Rockets

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rah x 3 talks sense. .... if you happen to be so inclined to the stuff they talk.... I think the majority actually want all road users to be considered and not have a lot of roads closed to one section of road users....now that's sense! It seems that anything other than an A road is considered by Rahrahrah as a side street and somehow should be for the exclusive use of cyclists only....

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don?t live in one of the filtered roads. I live > just off Lordship Lane (apparently one of the > negatively impacted streets, although it doesn?t > seem much different to before the lockdown to > me... I know, I know, others will swear it?s > completely changed). The roads which have seen > significant increases in traffic over the last few > years are back streets NOT main roads. This is the > result of apps and sat navs. There is research by > tfl showing this. I am in favour of the LTNs > because I have seen more people walking and > cycling and I think that?s positive. I myself am > walking more and I think this has to be a good > thing. I don?t buy it that if you remove the > filters it will improve the main roads. I just > think it will be surrendering to the idea that > cars have a natural ?right? to dominate almost > every public space, and it can?t be challenged. I am afraid you are deluding yourself if you think traffic in Dulwich is not worse since the lockdowns went in. Even one of your most vocal supporters in the council Cllr McAsh admits there are problems being caused by the closures. Or perhaps he has turned to the dark side?

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Can anyone show any scheme which has > SIGNIFICANTLY reduced motor volumes? The best even > the most pro-scheme lobbyist can show is a maximum > of 11%. > > NO IT ISN'T! > > Back on page 41, I posted a link to a > meta-analysis study which had looked at 60 traffic > reduction schemes worldwide to assess various > measures and outcomes. > > Obviously very few people actually bothered > reading the thing and someone asked about overall > reduction - I copied and pasted an extract from > the report which stated a MEDIAN (not a maximum) > outcome across all these various schemes in > several different countries of 11%. In fact the > exact phrase I posted is here: > > The mean average was a reduction of 21?9% and the > median ? which is a better measure of central > tendency here, given the variability of results ? > was a reduction of 10?6%. > In other words, in half the cases, over 11% of the > vehicles which were previously using the road or > the area where > roadspace for general traffic was reduced, could > not be found in the surrounding area afterwards. > > Now in that context, median is kind of the best > statistical tool to use (rather than mean) because > it takes account of outliers. Depending on what > the scheme is, where it is, the control measures > introduced etc, it showed a wide range of outcomes > but this time, you can actually go back and read > it yourself because it's very clear that the 11% > figure has been held up as some kind of absolute > gold-plated figure for all schemes everywhere and > it's "only" 11% (and therefore not worth doing??) > > > What's even more telling is that the meta-analysis > got shouted down as being: > old / out of date (apparently science done before > 2000 is no longer valid?!) > flawed (go, on, tell me HOW it's flawed, I'd love > to hear it) > biased (no it's not, the whole point of > meta-analysis is that you're looking at previous > studies and studying their methodology, not the > original raw data) > > And yet all the people saying that the study was > rubbish simultaneously grabbed the 11% figure that > came from that same study like a dog with a bone > and now won't let it go and are twisting it to > their own ends. Ex- we understand that of the 60 LTN programmes analysed globally the median average was 11%. Do you have any other stats that show average traffic reduction that would lead anyone to believe we could expect "significant" reduction from these measures? And significant would need to be far higher than the 11% median.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What that post also misses, is that almost > everybody is in favour of traffic reductions and > addressing pollution/climate issues. > But what they also are in favour of is a strategic > approach which those affected are informed of and > included in, rather than instantaneous measures > which are ill-thought out, exclusive, and simply > turn alternative roads in to rat runs. > Sooo lazy to label anyone who complains about the > current problems being caused as trying to prevent > progress on pollution/traffic/improvements. > It's not a binary situation save the world/kill > the world, people just want things done sensibly. Spot on. But it is convenient for the pro-closure lobby to label anyone who has an opinion that differs, even slightly, from theirs as some kind of pollution and congestion advocate. How many times have we seen the usual suspects claim people are suggesting no nothing?

