Rockets

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And yet again, no mention of excessive car usage > contributing to congestion and delays to emergency > services No because it is a story about LTNs causing disruption to response times - are you suggesting there should be a follow-up article on the delays being caused by the congestion caused by the LTNs too!!! ;-) Clearly, despite what the pro-lobby would try to have us all believe the planters are causing issues for the emergency services - we have to all hope that we aren't the ones needing the emergency services. One wonders why the council is steadfastly refusing to remove them and replace them with something the emergency services agree with and it begs the question how much consultation was done with the emergency services in the first place.

Yes good article and I think it is good that the council is acknowledging that it hasn't done this in a joined up manner but I also agree that the meeting lacked any real answers. Let's see what the amendments are in the New Year but I suspect they will likely be the removal of immovable planters being replaced by movable bollards to placate the emergency services. I also suspect the council hopes it can ride out the storm until June.

And despite Cllr McAsh not remembering anyone saying this Cllr Charlie Smith did definitely say it during his comments during the evening ED LTN meeting.

Ambulance teams complaining that Carlton Avenue (amongst others) closure delayed 999 response....https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/paramedics-say-low-traffic-roadblocks-delayed-response-to-at-least-two-life-threatening-emergencies-because-satnavs-didnt-recognise-them/?cmpredirect

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, we can all see how K&C always have the best > interests of their poorer and more vulnerable > residents at heart. > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Redpost - hardly a nebulous answer - well no > more > > nebulous than your retort that school streets > > don't work - and your response amplifies my > point > > that many of the pro-closure lobby do not want > to > > entertain any of the middle-ground alternatives > > ;-) > > > > What the pro-lobby don't realise is that their > > entrenchment actually creates more problems and > it > > creates resentment and people move from a > > pragmatic "let's try and work on finding a > middle > > ground" to a "rip them all out" stance and that > > does nobody any good. This is being > demonstrated > > very aptly by what is going on in west London > > right now in Kensington and Chelsea. A > perfectly > > sensible, and much needed, protected cycle lane > > had been put in running from Kensington out to > > Chiswick - it's now being pulled out such is > the > > local acrimony towards them. A pragmatic > approach > > from both sides will result in positive > outcomes > > for everyone, otherwise we run the risk of > going > > back to how things were and that benefits > no-one. Given the closures in Dulwich Village can we assert that Southwark still have the interests of their poorer and more vulnerable residents at heart as they are the ones dealing with displacement tsunami from these closures? P.S. Redpost you should have seen that one coming....;-)

Redpost - hardly a nebulous answer - well no more nebulous than your retort that school streets don't work - and your response amplifies my point that many of the pro-closure lobby do not want to entertain any of the middle-ground alternatives ;-) What the pro-lobby don't realise is that their entrenchment actually creates more problems and it creates resentment and people move from a pragmatic "let's try and work on finding a middle ground" to a "rip them all out" stance and that does nobody any good. This is being demonstrated very aptly by what is going on in west London right now in Kensington and Chelsea. A perfectly sensible, and much needed, protected cycle lane had been put in running from Kensington out to Chiswick - it's now being pulled out such is the local acrimony towards them. A pragmatic approach from both sides will result in positive outcomes for everyone, otherwise we run the risk of going back to how things were and that benefits no-one.

Kid - perhaps they should - there have been better ideas put forward here than the plans the council decided to implement on their own!!! ;-) Redpost - of course there are some schools that cannot have a school street but at least if you close the ones that can during school drop-off and pick-up times you encourage modal shift. Remember the council's current plan (per Cllr Smith) is to divert traffic from residential roads onto main roads via the closures so those schools you mentioned (bar the ones in Dulwich Village) are currently the biggest losers from this. The reason I ask what some of the pro-closure would do to resolve the issues caused by the closures is that there seems to be a general reluctance by many pro-lobbyists to even entertain an alternative - they have become very entrenched. Many of us on the anti-closure side are saying that we acknowledge the need for change and happy to meet people in the middle and implement plans that are fair to everyone.

Ah the retort to One Dulwich from the pro-closure lobby groups - it was inevitable. One wonders if the council has provided funding for this either directly or indirectly......;-) sorry couldn't resist.... Which reminded me to check how the e-petition in support of the closures is going......it's closed now but it has managed 9 more signatures since last month bringing the total to 60..........

