Rockets

This meeting will be fascinating as on the LTN section we will hear from Lucy Sanders who runs Healthy Streets Ltd, the company that provides all of the data that councils use to determine their approach to things like LTNs. BTW does anyone know is Healthy Streets funded by TFL? If not, who funds them? Her group is a big advocate of LTNs and their data was used extensively during the lobbying efforts during OHS and they have a big lobbying presence on social media. Secondly it will be very interesting to hear from the borough fire commander on the agenda item: LTNs: access to emergency vehicles - especially in light of the comments from the emergency services that they are not supportive of LTN road closures due to the delays they cause in responding to emergencies.

Indeed and what point is Cllr Newens trying to make here with her comment that "We want less traffic for the many not the few" when the polar opposite of her stated desire is what is actually happening. What I think she means to say is that she wants less traffic for her neighbours and doesn't care about the many further down the road!

There was someone dropping leaflets from an estate agent earlier today around the area. He was a long grey haired chap.

yes you will be able to. Not sure the cameras are in yet anywhere - Cllr Newens is putting pressure on TFL to get them in this week in the Village but nothing had gone in this morning. I suspect TFL will be needing to look at how road signage will need to change in other places as they need to ensure people are aware of the closures - for example, you have to alert traffic on the A205 signage that there are going to be times when you now can't get through the Village. Cllr Newens will be desperate for these to go in before the school return as it will likely be chaos if they go in in the middle of a school week.

Fascinating data that LegalAlien is uncovering that requires further scrutiny. These excerpts are taken from the Scrutiny Report Air Quality FINAL found here: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s89830/Scutiny%20report%20air%20quality%20FINAL.pdf The council admits that public transport links in Dulwich are not good. As an inner-city borough, levels of public transport provision (as evidenced by PTAL ratings8 ) is very good in certain parts of Southwark, particularly the north and around central Peckham, Camberwell and Rotherhithe. TfL has more work to do, however, to create a borough where it is easy to move around by public transport everywhere. More investment is needed along Southampton Way, Canada Water, Surrey Quays, the Camberwell/Peckham borders and Nunhead and Dulwich. They also make a series of recommendations when implementing LTNs - many of which the council in our area seem to be ignoring or overlooking (interesting background our part of the borough has some of the worst PTAL ratings and the highest car ownership levels - Dulwich Village has the highest car ownership rate in the whole borough yet seems to be getting more LTNs and measures than the rest of the borough put together!) Recommendation 14: Introduce a borough wide programme of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. These should be implemented:  Over a wide enough area in order to realise the benefits of traffic evaporation, which has been shown to take place when there is a significant reduction of short journeys by car under 2km.  As a priority in areas with high levels of public transport (high PTAL ratings), poor air quality, lower levels of car ownership, in areas of deprivation and where the programs would impact positively on local schools and hospitals.  Where traffic may be displaced onto main roads, the council must monitor the impact on air quality, and mitigate negative effects in advance of implementation, possibly by widening pavements and creating cycle lanes, managing traffic to reduce vehicle idling time and introducing green screening programmes.  In conjunction with the introduction of CPZ and a reduction of parking so the kerbside can be utilised for active travel and public realm improvements (such as pocket parks and cycle parking).  In conjunction with improvements to Public Transport and other work on adjacent main roads to increase cycling and other forms of active travel. The Conclusion section is the most damning when applied through the LTN fiasco optics: 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. You have to ask why the council are ignoring their own recommendations in Dulwich - what is the motivation behind that? Political opportunism perhaps? Many of us have felt that some councillors saw this as an opportunity to good to turn down and one wonders whether the money being spent on these changes would have been more beneficial in the areas stated in the aforementioned report as needing to be the priority. Of course the report also contains regurgitated "facts" from the Living Streets lobby groups, the cursory statement of "All is great in Waltham Forest" and the usual overloading and overweighting on inputs from the cycle lobby groups.

