Rockets

I think we can all agree that something has to be done about transportation links in the area, especially east/west. There is a reason why Dulwich performs poorly on PTAL scores and that is a lack of adequate public transportation through and across the area. And, to be honest, it's why many parts of Dulwich have changed so much over the last 20 years or so - the lack of good transport options kept house prices down until a point when the prices were too good to be overlooked for this close to London.

But Malumbu - not sure how you can discuss this without talking about politics. The decisions impacting Dulwich at the moment are political, being made by representatives of a political party that has zero opposition. Saying that the area needs political opposition isn?t a bad thing is it? Not sure how you suggest people divorce politics from this. Just because you don?t want to discuss the political element of this doesn?t mean other people don?t. Thus far you have told people not to talk about politics, or the influence of cycle lobby groups groups on local decision-making.....anything else you deem inappropriate for this forum.....?

Agree. But as we have seen time and time again common sense doesn't seem to prevail when it comes to Southwark council in Dulwich!

I think it is very telling that during weekends during this latest lockdown that the roads surrounding the park are crowded with parked cars and the park itself much more crowded. It's a very popular park and the catchment area is much broader than us residents who are able to walk to it.

rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bear in mind that the Lib Dem candidate listed in > your link above owns a house directly behind the > closed DV junction, which overlooks her front > garden. > > I served as both a Tory and a Lib Dem councillor, > crossing over out of frustration, but had serious > issues with both manifestoes. However, I find the > Lib Dems in the north of the borough to be more in > tune with residents? views than those in the > south. Hence, I also found Nick Johnson?s article > intriguing. > > In my opinion, a split party government is the > best way forward, as one party with a serious > majority tends to railroad decisions through. > > Another option is to form an entirely separate new > political party... I completely agree - these decisions by our council are indicative of one that has no opposition. It was interesting during the recent Cabinet meeting that the two Lib Dem councillors from the north of the borough were saying that Sadiq Khan had done little for the residents in Southwark and listed a number of initiatives that had been cancelled by the mayor. Cllr Williams interjected and said they should not be political point-scoring and then he went into a passionate political point-scoring defence of Sadiq and all the good he had done...much nodding in agreement from the Labour councillors while the Lib Dems smiled..... Why did the council kill the green bus initiative...it sounds like an idea that this area is crying out for? RCH how should we be fighting these closures - the council seems to be doing everything in their power to silence any sort of debate about them? Southwark definitely needs some sort of opposition to ensure transparency.

You can see why the emergency services love things that block roads....imagine that police car is responding to your emergency call....blocking roads seems more and more foolish every day.....

Speaking of the Guardian a very interesting pre-lockdown article that looked at congestion, well worth a read..... This quote in particular stuck out for me in light of what we are seeing today with the LTNs... For McNamara, there is a clear class dimension to the debate: ?The myth of the anti-car lobby is that it?s someone in a Rolls-Royce flicking cigar ash out of the window at the cyclists. It?s the working class that are driving the commercial vehicles in central London, and they are being forced out by the wealthy inner-London elite, who can afford to live in Islington and want to ride their bike to St Pancras. They want to sit in Oxford Circus and drink their skinny caramel coconut latte without any thought about how the constituent parts got there. And they want something, they buy it on their phone and they expect it delivered the next day.? But then, as Travers says: ?The truth is that almost everyone using the streets ? cabs, buses, pedestrians and cyclists ? has a sense of entitlement.? https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/11/how-london-got-rid-of-private-cars-and-grew-more-congested-than-ever?__twitter_impression=true

sally buying Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What is not mentioned regarding these photos is > that many of these estates were built 70 years ago > and these estate roads went nowhere except round > the estate. > > Also when they were built people did not own > motorcars in any number. > > They have always been LTN's due to where they are. > > > Southwark made many of these estate roads one way > many many years ago. Exactly. Trying to suggest that these are comparable to the closing of the DV junction or any other through routes by the person who wrote the EDSTN thread is beyond tenuous! Unless of course they are trying to suggest that people used to drive around the estates for the hell of it!!! ;-) I do wonder if the author wanted to try and make a point that LTNs are not just a trapping for the super affluent but failed miserably in their attempt. That one picture with the bike on the top floor balcony really demonstrated how some of these pro-closure lobbyists really need to step out of their privileged lives in their huge houses in one of the most affluent parts of London and apply these closures from everybody else's purview......can you imagine trying to get a cargo bike up the stairs of those flats!

