Rockets

Did anyone else see the news last night with Sadiq in the Waltham Forest LTN as he talked about the continued use of cars in London and that the walking, cycling and public transport share has fallen whilst car use has increased? It was on the back of this announcement: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/cost-of-congestion-in-capital-revealed I couldn't help but watch it and think that it felt like an admission that the current policies being introduced across the capital are just not working - they are just not having the desired impact (and may actually be contributing to many of the issues highlighted by Sadiq). So what do we need, more of the same or a radical rethink of London's approach to travel? Maybe now is the time for the Mayor to admit (and he did do this during the BBD interview) that motorised vehicular travel is not going to go away and that we have to accept that and try to put policies in place to reduce journeys (road pricing) and clean those modes of travel away from fossil fuel towards electric.

Definitely a scam. We got a bundle of mail through the door today - two Christmas cards post marked 5th Dec! Still loads missing but it's a step in the right direction!

kissthisguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unbelievable. Authoritarian and lacking in > confidence - it's not the thing you do when you've > won the argument! > > I hope it is challenged. Very Big Brother. Another example of a council forgetting to engage brain before pressing send. It is utterly ludicrous that they thought it appropriate to send this - it sends such a bad signal (but is very reflective of the way many councils have handled themselves during the LTN debacles). Let's hope Southwark isn't so stupid to pull the same trick - people have had enough problems with pro-LTN folks damaging them that they don't need the council wading in too.

It seems they have given up trying to clear the December backlog and are just trying to resume normal service. Charlie Smith promised an update so maybe we will hear something definitive from our councillors on whether we will ever get our December post. Does anyone know what came of the meeting in February of last year between Helen Hayes and our local councillors and Ofcom - did it ever happen? https://www.helenhayes.org.uk/royal_mail_0221 I noted she has written again to Ofcom in December:

DKHB - Dulwich does not have good public transport - it's PTAL scores are some of the lowest in the whole of Southwark so can we just put that to bed once and for all. Even the council admitted as much in their transport report of 2018 (and they stated that LTNs should only be deployed in areas with good PTAL scores so why they thought Dulwich would be a good place for them is anyone's guess). I agree with you that Uber/PHVs and Amazon is driving vehicle use rates in London and I agree that private school traffic is a major issue in the area. But the residents of Dulwich have little control over that and why should we be punished and have to live with more congestion and pollution? Are we expected to "suck up" the pollution as part of the war on pollution. Those journeys don't go away by throwing in a roadblock, they just go a different route and become longer and more polluting. You say that and then contradict yourself by suggesting that the city if choking on the discretionary use of millions of cars when private car ownership and use is declining (albeit slowly). Ironically the much heralded Waltham Forest LTN led to a significant increase in car ownership within the LTN area - mainly due to gentrification I hasten to add but not a good look for the LTN at all. So DKHB - what is the solution - do you think LTNs reduce PHV and deliveries? Do you think LTNs stop parents driving from Streatham to Alleyns? Your previous post highlights why so many of us were against these measures because given the nature of the Dulwich area they were never, ever going to succeed and what you have said just validates that position.

My goodness Lambeth really over stepping the mark on this one....forcing residents to remove the Stop the closures signs. That is a really bad look.

He doesn?t actually. Private e-scooters are only allowed on private land and public hire scooters will be banned from Dulwich Park (enforced by geo-fencing) so there should be no escooters in Dulwich Park - for good reason?..

Sickness has been mooted for a very long time as being one of the reasons - this has been going on for so long now it is just so tiring - it's been over 3 years of problems which become horrendously pronounced around Christmas. The two bits of junk mail we got on Saturday made us think that we would get a deluge of mail today but nothing - not a jot. Our kids get The Week Junior and they have missed 5 issues now.....how long is it going to take them to get the backlog to us all? https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/sort-it-out-royal-mail-to-close-east-dulwich-postal-office/

Legal - second that. LTNs were here for good the moment they went in, my vote will be about how the councillors treated their constituents throughout the process and if it help affects change I hope all councillors learn that you cannot treat your constituents like that and, hopefully, every constituent will benefit in the future.

Let's not forget how quickly the council did a U-turn on the Phase 3 and Phase 4 parts of the programme around Peckham Rye etc. They didn't do that because of a change in policy, they did that in reaction to the weight of public opinion within the areas where they had rolled out the LTNs and the objections from the emergency services etc.

