Rockets

And what about those who order goods that are shipped on cargo ships that can, in one journey, put out more pollution than all the cars in a single country? Would you agree that this would need to carry a pollution tax of sorts? SE22_2020er - you acknowledge that public transport needs improving. Would you agree then that the council has put the cart before the horse with these LTN measures? That they cannot possibly have the desired effect if people do not have the public transport options to move away from the car. I would like to see means-tested road pricing brought in so that it is fair on everyone.

The review area has now been confirmed as going no further east than Lordship Lane so it is a blatant attempt at gerrymandering by the council. The council will prioritize the responses of those within the review area over those outside it even though you can "have your say". However, putting pressure on your ward councillors to force them to weight all responses from East Dulwich equally can have a positive impact. We cannot allow the council to manipulate this review in the same way they did the CPZ consultations.

What a surprise - the official review area consists of those roads benefitting from, and those immediately adjacent to, the closures....does that surprise anyone? So residents who are living with the displacement on roads like Underhill have no voice. So much for the assurances that this would be area wide. So plain to see what the council is doing here and the fact they think they can get away with it speaks volumes.

Whatever event they plan to run on the Square the road still has to function as a cycle route and part of the highway so it will be interesting to see how they do it. That junction is a bit crazy now with no-one really knowing who has right of way at the best of times. Bikes come hurtling down Calton and join the traffic on DV - many of them ignoring the traffic lights that they don't seem to realise are still functioning thus creating issues as the light controlled traffic is still coming from Turney Road - I have seen a few near misses whilst enjoying a drink from Au Ciel. The implementation of the closure is a bit haphazard to say the least.

Perhaps the council knows Melbourne Grove might need to start functioning as an open road again soon so is preparing the surface with that in mind........#i'llgetmycoat......;-)

Also it asks if you want a paper copy of the consultation documents which whilst good for the environment pretty much ensures no proactive mail drop or notification for people who may not be aware of the review.

Legal, I think that that registration form gives us a good idea on the review area as the pulldown menu asks you to select which road you live on. I wonder if this gives us a clue to the review area or whether the council are using this to determine the likely level of comments expected from certain streets (the cynic in me wonders whether this will be used to assess the final review area) Interesting to see that despite roads like Goodrich being included Underhill Road is not included which is one of the main displacement routes out of Dulwich.

Legal - what would our Labour councillors be saying about that if the Tories or Lib Dems were the ones pushing these LTNs on the community? 22.5k in just over a month is shocking and the council should be forced to review the signage.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My points, Nigello's and others are valid Alice. > What are you doing to reduce emissions? When did > you become interested in air quality? I hope you > have been playing your part but I worry that most > aren't. The angry chap ranting on the Jeremy Vine > programme sadly seems typical of many. The local > listener that called in and said about the > difficulties in driving to Tommies neglected to > say that congestion towards Lambeth bridge has > been dreadful for the last decade, this was my > normal (cycle) commute, and this has nothing to do > with LTNs, but the number of vehicles on the > road. > > This is a social media site which is for debate as > well as information. Please feel free to debate > with me my points above and elsewhere. I welcome > open debate. I recognise the ginormous changes in > personal mobility and freedom that the car brought > in the 50s and 60s. But we can no longer think > like this if we really care about the environment > and our fellow citizens. > > A great example. LTNs causing traffic jams. Yes > a worry. Jams by schools. Yes a worry. Traffic > idling in the jams. TURN YOUR BLOODY ENGINE OFF. > I think that is the first time I've used capitals > to emphasise a point. Malumbu - you are somewhat conflicted aren't you? You challenge everyone and anyone on what they are doing to limit their impact on climate change yet you talk about owning an old car. I think you will find that everyone is much like you, they are doing their bit and making significant changes to their habits and lifestyle but, like you, they do need a car for those journeys that cannot be walked or cycled. Please stop trying to paint those who challenge you or disagree with you as some sort of climate change deniers. Also you said "we can no longer think like this if we really care about the environment and our fellow citizens". We all agree with you on that which is why we are fighting to get the LTNs removed as they are bad for the environment and bad for our fellow citizens.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?It doesn't seem to say high proportion of social > housing but rather high proportion BAME. I have no > idea where the statement comes from but imagine if > we can prove it impacts people disproportionately > we might have more of a case.? > > I read it that it is high proportion BAME AND > social housing but I guess that is a matter of > interpretation. Of course the 60% figure has been > put in to make ?more of a case? but if it?s not > true, and evidence of my own eyes tells me it's > not, then fraudulent information is being used to > raise money. As someone who is neither for or > against the LTNs it makes me wonder what other > false information is being cited. The points James > Barber highlights from research currently under > peer review points are interesting. > > What I most object to is that fake concern for > false demographics is being put forward to make > ?more of a case?. The Lordship Lane Estate at the end of Lordship Lane is currently having to live with the negative impacts of the LTNs and the testimony of someone who lives on the estate during the Dulwich Hill LTN call was very compelling. The Aldred research has been debated widely on here previously but is looking at London as a whole and has been criticized for its methodology and particularly the elimination of boundary roads such as Lordship Lane from its analysis.