Redpost - pretty obvious where school streets could be implemented quickly and efficiently and would be a lot less disruptive than closing 2 of 4 East/West routes across Dulwich as we have now. My posts are laced with council criticism because I feel the council are laying themselves open to criticism with the way they have been handling the LTNs. I am not alone in that and the council need to be criticised by their constituents if the constituents don't like what they are doing. I know that doesn't make life easy for the council or the pro-closure lobbyists but in a democracy that's what constituents are supposed to, and entitled to, do. I am not critical of Southwark Cyclists per se, I am sure they are a lovely bunch of people, remember I am a cyclist myself, but the relationship between the council and Soutwark Cyclists clearly steps over a line in terms of balance and impartiality. There is no way Southwark Cyclists should be given more weighting and priority in consultations than those people who live in the area affected by the measures (which has happened repeatedly). JohnL - more than happy to have a consultation on any ideas - that's all many of us want - dialogue with the broader community not just a small minority. If there had been a proper consultation over the LTN closures I can guarantee we would not be in the mess we are now and the council would not be under so much scrutiny from many in the community. More generally, what is the leaflet from the Coalition4Dulwich? I have the FOMO too!!!! ;-) Are they for or against the closures?

Malumbu - many, myself included, have detailed many alternative ideas throughout the months on these forums so it's a bit unfair to suggest that there are no alternatives being put forward. At the macro level One Dulwich has been very clear what they would like to see and they have a lot of support for their suggestions. Out of interest, what do you think should be done to resolve the issues these closures have created? I personally think a programme of school streets across the area would have had a much more balanced area-wide positive impact on encouraging modal change. The council also has to do a lot more to support the infrastructure required to ensure modal shift is something everyone can engage with not just the most wealthy and those who can store bikes. The council also has to do a lot more to improve public transportation in the area - it is woefully lacking and it is no surprise so many have to rely on cars. The council also has to take a joined-up area wide approach to this and not just engage in local councillor vanity projects that negatively impact many more people than it benefits.

Not sure how many on here were able to join the council meeting on the ED LTN closures on Friday but a few things stood out and here is a quick summary: - The meeting started with a summary of the council's activities to date and background on the closures - There was then a presentation on the outcomes of the closures thus far - Comments from ward councillors - Q&A session A few observations from both meetings: - The council's presentation on the impact of the closures was, ahem, a little biased - focusing entirely on pictures of how awful things were compared to how brilliant they are now. What was interesting was that the pictures were the pictures we have all seen on the lobbyist twitter feeds - so the famous building delivery lorry as an example. That begs the question are the council using evidence they have gathered themselves or just those submitted by the lobby groups? Or are the council sending their own pictures to the lobby groups who then use them on twitter? The fact there wasn't a single photo used in the council's presentation showing the negative impacts, despite the council receiving lots from the general public, spoke volumes and does beg the question how balanced do the council want to be. There was no balance at all. It was an "Everything is awesome" moment. - During the ward councillor comments Cllr McAsh did acknowledge that there had been some negatives associated with the closures. Cllr Smith talked about how it is was important to get traffic off side roads and onto main roads (was anyone else surprised by this given the social injustice element of this?) and how he goes to Goose Green/Lordship Lane regularly and has not noticed any increase in traffic, that these are experiments that we should all give time to bed in. - During the first meeting Q&A the first questions/comment were exclusively from residents from Melbourne Grove and other closed roads heralding the new closures and thanking the councillors. Questions were being asked on a first-come-first served basis and it did seem odd that all the Melbourne Grove residents were on the "hands-up" button before anyone else - Cllr McAsh assured everyone on the chat there was no conspiracy. By the second meeting I think those who weren't there to praise the council got wise to this and the questions were much more balanced. - On the first call people were asked to ensure their real names on the Zoom were used. By the second call this had changed to real names and the street you live on. - After an hour Cllr Rose tried to call a halt to proceedings until someone told her the meeting ran for another 30 minutes. She did a great job managing the call and getting the finish time wrong was a legitimate mistake, and it was obvious it wasn't going to be an easy ride for the council but you could tell her disappointment that she had to take more questions - imagine a marathon runner crossing the line and being told they had another 10 miles to do!! I did, however, feel that during both calls there was a bit of indirect pigeon-holing of the anti-closure people on the call. There were plenty who made very well thought out points but each time they made them there was this gushing, thank you for putting your point so eloquently type response as if the presumption is that anyone who opposes the closures is some sort of ranting screaming lunatic. - To tell the shopkeepers on Melbourne Grove to come up with their own ideas to help them deal with the fallout of the closures was a bit rich from one of the councillors. - The chat function descended into a tit-for-tat slanging match with some on both sides doing themselves no favours at all. One of the most pro-closure lobbyists got very irate when someone from outside the ward was allowed to ask a question. - It is clear the council is not prepared to do proper granular monitoring instead is going to rely on modelling and data from Waze to determine whether there has been displacement. A couple of people mentioned in the chat that Waze is predominantly used by Uber and delivery drivers so cannot be considered balanced and their usages skews the results. It was great that the council finally is starting to face the public - but their approach, much like how they have handled these closures, is flawed, biased, lacks any substance and didn't provide any real answers. There was way too much focus on the benefit of those few people who live on the closed roads and whilst we all appreciate that for those residents who live on Melbourne Grove they must love it but we don't need to hear from every house on the street telling us how wonderful things are - we know that and we know turkeys don't vote for Christmas so what we need the council to do is spend more time focusing on the negative impacts of these closures and giving more priority to a proper balanced view of what the pros and cons of these closures are. The council's approach to these meetings on a ward-by-ward basis means that the pro-closure lobby will always dominate the discussion - it was clear on the first of the two calls that the pro-residents had received the notification and had come out in force - less so on the second - and what needs to happen is for there to be an area-wide consultation because the council has to realise that the impacts of these closures are being felt far beyond the streets that are closed.

