Rockets

Otto2 - no I said her research is being used as part of the pro-LTN propaganda machine. Just out of interest, who do you think funds her group's research? The first thing anyone should do when presented with research is try to ascertain who funded it.

It's hardly an attack on character but an attack on activist research being presented as balanced and impartial. Aldred,Monk, Walker, Boardman are all part of the cycle propaganda machine - there is nothing wrong with that but their output should be treated and viewed as such.

No but I take activist research with a large pinch of salt and that's what Aldred is - an activist researcher. And it gets presented by other activists like Peter Walker at the Guardian as some sort of impartial research. It is clearly anything but: far more subjective rather than objective. The fact the last round of research published in the Guardian was not caveated that it had yet to be peer+reviewed speaks volumes. Also no one from the Guardian ever feels compelled to either ask or publish who paid for the research.....probably because the name of that group or organisation would be of so familiar and part of the cycling propaganda machine. I would read what legal discovered...it's all very revealing on the tactics being employed by the likes of LCC to meet their objectives.

Has the piece of work that Aldred et al grabbed recent headlines in The Guardian had the peer review completed yet? It's pretty clear to me that Aldred et al have a very cosy relationship with the pro-closure lobby groups and other vested-interest groups like LCC- the materials legal uncovered are pretty compelling in that regard.

Funny how the focus is heavily on cars when gas boilers are thought to be responsible for up to 14% of all emissions. In cities gas boilers are the biggest producer of nitrogen dioxide.

But at what cost - is what is happening on the displacement roads worth it or should we all just consider this as collateral damage for a few quiet roads? If all roads became quieter it would be justified but they are clearly not and one roads' gain is another roads' loss and that is not equitable. I am sure you will all agree with that too. It was clear from the outset that there were going to be massive knock-on effects of these closures and the council had no idea what problem they were trying to solve (and what was causing it) and put measures in that have backfired extra-ordinarily. I do often think about how many of these councillors would be reacting to these closures should this have been implemented by a different party in leadership - I suspect they would be standing with those of us who think the measures are totally unfit for purpose.

But Cllr McAsh - we don't care about the distribution of wealth on mains roads across inner London we care about the distribution of wealth on the roads your council's measures are diverting traffic from and to. How do the stats weigh when comparing Court Lane or Melbourne Grove to East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane? That's what you should be focussing on. I find it incredibly disingenuous when you quote stats from across inner and outer London to desperately try to prove a point when your focus should be what is happening in your own back yard. It is clear your measures are displacing traffic from some of the wealthiest roads in the area to some of the least wealthy. Have you listened to the testimony of Felicia from the Lordship Lane estate given during the Dulwich Hill LTN meeting - if you haven't I suggest you should? She is living with the direct consequences of your actions and there are many more like her. That is not equitable. You know, I know it, the council knows it but you are desperately trying to cling on to your badly designed, ill thought out socially unjust LTN closures. Will any councillor stand up for what is right?

I think the council has to reopen the DV junction and Townley - the displacement roads clearly cannot handle the increased volume of traffic due to two major east/west routes being closed for much of the day. Perhaps they will have to tinker and make them one-way but something has to give as it's just not working (and doesn't look like any length of bedding in will make it work). I think Melbourne Grove will stay.