I notice there are signs up along the length of Melbourne Grove about resurfacing plans too. Tis that time of year where the council spends their roads surplus!

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Lib Dem councillor states 'In response to the > issues that you have been raising with us about > the difficulties of making journeys in the local > area, we have been in discussion with highways > officers, about what changes could made to the LTN > to address these concerns, without negating the > intentions of the LTN to discourage rat running > and unnecessary short car trips.' > > So good to see that they still support LTNs, and > more of a case of fine tuning. Some on this > thread just want the schemes removed. > > To go back, again(sigh), to pollution, it feels as > if some of you only became aware of this in the > last few months. Others, like me, have been > campaigning and taking action for years. If it is > important to you, rather than just a convenient > stick to beat Southwark/LTNs, then please reduce > the amount of driving, unnecessary deliveries etc > etc. Malumbu - they support the intention of the LTNs not the LTNs themselves - that is an important distinction. Many of us support the intention of the LTNs (reducing car usage) not the execution of that via LTNs. Slarti - I sense this is why some on Twitter are now referring to these as #LabourLTNs.....

Bicknell - I was hoping someone had an answer as I cannot see any reason why the council have not replaced the immovable bollards by now given the lobbying from the emergency services and the impact they have on response times. It seems negligent for them not to have changed them. Does anyone know why? Could it be because they may not be able to give a licence for a music festival in a square if it is designated an emergency route - someone must know the reason.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets - if they put cameras in at Calton/Court > Lane, then they'd presumably have to let the blue > badge people through as well as the occasional > emergency services vehicle - which would rule out > Dulwich Square. Might that be the reason? Yes and it could also be that it is the intersection of 3 junctions so if you wanted to retain the Square you would need to put 3 set of removable bollards in place and that would likely not be supported by the emergency services as it means having to move at least 2 to get access. I am very surprised that they are still immovable - perhaps they have assessed that it is not a route used by emergency services.

Slarti b - wow those stats from LAS are really concerning. It's obviously been part of the tug of war between those that support and those that oppose the closures but those numbers are compelling. I have been amazed that removable barriers have not been put in at the Calton Ave/Court Lane/DV junction - does anyone know why the council have refused to do that when others in areas like Melbourne Grove have been updated?

Legal - I have not watched the video but did you sense that there might be a swing in the sentiment towards the closures amongst some councillors or at least more scrutiny? Did I read it correctly somewhere that the review that was promised in February is now delayed until late summer? It was days away from being published (according to Cllr Williams a month or so ago) yet has now disappeared - I would love to know why - maybe the clues are in some of the questions being asked during that meeting?

I noticed this morning that monitoring strips are in on Lordship Lane near the Melford Road junction (they have been there for a while) but previously (during the last lockdown lift in November/December) they had been situated near the junction with Mount Adon. Ex- is there a reason why the strips get moved and are not monitoring in the same place as previously?

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don?t think people are going to disagree on this > thread - they just don?t think the particular > configuration of closures in this area are an > acceptable tool to encourage people to drive less, > because of the collateral damage. > > I?m not going to drive less, though, as I don?t > have a licence and don?t drive :) > > > > SE22_2020er Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I've had a brilliant idea to solve the problem. > > > DRIVE LESS!!!! > > > > I think the one thing that everyone agrees on > this > > thread is that there is too much pollution > caused > > by people driving. No-one has said that they > > want to see more cars on the road. Or have I > > missed those posts? > > > > So, what you should be doing fellow posters is > > focussing on the root cause of the problem > which > > is too many people driving and not enough > people > > using public transport and active transport > > (walking and cycling). > > > > Am I the only one who is keeping their fingers > > crossed that we will get the congestion charge > > implemented soon so that people who pollute are > > financially penalised for their pollution? Spot on legal. The LTNs don't take enough cars off the road to prevent increased congestion and pollution on tbe roads not closed. LTNs are a very blunt instrument that do nothing more than to create a reduced car nirvana within them and pollution hell around and outside them. Even if you remove the unnecessary local journeys made by Dulwich residents you probably only get a low single figure % of reduced car use which is not nearly enough to not cause displacement problems elsewhere. Remember the best claimed reduction in car use from an LTN was 11% and I suspect that was not in an area with as complex traffic challenges as Dulwich. Schools go back tomorrow so we are likely to see the first phase of the return of the increased congestion from the LTNs and it will increase again with each phase of lifting. Just saw this....it's as if each council is following the same playbook word for word... https://youtu.be/RMPmPi1aayE