The issue is a lot of people are following the rules whilst some, clearly, aren't. The rules are there for a reason and the more who start openly flaunting them the more others says, well if they aren't why should I....and before you know it the infections increase very quickly and we are back to square one. It's a bad sign if days before the second lockdown lifts people are already ignoring the guidance.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Courtesy is key but so is road safety training and > insurance. A happy, smiley person on an e-scooter > (illegal) can still cause and/or be a vict8m of an > RTA. They?re not to be used unless they?re insured > and taxed like other vehicles that can reach > 25+mph. I think you hit the nail on the head and it is the speed and acceleration that is the issue. Cars and other vehicles accelerate, in tbe main, in a uniform and predictable manner when on roads and there is an element of predictability to their movements. E-scooters create a couple of challenges due to the speeds and acceleration and their upright riding position creates a centre of gravity issue that means they can become unstable very quickly. I think this is why that whilst many acknowledge they are a good way to encourage different modes of transport they are not without significant challenges. In fact, the coroner ruled that Emily Hartridge died after being thrown off her e-scooter after she drove over a road inspection hatch in the cycle lane and that her e-scooter was being driven too fast, unsuitably and had an underinflated tyre.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Didn't see any mention of Southwark in the BBC > article. I thought that the council was the route > of all evil Rockets. You do seem to jump on > anything and everything to push your argument. > > This does seem to be a pointless thread as I > haven't seen anything constructive apart from TJ - > we all need to get on together. If we were better > at sharing street space then perhaps we wouldn't > need some of the draconian action being debated ad > infinitum on other threads. > > That said I usually argue the opposite the most > road users are courteous and respectful of others. > There's a certain competence that you need in > using a road vehicle be it a car/motorbike or > pushbike. The easier you make it to use, ie > ebike, then some of that goes out of the window. > I expect bikeability lessons to be extended one > way or another to e scooters in the not too > distant future. Errrrr.....it's a piece published today that is both interesting and timely on e-scooters....Malumbu you seem to be getting more and more irate as people debate and you seem to take particular pleasure in depositioning anyone with a view other than your own (see thread on the concerns raised about lack of good Covid behaviour on Lordship Lane). You seem to be the one person not encouraging debate just telling everyone how pointless their debates are. It's all a getting bit odd.

BBC News - How green and profitable are e-scooters? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55107754

Cheers Ex-, it wasn't an urgent request ;-) - enjoy your Saturday!

Ex- you seem to be the only person on here qualified to understand the numbers thrown around about LTNs....what do you make of this? https://oneealing.co.uk/co2-and-costs-analysis/?fbclid=IwAR2erTIY7FRPFoJQDYRs1tkRAJjPztnF_iO35HyQxD8UgQd1L1V1qCENfLw

Great Exhibition had loads of people milling around outside, was shocked by the numbers at the market and how many had beers in hand and seemed to be meeting friends and Tippler had more people outside than they would normally have inside. Went down to the Lane again to grab a take-away about an hour ago and still loads of people outside Tippler. One can only presume these people have got the vaccine before anyone else! Unfortunately some people seem hell-bent on ignoring any guidance and don't realise they could be the ones sending us into tier three in just over two weeks.

