Rockets

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Until they release the underlying data you'll have > to excuse me if i don't take their 'analysis' at > face value. > > The 'report' they produced on the commonplace > certainly stretched the limits of some of the > words used, so would like to see the data they're > basing this analysis on. > > Can't see that they've shared the underlying data > though? The irony is of course that the underlying data is data that the council had to be forced to share via FOI as they refused to share it. So I am sure that One Dulwich will be sharing all of it in due course - their note says they are doing their analysis with a fuller report to come but for those of you who haven't been able to click through this is what it says. It's well worth a look to scratch a little beneath the surface on how few people actually influenced the decision-making process - less than 100 people, many of whom are spread all over the Dulwich area - yet we have to fight the council to instigate an area-wide review. https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/who-closed-dulwich-village-junction Who Close Dulwich Village junction? Southwark Council has always claimed the closure of Dulwich Village junction was led by local demand, and that the current Experimental Traffic Orders were based on earlier consultation and engagement. You can see this on the website of ?Our Healthy Streets Dulwich Phase 3? (which ran in early 2020) under the title ?What you have told us so far?. Talking about Phase 2 in autumn 2019 , the website says, ?You told us you favoured radical action at the Calton Avenue/Court Lane junction, including a permeable road closure that stops motor traffic but allows access for pedestrians and cyclists.? One Dulwich has been asking the Council for a long time to release the results of Phase 2. We could see from the summary of feedback that the numbers were tiny, suggesting that few had heard about the consultation, or had felt sufficiently engaged to respond. So who were the people who persuaded the Council that the 24/7 closure of Dulwich Village junction had the backing of the local community? A recent FOI (Freedom of Information) request has finally revealed the truth. We are giving just a snapshot here, as we?re still working our way through the data. But we can confidently present two interim conclusions. Firstly, the assertions about the Phase 2 results made by the Council during the Phase 3 consultation are misleading and not backed up by the data. This is important, because it will have influenced the way people responded to the consultation ? and is still likely to be influencing the way people think and feel in the run-up to the review in May this year. Secondly, an analysis of the postcodes of those who responded to the online survey (which was more reliable, Southwark claimed, than the paper responses) shows that those in favour of the closure of the junction fall into two groups: A tight cluster on Calton Avenue or very close to the junction; and A group spread very thinly across and outside the borough, many some distance from the local area. We have mapped the locations so that you can see this more clearly. Is there a pattern emerging here? What might these far-flung respondents have had in common? We will publish the full report shortly.

Sue - that's good news. I think it is vitally important for everyone to have their say (for or against) and I would encourage everyone to get their neighbours to have their say. The OneDulwich FOI demonstrates that previous closures (Calton Ave/DV) have been implemented on the basis of supportive responses from a tiny proportion of the local population (if the OneDulwich map is correct the council used feedback from less than 100 people to validate their decision - many of whom lived way beyond the impacted area).

But modern society shouldn't tolerate a programme of measures that reduces pollution for one area at the expense of pollution in another. That is not equitable. If a programme does not reduce pollution for everyone then it is not fit for purpose. That's basic commonsense.

It does seem that leaflets are being distributed to areas beyond the blue shading as someone PM'd me to say they had received one and they live outside the central LTN area - so hopefully this means everyone is getting one (which is important to ensure everyone is aware of the opportunity to have their say).

Alice, is it their tweet that takes you to this: https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/who-closed-dulwich-village-junction?s=09 I had not seen this but it is fascinating and I think goes some way to demonstrate why the council might be less than keen to engage with the wider community on the LTN review. The fact OneDulwich had to use an FOI to get this data speaks volumes - what are the council trying to hide one wonders?

I am not sure - I am hoping all will become clear because at the moment it looks like the council isn't doing their best job and getting this review right. It doesn't look good: 1) Didn't add the main displacement route (Underhill) to the pull-down menu and had to be chased to do so 2) Has now added a number of roads (Underhill, Melford, Upland etc) when residents complained that they were missing yet there are still roads not included in the pulldown menus that could be impacted by displacement traffic 3) Seems to have mailed the flyer to those only living within the review area (please correct me if I am wrong if anyone has had these delivered beyond the blue shaded area) 4) Has sent the flyer that includes a map that suggests the review area is limited to the blue shaded area on the map - this was the same map Cllr Rose shared on the Dulwich Hill LTN review call and she referred to it, quite clearly, as the LTN review area I do wonder if this might go some way to explain the delay to the review - remember this review was slated to start (by Cllr Williams) in February. I suspect the council started socialising their (limited) review area and people pushed back (either within the council or outside it) that it was basically gerrymandering to get the result they wanted and they had to expand it but by that point they had already printed the flyers and they are now playing catch-up. Has anyone heard directly from the council why roads like Underhill were missing on the initial pull-down menus? It looks like, from posts earlier in the thread, that the council were alerted to these omissions by residents. A lot of this is all so familiar to those of us who lived through the CPZ "consultation". Remember how badly the results (68% of residents against the CPZ) went against the council agenda and how they had to squirm and manipulate the presentation of the results to get the CPZ in. One wonders how wedded the council are to an area-wide LTN review... The problem for the council is many constituents are putting them under the microscope and challenging their every move to make sure the review is fair and equitable to everyone impacted by the results. And the council seem to be making a pig's ear of doing that from the outset.