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not really sure why you post the cycle lobby > doesn't want electric vehicles. We need vehicles > and they need to move to zero emission. We just > need less vehicles, rather than simply replace the > internal combustion engine with electric motors. > And when I say 'we' I am talking about society not > cyclists. > > And bemused by the comparison with Bromley. > Whilst I have expressed a view that some on this > thread aren't progressive in their thinking, many > in Bromley are in the dark ages when it comes to > more environmentally friendly transport. And most > have the space in their homes to keep a bike. So > often the choice is: I'll use my car as it is more > convenient, vs I'll use another form of transport > as although it is less convenient it is better for > society, the environment and my health and well > being. I've made the transition to the latter, > irrespective of the hills and the absolutely > dreadful public transport (it's not). Join me. It is clear from all of the above posts that both sides in this debate are a lot closer than most people think - we all want to do something about the climate emergency but disagree on the effectiveness of the measures the council has put in thus far. DC - I would agree that more measures to support cycling are needed on main roads, traffic calming, 24/7 bus lanes etc are all needed. But it has to be part of a broader package of events. What interested me in the Guardian's interactive article was just how little of Southwark has any measures - there is a section in the north and then the tiny section in Dulwich - you cannot operate a programme like this - it's way too isolated and would only ever cause the problems we are seeing across the area. And beyond these closures there seems to have been little else - one wonder how many cycle hangers could have been installed for the cost of all the cameras and street furniture now adoring Dulwich Village in support of these closures. Devs - likewise - we have a problem of speeding drivers and we have to do everything to reduce speeds. All in all there has been a lack of infrastructural support from the council to encourage anything other than a small amount of modal shift on the closed roads. The lack of positive action on things like bike hangers is quite shocking. There are three things that will make positive change happen: infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure and the council has put the cart before the horse with the LTNs. And Otto2 I agree we are seeing more and more children cycling and this is excellent and more of it is to be encouraged but we all have to recognise that life patterns are very different during a pandemic and no-one should be travelling more than a mile or so from their homes so people jump on their bikes or walk. The moment lockdown lifts I believe that changes again as people can venture further afield and will go to visit friends and relatives further from their homes. It was funny recently as I walked up Court Lane and did a very unscientific survey and I reckon some 30% - 40% of the houses there had a 4x4 sitting idle on the drives or on the road (it seems that the Volvo XC range is very popular along that road for some reason) and guaranteed that the moment lockdown lifts those cars start bombing around the country. One of the reasons I have been challenging Malumbu on how they use their car is not to call them out but to make the point that even the most ardent supporter of model shift and LTNs still has reason to own a car and many people who own a car do so because they have to - some just have many more reasons to use it than others. And finally, Malumbu - there are many in the cycle lobby who believe that any car is bad and as someone posted earlier this seems to be reflected by our council. In fact, from the minutes of the Southwark meeting Peter Walker is said to have said this (and this is reflective of much that I have read from others) but perhaps the response from the council is perhaps more surprising: Peter Walker cautioned against a focus on EV, as there is rising evidence is that the emissions are still high from brake dust etc.; the safety problems of cars remain, alongside the predominance of roads given over to cars. The transport policy officer clarified she is not advocating wholescale switching from petro cars to EV , only that EV is a option of last resort. It worries me massively that a transport policy officer would say that EV is an option of last resort - this again adds more weight to the accusation that the council wants to eliminate cars completely which just is not feasible and this is clouding their judgement on measures that can help tackle the problem we all want to influence.

Otto2 - there are a lot of posts from me on this thread about just that subject but, in summary (and these are my thoughts for Dulwich): 1) Investment in transport infrastructure (I know this is long-term but PTAL scores are very low in Dulwich). Without public transport infrastructure you cannot expect people to get out of the car. 2) Integrated cycling infrastructure. Bikes and cars have to coexist. Make it easier for people to make modal shift but not by closing roads to through traffic as that doesn't fix anything - it makes things worse. 3) Cycling support infrastructure. Cycling cannot remain the domain of those with space to store bikes. There needs to accelerated investment in giving every household access to bike storage. Without it cycling will remain only accessible to the most wealthy. 4) Proper commitment to EV infrastructure - but I appreciate many in the cycle lobby don't want this (as demonstrated by the minutes of the meeting posted earlier in the thread). But if emissions are the problem we are tacking then tackle them. 5) Means tested road pricing. 6) Do nothing in isolation. Do a proper area-wide approach and include everyone in the debate and give equal weighting to all road users. 7) Don't put measures in place that cause more problems than they solve and divide a community. 8) Be transparent with the plans and put proper monitoring in place to determine what is working and what is not. Do not be afraid to admit that something is not working.