They are starting to change - the council is under pressure from residents across the area and people are asking questions and scrutinising their every move, helped by some great analysis and focus by groups like OneDulwich..... Will the long-awaited review be fair and transparent? 28 Mar Southwark has promised an eight-week public consultation on the road closures, starting in May. You can register to have your say by going to www.southwark.gov.uk/dulwichreviewreg or by writing to Highways ? Dulwich Review, 3rd Floor, Hub 2, 160 Tooley Street, London SE1 2QH. So how will the consultation work? Details are slowly emerging ? and seem to be contradictory. This doesn?t inspire confidence in a process that is supposed to be comprehensive and transparent. There is also anxiety that those who are seriously affected by the road closures may be excluded ? not only because they?re not online, but also because they?re not members of an organised group (like the one below) encouraging them to take part. 2021-03-28 Leeming Tweet.png Everything got off to a bad start earlier this week when a newsletter was delivered through local letterboxes. Explaining the consultation process, the newsletter said, ?We will write to every household in the LTN areas plus all addresses on both sides of boundary roads.? However, the delivery missed out a large number of residents on Lordship Lane and Turney Road ? and all residents on the Lambeth side of Croxted Road. Despite a special section of the newsletter aimed at businesses (?If you run a local business??), no newsletters were delivered to any businesses in Dulwich Village, Melbourne Grove, Grove Vale or Lordship Lane. Confidence drops further when we turn to the crucial issue of who will be eligible to take part in the May consultation, and how the Council will ensure that the process is trustworthy. On 12 March, the Leader of the Council Kieron Williams emailed a local resident to say that a newsletter would direct people to a consultation hub, where there would be links to separate surveys for the three main LTNs (Dulwich Village, East Dulwich and Champion Hill). ?The newsletter will have a unique reference number which ideally will be entered on the survey questionnaire so we can distinguish between those inside the LTN and anyone else who completes and submits a survey.? Cllr Williams went on to say that the survey would be open to all and that the newsletter would contain details on how residents could access hard copies of the survey if required. On 25 March, in response to a different set of questions from a local RA, a Southwark employee provided information that seemed to contradict the Leader?s email of 12 March. We quote this below [our italics and underlining]: All survey responses will be unique as they will require an address to be included. This is so we can distinguish between those inside the LTN areas and anyone else who completes and submits a survey. This was changed from the original proposal to have a unique reference number when it was decided not to send out the questionnaires until after 6th May. The newsletter directs people to the consultation hub where there is further information and a link to register for the survey and associated separate questionnaires for the three main LTNs (Dulwich Village, East Dulwich and Champion Hill). However, you will be able to complete all three questionnaires if you wish. If you access the registration form you will note the drop down menu for addresses which shows all the roads covered. This includes Melbourne Grove, Lordship Lane and Croxted Road. All residents, businesses, schools, surgeries and any other premises will have received a copy of the newsletter. It?s hard to know what to make of all this. The number of roads on the drop-down menu has increased since the page first went live, but it?s still not a comprehensive list. What are the criteria for inclusion? Is there a map of the review area? It?s not clear either who is eligible to respond (how many responses per household, for example), or how the Council will ensure that all those it intends to contact ? including local businesses ? will actually receive a copy of the newsletter. How will responses be weighted and assessed? Will comments made by someone living in, say, the Dulwich Village LTN about the Champion Hill LTN carry less weight than those made by someone living in Champion Hill? Finally, if the idea of a unique reference number has been abandoned, what will prevent multiple entries? As a One Dulwich supporter says, ?What?s to stop someone filling in a form on behalf of next door?s cat?? As more unsatisfactory details dribble out, we will let you know.

Malumbu - reducing emissions is not entirely dependent on reducing the number of cars and your focus on this highlights the obsessive nature of many of those on the pro-LTN lobby that cars are the root of all evil. Of course, they have a part to play in reducing them but cutting car use to zero is not the panacea of the world's climate problems - there's a lot that needs to happen like the reduction on global trade and transportation by polluting cargo ships or the burning of fossil fuels in the form of gas or oil. I would challenge that it is, in fact, the myopic war on cars being waged by the council that has got us into this mess. Cars are part of the problem not the only problem but the council has become so blinkered in their thinking that they have installed measures that create more problems than they solve. There has been zero common-sense applied to the process and the council seemingly only engaged with groups who also wanted to reduce/eliminate car use and ignored the input of those (emergency services) that rely on vehicles to do their job. The council hid behind Covid as the trojan horse to implement these measures and used it as a convenient excuse to prevent any consultation with residents. Perhaps they should have listened more to the wider constituents who were calling out the folly of these draconian measures they were proposing (and lots were predicting exactly what has happened with congestion on the boundary roads) rather than the self interest-groups they were consulting, engaging and surrounding themselves with. This whole sorry debacle is a salutary lesson on how not to do things and, as I have been saying since the beginning, the council is doing more short-term and long-term harm to the emissions and climate change fight.

And I really hope the council is ensuring they are doing everything they can to ensure all residents are informed of the review, it seems a bit haphazard at the moment and a lot of streets have not received the review leaflet. Also, given the CPZ consultation eliminated the responses from anyone outside of the review area how will the views of, say a Southwark cyclist not from an SE22 postcode or a taxi or delivery driver doing their job be managed against someone living on one of the displacement roads? Has the council shared any details or is it just a free-for-all?

