Rockets

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > nxjen Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Rockets Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > nxjen Wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > > > I don?t see any trolling. I came across > the > > > > > decorations last week and didn?t see any > > > > > insensitive messages on the gravestones. > As > > > for > > > > > heart over-ruling head ... > > > > > > > > Yes because Rat Run and This is a Dead End > > are > > > > such familiar phrases used globally at > > > Halloween > > > > aren't they...how silly of me... > > > > > > > > > You were chuckling about them on 30 October, > as > > I > > > suspect the majority did when they saw them > > > > I realised how utterly insensitive a lot of > them > > were to anyone with a business struggling on > > Melbourne Grove. In that light do you not think > > they were a bit ill-conceived and insensitive > > given what is happening to a lot of businesses > > since the closures? Or is it that because you > > support them that everything is fair game now > and > > we should all just laugh along with the jokes > and > > turn a blind eye to the reality of the negative > > impact of the closures? > > I will not be responding to your question out of > sensitivity to the traders Of course not......;-) Utterly predictable......

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > nxjen Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I don?t see any trolling. I came across the > > > decorations last week and didn?t see any > > > insensitive messages on the gravestones. As > for > > > heart over-ruling head ... > > > > Yes because Rat Run and This is a Dead End are > > such familiar phrases used globally at > Halloween > > aren't they...how silly of me... > > > You were chuckling about them on 30 October, as I > suspect the majority did when they saw them I realised how utterly insensitive a lot of them were to anyone with a business struggling on Melbourne Grove. In that light do you not think they were a bit ill-conceived and insensitive given what is happening to a lot of businesses since the closures? Or is it that because you support them that everything is fair game now and we should all just laugh along with the jokes and turn a blind eye to the reality of the negative impact of the closures?

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don?t see any trolling. I came across the > decorations last week and didn?t see any > insensitive messages on the gravestones. As for > heart over-ruling head ... Yes because Rat Run and This is a Dead End are such familiar phrases used globally at Halloween aren't they...how silly of me...

As admirable as it was to try and create footfall to then troll some of the businesses you are trying to help with the insensitive messages on the gravestones is really quite odd. Looks like whomever designed the messages let their heart overrule their head.

FairTgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Galileo Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I can assure you no offence was intended, in > fact > > quite the opposite. An upside to making a > > Halloween walk more enjoyable for all in these > > rubbish times is to increase footfall along the > > road which should hopefully help advertise the > > local businesses. I?m sure there are those who > > will happily sit at their phones and write that > > it?s not enough etc but it has been weeks of > > planning and work by the local community for > the > > enjoyment of all, which I am saddened to see > you > > have chosen to view as some form of veiled > threat. > > > > > > FairTgirl Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Rockets Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > I did chuckle to myself as I walked down > > > Melbourne > > > > Grove today - the residents have done a > great > > > job > > > > decorating the street for Halloween and > > putting > > > up > > > > the gravestones but I love how one of them > is > > > > trying to make a point by creating a couple > > of > > > > headstones with "Rat Run" on them.....and > > Cllr > > > > Newens suggests there is a problem with > > trolls > > > > from the anti-closure lobby!!!! ;-) > > > > > > > > I wonder if the Rest in Pieces headstone is > > in > > > > fact a reference to the businesses on > > Melbourne > > > > Grove being impacted by the closures.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 568787456?s=09 > > > > > > This has not gone unnoticed by the businesses > > and > > > I dare say it doesn't feel terribly > > coincidental > > > to them given the threats to boycott them > > > personally and on this very forum. There is > one > > > entitled 'Yule Be Next' aimed at a business. > It > > > would be understandable if someone took that > > > personally given the context of what is > > happening > > > on the road. > > > > > > Tiddles, 'Shat on' does seem quite apt and > yes > > > most businesses in DV and ED bar a few are > > saying > > > they are struggling since road closures. > > > > > > On another note does anyone know if Southwark > > > Spine Cycling Route is still planned to go > > ahead? > > > If it does it might involve removing parking > > for > > > Bellenden Road businesses, and putting > > permeable > > > filters on Crystal Palace Road among othr > > changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/a > > > > > > > > > ctive-travel/cycling/cycle-improvements?chapter=3& > > > > > > article > > > > > > If they go ahead with Phase 4 in Peckham cars > > will > > > be seeking routes through Crystal Palace Road > > and > > > residential roads in Peckham where they plan > to > > > put this Southwark Spine Route. > > > > > > Having had a look at the present cycle routes > > in > > > Southwark - with very few east to west just > > like > > > Southwark bus routes, that cycling lobbyists > > would > > > be satisfied with these road closures. They > > don't > > > seem to be serving them either. Surely they > > would > > > like to see some proper investment in actual > > > interlinked cycle paths, rather than short > > closed > > > roads which then spit them onto busier more > > > polluted RMR roads. > > > > > > Southwark is giving them cheap as chips > > planters, > > > not real routes that go anywhere, and > everyone > > > increased pollution and congestion on other > > roads. > > > If it was weeks in the planning could you not then > have found the time to come up with some messages > for the gravestones that were neither pointed and > political and made no reference whatsover to the > road closures? Many many people on the forum and > passersbys and business customers picked up on it > and commented on it. A family event, if it is > truly for the enjoyment of all, is not the time to > making points and jibes. This does not come over > as supportive of business. FTG those tombstones are so sad. They just could not help themselves could they? Utterly tone-deaf and actually quite reflective of the attitude many of the pro-closure lobby hold towards anyone who does not agree with them. It's actually quite menacing. I do hope whomever is responsible has apologised. Politicising something that was designed to engage with the whole community is shameful.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm confused, I thought people moved here because > the schools were so good. Perhaps if the schools > are better elsewhere then parents will move from > the area, making housing more affordable and as > the majority of kids will then go to local schools > less traffic in the morning. Would you really be > that insane to drive your kids to Croydon and > beyond each morning? > > > > > > Malumbu - you miss the point. Many of the > > independent schools that run bus services > through > > the Dulwich area are schools much further > afield > > than can be walked of cycled - schools like > > Trinity, Royal Russell, Whitgift, St Dunstan's > and > > Colfes etc. The fact that some are considering > > cutting Dulwich from their routes should not be > > heralded as it will inevitably lead to more > people > > using their cars. People may have to if the school buses get cancelled because they can't negotiate the nonsense congestion around Dulwich caused by these closures......all a bit self-defeating don't you think!?