SE22_2020er - I am sorry you feel that way but people feel passionately about this on both sides and I think my tone is no different from anyone else's involved in the debate - wherever they stand in it - and you have to admit I try to inject a bit of brevity every so often to try to lighten the tone. Some of us are just trying to counter some of the arguments being put forth in support of these measures - is that wrong - especially as the council is limiting proper discussion and community engagement on the matter? At the end of the day if you don't like the thread you don't have to engage - that's the beauty of these forums but it's the number one thread in terms of posts and views so some people seem to be interested! ;-)

Well said Trevor.... https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/04/how-low-traffic-schemes-fuel-inequality?__twitter_impression=true

Peter, Welcome to the most entertaining and engaging thread on the forum and we appreciate your input - things get a bit heated on here but we all love each other dearly! ;-) You are being seen, quite rightly, as a mouthpiece for the pro-LTN lobby and, whilst I appreciate that you are catering to the readership of the Guardian, you cannot be surprised that some are suggesting that there could be more balance and scrutiny applied to your reports? For example, do you know who funded the recent Rachel Aldred report? Also looking at your Twitter feed https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1367451540680830976 you are very dismissive of anyone who dares have an opinion that differs from your own - your post earlier today signing up to NextDoor and then the pile on from people like Simon Munk because people are discussing LTNs on there demonstrates why people feel there is an agenda to deposition and belittle anyone who dares question LTNs. I personally believe that the attitude you, the council and your cohorts are taking with the "we're right and you're wrong" attitude is galvanising more and more support against these measures. Combine that with the council's refusal to engage in any proper dialogue and I believe long-term harm is being done to the much needed and urgent debate on climate change and the role that cars and other vehicles play in that. Whilst I appreciate Twitter are personal comments that attitude transmits to your articles (the use of immotive language like: seemingly demolishes the main argument by opponents of such schemes) and I am not sure you can be surprised people deposition your position when you are so willing to deposition and belittle others. As a local resident you are no doubt aware of the problems these measures have created - both in the sense of creating huge displacement issues and dividing the community. You must also be aware that a large number of local residents across Dulwich feel that they are being ignored by the council and forced to live with the negative displacement of these measures as the council panders to a group of lobbyists, many of whom happen to live on some the wealthiest streets in London - if I do say so myself a more traditional Guardian article if I ever saw one. I also do love the deep irony of a journalist claiming: "That's not what I said" in relation to the minutes of the Southwark meeting - I thought that was only ever said to journalists not by them! The minutes are pretty compelling, here are the minutes from that meeting (page 6 is where these issues are discussed) and one excerpt pasted below: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6464/Printed%20minutes%20Wednesday%2004-Dec-2019%2019.00%20Environment%20Scrutiny%20Commission.pdf?T=1 Peter Walker asked if there was scope for experiments. The transport policy officer that that there was and Southwark is undertaking schemes with 18 months experimental orders, which can be repeated. The cycling campaigners advised that there is a need for conviction and leadership, given the climate emergency and that car owners are not the majority.

Has anyone seen that amazing fox on Court Lane that hangs around the entrance of Dulwich Park on occasions? The most beautiful creature you will see - someone is obviously taking good care of it as it is not at all timid and has the most luscious coat.

Ex- I wasn't calling for Aldred's research to be peer-reviewed + Snowy insinuated that I didn't understand peer-review and I merely pointed out that Aldred's report is Under Peer Review thus depositioning Snowy's suggestion that my argument was not credible because Aldred has had work peer-reviewed previously. I think it is clear where the Dulwich Alliance funding came from (anti LTN supporters) what's less clear is where the funding for Aldred's report came from - anyone hazzard a guess where.....? And the bottom line is the Guardian isn't dressing up DA's research and presenting it as fact. They would look at it and say this isn't balanced, which is fair enough. Shame they don't apply the same measure to pro-closure research don't you think? 🤔 Anyway, judge for yourself how impartial Aldred might be...she served as London Cycling Campaign Policy forum lead from 2012 to 2018 and helped develop their policy on LTNs......