Another interesting post from OneDulwich, timely given today's discussion: Why was Dulwich chosen for an LTN? 29 Mar We?ve been puzzling for some time over why Southwark chose Dulwich Village for its first ever Low Traffic Neighbourhood. If you look at the July 2020 report from Southwark?s Environment Scrutiny Commission, Dulwich doesn?t fit any of the criteria they recommend. Ideally, the report says, Southwark should create LTNs ?as a priority? in areas of deprivation, with high levels of public transport, poor air quality, and lower levels of car ownership. Dulwich Village ticks none of these boxes. It has very low levels of public transport, generally (before the LTN went in) better air quality than other parts of Southwark, high car ownership ? and is the least deprived area in the Borough. Dulwich has the very lowest public transport (PTAL) ratings of 1 (purple & mauve) and 2 (blue) Dulwich has the very lowest public transport (PTAL) ratings of 1 (purple & mauve) and 2 (blue) So why choose Dulwich? Cynics might say that Southwark picked a highly car-dependent area in order to make a lot of money from fines. A recent FOI (Freedom of Information) request has revealed that in just seven weeks, from January to February this year, four ANPR cameras in Dulwich Village (a fifth camera was out of action) resulted in 22,424 penalties ? which, if everyone paid ?65 (the early fine), will have netted the Council nearly ?1.5 million. This is an eye-watering amount. Others might argue that the 2016 re-design of Dulwich Village junction ? which nearly 70% of locals voted against, and which arguably made cycling less safe than before ? was such a mess that the Council was anxious to close everything down in order to hide its mistake. But maybe there?s another explanation. Could Southwark?s decision to place its first ever LTN in an inappropriate area have been influenced by the expectation of strong local support? Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are, after all, controversial: you wouldn?t push ahead with implementing one in an unsuitable area unless you were pretty sure you could overcome local opposition. Dulwich has a high concentration of schools ? nursery, primary and secondary, both state and private. We know that a well-established lobby group, Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School (SRS), has supported the idea of road filters for many years. We have also established that the Council had regular meetings with a working group before, during and after Phase 3 of Our Healthy Streets Dulwich (January to April 2020) ? a group ?set up to help run the OHSD consultation process?, according to one of our local councillors. This working group included representatives from Dulwich and Herne Hill Safe Routes to School, Living Streets (a charity that has worked closely with the London Cycling Campaign since 2018 on promoting LTNs), the Dulwich Society and, towards the end, Calton Avenue residents? association. The working group?s role seems to have been informal and advisory ? offering comments, for example, on the presentation that Southwark eventually put forward at the public meetings in February and March. No minutes of what they discussed are available. But the group?s links with the Council were sufficiently strong for its members to be given advance sight of the interim Phase 3 consultation results ? results, both then and to this day, that have never been made public. Despite this lack of transparency, and the fact that the full results remain unpublished, Southwark still talks of this January to April 2020 consultation as evidence of community support, and a mandate for the current LTN measures. It's not usual practice, as far as we know, for a council to hold private meetings with a small, select group of local lobbyists in the run-up to a public consultation ? or to share confidential data with them. Did Southwark somehow get the impression from these off-the-record briefings that the local community was in favour of 24/7 closures? Did conversations over many months with this hand-picked and unrepresentative group encourage the Council to push ahead with a scheme that was so obviously flawed and unjust? We haven?t so far heard of a working group advising the Council on the forthcoming May 2021 review, but will let you know if anything comes to light.

I think this thread quite aptly demonstrates the monster the council has created for itself and how tough this is for them to manage now. The problems are born from their lack of proper communication and engagement on the LTNs and their historical cosy relationship with lobby groups in favour of the closures. And let me be clear, I don't for one minute think there are organised groups of cyclists repeatedly riding over monitoring strips in the hope that they will convince the council to keep the LTNs. If there are individual cyclists doing so then they are only fooling themselves and opening themselves and the council's process up for further scrutiny - all you need is a video of a cyclist doing so and it massively undermines the credibility of any data on cycle use collected by the council during the whole of the monitoring process. I do, however, think that the council, and councillors, have realised that there is something other than a small vocal minority (their words not mine) who oppose these measures across the area and are now having to play the political balancing act of trying to appease 1) the advocates who they actively engaged with to get this thing moving 2) those who oppose the measures and may cost them their seats in the next council election 3) their own party's (or at least local leadership of the party) ideology and strategic plan. Throw into the mix the fact that their every move is now being watched and scrutinised by many local residents, (because trust has been eroded), and you can see that they have created a complete mess for themselves. The whole they have dug for themselves gets deeper every time they do or say something. At the end of the day they won't be able to keep everyone happy - so something will have to budge.