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is all excellent news, now it is safer to > walk and cycle perhaps parents may walk or cycle > their kids to school, and in time let them do this > unaccompanied, as we did all those years ago. > > Perhaps the post is ironic as the school run is > the worst time of the day for congestion. > > > > I have also heard that a lot of the Independent > > schools not in the area that run bus services > to > > pick children from Dulwich are rerouting their > > buses away from the Dulwich area as the traffic > is > > so bad. One wonders if those children will now > > need to be driven as a result. Malumbu - you miss the point. Many of the independent schools that run bus services through the Dulwich area are schools much further afield than can be walked of cycled - schools like Trinity, Royal Russell, Whitgift, St Dunstan's and Colfes etc. The fact that some are considering cutting Dulwich from their routes should not be heralded as it will inevitably lead to more people using their cars.

The photo I had found had come from one of the cycle activists who was heralding it's arrival as well - good to see a few people are happy with it at least! Anyone know how DV was coping this morning with these new measures? Not sure I would be too happy if I was a DV resident as this pretty much throttles your ability to get anywhere. I have also heard that a lot of the Independent schools not in the area that run bus services to pick children from Dulwich are rerouting their buses away from the Dulwich area as the traffic is so bad. One wonders if those children will now need to be driven as a result.

Looks like there was a big turnout at the Crystal Palace protests - organisers claim 620. And One Lambeth beginning legal action against Lambeth Council. https://twitter.com/LambethOne/status/1322960629980942336?s=09

But Ex- the council appears to view the ETROs as a licence for stupidly...take a look at the attached...who thought this was going to be a good solution at the DV/EDG junction? You can only presume the person who planned this is 1) really stupid or 2) looking for ways to create so much congestion that people choose another route. Who would have had to have signed this off? There appears to have been gridlock in DV today as a result - who is being held to account? We keep hearing from councillors let it bed in, we need time to assess but in my mind if the council continues to do things like the attached they should lose the power to do this. Any sane person can look at that photo and predict what will happen - you don't have to be a planning genius to see what will happen. This is why the council are under so much pressure and why the majority of residents are up in arms about these closures - they're just stupid.