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thought for the day from the London Cycling > Campaign (under a picture of Calton Avenue in > their free guide for local authorities on how to > win their constituents over > (https://s3.amazonaws.com/lcc_production_bucket/fi > les/13729/original.pdf? > > ?Increasingly often, those against schemes use > localised negative impacts, or even potential > negative impacts, to try and derail or delay > progress. They say that schemes will worsen > pollution or congestion at one or two spots, on > one road, or, most emotively, outside a particular > school. > It is entirely right that we do not tolerate > worsening air quality in school classrooms, or for > hospital patients, and it is right to aim to > reduce congestion that is one of the causes of > pollution. But if a scheme will, or is very likely > to, significantly reduce overall motor traffic > volumes, and therefore overall pollution levels, > even if it also causes isolated negatives, should > that derail the scheme? > Those who say yes are doomed to oppose > just about all progressive schemes. The ULEZ > expansion, for instance, will likely worsen > congestion and pollution outside the currently > planned expansion zone. But does that make it a > bad idea overall? Every scheme that takes bold > steps to reduce motor traffic has some negative > impacts. No scheme is perfect, but opposition to > such schemes rarely, if ever, present any better > ideas. The result of this opposition, indeed the > aim, is to delay schemes by years, to dilute and > weaken them, or to see them abandoned entirely. > Instead, if a scheme is likely to, or does, worsen > congestion or air pollution, it is crucial to > commit in advance to mitigations, to developing > and delivering further schemes as needed. The > climate crisis alone demands that we move forward > fast, fixing issues as we go. So, monitor the > impacts of any scheme you build, mitigate any > problems, and roll out the next scheme, learning > as you go. The alternative is to continue to do > nothing, or very little, in the face of growing, > catastrophic crises.? Interesting comment here: But if a scheme will, or is very likely to, significantly reduce overall motor traffic volumes, and therefore overall pollution levels, even if it also causes isolated negatives, should that derail the scheme? Can anyone show any scheme which has SIGNIFICANTLY reduced motor volumes? The best even the most pro-scheme lobbyist can show is a maximum of 11%.

Could it have been a makeshift entrance to an Andersen shelter? Our garden has a section of grass where the soil is a lot shallower because during the war someone had put down a concrete/hardcore base for their shelter.

Cllr McAsh. The council is organising public meetings online such as this https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consultations/empowering-communities/community-conference so why can it not organise an emergency meeting to discuss these closures?

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No support for physical road closures by the > emergency services > https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/police-and-am > bulance-service-wont-support-hard-road-closures-as > -new-road-changes-unveiled/ > > It's about time the council paused and listened to > the concerns of the public, businesses and > emergency services ....this was the downfall of the Loughborough Junction closures. It is clear the emergency services are acknowledging that these closures are impacting their ability to do their jobs. Didn't the council plead that they cannot afford cameras? Or are they resistant because it becomes difficult for them to rationally argue against timed closures with cameras?

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets ? no, I don?t use Amazon, etc. and never > have delivery food or Ocado, etc. I don?t take > taxis or Uber. Utilities don?t need to come here > and most deliveries (95%, I?d say) are brought by > my pedestrian postman. It?s called putting your > money where your mouth is. Give it a try, and > encourage others. Please let us know where this 1950s enclave is where you live! Not sure there has been a pedestrian post person in East Dulwich for a while - well certainly not since the Silvester Road sorting office closed. Our postie drives to the end of our road and then delivers the mail. Do you grow your own food too or only buy food grown on the premises you can walk too? ;-) In all seriousness I think everyone is analysing how things get to them. In my youth I used to work in a supermarket on a Saturday and once got taken to their distribution center and was horrified (and this was long before people were aware of climate problems) that fruit grown in Kent was sent to Birmingham for processing and packaging and then sent back to Kent to be sold in a supermarket less than 10 miles from where it was grown.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What do people think will actually be achieved by > allowing cars to fill up side roads as well as > main ones? Do they honestly believe that the > traffic on main roads won?t just increase to > previous levels again within weeks? Is it just a > the case that they want every road is dominated > with traffic in some strange idea of ?fairness?? > How will this help anything? But rahrahrah you contradict yourself as you advocate closing roads that is, in fact, causing smaller roads to become more congested. I just don't get it and don't understand why you can't see what is actually happening. It's really time the pro-closure lobby opened their eyes to see what is actually happening since these closures went in. This is Loughborough Junction repeating itself.