One Dulwich has a very good guide on how to register your objection under the objections part of their website. https://www.onedulwich.uk/objections But I think the window is closing soon as those closures have been in for longer.

Leave Jeremy Corbyn out of this - what has he done?!!! ;-)

cwjlawrence Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Folks, > If you've not read the Southwark Climate Strategy, > then I'd recommend reading it. Legalalien kindly > provided a link to it in a post on the Lounge: > > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89802 > /Appendix%201%20Climate%20strategy.pdf > > > Below is the excerpt from the Borough and Regional > Action section on Travel. > > @Rockets - where is the aim to reduce car usage by > 50% stated? I don't think it's in this strategy > document but please do correct me if I'm wrong. I > presume it's in another Council document - if you > could post the link then that would be great. > > Thanks, > Chris > > > Borough and Regional Actions > This strategy promotes action at a borough and > city level to make Southwark and London a greener > place to travel. Actions at this level include: > - Developing accessible, safe cycle ways and > walking paths > - Creating traffic free zones and pedestrianised > areas > - Building more electric charging points > - Providing accessible workplaces for cycling and > walking > - Encouraging employers to increase flexible home > working to reduce the need to commute > - Increase the use of hubs for home delivery of > goods to reduce delivery traffic > - Introducing a borough wide controlled parking > zone with higher charges for more > polluting vehicles and second vehicles. > - TFL to require all taxis to be EV's before 2030 > - Greater use of cargo bike schemes by regional > institutions. > - TFL and the council to make the temporary street > adaptions (including pavement > widening) following COVID 19 permanent > - Develop a small business grant for those who use > carbon neutral 'last mile' > distribution > - Implement a diesel surcharge of 50% > - Create 'diesel free zones' banning privately > owned diesel vehicles from using key > routes during core hours > - Ban privately owned cars from using key routes > during core hours > - Consolidate delivery sites to reduce daily > journeys by 50% > - Incentivise companies to electrify their vehicle > fleets > - Introduce a car parking levy on work placed car > parking > - Decarbonise the council?s fleet > - Move to new developments and regenerated estates > to being car free > - Continue reviewing tube stations to increase > accessibility > - Prioritise the air quality improvement actions > that also have a carbon reduction benefit. Chris I have read that 50% at least twice in two separate council documents but it's one of those I wished I had bookmarked. Cllr Livingstone quoted it on twitter and then I read it documents relating to their long-term plans. I think it was a 50% reduction by 2025 but I have read it twice so it definitely exists! ;-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I don't believe the council is talking about > > > eliminating private cars. No one is sensibly > > > suggesting this. > > > > > > We probably do need fewer cars on our streets > > > however and also fewer people driving short > > trips. > > > I'm not sure how anyone could really think > that > > > would be a bad thing to achieve. > > > > > > The council has stated its aim is to reduce car > > usage by 50%. > > So how is that 'eliminating private cars'? It is a very aggressive target that will need to involve reducing (significantly) car ownership in the areas with high car ownership - like Dulwich - but of course Dulwich has terrible PTAL scores so I think people are struggling to determine how they are supposed to get around (beyond their immediate locality) if the council is hellbent on cutting car usage by 50%.

The council meeting today was as depressing as it was predictable......the look on Cllr Rose's face when she tried to wrap the meeting up at 2pm and someone told her she had another 30 minutes before the event was due to end was a picture......

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't believe the council is talking about > eliminating private cars. No one is sensibly > suggesting this. > > We probably do need fewer cars on our streets > however and also fewer people driving short trips. > I'm not sure how anyone could really think that > would be a bad thing to achieve. The council has stated its aim is to reduce car usage by 50%.

I think School Streets would have been, by far, the most effective measure the council could have put in place to be a catalyst for modal shift but one that balanced addressing the problem in a way that didn't cause widespread negative impact on far more local residents than it benefits. Unfortunately the council seems to have been led down the garden path by a number of vocal residents (and these residents in Dulwich Village have very long garden paths leading to huge houses.....! ;-)) and lobby groups that convinced them shutting roads was the best way forward. Unfortunately, they worked the council into a frenzied excitement and no-one stopped to listen to what anyone else was saying about what was going to happen and the impact on areas away from the closed roads. Now they have created a complete mess that I am not sure they have the first idea how to even start to address it - they are like the proverbial deer in the headlights. It will be interesting to see how they perform during the council meetings today as today is the first time they have had to actually face people beyond their own echo chamber!