Ex- I think what both those twitter threads demonstrate is that there are absolute numpties on both sides of the argument ;-) Legal - the council are trying to move away from actual monitoring and are suggesting modelling is the way they are going to determine the success (or otherwise) - there are very limited monitoring stations in place and many of them went in after the closures went into place (the council originally only put monitoring in on the closed roads like Court Lane and Calton Avenue and nothing went in on the roads soaking up the displacement). It's why I was asking this question of Cllr McAsh; he was unable to provide any answers to where monitoring went and in and when - he had been asking the council but could not get an answer. It is very interesting that the Guy's charity running the 3 LTNs in Southwark has insisted to the council that ?50,000 of the money is invested in actual monitoring so they can properly assess the displacement. To your other point I also noticed a lot of traffic queuing through Dulwich Village when I was on an early morning run - I think a lot of people are trying to get through by 8am. I also noticed on the run the point someone else made that the signage is not at all clear. I ran along Gallery Road from the A205 and there are no signs until you get to the roundabout and I suspect many drivers are seeing the timed road closed signs on the roundabout and then turning left down Burbage and are not seeing the closed sign on Burbage as it is obscured by that very tight left hand turn.

On the subject of blocking has anyone else noticed that The Guardian seems to have turned off comments on LTN articles? Or was it that you could only ever leave comments on Opinion pieces?

For those of you who have managed to have been blocked by the EDSTN Healthy Street propaganda machine here is the text from the thread.....pictures attached of the various access roads on the estates they have photographed......if you look very, very carefully you can just about see a single bike on the top floor balcony of the flats in the picture of the WMAM2asp.jpeg....thereby very visually illustrating why a large percentage of the local population will struggle to switch to bikes..... This EDSTN thread seems to be trying to make a rather spurious connection between access roads on our local estates and LTNs on Court Lane and Calton Avenue..... Anyway, the award for the most tone-deaf twitter thread of 2020 goes to......read on....;-) We love our new LTN, but did you know that Southwark has over 52 existing road filters already in place- one of the highest in London? In Dulwich many of Southwark?s estates have had extensive filtering for many years. Rather than LTNs being a new thing, it seems that our housing estates have long been trailblazers for safer & quieter streets. These estates have quiet streets, green space, with some currently getting new playgrounds and pavements / ramp access. So why is no one clamouring for the removal of these filters? Mainly it?s that they?ve been in place for years and the benefits are clear. They?re not even thought of as LTNs any more, though that?s how they were designed. LTNs need time to bed in, they need improving where necessary but they have a long history of being successful in Southwark.

This EDSTN Healthy Streets twitter thread........;-)

Indeed but I think in Dulwich more people are aware as people's daily lives are being impacted (given the large % of car ownership) and I think that is why One Dulwich have so much support - likely to become even more when the fines start coming in through the new timed closures. It was interesting that in the last One Dulwich email they promised to alert people to how they register their comments about the closures when the council opens up the "consultation and feedback" period. It is not in the interests of either the council or the pro-closure lobby to have broad awareness of the steps needing to be taken to register thoughts. I think that was why OneDulwich were very cleverly putting flyers on cars in Dulwich over the summer - alerting people to a resource that could help them if they don't like the changes. It's also why the What's App fuelled awareness of the Southwark e-petition led to so many local residents signing it. expect a similar thing to happen when the consultation process starts. The pro-closure lobby twitter feeds don't get any traction - they seem to be followed by the same group of pro and anti-closure lobbyists so they aren't moving the needle - they are either talking to themselves or their opponents. The challenge in any sort of debate like this is for the council and pro-closure lobby to try and ride out the storm of negative publicity and hope people get used to the changes, lose interest in the fight and can't be bothered to find out more. For the anti-closure lobby they have to try and keep the issue front of mind for the most number of people to get them to register their objections and lobby the council for change. The things you are doing will be annoying the hell out of the council and pro-closure lobby as it is shining a light on the process (so keep it up! ;-)). In previous council consultations constituent ignorance has been the council's bliss! I very much sense that has changed now.