..duplicate post

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually it looks as though the orders are > experimental orders under section 9 > > https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3579196. > Looks like a mid Dec deadline for objections? > > The government guidance is here > https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/realloc > ating-road-space-in-response-to-covid-19-statutory > -guidance-for-local-authorities/traffic-management > -act-2004-network-management-in-response-to-covid- > 19. > > It does sound as though some of the consultation > requirements may not have been met in all cases - > but not sure what this means in practical terms. > > ?Authorities should seek input from stakeholders > during the design phase. They should consult with > the local chiefs of police and emergency services > to ensure access is maintained where needed, for > example to roads that are closed to motor traffic. > Local businesses, including those temporarily > closed, should be consulted to ensure proposals > meet their needs when they re-open. Kerbside > access should be enabled wherever possible for > deliveries and servicing. > > The public sector equality duty still applies, and > in making any changes to their road networks, > authorities must consider the needs of disabled > people and those with other protected > characteristics. Accessibility requirements apply > to temporary measures as they do to permanent > ones.? Ooooh, good catch. Southwark quoted experimental not emergency in their submission - that could become a big problem for them. These are not experimental as they were previously planned under OHS so they have merely used the order to fastrack an existing plan - and that's a big no no. Cllr McAsh also admitted they had not consulted shopkeepers on Melbourne Grove.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets: there's a difference between Emergency > and Experimental. > > https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/making- > traffic-regulation-orders-during-coronavirus-covid > -19/traffic-regulation-orders-guidance-on-the-traf > fic-orders-procedure-coronavirus > > A lot of what is being used at the moment is > Emergency under the new legislation (linked > above) > > Experimental exist already: S9 of the RTRA1984 > although they're not used as frequently as they > should be - in terms of cheap traffic control > they're very good but a lot of people complain > bitterly with the "WE'VE NOT BEEN CONSULTED, IT'S > UNDEMOCRATIC!" rant and most councils can't be > bothered dealing with the fallout (even though > it's something they're legally allowed to do as a > democratically elected authority). I just clicked on the link and one of the first things I saw was this: Bringing forward (or postponing) works that are required in any event is in itself unlikely to meet the test in regulation 18(1). And then this: Works needed to put a coronavirus measure in place. For example, works needed to suspend parking bays, widen the pavement or install the cycle lane. Surely given the DV closures were planned as OHS then they fall foul of this? Also, throwing planters in isn't adding any of the above is it? I think all of these closures might fall foul of the law the council thought enbaled them.