I think the two things everyone can agree on are this: 1) There are more cyclists on the roads at the moment (a good thing) 2) There is more congestion on roads surrounding the LTNs (a bad thing) The question the council has to answer is how much the LTNs are contributing to both. The most worrying thing for me is how the council's narrative on this has now changed in regard to traffic volume, displacement and pollution and a few things Cllr McAsh posted here that are a big red flag on the subtle, but incredibly important, change to their narrative. His postings are below and notice the change in the last post. Oct 14th 2020 The two key criteria are air pollution and traffic volume. Put simply, if these two measures are not reduced across the whole area then the scheme has failed. It is not enough to displace the traffic - we want to reduce it overall. But even if air pollution and traffic volume decrease across the board, it matters how it is distributed. I want to see a social justice approach to the analysis. No matter what we do there will inevitably be some pollution and traffic. I want this to be shared equitably: protecting schools, nurseries and hospitals above all else; and not allowing the negative effects of air pollution to fall on those least able to bear them. Feb 17th 2021 The LTNs are supposed to reduce traffic overall, by making cycling and walking safer and more pleasant and by making car journeys a little less convenient. The objective is not to shift traffic around, but to reduce its total volume. There's loads of evidence to support this approach but it's clear that the effects depend on local conditions. If indeed the schemes have led to increased traffic then they are not successful. That's what we need to know more about. Feb 23rd 2021 In the scenario where traffic decreases overall (a key objective of the schemes) but at the cost of other problems (ie congestion on specific roads) we would need to weigh one against the other. Has anyone seen the council share how they are going to assess the impact? Am I to presume that the delayed review they are now saying will be published in May will be the definitive "this was a success/was not a success" document. If so, does anyone know what the criteria for each are and should the council not be sharing that with us ahead of publication. From Cllr McAsh's posts I wonder if the council has been, ahem, refining, the criteria for success? BTW has anyone else been received the flyers for the review outside of the originally published review area? We haven't had ours yet.

And I can't imagine anyone would be foolish enough to think that cycling over a monitoring strip repeatedly would be able to influence what is a motor vehicle count. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if 1 million bikes cycled over it - if the count determines that cars are being displaced and congestion and pollution have increased on the roads around the LTNs then it doesn't matter how many bike journeys are being made. It is going to be really interesting to see how the council presents the data it is currently collating. I do think it is ironic that the council claimed they could not afford to monitor when these closures went in (well except the monitoring they put in place within the LTN area) yet now, with lockdown starting to lift, they have been able to carpet bomb monitoring strips all over the area. It will be fascinating to see the monitoring period they present in the report. Schools are starting to close now for Easter - so it will be interesting to see how selective the council is in the time periods presented.

Which twitter accounts are reporting this? Maybe Ex- can confirm but do those monitoring strips register cyclists, I thought they would only be triggered by something as heavy as a car.

Latest OneDulwich update: Did you receive your leaflet about the review? The eight-week public consultation on the road closures will start in May. Please register your interest at www.southwark.gov.uk/dulwichreviewreg and encourage friends, neighbours and family to do the same. One Dulwich has heard from a number of residents and businesses who didn?t receive the leaflet about the consultation last week. Please let us know via [email protected] if you didn?t receive yours either. We?re concerned that the process so far is already raising questions about fairness and transparency ? see [?Will the long-awaited review be fair and transparent??]. Who closed Dulwich Village junction? Thanks to an FOI (Freedom of Information) request, data about a previous Southwark consultation has finally emerged. Please see ?Who closed Dulwich Village junction??. We will publish the full report shortly. Dulwich welcomes new cyclists We?re interested to hear about a sudden and dramatic rise in the number of cyclists on Calton Avenue and Melbourne Grove. The sunny weather? The active travel we all support? We hope so. Could it be that some over-enthusiastic cyclists are going back and forth over the new automatic counting strips ahead of the May review in order to show Southwark that closing roads increases cycling? Surely not? Best wishes,