I think it is important that everyone takes pictures and documents all these impacts of the closures. Send them to your councillors, send it to them on social media as well and make sure Cllr Kieron Williams is aware. Ultimately it is his responsibility from both party-political and council leadership lines to try to show the leadership to resolve these issues. He is the new leader and he needs to clean up the mess that was tolerated/positively encouraged by the previous leadership. Does anyone have any pictures of the traffic queues in DV today?

You know things are bad for LTNs when the Guardian does an article like this! Well worth a read.... https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/nov/01/car-free-neighbourhoods-the-unlikely-new-frontline-in-the-culture-wars?

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Another pic My goodness. This is either utter incompetence on the part of our council or another deliberate attempt to throttle traffic. This is absolutely why Cllr Newens was pushing so hard to get the timed closures in place last week as she knew the tailbacks through the village will be far worse now. Let's see how it is for the next three days as schools go back and before the lockdown hits. I am not a betting man but I would hazard a guess that the council will use this next lockdown as an excuse to roll out more closures - if any of them are working of course! This goes to demonstrate clearly that moving forward there needs to be more consultation on such projects. Without any form of consultation Southwark have utterly mismanaged this process. Any trust and respect they had left with their constituents is likely to have completely evaporated now (bar the usual pro-closure suspects). Our council and councillors are an utter shambles and I suspect people will want to scrutinise everything they do more closely now. Legal - your work uncovering so many of the items the council has been keen to bury and deliberately overlook during this has been brilliant. Thank you.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought that might be it. It?s something the > Safe Routes people were asking for a while ago I > think. Does it not need a TMO? Anyway, let?s see > what happens in practice - I imagine the timing is > going to be key, and I expect many cyclists will > continue to do what they do currently, ie come up > the right hand side of cars to get to the front of > the queue. > How does the conflict between left turning > traffic and the cycle lane get resolved? Is there > a left turn arrow? If it is as some are suggesting that the lane is now too narrow for cars to pass those waiting to make the right filter then the right filter will create more problems than it solves. It will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow morning. This might explain why Cllr Newens was so keen to see the timed closures in DV go in last week. If the road now becomes impossible to use until the right filter moves then the emergency services will probably have something to say about it.

Galileo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can assure you no offence was intended, in fact > quite the opposite. An upside to making a > Halloween walk more enjoyable for all in these > rubbish times is to increase footfall along the > road which should hopefully help advertise the > local businesses. I?m sure there are those who > will happily sit at their phones and write that > it?s not enough etc but it has been weeks of > planning and work by the local community for the > enjoyment of all, which I am saddened to see you > have chosen to view as some form of veiled threat. > > > FairTgirl Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Rockets Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I did chuckle to myself as I walked down > > Melbourne > > > Grove today - the residents have done a great > > job > > > decorating the street for Halloween and > putting > > up > > > the gravestones but I love how one of them is > > > trying to make a point by creating a couple > of > > > headstones with "Rat Run" on them.....and > Cllr > > > Newens suggests there is a problem with > trolls > > > from the anti-closure lobby!!!! ;-) > > > > > > I wonder if the Rest in Pieces headstone is > in > > > fact a reference to the businesses on > Melbourne > > > Grove being impacted by the closures.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 568787456?s=09 > > > > This has not gone unnoticed by the businesses > and > > I dare say it doesn't feel terribly > coincidental > > to them given the threats to boycott them > > personally and on this very forum. There is one > > entitled 'Yule Be Next' aimed at a business. It > > would be understandable if someone took that > > personally given the context of what is > happening > > on the road. > > > > Tiddles, 'Shat on' does seem quite apt and yes > > most businesses in DV and ED bar a few are > saying > > they are struggling since road closures. > > > > On another note does anyone know if Southwark > > Spine Cycling Route is still planned to go > ahead? > > If it does it might involve removing parking > for > > Bellenden Road businesses, and putting > permeable > > filters on Crystal Palace Road among othr > changes. > > > > > > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/a > > > > ctive-travel/cycling/cycle-improvements?chapter=3& > > > article > > > > If they go ahead with Phase 4 in Peckham cars > will > > be seeking routes through Crystal Palace Road > and > > residential roads in Peckham where they plan to > > put this Southwark Spine Route. > > > > Having had a look at the present cycle routes > in > > Southwark - with very few east to west just > like > > Southwark bus routes, that cycling lobbyists > would > > be satisfied with these road closures. They > don't > > seem to be serving them either. Surely they > would > > like to see some proper investment in actual > > interlinked cycle paths, rather than short > closed > > roads which then spit them onto busier more > > polluted RMR roads. > > > > Southwark is giving them cheap as chips > planters, > > not real routes that go anywhere, and everyone > > increased pollution and congestion on other > roads. I am sure no offence was meant but the Rat Run attached is a bit tone deaf considering the shops at the end of the road are struggling so much because of these closures. I appreciate what you might be trying to do but to politicise it and revel in the closures seems a little blinkered. Keep it on message; don't use it to try to deliver a message.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > R. I'm blocked from the twitter link you posted. It's working for me...have you maybe dared to ask a question and they blocked you...that seems to be the usual pattern from the pro-closure lobby! ;-)