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But that doesn't explain the current tailback from > the Grove Tavern all the way back to the Library > southbound on the top end of Lordship Lane which > has become a daily occurrence since the closures > went in. It never used to be like that and that's > not school traffic. > > > A lot of the people waiting in that queue are now > diving down the backstreets to try and cut the > corner via Underhill. > > This, this, a thousand times this. As someone who > very rarely drives and cycles/walks very regularly > including commuting into central London, it?s > incredibly frustrating that my cycle journey feels > considerably less safe than it did around > Underhill/Melford as a result of displaced traffic > from Court Lane. As I said on the other thread, > I?m open to the idea it might settle down over > time but our local councillors have been told > there are no current plans to monitor the knock on > effects on streets like ours as part of the > decision process whether to make these changes > permanent. And as both roads are bus routes, no > prospect of LTN measures. I?d love to know what > ideas and measures there are to help people like > us who are exactly the people trying to make the > changes everyone is asking for, but being hit hard > by measures to help other areas. And what I cannot fathom is how the council thinks that adding even more closures (like those on Peckham Rye) is going to do anything other than make roads that used to be perfectly safe to cycle down an absolute nightmare.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Number is issues. > In real terms driving has never been cheaper. > > Installation of the CPZ, LTN planters and COVID > at broadly the same time has made this more > painful to digest than it needed to be. > > COVID. Traffic levels are reported as now higher > across London than before COVID. Lots I guess > avoiding public transport. So even if nothing was > done more congestion was more likely. > > All day CPZ aimed at commuter parking should have > been a PPA operating for small part of the day > once commuters had started to return to the area. > Study several years ago showed 22% of our local > shops custom came by car but in the current > climate that 22% could be make or break for local > businesses. > > Closing roads seems to be the only thing that > changes driver behaviour. But the consultation on > this feels incomplete so bound to get lots of > opposition. So I welcome the LTN idea. Locally we > have a long history of such closures making the > area better. But they take considerable time > before they become truly accepted e.g. Friern > Road, Gilkes Crescent, Oakhurst Grove, etc. But > concerned about how residents have been engaged. > But my reflection is relying on people driving to > do the decent thing and not rat run, except when > essential, has never worked - and technology is > making it ever more unlikely to work. > > I would personally prefer see more often closures > with camera enforcement to non Southwark residents > to stop rat running. Often quoted ot me that half > of Southwark traffic start and ends journey > outside Southwark so huge proportion of rat > running down streets never designed for such > traffic levels. James, I agree that your non-Southwark traffic idea makes perfect sense - if, of course, the council can establish what the key problem is and they determine how that works given we are near the borders of two other boroughs. Of course, if everyone does that it will be difficult to get anywhere. The problem is the council is totally clueless as to what they are trying to fix and think closing a load of key roads in the area solves the problem when it is clear it does not. Such measures are creating huge resentment across Dulwich and turning many against the pro-cycle lobby and it is doing massive damage to the broader common-sense approach of encouraging more people to change their transport means. Residents (unless they happen to be part of Southwark Cyclists or one of the many pro-closure lobby groups) have not been consulted - just informed that these "emergency Covid measures" are going in whether they like it or not. That is the right way to rub a lot of people up the wrong way. As a member of Southwark Cyclists and an East Dulwich resident do you really think these measures are working and given there are more closures going in any day now that the problem isn't going to get worse? Lordship Lane is becoming a pollution nightmare and most of us shop and eat out there - why should that be inflicted on a large percentage of the population to appease a small proportion of it?

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The solution is to drive less especially at > traditionally busy times. (With no car for twenty > years I?m halo-polishing a little but I?m not part > of the problem and that prevents any charge of > hypocrisy when I ask for people to use their > vehicles less.) And I presume then that you never use any sort of delivery service that requires a vehicle to deliver things to you?