Also the Guys and St Thomas' project is far better thought out and it looks like the implementation is going to be far better than the council ones to date. The charity is insisting on displacement analysis - which could be interesting and finally produce some granular data on what displacement does/does not actually occur. I actually think that any prior consultation will only apply to new programmes and this one has been in the council purview for some time. I think the council has rolled out all the phases in Dulwich super quick so they can get them in before the government forces them to, heaven forbid, consult with local residents! ;-) If Commonspace is to be the mode by which they consult this will explain why many of the pro-closure twitter handles encourage people to register their support via Commonspace.

Point 19 is interesting. Consultation with residents via Commonplace during the period of the ETMO. Is this the means by which the council will consult on all LTNs moving forward? The government made it clear (according to Peter Walker of The Guardian fame) that there needed to be prior consultation.

Me too - it's good to see them coming back.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > alice Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Has anyone changed their mind about LTNs after > > engaging with/ reading this thread? > > > For myself, I came to the thread largely in a > state of ignorance. Confession: I'd had a passing > look at the Healthy Streets leaflets that came > through the door and concluded it was something I > didn't need to pay much attention to as I don't > drive. At all, ever. However, once I started to > notice the massive decrease in air quality on East > Dulwich Grove I did some googling to find out how > everything had come about. As a result, I don't > have a doctrinal pro-or anti LTN stance. I > honestly don't think most of the "objectors" on > this thread do. Same with most of the people I > know locally. They think that LTNs probably work > in some places if properly designed. They also > think it's important that the council engage > properly with the community it serves. So my > bugbears related to this SPECIFIC LTN, are (i) the > council's processes, in particular the lack of > transparency around the way it consults/ engages > specific interest groups in its policy formation - > and that's what making a large number of > ordinarily "silent" people locally quite angry - > they feel as though they have been hijacked; and > (ii) what I personally perceive to be the impact > of this specific LTN, in terms of social justice > type points, the impact of some specific small > businesses (those who rely on making deliveries, > for example) and the unacceptable pockets of > congestion/ pollution that are being created. I'd > like to see more discussion on what "tweaks" could > be made to make the local LTN a bit better. > > But the whole argument seems to have become, as > I've said before, entirely polarised. I'm not the > "pro-LTN lobby", and it should be possible to make > specific points without the constant "well, you > don't really mean it, I believe you're an SUV > driver who wants to drive everywhere all the time" > response. Legal - spot on! And to answer Alice's question I am not sure anyone reading the thread will have swapped sides on the basis of what us lot carpet-bomb on here (from both sides!) but what cannot be denied is the closures are a talking point within the wider community (especially in East Dulwich where the displacement impact is being felt most). The challenge many of us have is that the way the council is handling this is turning more and more people against these interventions and their lack of proper communication is fuelling the anti-LTN sentiment and is doing long-term harm to the wider pollution discussion.

Nigello - do you think that it is right and fair that the council has displaced traffic from Dulwich Village (one of the most affluent areas in the whole of London) onto roads through more densely populated areas and created congestion problems throughout East Dulwich that is leading to higher pollution for everyone in the area? P.S. My exaggeration pales into insignificance when compared to the pro-closure lobby disinformation programmes - which seem to have gone into overdrive these last few days...;-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The 'social justice' argument, is being massively > over played by those against low traffic > neighbourhoods. The least affluent are much less > likely to own a car and to rely on walking or > cycling. The idea that the denizens of Dulwich > should be able to drive their SUVs through every > side street as a way of 'protecting' the less > affluent, rings pretty hollow to me. > I can't help feeling that in the majority of > cases, those who are against creating some spaces > where cars dominate a little less, are mainly > concerned about the personal inconvenience of not > being able to drive where they like. But would you not agree that the implementation of the LTNs has been to the benefit of the most wealthy areas of Dulwich which is causing massive displacement to those areas less well-off? So whilst you chastise those people in SUVs it is, in fact, the people most likely to drive SUVs who are benefiting from these closures. I am afraid the pro-closure cycling lobby are so blinkered in their view of the world that they don't realise that the majority of people have nowhere to store a bike. I laughed so loud today when I heard from someone that when they bought their electric cargo bike that it was recommended that they store it in a heated bike shed......I don't have room for a bike shed yet alone a heated one and yet all I hear is that the solution to all our woes is an e-cargo bike. These things are becoming a bit of an eco-accessory only for the super-rich. A bit like Teslas.