That is really interesting. Can someone tell us whether this is unusual, especially given one of the stated aims of Clean Air for Dulwich in their submission to the council for money was to campaign for LTNs (see below)? Isn't this a little incestuous, using tax-payers money to fund a group that you then use as a lobby group to help push through your own proposals? Makes me wonder, in the application of balance and fairness, whether the council would fund a group to investigate how they handled the implementation and consultation of the LTNs.....;-) Clean Air for Dulwich Council Funding Submission Work to improve air quality for all, encouraging active travel, directly addressing causes of air pollution via targeted campaigns and promotion of low traffic neighbourhood. Needed targeted campaign on air quality specifically rather than as part of a wider remit as air quality continues to worsen especially with independent school traffic. Our campaign is to work more directly on this targeted issue and with the community as a whole rather than just via the schools network. Those affected by pollution aren't limited to people in schools and therefore getting wider engagement will be critical to changing this quickly. We will also work to campaign for low traffic neighbourhoods, building awareness amongst local residents for the benefits that can be gained through this approach.

Well done Mirash!

I don't think they are responding either - complete radio silence from the everyone on all these matters. People are resorting to trying to engage with them on social media and, once again, they just don't respond to anyone who isn't praising the closures. Has anyone had any sort of response from any of the councillors or anyone involved in the closures recently? Perhaps if they refuse to acknowledge the existence of any dissenting voices then they can continue pushing the narrative that it is only a minority. I did read with interest the Southwark Code of Conduct that LegalAlien posted (keep up the great work your digging is turning up some gens!) and how badly many of the councillors are performing in relation to them and these closures: SELFLESSNESS: Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. INTEGRITY: Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties. OBJECTIVITY: In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit. ACCOUNTABILITY: Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office. OPENNESS: Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands. HONESTY: Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest. LEADERSHIP: Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

Is anyone receiving any responses to emails on the subject - I know Cllr McAsh encourages people to email him but there seems to be radio silence on this issue from all councillors now?

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry rather ignorant comments, irrespective of > the comedic value (you can catch Yes Minister/PM > on Four Extra). > > And ..... Road closures funding (if Southwark will > be given anymore) should be focused in the more > northern parts of Southwark where poverty is > highest, BAME population highest, they have the > best public transport links and lowest car > ownership but the worst pollution. These are the > exact categories outlined for successful > LTNs..... > > Let them eat cake/brioche. Rather pompous > comments. That good education seems to have gone > to waste. I very much think that sketch captures precisely what a lot of people think about local councillors and the ones we have are demonstrating very aptly why people don?t trust them. They are refusing to engage with any debate around the issue (unless you support their ideas). They are hiding from the majority of their constituents, hoping desperately that this will blow over.....I am not sure it will. The tide of local public opinion is turning against them and as much as they try to pigeon-hole those with an opinion other than their own as a vocal minority they know what the reality is. Meanwhile the council cosies up to middle-class lobby groups whose only intention is to reduce traffic outside their own homes and don?t care what happens to anyone else. Groups who no doubt live in big houses, with space to store bikes, who like to cycle to the cheese shop to get some cheese for their dinner-parties, get home deliveries from Ocado and keep a big car for those long journeys to the country house (this is not the Tesla they have on the drive that?s just for show and can?t get back and forth to the Cotswolds on one charge) ;-) I jest of course but you get the drift!

Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Feels to me that im hearing a lot of anger about > road measures in dulwich wherever I go now. Maybe > the general public has woekn up to whats going on. The discussions will go up a level next week when the council puts the cameras in and activates them on the new measures next week. Cllr Newens confirmed the DV ones are expected to go in and start operating next week. At some point the council might actually start listening to their constituents I wonder when it might be though...

spider69 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All been to the Sir Humphrey Appleby school of > replying. I think the fact my dad was a big fan of Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister helped mould my general distrust of any politician. Their views of local councillors are oh so familiar!

Cllr McAsh - could you give us a definitive list of where monitoring is currently taking place (on which roads) when it went in and how long the monitoring will run for? Is, for example, any monitoring being done on the roads east of Lordship lane which now seem to be soaking up much of the displacement from the council's closures? Whateley, Underhill, Goodrich, Upland, Overhill, Melford etc?