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?ve just seen lots of traffic and the reason was > school closing time. That?s down to individuals > choosing, not needing, to travel short distances > by car. It?s that simple. But that doesn't explain the current tailback from the Grove Tavern all the way back to the Library southbound on the top end of Lordship Lane which has become a daily occurrence since the closures went in. It never used to be like that and that's not school traffic. A lot of the people waiting in that queue are now diving down the backstreets to try and cut the corner via Underhill. Is the solution to just block all those roads too? At some point the council has to sit up and take notice and realise the closures have been an absolute disaster.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > slarti b Wrote: > > > So you haven't answered my quesions have you, as > > > brief reminder, > > 1) Are, DV, Calton, Court Lane Townly Rat runs, > yes\no > > 2) which roads do you think the displaced > traffic should use, please name them > > 3) Is it right to displace increase congestion > and pollution and displace traffic onto the "main" > roads - yes\no > > > > Question 2 is particularly important and > supporters of these schemes, the councillors, > > posters on here like RaRa and ExDulwicher refuse > to answer it. So come on, lets hear which roads > > should suffer increased congestion so we can > have weekend concerts in Margy Plaza :-) > > I've not answered because here is no one answer to > "what roads should be used instead?". It depends > on the journey. Start/end points, "ideal" route vs > other options, use of sat-nav vs driver just > saying "I'll do X instead", purpose of journey > (and that is important to differentiate between a > delivery driver doing (say) 6 drops in an area vs > a parent driving a child to school and then > driving back empty). It will vary depending on > time of day, purpose of journey and distance of > journey. If you're driving 1km then you probably > don't have many alternative route options (and > frankly, if you're driving 1km, that's the entire > purpose of these filters, to stop you doing that!) > but if you're driving 20km then you probably have > a few more possibilities that don't affect the > overall time of the journey. > > One of the benefits of doing it this way with > temporary measures and then just looking at what > actually happens is you don't really need a huge > amount of "before" data (some is certainly helpful > but it's actually not as critical as some people > seem to think), you get to see the results in real > time with the expected disruption followed by the > smoothing out of the line as people get used to > the revised routes / options open to them and you > can tweak things a bit as required. It won't all > be perfect but it's a lot better than building an > entire new junction then coming back and redoing > it 2 years later. > > I'm not a fan of weekend concerts and other > assorted crap in Dulwich Square (or whatever its > name is this week) by the way. It's a road and > it's still used by pedestrians and cyclists; > muppets doing the waltz there get right in the > way! > > (edited for spelling) Ex- given your experience of such things is it at all odd that the council are organising monitoring in September and then December on many of the roads impacted by the displacement and during that period are planning to close more roads that will inevitably lead to a decline in traffic numbers (I refer to East Dulwich Grove in particular given the plans to close Dulwich Village at the roundabout which will send traffic looking for yet more routes)? And whilst you herald temporary measures can you a council really get a handle on what is happening if four sets of closures have been implemented in a short period of time? Does it not beoome a moving target as the council chases the displacement by throwing an ever increasing number of road closures in place? Also, the judicial reviews that have been filed in other areas are based on the legal precedent whether these measures are experimental. Do you consider LTN's experimental - it seems that the council referred to them as "emergency" rather than experimental traffic orders which may be something of a deliberate misnomer on their part and could well see them falling foul of the law.

You know everyone heralds the Netherlands as the beacon of light when it comes to cycling and how they are the model we should all be following and that we put them in the shade as far as car use is concerned. Well, I had no idea that the Netherlands actually has a higher per capita car ownership than the UK - that's not something you would have expected.

peckhamside Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I WILL NOT BE SIGNING > As a cyclist I support these road closures. As do > most cyclists I know. Traffic is terrible lately, > but that is because too many people are making > short journeys, such as taking children to school > when they could walk. > If people chose to sit in the car for hours rather > than walk, that is their choice. And surely if > people want to go to a business they go there? > You can drive to M.G. just from the other end of > the road? If people are sitting in cars for hours does that not suggest their journey's are too long to be done on foot or on a bike? Once again the pro-closure lobby views the world only from their personal purview "If I can do it why can't everyone else"! There are a lot of cyclists who are now turning to oppose these closures as they realise they are doing far more harm than good.