I am not sure, that's what I am trying to ascertain. Has anyone outside of the indicated area on the map legal shared received the council flyer on the review? I only know of people receiving it who live within the blue shaded area - it seems that everyone in the blue shaded area has received one. The flyer is definitely suggesting that only those within the LTN area and households on either side of the boundary roads (which one presumes is the shading to the east of Lordship Lane) will receive the flyer/letter.

Yes good to see that more roads have now been added to the "Register your Interest" site but why so few were added initially is a bit odd - another council oversight per chance.....;-) I have to admit that I am not totally convinced those roads being added mean that they are part of the review area. See the attached from legal from the flyer being distributed to some residents in Dulwich. Looks at the shading of, what we presume is, the review area. Another page of the flyer says that all households within the LTN area, and those households either side of the boundary roads...will receive a letter - that looks like the shading area. Does this mean that roads like Underhill will not receive the letter? Surely everyone in SE22 should be both covered on the pull-down menus and receive the letter. Does anyone have any clarity on this?

And what about those who order goods that are shipped on cargo ships that can, in one journey, put out more pollution than all the cars in a single country? Would you agree that this would need to carry a pollution tax of sorts? SE22_2020er - you acknowledge that public transport needs improving. Would you agree then that the council has put the cart before the horse with these LTN measures? That they cannot possibly have the desired effect if people do not have the public transport options to move away from the car. I would like to see means-tested road pricing brought in so that it is fair on everyone.

The review area has now been confirmed as going no further east than Lordship Lane so it is a blatant attempt at gerrymandering by the council. The council will prioritize the responses of those within the review area over those outside it even though you can "have your say". However, putting pressure on your ward councillors to force them to weight all responses from East Dulwich equally can have a positive impact. We cannot allow the council to manipulate this review in the same way they did the CPZ consultations.

What a surprise - the official review area consists of those roads benefitting from, and those immediately adjacent to, the closures....does that surprise anyone? So residents who are living with the displacement on roads like Underhill have no voice. So much for the assurances that this would be area wide. So plain to see what the council is doing here and the fact they think they can get away with it speaks volumes.

Whatever event they plan to run on the Square the road still has to function as a cycle route and part of the highway so it will be interesting to see how they do it. That junction is a bit crazy now with no-one really knowing who has right of way at the best of times. Bikes come hurtling down Calton and join the traffic on DV - many of them ignoring the traffic lights that they don't seem to realise are still functioning thus creating issues as the light controlled traffic is still coming from Turney Road - I have seen a few near misses whilst enjoying a drink from Au Ciel. The implementation of the closure is a bit haphazard to say the least.

Perhaps the council knows Melbourne Grove might need to start functioning as an open road again soon so is preparing the surface with that in mind........#i'llgetmycoat......;-)

Also it asks if you want a paper copy of the consultation documents which whilst good for the environment pretty much ensures no proactive mail drop or notification for people who may not be aware of the review.

Legal, I think that that registration form gives us a good idea on the review area as the pulldown menu asks you to select which road you live on. I wonder if this gives us a clue to the review area or whether the council are using this to determine the likely level of comments expected from certain streets (the cynic in me wonders whether this will be used to assess the final review area) Interesting to see that despite roads like Goodrich being included Underhill Road is not included which is one of the main displacement routes out of Dulwich.

