t want 24/7 closure of Dulwich Village junction One of the roads most directly affected by the closure of Dulwich Village junction is Court Lane. The residents? association has recently carried out a survey of the 189 households in Court Lane and Court Lane Gardens. In total, 155 households (81%) took part, with 34 households (19%) choosing not to respond. Of the 155 households that responded, 25 made no clear choices; but of the 130 households that did make clear choices 73% want to see the junction open (64% with timed restrictions and 9% with no restrictions at all), and 27% want the junction permanently closed.

Loads of green signs going up everywhere - looks like some folk aren't taking too kindly to them. Nothing like a visual reminder of those who form the, ahem, small vocal minority...

The list of those on the Partnership Steering Committee for the climate emergency does really validate a lot of the accusations of echo chamber politics, that is so prevalent nowadays.

The defacer and remover of anti-LTN signage is likely to be very busy...plenty of them popping up all around the DV/EDG area. Rich pickings for them as a lot of people are making their views felt with the big green signs!

Ex - and the council have failed massively on engagement - they haven't taken the majority of the people with them on this journey and now they are reaping what they have sowed. Bottom-line is the majority of people want the council to do something but their ham-fisted attempts to do something, seemingly measures at the behest of a few pro-LTN lobby groups from outside the area, have backfired spectacularly. In one fail swoop they have managed to make congestion and pollution worse, divide and set elements of the community against one another and create a toxic atmosphere of distrust. That's not what any of us voted for or gave them a mandate for. They have failed. Now let's see who is willing to take responsibility for those failings.

The Phase 3 consultation report also demonstrates that, without hiding behind the Covid pandemic to get the LTNs rolled out, the council would have struggled to get their closures in - the consultation results do not give them strong enough support to mandate the closures as they did. They did not have majority support. If you apply the same logic that they used for the CPZs then they would have failed to reach their own threshold. Firstly, only 44% of those within the consultation zone believed the measures they were suggesting would achieve the objective. If you apply the council's 50% threshold then they could have closed the DV junction (55% support) and Townley Road (53% support) but could not have done anything on Melbourne Grove or Burbage. It's becoming clearer and clearer that they used Covid as the cover to get these in as they knew there was not broad support for the measures that they were suggesting - even within the areas likely to benefit the most. This is why they played the "social distancing" card when everyone knew it had nothing to do with that. The fact 81% of people were in favour of the overall objective yet so few agreed with the specific measures demonstrates clearly that their measures were flawed and that they should have returned to the drawing board.

This is very telling..... remember, this is the consultation done in early 2020 so to interpret this as the LTN measures are supported is wholly inaccurate. This consultation happened before any of the measures went in but I actually think this suggests the main review will not be an easy ride for the council and the LTN supporters. I am actually really encouraged by this. Take a look: Whilst 81% support the overall objective within the consultation zone - this drops a lot to only around 50% (+/- 5%) supporting the specific measures. Remember this was before any of the LTNs went in. Also once you get to the borders - i.e. those likely to be impacted most by the closures it swings a lot towards a negative sentiment - those people won't be swayed to the positive now things are so bad. "Others" is interesting as well as this probably shows the input of groups beyond the area - cyclists, taxi drivers etc. I think, on the basis of this combined with the broader awareness of the negative impacts of these measures since this consultation was done (remember this concluded months before the measures went in and any of the impact was felt) the council is in big trouble and will struggle to get majority support for the measures. The list below from the report is quite telling and probably shows why "others" is broadly very supportive of the measures: Responses were received from many community organisations, businesses and other representative bodies. In all cases, these were asked to encourage their members to respond individually. Nonetheless, organisations who supplied a corporate response are listed below: Online responses (titles as given): Lambeth Cyclists Mayflower Gardens Herne Hill Velodrome Trust (Charity based on Burbage Rd) Hanbury Hill Croydon Living Streets Group Old College Tennis Club Dulwich Podiatry Ltd Harold George hairdressing and beauty Camberwell Plant Hire Ltd. t/a Premier Plant Hire United Cabbies Group Southwark Community Sports Trust Langley Dog walking Stradella and Springfield Residents' Association Dulwich College Crystal Palace Transition Town Transport Group Turney Residents Assoc Cypress Cyclists Dulwich tennis club on Gallery Rd Dulwich Village Church of England Infants School Email and other responses provided by: Turney Road Residents Association (survey) London Cycling Campaign Dulwich & District U3A Dulwich Society Dovercourt Road North Residents Association (survey) Dulwich Village Residents association (survey) Stradella and Springfield Residents Assocation Dulwich Village, College Road and Woodyard Lane Residents Association (survey) Dulwich Estate Burbage Road Residents Association (survey) Dulwich & Herne Hill Safe Routes to School Group Clean Air For Dulwich Lambeth Cyclists Eynella Road residents (survey) 60 Mums for Lungs Propensity to Cycle Tool (PCT) authors Southwark Cyclists Metropolitan Police (Road Safety)

Otto2 - proceed with caution - you're about to reopen a can of worms and reignite the debate on who actually responded to the consultations back in 2019 and 2020! ;-) I refer you to the below from One Dulwich and their report as when detailed analysis was done it was clear it was anything but overwhelming support! https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/who-closed-dulwich-village-junction-bias-misleading-data-and-selective-reporting Who closed Dulwich Village junction? Bias, misleading data and selective reporting. 10 May On 21 March, after a Freedom of Information (FOI) request released the data, we shared the disconcerting news that Southwark?s claim of popular local support for closing Dulwich Village junction in early 2020 was not supported by the evidence. The results of Phase 2 (October and November 2019) were based on a tiny handful of responses, many from outside the Dulwich area, from Hammersmith to Islington to Croydon. The very small group in Dulwich who supported the closure was tightly clustered round the junction itself ? and cannot be said to represent local residents? views. This is important because (in the confusing history of Dulwich road closures), Phase 2 apparently gave the green light to Phase 3 (spring 2020), which ended up as the closures we have now. The Council says that these past consultations somehow justify the current measures ? not only the 24/7 closure of Dulwich Village junction, but also the excessive five-hours-a-day restrictions and the massive fines. But the results of Phase 2 don?t support this picture at all. In fact, the more we looked into the data from Phase 2, the more uneasy we became. Only 1.3% of voters in Dulwich Village ward supported the 24/7 closure of Calton Avenue. The survey was so badly set up that people could select up to eight options, which not only inflated the figures but also led to contradictory answers ? closing a road, for example, while making it one way and adding timed restrictions. Online responses from outside the area were favoured over paper responses from local workshops. Some results show evidence of manipulating the data to make it fit. In their published summary, for example, the Council referred only to those voting in favour, while leaving out those who preferred alternatives, or those who didn?t want any change at all ? a bit like reporting only Yes votes in a referendum, but leaving out all those who voted No. You can read all about the poor process, misrepresentation of data, evidence of bias and selective reporting in the full report here. Two key questions follow on from this: Has Southwark Council given the local community misleading information so far? Does Southwark Council have the necessary skills and resources to run a public consultation? These issues matter, because Southwark is about to embark on yet another public consultation into road and traffic in the Dulwich area. The leader of the Council has promised us a fair and transparent process, which we have every right to expect. One Dulwich is encouraging everyone to respond to the new consultation. But we will challenge anything in the process or the final results that shows bias, misleading data, or selective reporting.