I did chuckle to myself as I walked down Melbourne Grove today - the residents have done a great job decorating the street for Halloween and putting up the gravestones but I love how one of them is trying to make a point by creating a couple of headstones with "Rat Run" on them.....and Cllr Newens suggests there is a problem with trolls from the anti-closure lobby!!!! ;-) I wonder if the Rest in Pieces headstone is in fact a reference to the businesses on Melbourne Grove being impacted by the closures....

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > smooch Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > now there's an idea. > > walking thru the village this morning around > 11.30 > > and the main road was completely chock full > > towards east dulwich grove - across the > junction > > with turney. i just don't get it? would love to > > hear what all the residents of Dulwich village > > actually feel about it. > > > > Should also add that the road was completely > > blocked at around 2.30 on sunday afternoon so > > clearly nothing to do with the school run - > again > > tailing back to the mini roundabout. > > > > some residents and businesses on east dulwich > > grove have already expressed their serious > > concern, but I suspect the council is unwilling > to > > actually 'hear' them. Councillor James has > bravely > > made some conciliatory noises but is not in a > > position to do anything. > > Everyone I know hates the plans in the Village. > And the few cyclists who actually LIVE in Dulwich > Village are probably countable on your fingers and > toes. > > I wish people would stop meddling in the life of > our community. The ruination of Lordship lane and > Grove Vale businesses, the closure of Melbourne > Grove, I bet there are very few people who want > our district to go down the drain. I think many of the pro-closure supporters in the Village are desperate to get the next phase of closures in place so traffic has to find a route elsewhere around the village. No doubt Cllr Newens and Leeming will celebrate how quiet the village is as the rest of us have to live with their displaced hell!!!! ;-)

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > have you seen how many empty properties there are > along Lordship Lane now ? > > You argue that a closed route (MG) has businesses > that are badly affected. You also argue that the > main roads, like LL, are busier because of the > closures, yet on such an extra-busy LL, businesses > are closing. > > Please show your working out. Nigello, it is quite simple. There are two sets of LTN road closures that are massively impacting the area. The first is the DV closure which is forcing traffic trying to find an east/west route across Dulwich along EDG and Lordship Lane. This, in turn, is creating more congestion along the northern-most tip of LL which is leading to increased pollution on the main shopping street in the area. As a result it is losing its appeal as a place to go shopping - at the weekends it is awful. The second closure is Melbourne Grove which, combined with implementation of the CPZ, is impacting the shops on Melbourne Grove. Those shops, in the main, are not high footfall businesses they are far more outlier businesses that benefit not from the footfall levels of LL but those types of businesses that require people to travel specifically for them (beauty salons, hairdressers, locksmiths etc). Many of those people, rightly or wrongly, may drive to get there. By both closing the road and removing the ability to park nearby (a large number of the parking bays outside the shops are 30 mins only - most hair appointments and beauty treatments are longer than 30 minutes) you can see why many of the business owners are concerned by the plummeting visitors to their businesses. To be honest, lots of people on here were flagging these issues to the council but they ignored them. They also ignored bothering to actually talk to the shop owners to get their input. Which is far as I am concerned is utterly negligent of them. Does that help clarify things for you?