Whilst car owners are sitting ducks our councillors are of the lame variety of ducks... It seems some of our councillors are quite fond on the opinions espoused by the esteemed Peter Walker...the comments are hilarious as the councillors try to dissect what is going on in their wards..... https://twitter.com/RM_Leeming/status/1319178810529632256?s=09 Just look at the language being used by the councillors (and I hasten to add these are snippets from conversations not a single thread and in no way are presented as such - I am just interested in the way they are all saying "too early to tell" "so many things changing" - this is the political language of people who know there is a problem but are not prepared to admit it) and notice how they refuse to engage with anyone who challenges them (there is a real pattern emerging here): Newens: One of the problems I find is that whilst supporters of these schemes are very conscious of the voices against, the reverse seems rarely to be true. It is unhelpful to deny that there is a considerable diversity of opinion locally. Leeming: I think this is a good point. But very often it is equally hard to establish if a scheme is successful or not. That can take several months & as traffic changes all the time & it takes time to design and build neighbouring schemes making that judgement is nigh on impossible McAsh: True, it's hard to assess the impact of the LTNs as they've come in at a time when so much else has been changing.

I drove down the A24 today and was really pleased to see how they have been able to put dedicated cycle lanes in place (with bollards) on what are some very busy stretches of road through Tooting and other areas. So nice to see a programme that allows all modes of transport to share the roadspace and live harmoniously together. Lots of people cycling and little disruption to those who drive - I can imagine that section of road would have been quite daunting prior to these measures. Now that is a pragmatic and sensible solution that benefits everyone. I think they have been rolling similar schemes out in west London through Kensington and as far out as Chiswick.

Sorry miss/sir - Nigello started it! ;-)

What I am hearing is that their inbox is far fuller of nays than they are the yays and a lot of people are giving their addresses so the councillors understand the weight of local feeling against these closures (including many who are on roads that are directly benefitting from the closures). Also, the council is very familiar with the yays as they have worked with them for years and aren't so inclined to write in given they get so much face and consultation time anyway...(sorry couldn't resist it ;-)).

And here are our local councillor email addresses. Drop them an email - they love hearing from their constituents - although tend not to reply if you aren't supporting the closures! ;-) [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm far more angry that we are f..king up the > planet. You should all be too. ...Our thoughts entirely which is why we are campaigning against these measures as they are actually making pollution worse.

FairTgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So they're closing a road at school times that > has > > already been closed - a double whammy!? Why do > > they need this - according to the pro-closure > > propaganda machine Melbourne Grove has now been > > fixed - reference the photos of children > milling > > around the school. Or is it that the closure of > > the road has created a school drop-off > cul-de-sac > > - as is happening at the end of Court Lane at > the > > moment which looks like a car park? > > > > Have the traders been consulted as the council > > states that there is a "minor inconvenience" > that > > no-one will be able to get access to the > parking > > bays? This could be the final nail in the > coffin > > for some businesses around Melbourne Grove. > > > > Are the residents in support as that prevents > all > > access to their properties during those hours? > > We brought this up months ago with Cllrs when > first becaome aware of the proposal, and actually > referenced it again to Cllrs today. It is pretty > unnecessary given the road is already closed, Head > of Charter admitted as much. > > There is no issue with these timed restrictions > for School Streets on it's own but the fact there > is already a closure, removed parking bays, CPZ > AND this will disrupt what little parking there > is... yes probably final nail in coffin. > > Depending on the barriers residents cars can > usually get through - but not sure how that > applies to business/delivieries etc - will they > just be doing U-turns on EDG? Wondering how that > will help the EDG congestion situation and safety > of pupils. What I find amazing is the blinkered, tone-deaf approach of some of the pro-closure lobby groups. Was the pro-closure lady on the council meeting from EDSTN Healthy Streets group? If so, they would have heard from Dougie and FairTGirl about the drastic reduction in footfall and sales being experienced by the shops on Melbourne Grove and the other streets and yet we see tweets like this the day after the council meeting....it's almost as if they are trying to convince themselves that everything is rosy..... Does anyone know, is that cafe thriving, is the owner supportive of the closures? What is interesting is that people are commenting and putting their views across.