Legal - what would our Labour councillors be saying about that if the Tories or Lib Dems were the ones pushing these LTNs on the community? 22.5k in just over a month is shocking and the council should be forced to review the signage.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My points, Nigello's and others are valid Alice. > What are you doing to reduce emissions? When did > you become interested in air quality? I hope you > have been playing your part but I worry that most > aren't. The angry chap ranting on the Jeremy Vine > programme sadly seems typical of many. The local > listener that called in and said about the > difficulties in driving to Tommies neglected to > say that congestion towards Lambeth bridge has > been dreadful for the last decade, this was my > normal (cycle) commute, and this has nothing to do > with LTNs, but the number of vehicles on the > road. > > This is a social media site which is for debate as > well as information. Please feel free to debate > with me my points above and elsewhere. I welcome > open debate. I recognise the ginormous changes in > personal mobility and freedom that the car brought > in the 50s and 60s. But we can no longer think > like this if we really care about the environment > and our fellow citizens. > > A great example. LTNs causing traffic jams. Yes > a worry. Jams by schools. Yes a worry. Traffic > idling in the jams. TURN YOUR BLOODY ENGINE OFF. > I think that is the first time I've used capitals > to emphasise a point. Malumbu - you are somewhat conflicted aren't you? You challenge everyone and anyone on what they are doing to limit their impact on climate change yet you talk about owning an old car. I think you will find that everyone is much like you, they are doing their bit and making significant changes to their habits and lifestyle but, like you, they do need a car for those journeys that cannot be walked or cycled. Please stop trying to paint those who challenge you or disagree with you as some sort of climate change deniers. Also you said "we can no longer think like this if we really care about the environment and our fellow citizens". We all agree with you on that which is why we are fighting to get the LTNs removed as they are bad for the environment and bad for our fellow citizens.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?It doesn't seem to say high proportion of social > housing but rather high proportion BAME. I have no > idea where the statement comes from but imagine if > we can prove it impacts people disproportionately > we might have more of a case.? > > I read it that it is high proportion BAME AND > social housing but I guess that is a matter of > interpretation. Of course the 60% figure has been > put in to make ?more of a case? but if it?s not > true, and evidence of my own eyes tells me it's > not, then fraudulent information is being used to > raise money. As someone who is neither for or > against the LTNs it makes me wonder what other > false information is being cited. The points James > Barber highlights from research currently under > peer review points are interesting. > > What I most object to is that fake concern for > false demographics is being put forward to make > ?more of a case?. The Lordship Lane Estate at the end of Lordship Lane is currently having to live with the negative impacts of the LTNs and the testimony of someone who lives on the estate during the Dulwich Hill LTN call was very compelling. The Aldred research has been debated widely on here previously but is looking at London as a whole and has been criticized for its methodology and particularly the elimination of boundary roads such as Lordship Lane from its analysis.

I notice there are signs up along the length of Melbourne Grove about resurfacing plans too. Tis that time of year where the council spends their roads surplus!

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Lib Dem councillor states 'In response to the > issues that you have been raising with us about > the difficulties of making journeys in the local > area, we have been in discussion with highways > officers, about what changes could made to the LTN > to address these concerns, without negating the > intentions of the LTN to discourage rat running > and unnecessary short car trips.' > > So good to see that they still support LTNs, and > more of a case of fine tuning. Some on this > thread just want the schemes removed. > > To go back, again(sigh), to pollution, it feels as > if some of you only became aware of this in the > last few months. Others, like me, have been > campaigning and taking action for years. If it is > important to you, rather than just a convenient > stick to beat Southwark/LTNs, then please reduce > the amount of driving, unnecessary deliveries etc > etc. Malumbu - they support the intention of the LTNs not the LTNs themselves - that is an important distinction. Many of us support the intention of the LTNs (reducing car usage) not the execution of that via LTNs. Slarti - I sense this is why some on Twitter are now referring to these as #LabourLTNs.....

Bicknell - I was hoping someone had an answer as I cannot see any reason why the council have not replaced the immovable bollards by now given the lobbying from the emergency services and the impact they have on response times. It seems negligent for them not to have changed them. Does anyone know why? Could it be because they may not be able to give a licence for a music festival in a square if it is designated an emergency route - someone must know the reason.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets - if they put cameras in at Calton/Court > Lane, then they'd presumably have to let the blue > badge people through as well as the occasional > emergency services vehicle - which would rule out > Dulwich Square. Might that be the reason? Yes and it could also be that it is the intersection of 3 junctions so if you wanted to retain the Square you would need to put 3 set of removable bollards in place and that would likely not be supported by the emergency services as it means having to move at least 2 to get access. I am very surprised that they are still immovable - perhaps they have assessed that it is not a route used by emergency services.

Slarti b - wow those stats from LAS are really concerning. It's obviously been part of the tug of war between those that support and those that oppose the closures but those numbers are compelling. I have been amazed that removable barriers have not been put in at the Calton Ave/Court Lane/DV junction - does anyone know why the council have refused to do that when others in areas like Melbourne Grove have been updated?

Legal - I have not watched the video but did you sense that there might be a swing in the sentiment towards the closures amongst some councillors or at least more scrutiny? Did I read it correctly somewhere that the review that was promised in February is now delayed until late summer? It was days away from being published (according to Cllr Williams a month or so ago) yet has now disappeared - I would love to know why - maybe the clues are in some of the questions being asked during that meeting?

I noticed this morning that monitoring strips are in on Lordship Lane near the Melford Road junction (they have been there for a while) but previously (during the last lockdown lift in November/December) they had been situated near the junction with Mount Adon. Ex- is there a reason why the strips get moved and are not monitoring in the same place as previously?