DKHB - the beauty of this is we won't actually know if you are right or we are right until such time as there is a definitive way to measure local sentiment. On one-hand you say the consultation was open to manipulation but if you cast your mind back to the consultation itself (I presume you filled it in) the council went out of their way to try to ensure they were capturing the views of residents who lived within the LTN area, outside the LTN area (but within the wider Dulwich localilty)and those who were outside of the Dulwich area and they went to great length to delete any duplicate entries (from both sides of the argument). The council published the results of the consultation on a street-by-street basis so they must have had a high degree of certainty that the numbers were accurate. In the interest of balance yes people from both sides of the argument were encouraging people to have their say: Southwark Cyclists, LCC and plenty of local pro-LTN activists were using social media to encourage their members and contacts to "have their say" in consultations and I personally feel that there would probably have been more interference with the local process from the pro-LTN community than the anti because the pro-LTN community had a well established lobby programme in place and can rely on fanatics to respond far more than the anti-LTN community. Your anecdotal evidence will probably differ from everyone else's - that's not to say its wrong. For example I was very pleasantly surprised (when we moved to within the area most benefitting from the LTNs) that our neighbours were very much anti- them (not I hasten to add because of inconvenience but because of the injustice and ludicrousness of them). And the number of familiar local faces from our street during the protest at the junction was wonderfully reassuring as well. I had always presumed (wrongly) that those areas closest to the Village that were benefitting the most from them would be in support of them - but that doesn't appear to be the case. To Legal's point I am hearing of lots of people who have been motivated by the council's handling of the LTNs to ensure they vote in May - most of whom never cared about who was representing them at the council level. Due to the council's mishandling of this whole process May becomes the only channel a lot of people feel they have to have their voice heard especially now they know the council is going to make them permanent despite local resident opposition - and that, for our local councillors is the very worst case scenario as the LTN debacle could be their lasting political legacy and actually cost them their seats.

There is the person who, seemingly most days of the week, bombs around Dulwich Park on his electric scooter wearing a motorcycle helmet and backpack. He seems to just go round and round the park doing loads of laps - does he think he is getting exercise doing it? The park was very busy today and you could see he was annoying people as he weaved his way around the people walking.

Ex- did the council share any data on congestion or average speeds, I didn't see any mention of it in any of the reports?

But two thirds who responded did oppose the measures....never forget that....it may come to haunt the councillors in May.....and remember significantly more were opposed to it during the door to door research (although I am sure you will question the accuracy of that too....;-)) It seems May remains the only opportunity those who were ignored and overlooked during this sorry debacle will be able to make their feelings heard! Whilst it is clear the council will make the changes permanent (it was clear this was going to be the case from the outset) the only silver lining might be that with some proper opposition post May they may not be able to get away with such poor form in future and will find they won't have such an easy time steamrollering their plans against the will of their constituents.

One Dulwich update One Dulwich Campaign Update | 9 Jan Dear all, The Council?s final decision on the controversial Dulwich traffic orders has still not been published (Southwark?s website was last updated on 24 December 2021), but we are assuming that this will happen any day now. The Council brought in a temporary traffic order because the original experimental traffic order for the Dulwich Village/Calton Avenue/Court Lane junction ran out on 29 December 2021. However, the Liberal Democrat councillors on the Overview & Scrutiny Committee decided not to call the decision in by the deadline of 4 January 2022, so there seems to be nothing now to stop the traffic orders being made permanent. What this means is that the Council has decided to go ahead with the Dulwich LTNs despite strong local opposition (two out of every three of those living and working in all three LTNs opted in the public consultation to return the roads to their original state), and despite the fact that all our many questions about the data on which the decision is based remain unanswered. The Dulwich Alliance (which One Dulwich is a member of) is now waiting for a formal legal opinion on the process Southwark has followed to arrive at this decision. Meanwhile, many One Dulwich supporters have contacted us to ask how, as a campaign group, we can call our councillors to account for 1) failing to represent the views of local people, and 2) pushing ahead with a flawed scheme that discriminates against those with protected characteristics, displaces traffic on to residential roads with schools and health centres and damages the viability of local shops and businesses. This is a particularly interesting question as the local elections in all local wards take place on 5 May this year ? that is, in just under five months? time. One Dulwich is an apolitical organisation ? its supporters belong to many different political parties and none. However, we will be looking with interest at whether candidates standing for election in the Dulwich area support the Council?s decision to make the road measures permanent, or whether they intend to fight to have this decision reversed. This is a key local issue, and we will report back to you what they say. In the meantime, please make sure you are registered to vote: Register to vote - Southwark Council.

Which is what a lot of the anti-LTN voices have been saying since these ludicrous plans were first mooted....if you're not getting significant (as in 50%) reductions in traffic any potential gains are wiped out because more cars are trying to get down fewer roads and travelling more slowly thus creating more pollution. It didn't take a rocket scientist to predict that would be the outcome and, from the council's own modelling, it looks like it is likely to be happening (despite their head in the sand suggestion in the pollution report that the measures are working).