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We all know the various campaigns - Southwark > Cyclists, Living Streets, Safe Routes to School, > Clean Air for Dulwich, Mums for Lungs, all are > also local cycling people and we know they have > pushed and pushed for solutions that impact on > them positively, and everyone else negatively. > They are not willing to reach a compromise, and > never were. > > I'm a member of the Dulwich Society and am fast > losing patience with a group that sub text their > name with: > "The Society?s aims and objectives are to foster > and safeguard the amenities of Dulwich, both in > the interests of its residents and the wider local > community of which it is a part, and to increase > awareness of the varied character that makes the > area so special." > > Clearly they are not as they supported the closure > of the Calton Avenue junction immediately ruining > the lives of hundreds who now have to sit in > traffic jams in Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove, > the A205 and Croxted Road, thanks to the junction > and free passage being shut off. > > And from the latest Magazine: > "Travel and Environment Chair retires > > Alastair Hanton has stood down as chair of the > Society's Travel and Environment Group after 30 > years. He has been a very active member since the > late 1960s, working on its early campaign over the > introduction of the Scheme of Management, and was > at different times, both treasurer and secretary, > but he is best known as a tireless campaigner for > the improvement of pedestrian facilities and > cycling infrastructure in the local area."....."In > the wider context he was a trustee for the London > Cycling Campaign for many years and in 2004 he > founded Southwark Living Streets. This led to him > being heavily involved in the initial attempts to > create a pan-London umbrella group which > culminated in London Living Streets being > established in 2016. > > Perhaps his main achievement, though, has been his > success in encouraging local children to walk and > cycle to school. He was active in the Safe Routes > to School group and was instrumental in the > provision of additional pedestrian crossings in > Dulwich Village, Half Moon Lane and Burbage Road, > and the installation of designated cycle lanes. To > many younger environmental campaigners, he has > been a much-appreciated mentor - he has shared > ideas and showed by example what could be done. We > wish him well in his "retirement"." > > Unfortunately his influence carries part of the > blame for the situation we all now find ourselves. > Either like me, cut off if I need to get out and > having to sit in traffic jams or re-arrange > appointments in the future to fit with the camera > times, or like people in Burbage, the Village and > Turney Road who are going to face a lock in, or > lock out for five hours a day. > > Pity the businesses, pity the housebound ill > waiting for their carers, pity the disabled who > will take far longer now to get anywhere, I could > go on. > > Travel and Environment Subcommittee changes: > > "Following Alastair Hanton's retirement, Pamela > Monblat the secretary has also stepped down after > 15 years' service. She has made a major > contribution to the efficient running of the > subcommittee and we are very grateful to her. > Three other long-standing members have also > retired, Isaac Marks, Jeremy Nicholson and > Rosemary Dawson and we are also very appreciative > of their contributions." > > Yes, a clean out of the old guard. > > "Three new members have joined the committee > including a new secretary, Katy Savage. The new > subcommittee chair, who will be put forward at the > next AGM, is Harry Winter. Harry is a tax > barrister and has lived in Dulwich for 25 years > going to school locally. He is currently vice > chair of the Herne Hill Forum and is a keen > proponent of air quality, safe and healthy travel, > and environmental issues generally." > > So this committee has been taken over by > cyclists. > > Time the Dulwich Society started counting its > members to check they are not dropping > away......... It is so unbelievably incestuous and I am sure there are plenty of conflicts of interest given links to the council and councillors.

DougieFreeman - this does seem to be the go-to position of a lot of the pro-closure lobby that somehow people think the status quo was acceptable. It wasn't and everyone realises there have to be changes to the way we all use cars, home deliveries etc etc. No-one on here has ever said do nothing. What people want is something that doesn't make the problem worse - which is is obvious these closures are currently doing. So James, are you at all worried about the increased congestion and pollution that these closures are causing on other roads and what, bar closing more roads, do you think can be done to resolve it? It's clear the traffic won't just disappear in the numbers required to make a difference and all these closures are doing is pushing the traffic down fewer and fewer routes. Southwark Cyclists were consulted on the proposed closures on Peckham Rye - does it worry you at all that your ex-constituents will now have to bear the brunt of the traffic through the backstreets of Dulwich as cars will no longer be able to turn right from Peckham Rye onto East Dulwich Road? Everyone in Dulwich is being impacted by these closures yet only a very small group is benefitting.

dougiefreeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't think you're going to get an answer > Dulwichgirl82... It's very much a growing trend amongst the pro-closure lobby - they come on, throw a load of questions at those who are requesting a more balanced debate, the answers are provided and then they go quiet or try to change the subject. I did notice that KatyKoo did not have any responses to my responses to her questions/points. Increasingly I believe (just like their friends in the council) that they don't want to engage in any debate - they just want to have things all their own way.

KatyKoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Katykoo.. question for you. You mention making > > school streets safer. However East Dulwich > grove > > has by far the most schools and a nursery > compared > > with these closed roads. As the road that has > > taken most of the displaced traffic how is that > > good? This has made more children?s route to > > school more congested. > > The council have counted traffic on East Dulwich > Grove in September and I think they're monitoring > again in December. Same with Lordship Lane & > Dulwich Village. > > I did see an increase in traffic on Dulwich > Village, EDG and Lordship Lane initially when the > junction filters first went in - but it seems to > have settled now and is not that much worse than > usual. That's what I see - but the traffic counts > will tell. > > Of course data can be interpreted to suit beliefs > i.e. One Dulwich push the council for more data > all the time, but then refuse to accept the data > that traffic is high outside peak hours. September...remind me again when the DV closures went in.....;-) So what you're saying is their data is going to be based on one set of monitoring from September (after the schools had gone back) and one set from December. Interesting. I think I can see how they plan to manipulate the figures this time round. The DV northbound closure which will happen before December will lead to a reduction in traffic on East Dulwich Grove -it will of course go elsewhere. Do you see why we are concerned why they were not monitoring BEFORE the closures went in and they are trying to fudge the figures again? Your comment about the traffic "settling back to how it was before the filters went in" is as ludicrous as it is misguided. Cllr McAsh even admitted this week that he was concerned by the traffic increases on East Dulwich Grove.

FairTgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Indeed the Cllr's statement very much reads like > - > > "after consulting with Southwark Cyclists we > have > > decided that there is a simple fix: we will > remove > > more parking spaces and replace them with cycle > > racks." > > > > In all seriousness the pressure is now mounting > on > > the council and councillors as each time there > is > > an article or news report like this more people > > say: "wow, do the council really know what they > > are doing". > > > > We know from Cllr McAsh's statement that there > was > > no consultation with shop owners and this is an > > utter dereliction of duty on the council's > part. > > It may also make the closures unlawful due to a > > lack of proper consultation. > > Curious to discover quite why Southwark Cyclists > hold so much sway, as Rockets you said in another > post elsewhere, why would Southwark continually > include this lobby group in decision making > reports - when TFl will have all necessary data > required. > > Popping onto their website and reading their > campaigning material, reports, minutes is quite > edifying. The url is the name of an East Dulwich > former councillor until 2018. > He states on his (former) councillor page that he > was previously chair of Southwark Cyclists - the > fact his name is in the url suggests he is still > heavily involved and he states he lives locally. > > I am possibly the last person to be aware of what > feels a relevant connection. > > Over in Oval, it has come to light that one of the > first LTNs that was created there is home to three > local councillors... That's interesting - I didn't realise that. I did wonder why Southwark Cyclists has a postal address on London Wall, E1. Then I looked a bit deeper and it seems the reason is that they are part of the London Cycle Campaign. Now interestingly the London Cycle Campaign proudly claims on their website that they helped invent the term LTNs with Living Streets. Cast your mind back to the East Dulwich CPZ consultations and Living Streets is quoted extensively by the council as they are the ones who came up with the figure that people spend 40% more when the walk to the shops - which formed the basis of the council's lobbying of the local community. It's all worryingly insular and nepotistic if you ask me. It seems the council is deliberately engaging and consulting only with people in their own echo chamber and ignoring the views of the wider community.