Cllr McAsh, I refer you back to my previously unanswered questions. When will the council be reviewing the data - data collection went in some time after the closures so what is the timeline for the review? - We kept being told by the council that pollution monitoring was too expense so how are you able to do that now and what baseline will you be using? - Are we expected to live with the negative impact for the next 6 months whilst the council collects the data? - Will the next phases of the closures be put on hold or does the council still plan on implementing them? - Your comment regarding Matham Grove etc worries me as you seem to be focussed on putting measures in place to deal with the displacement rather than focussing on the source of the displacement. This would suggest to me that you think action to remedy the problem may not be forthcoming or a long way off. Is the council commitment to resolving the source of the problem? We do not need a sticking plaster approach to this. - Given your admission of not consulting with shopkeepers on Melbourne Grove (and your subsequent apology) will you be forced to remove those immediately as this is in direct contravention of the powers given to you by the government to put these in place? The frustration many of us are feeling is that no-one from the council is providing any sort of answers to our questions (there is a big difference to responding to questions and answering questions). You say you cannot answer the questions on monitoring - why not? People want to know that the council is actually monitoring on the roads that are having to deal with the displacement - yet no-one from the council is prepared to share the information we need to be able to determine whether the council is dealing with this matter in a fair and equitable way. Given the way the council has repeatedly manipulated data in its previous presentations I am sure you can understand why many of us are sceptical that the council is doing what it needs to to get the true picture of what is happening and what the real knock-on effect of these closures is. Given your desire for us to support the traders this Christmas will you be removing the ludicrous closures and the CPZ that are causing untold harm to Lordship Lane and the surrounding shopping streets? Remember some of the Melbourne Grove traders have experienced a 60% drop in trade since the Melbourne Grove closures went in - by the time you put a few extra parking spaces in it may be too late for many of them. To be brutally frank it is a little galling and somewhat hypocritical that you come on here urging us to do our bit to support our traders when the council has, seemingly, gone out of its way to do everything it can to damage the thriving community we all so love and cherish - have you seen how many empty properties there are along Lordship Lane now? As you admitted yourself and apologised for, the council showed zero consideration for the shopkeepers around Melbourne Grove. Neither did they apply common sense to determine the impact of the DV closures on Lordship Lane which has become so polluted due to the regular tailbacks caused by the DV closures. What many of us find incredible is that, despite the problems Phase 1 has caused, the council charges ahead with the next phases of closures in Dulwich Village and Townley Road that will put yet more pressure on Lordship Lane. You may be able to throttle the displacement onto EDG from DV with the timed closures of DV but more traffic will now inevitably travel northbound along Lordship Lane. We have always done our bit to support our local business, it's about time the council did theirs. I am, however, very glad that the council has decided not to pursue the ludicrous Peckham Rye LTN closures. I am hoping this is a turning point and the first sign that the council is finally learning from its mistakes. And well done to the council for trying to help with the school meals issue - it is an awful situation brought on by a government hell-bent on digging its heals in and using children as part of its war with local authorities. Politics is in a dire situation at the moment and, as today's EHRC report and the Labour party's subsequent suspension of Jeremy Corbyn has shown, there are deep problems on both sides of the fence and many of us wish for more centrist, less polarised political landscape in future - many of us feel utterly abandoned by both big political parties (at all levels).

Judge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interestingly Waze seems to be diverting you > around these points already The algorithms will always win!

Bucky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No signs or cameras? Is this in effect yet? Nothing this morning when I ran through Dulwich Village.

Agree with all of the above. Rosendale is good, albeit a little further afield - although a nice walk through Dulwich Park it's easy to get to. Lots of outdoor heater seating.