I think because they are having to course correct as they go. They wanted to block and close more roads but realised the emergency services are against that because they are impacting response times. If you remember the council claimed they could not afford camera controlled closures and now they have found the money for them.

There is certainly a wave of pro-LTN propoganda being pushed at the moment - there must be the realisation that the pressure is mounting so they have to push some of the usual hyperbole.... Very interesting twitter thread via that I found via LittleNinja in Lewisham sums up quite accurately what seems to be happening: There is an inner circle of Pro-LTN lobbyists who are fanning the flames of the LTNs are good rhetoric. I also enjoyed this spat between the FT's Travel writer and The Guardian's Peter Walker. Perhaps of most interest was when someone else waded in and suggested Peter is hardly objective and challenged him on why he appeared at Southwark's Dec 2019 Environmental Scrutiny Meeting (see page 10 of the minutes below). http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6464/Printed%20minutes%20Wednesday%2004-Dec-2019%2019.00%20Environment%20Scrutiny%20Commission.pdf?T=1 Peter, in the twitter thread admits he was invited to talk by a Southwark councillor because he is a "resident". I wonder which councillor invited him. Funny how the council only seems to invite "residents" to meetings who happen to be pro-closure lobbyists and very supportive of the council's agenda. Said person then writes an utterly biased article in the Guardian and our local councillors then retweet it basically saying...look we are right. Everything is so dangerously incestuous within the council and its echo chamber - there is no balance at all. At a time when we have Cllrs like Cllr McAsh trying to divide and conquer by refusing to engage with people who don't live in their ward, at a time when all councillors are refusing to engage in any dialogue with anyone who dares question these closures, at a time when the council refuses any sort of public consultation you can see why many residents in the area are questioning who their council is actually representing.

CWJ yes a lot of people from our street, myself included, did during the first lockdown. I would encourage anyone else to do the same as the council must be monitoring the demand - let's hope they start actioning a few more of them to help the modal shift they so desire. Does anyone know why there appears to be so few new ones going in?

Ex- yes in a very cynical mood right now - been burnt too many times by this council and their manipulative ways!!! ;-) I can see how they might start to skew things their way already....maybe that's not cynicism but realism...the council don't have a very good track record when it comes to transparency....;-)

Given the councils are now being, ahem, encouraged, to engage with local residents over all of these closures does anyone expect them to engage in an area wide consultation project or should we expect them to revert to type and poll only those people who live on the closed roads (as they have done time and time before?)? Council: "Hello resident who lives on road now closed to through traffic (BTW I am the hero who closed the road for you, please vote for me). Are you happy that we closed your road for you and now your road is very quiet and you can park your car outside your house?". Resident: "Yes". Council: "Would you like us to remove said closure and allow traffic along your road again?" Resident: "No" Council: "We thought you would say that. Thank you for your input."

Coming back to the subject of whether the council is doing enough (bar closing roads) to encourage cycling I read, with interest, the Cycle Hanger pdf found here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/traffic-orders-licensing-strategies-and-regulation/traffic-management-orders?chapter=5&article It suggests that since lockdown the council has managed to put cycle hangers (or proposals for cycle hangers) in two locations in SE22 - one on Dunstans Road and one on Lordship Lane. Have they done more than this or is that it? If so, it doesn't look like they are doing enough for those who don't have huge houses or gardens to store their bikes.