Ivy Brasserie/Asia has been on an aggressive expansion programme (seemingly around their existing sites) and perhaps Dulwich fell off the radar. I agree it would be good to see non-chains but I suspect the rents don't allow that in the Village (and Lordship Lane now) and that's why Peckham is the place for good independent places.

Let's hope the petition acts as a catalyst for our local councillors and MP to actually try and fix the issue for us. We have had three years of photo ops, hollow words and no resolution - time for someone to show some leadership and actually try and fix it. I do feel for them though as they were clearly caught between a rock and a hard place if the union supported the move to Highshore as they couldn't be seen to be trying to scupper that.

But clearly not if the council's modelling is correct: the LTNs aren't delivering against their stated objectives. There seems to be a lot of ifs, buts and maybes and more caveats than Boris trying to explain who furnished his flat when it comes to objective analysis on whether they are delivering what was promised.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As its been a while... > > this is your regular reminder that (if you're > using this thread as any kind of source of info > rather than just the usual suspects arguing) there > is no council data showing increased pollution on > major roads. > > Some groups opposed to LTNs have done their own > monitoring, and some people have used individual > peak data and quoted this against maximum > averages. > > Caveat emptor > > > > > Jellybeanz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > march46 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I notice that as well as the Dulwich schemes > > being > > > made permanent, there are several other > London > > > boroughs announcing similar this week. A > > positive > > > start to 2022. > > > > > > Lambeth - Railton and Oval > > > > > > https://twitter.com/lambethlivingst/status/1478727 > > > > > > 399298809858?s=21 > > > Lewisham - Lewisham and Lee Green > > > > > > https://twitter.com/lewishamcouncil/status/1478450 > > > > > > 423484792849?s=21 > > > Enfield - Bowes > > > > > > https://twitter.com/enfieldcouncil/status/14783257 > > > > > > 82736945160?s=21 > > > > I think the principle idea of LTNs is a good > one > > BUT I do not think they work in certain areas / > > for certain streets. In ED they have > undoubtedly > > caused more traffic and pollution on the main > > roads, which are jammed esp at peak times. > > > > Yes you can argue more people now walk or cycle > > but was that just a lockdown effect when many > > (myself included) could work from home as the > > office wasn't open and thus have more time as > no > > longer commuting. > > > > Monitors are showing pollution has increased on > > main roads and as we know Lordship Lane and > many > > other well used roads, especially A roads like > the > > south circular, have residents who deserve > > consideration too, as they will be breathing in > > more heavily polluted air. > > > > We used to live near the junction of Lordship > Lane > > and Dulwich Common and my husband had heart > > problems as a result of breathing polluted air. > > The health issues disappeared when we moved on > to > > a side road. > > > > I think we all need to be more understanding > > towards the other side here and those who have > > "won" on having LTN road closures made > permanent > > need to check themselves (why are you in > favour? > > is it personal gain as you live on a road that > has > > been closed to vehicles or is it because you > think > > the wider population has benefited?) and look > at > > what those against or in favour (depending on > your > > side) are saying. > > > > Many businesses have been badly affected by > LTNs. > > Callow Locksmiths for example have moved from > > Melbourne Grove to Lordship Lane as they > weren't > > getting the passing trade. Yes the kids at > Charter > > East benefit from walking down a safer road but > > once they have walked a few minutes they are > back > > on Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove / Grove > > Vale anyway. > > > > I personally am against the LTNs as they slow > down > > public transport having caused more vehicles to > > use main roads. I like the idea of less traffic > > but LTNs do not force people to stop using > their > > cars, they simply take a different route. And that might be because the council has not released any pollution monitoring data. The only report on pollution levels they have released is based on modelling and that modelling concluded that there were negligible differences in pollution. Here is an excerpt: Using the EPUK IAQM criteria, the changes in concentrations at school locations in the scheme area are classed as Negligible. For the majority of building fa?ade locations along scheme roads, the changes in concentration are classed as Negligible. Non-negligible impacts at building fa?ade locations are predicted for annual average NO2 concentrations in areas shown in Figure 1.1. Areas where Beneficial impacts (air quality improves) or Adverse impacts (air quality worsens) are predicted include: ? Moderate Beneficial and Slight Beneficial impacts on Grove Vale, from Vale End to Elsie Road and Ondine Road to East Dulwich Road ? Slight Beneficial impact on Melbourne Grove, for an 80 m section of road from the junction with Grove Vale ? Slight Beneficial impact on Calton Avenue, from Court Lane to Woodwarde Road ? Slight Adverse impact on East Dulwich Grove, from Lordship Lane to Matham Grove What I can?t get my head around is the council is heralding supposed area wide reductions in traffic, what did they claim % wise in their infographic - was it 10%, yet their modelling suggests it is having limited impact on pollution. Surely pollution reductions should be in line with supposed reductions in actual journeys, unless of course there is more congestion? Does anyone know?

kissthisguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ahem. 260ish votes is a narrow margin in > Southwark. In 2018 DV was a fairly even three-way > split owing to brexit. The Tory vote took a big > ding (Windrush also a factor), the LDs made a good > showing based on an explicit anti brexit platform > and the jury was still out (or rather the Labour > party was fence-sitting) on their version of > Brexit. Many people 'lent' Labour their vote that > time round. Obviously LTNs are a divisive policy. > Those on closed road win with lowered air > pollution, a house price boost and the ability to > have an even better car-owning experience (car > ownership on those roads is high). Those on > displacement routes suffer from worsened air > quality, noise pollution and a very real > possibility of worsened physical and mental > health. Others who do not directly benefit or lose > out may be impacted by longer bus journey times > etc. As Rockets says, it will matter for some how > cllrs have handled an admittedly difficult issue > and I get the feeling that in DV people are pretty > fed up - and in that context, 260ish votes is a > margin that begins to look uncomfortably thin. > > > DuncanW Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > They're not narrow margins - even in Dulwich > > Village Many fail to realise that a lot of the people who are supposed to be benefitting the most (i.e. those living within the area seeing a reduction in traffic) are actually against the measures. There is a lot of anti-LTN sentiment on Woodwarde, Dovercourt, Druce, Court Lane etc and if that translates into votes against the incumbent councillors then those majorities become negligible. I also think there will be a bigger turnout on the basis of the LTNs and if the 2/3rd against ratio seen in the consultation turns into votes then it's goodbye Labour councillors. People aren't as protective with their council votes and people flip-flop between parties a lot more than they do in general elections and often use their votes to send a message to the national parties. What is clear is that the LTNs have massively damaged Labour councillor's reputations in the area - not only in the implementation but also in the way they are dealing with constituents who don't agree with them. Cllr Leeming's twitter feed is a salutary lesson in how not to win friends and influence people over LTNs!

Our postman just arrived and delivered the New Year Boden catalogue and a flyer for a retirement village in Surrey (are they trying to tell me something I wonder?!) I do wonder whether all the December post will ever make it to us.

DKHB - the problem for the Labour councillors in Goose Green and Dulwich Village is that their wards were some of the ones that were the closest run contests last time round in the borough. Now they have upset so many people in the area they could well be under pressure - a few hundred votes could swing it and that's the biggest problem for the councillors over LTNs - it's the last thing people will remember prior to the election as it has dragged on for so long and opposition to it has been so widespread. Add to that the fact that ahead of May we can presume all restrictions will be lifted so traffic will be back to it's congested worst on the displacement routes; this is why they are nervous. Some tactical voting in the Dulwich Village ward and Leeming and Newens are in big trouble. It's going to be fun watching what happens. Dulwich Village (2) Party Candidate Votes % ?% Labour Margy Newens 1,755 39.1 Labour Richard Leeming 1,580 35.2 Conservative Jane Lyons* 1,306 29.1 Conservative Andrew Mitchell* 1,281 28.5 Liberal Democrats Brigid Gardner 1,259 28.0 Liberal Democrats Ruth Gripper 1,124 25.0 Goose Green (3) Party Candidate Votes % ?% Labour Victoria Olisa 2,372 49.7 Labour James McAsh 2,042 42.8 Labour Charlie Smith* 2,039 42.7 Liberal Democrats James Barber* 1,719 36.0 Liberal Democrats Clare Donachie 1,202 25.2 Women's Equality Claire Empson 1,075 22.5

What annoys me is that we, the consumer, are the ones who suffer. Management and unions, seemingly, supported the closure of the Silvester Road office and we are the ones who are feeling the pain - who was looking after our interests?

Cllr McAsh, Helen Hayes has been escalating this since Oct 2018 and it isn?t getting sorted out, it?s getting worse. Could you come back to us all with something tangible on what action is being taken to resolve? What are the next steps following your meeting with her today? We don?t want to hear about more ?escalation? we want resolution. Having no post for a month is utterly inexcusable - people rely on the postal service and it is failing people across Dulwich. Can you explain to us why you think they are using covid as an excuse - we keep hearing from postal workers that many are off sick with covid so is that not correct? Are postal workers actually being kept from doing their usual rounds to prioritise parcels? What is actually going on? I think it is time we hear what the real issues are and what is being done to resolve it because we have had over three years of the service getting worse and worse. After this debacle over Christmas it?s time for action.