Superb idea - often the council moves documents on their website so will be good to keep track of where everything is so anyone can access it.

dulwichfolk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Great work rockets...what is the attachment > picture of? > > I love the documents Southwark produces > > This one here > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/11717/S > outhwark-JSNA-2019-Childhood-Obesity.pdf > > Basically says children in dulwich village are > significantly better off (weight wise) than the > whole of the borough but yet the vocal minority I > guess who go to the schools on dulwich village > aided with the cycle lobby seem to lift the ward > to the top of the list to promote active > travel/council time irrespective of the > consequences. It's Friern Road around the back of St Anthony's school. The entrance to the school is actually on Etherow Street (where the same amount of bollards have gone in - but that is School No Parking anyway) but there is a small entrance at the back behind the playgrounds which I think they are using in Covid times which is why they have put that in on Friend. There are more around Goodrich on Dunstans and Upland (which is why the delivery lorries to the school now have to block the road completely to make their deliveries or, as I saw a few days ago, park with part of their lorry sticking out over the Dunstans Road roundabout.

Southwark is considering making it a commitment to reduce car use in the borough by 50% by 2025. So to get there they have to make using a car as painful as possible. In this context you can see why they are doing what they are doing. If you ever challenge them on it they, and their supporters, will tell you that 40% of Southwark residents have access to a car, as if car ownership is something to be ashamed of. What they fail to recognise is that a lot of Southwark residents have much better access to public transportation than we do in Dulwich and, as a result, car ownership is much higher than the 40% Southwark average - of course, there are also the social economic factors as well and Dulwich is an area of greater overall prosperity compared to many other parts of the borough. TFLs own research acknowledges that the further outside central London you go car ownership increases due to a variety of factors, including lack of transport infrastructure. In fact, we are closer to Bromley geographically than we are central Southwark and in Bromley car ownership is 70% which is probably more comparable to Dulwich. Given those higher car ownership figures Southwark sees Dulwich as an area that is a "problem" and goes to war on car drivers in the area. In Bromley there is no such war as the council realises that the further you get out of London so people become more reliant on the car. So Southwark needs to remove as many parking spaces as possible, close as many roads as possible, put in as much CPZ as possible, fine drivers at every opportunity with bus gates etc to try and make driving the most painful option of transportation. It's why Southwark extended double-yellow lines a couple of years ago to the maximum permissible and it is why things like the attached are popping up flanking all streets around every school in the area. Ostensibly it is, of course, for social distancing but the trojan horse is it creates parking pressure elsewhere by removing significant numbers of parking spaces on residential roads.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not really surprising from Peter Walker given he?s > a cycle campaigner in Southwark and one of the > people who urged Southwark to take its current > approach: ? > > He advocated reducing endless consultation and > getting more changes done faster.? (is he part of > the Tory conspiracy?). I love the fact that the > other chap described the Waltham Forest programme > as a ?scheme by scheme battle?. > > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=558 > 35 > > Genuine question that occurs to me though: do > those campaigning for LTNs believe that they only > work if we have them everywhere, blocking out > pretty much all traffic ie that it?s not possible > to compromise and have smaller scale > ones that have some beneficial effect without a > massive downside for those on neighbouring main > roads. If that is the case then the argument is > more binary than I had hoped. > > > > siousxiesue Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/ > > > > 2020/oct/22/despite-a-loud-opposing-minority-low-t > > > raffic-neighbourhoods-are-increasingly-popular > > > > Interesting read, comments also One presumes given the platform that he has with Southwark that he is a member of Southwark Cyclists? ;-)

It is an interesting read not least because the author, Peter Walker, has written a book called Bike Nation: How Cycling Can Save the World....so he obviously approached this article with a head cleared of any bias he might hold for bikes over cars! ;-) I do think the comments section demonstrate how it actually is not a vocal minority (as much as the pro-closure lobby would like everyone to believe). I can't imagine the comments section of the Guardian is the normal hang-out spot for the Daily Mail reading petrolheads that the pro-closure lobby likes to try to pigeon-hole people who oppose these closure as. It is obvious it is far more than a vocal minority - there is no way councils like Lewisham are forced to make changes without there being a significant amount of public support to do so - councils don't admit mistakes unless they absolutely have to.