So once again a group funded by the Mayor is used as both a general public lobbying organisation and a consultant for the council on the implementation of these schemes - talk about keep it in the family and a bit of a closed shop! I do wonder whether our local councillors may be causing a bit of a problem for the council as they are spending an seemingly never ending amount of money on what appear to be nothing more than local councillor vanity projects when these funds should be going elsewhere where the problems are greater. If the council is deemed to have mis-spent the money and gets no further funding (no doubt the govt will be looking for cases like this to make a point) then I would not want to be one of the people behind the plans.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree heartblock. I think she was involved in > the push to amend the LTNs in Lewisham? > > Anyway, I managed to watch the youtube of the 17 > June Environment Scrutiny Commission meeting (Game > of Thrones it wasn't). > > LOUye1bJv3Ur2qLE3D5dYUyyl8t_77N4r&index=2&t=7s > > Interesting bit to watch (really!): from 15:19 > where Cllr Livingston explains that a decision on > the first 19 schemes has gone up on the website, > not just in response to the streetscape/ > commonplace input but also to cover some > preplanned work. Cllr Werner (who is chairing) > asks how the decision to prioritise those schemes > was made and whether the council is looking at eg > levels of pollution or deprivation - in response > he refers to the fact that they have been working > on the Dulwich and Walworth projects for some time > but doesn't answer the actual question... Cllr > Burgess comes back at about 29 mins to clarify > with Cllr Livingston that when decisions are being > made the council is prioritising areas of > deprivation, poor air quality etc and BAME > population given COVID. Gets fobbed off a bit and > then says that they are looking at prioritising > issues where the commonplace site (then) indicated > a high degree of consensus. Cllrs Werner and > Burgess take issue with this given lots of people > don't have internet access etc . Some of the > facial expressions are priceless. You also get to > see Cllr Leeming's dinner. And then Cllr Werner > expressly asks that going forward, Cllrs be > provided with info about the criteria being taken > into account in making these decisions. > > Takeaway points (my interpretation): Having Cllr > Burgess more involved going forward is a good > thing; some of the other Cllrs share the views of > a number on this thread that some of the > priorities given to date seem a bit suspect; those > commonplace sites seem to be the main mechanism by > which the council plans to assess how things are > going. > > Cllr Werner has just published a piece on the > Labour Environmental Group (SERA) website > https://www.sera.org.uk/scrutiny_has_a_critical_ro > le, describing the findings of the Commission as > follows: > > "The commission?s findings show that it can no > longer be acceptable for any transport schemes to > be developed which cause increases in traffic > volumes on other roads, particularly where there > are vulnerable populations like schools and > hospitals, and when we know those living in > poverty, BAME populations and residents in areas > of existing poor air quality are least able to > cope with the effects of diseases like COVID-19. > > We must be driven with a proper scheme design: > modelling the likely impacts of traffic > interventions, understanding the communities who > benefit and those who benefit least. This would > mean an expansion of air quality monitoring > throughout the borough with clear-eyed analysis of > the outcomes. We need a proper understanding of > where traffic is generated, who generates it and > how it can be reduced; an understanding of car > ownership volumes and consumption of street space. > In all cases we need to gather sex-disaggregated > data. > > This commission recommended that, in conjunction > with TfL and the GLA, the council prioritises the > dramatic reduction of traffic volumes in the > borough, through a combination of incentives for > those who do not own cars, disincentives for those > with a car and improvements to neighbourhoods. > > This commission recognised the significant harm > done by traffic emissions, and that this is a > social justice issue. Those on low incomes are the > least able to cope with poor air quality. Our > strategic priority is the significant reduction in > traffic volumes across the borough. > > Our principles of social justice and a strong > dataset will guide our interventions in a > systematic way. > > We should: > > prioritise those most in need and monitor all > schemes for consequent harms, and where necessary, > revise them. > reclaim the use of the kerbside from parking > for the few and instead transform it into a public > amenity for the many. > spend the next five years taking steps to > making Southwark the cleanest and greenest borough > in London." Legal - that video is a fantastic find. I agree with you that it seems there may be some discussion within the council about why they are prioritising areas like Dulwich Village for these measures and Cllr Livingstone did not have an answer other than they are responding to Commonspace feedback - what he meant to say, I suspect, is that they are going to places to do this where they have been able to drum up enough support amongst upper-middle class residents who don't want cars on their streets! He did seem particularly bereft of answers - he also agreed (somewhat misleadingly) that the measures were being implemented based on 1) consultation with the public 2) levels of pollution and 3) levels of depravation - which we know they are not. The council has been clear from the outset that it is the areas in most need that should get these and those have been identified as those with good PTAL scores, low car ownership and social depravation - things that no-one ever considers Dulwich to have. It looks more and more like these LTNs are local councillor vanity projects to appease their neighbours which are having hugely detrimental impacts on other residents in the area. Also a couple of other things came up which I thought were fascinating: - the acknowledgement that the council wants to pro-actively remove parking spaces - that the Healthy Streets team had been furloughed (this was recorded in June so it make you wonder when they return to their jobs) - which seems a little odd given there was so much focus on the need for modal change etc during lockdown why on earth weren't they working. It might go some way to explain why widening of the pavements in East Dulwich did not happen for two months into lockdown. Oh and Cllr Leeming having his evening meal delivered to him and chomping away during the call is hilarious. His study looks like an old record shop with his vinyl collection!