Legal - my goodness me, that council meeting all went a bit Jackie Weaver but the subject matter is far more concerning. So disgraced councillor Leo Pollack got a/is going to get golden pay-off form the council - that is outrageous. The treatment of the LD councillors by Cllr Williams and the other Labour councillors is shocking and I do hope the council will investigate the accusations of bullying laid at their door. This council appears out of control and has so little opposition it behaves like it can do what it wants when it wants. The fact it is the only council in the country offering golden pay-offs for a disgraced councillor is beyond reproach - I was shocked when I saw the supportive messages from other councillors when Leo Pollack was forced out of office after the investigation into his behaviour and it seems that not only did he have glowing praise from his comrades ringing in his ears but he is also leaving with a pocket full of tax-payers money.

Legal - my goodness me, that council meeting all went a bit Jackie Weaver but the subject matter is far more concerning. So disgraced councillor Leo Pollack got a/is going to get golden pay-off form the council - that is outrageous. The treatment of the LD councillors by Cllr Williams and the other Labour councillors is shocking and I do hope the council will investigate the accusations of bullying laid at their door. This council appears out of control and has so little opposition it behaves like it can do what it wants when it wants. The fact it is the only council in the country offering golden pay-offs for a disgraced councillor is beyond reproach - I was shocked when I saw the supportive messages from other councillors when Leo Pollack was forced out of office after the investigation into his behaviour and it seems that not only did he have glowing praise from his comrades ringing in his ears but he is also leaving with a pocket full of tax-payers money.

Sorry Nigello I disagree with this. If the infrastructure is not in place to support modal shift then it won't happen on a wide enough scale to have any lasting positive impact. If you can't store a bike you won't own a bike.

Well, to be fair, if they can put planters in (take some of them out and put in removable bollards when the emergency services complained), put new cameras up, new street furniture and signage, new right-filter traffic lights to support their LTNs then surely cycle hangars can't be that much of a challenge. It seems the priority within the council was to close the roads rather than actually support modal shift. It seems the delay in rolling out more is: The delivery of a large number of cycle hangars has been delayed due to the pause on Traffic Orders being advertised as we have converted to the map based process.....whatever that means. The council cannot expect modal shift to take place if they do not have the most basic infrastructure in place to support it - so yes, I am very supportive of the council investing money in doing this - I would much prefer new cycle hangers to new paving slabs. At this rate it is going to take them years and years to get to satiate even 50% of the demand.

It also seems to suggest that the council forecasted 100 hangars for the 20/21 financial year and only managed to install 55. As I have been saying for some time the council seems unable to put the most basic infrastructure in place to support its strategic objectives - it has put the cart before the horse with the LTNs and should have been spending more time, money and effort installing bike hangars to satiate the demand for the ability for residents to store bikes than cameras to close off Dulwich Village. It's really quite damning.

I suppose what the council is doing is saying, we want you to stop smoking and to do that we are going to tell everyone to stop smoking on these streets and yet encourage them to congregate and smoke on these other streets just down the road.

Slarti - I think the council are being forced, by the increasing awareness by residents of how things have been handled previously, to be more open, transparent and accountable for their actions. Looks at the review pull-down menu saga - I suspect more residents have complained to councillors in the past few days about their road not being included in the pulldown menus than all of those who were used by the council to mandate the DV/Calton Road closures. The FOI by OneDulwich has exposed another potential manipulation by the council to force their agenda on residents across Dulwich. The evidence of wrong-doing (or oversight) by the council is growing by the day and they are really being exposed - their rap-sheet is quite impressive. No longer can the council rely on resident apathy (and local and non-local sympathisers) to get things through - their constituents are watching their every move and demanding openness and transparency.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You will probably find that the typical member of > LCC has much more interest in the environment than > the typical non-cycling motorist, so I commend > that group for supporting such brave measures. > Perhaps some of the non-cycling motorists would > like to infiltrate the LCC but you will may go > native. Maybe - but then again, the LCC could just have the interests of cyclists at heart.