Rockets

Heartblock - well said. I am sure some are upset by the use of the phrase but it comes as no surprise that many of the most vocal pro-LTN advocates are using it as an excuse to attack the organisation behind it and to deposition them and their position. That's fair enough and it is to be expected but they need to be careful they don't overdo it as DA has apologised and reprinted the posters and as they say - they're is no such thing as bad publicity! The thing about posters such as these, regardless of message, is that they are a very good viral marketing tools and once one goes up others feel, if they agree with the message, that they want to show their support - especially when people think that they are not being heard or listened to. I have been very pleasantly surprised by how many people are displaying the poster, it really is starting to show the numbers of people who oppose the closures and I very much suspect many of the advocates for the LTNs really don't like it and are focusing on the use of the phrase as an attempt to attack the group behind the message and the message they are delivering. The council failed to deliver information on the review to the majority of Dulwich residents but DA and the other groups are doing an amazing job to drum up awareness and support despite the best efforts of the council! The review is going to be fascinating.

bels123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shame to see Pickwick Estates doubled down and > underlined the tone deaf slogan > > https://twitter.com/unceyj/status/1392753883370360 > 833?s=21 But Northern - please see above. They didn't underline the message did they?

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure that anyone putting up a tone deaf poster > is 'deserving of an apology', rather they should > have a think about whether it was good judgement > to put it up in the first place. > > It is possible to support a campaign and yet still > exercise some judgement as has been stated > previously. No, you're missing the point. Bels123 made an accusation against Pickwick Estates, a well established local company, that was wrong in relation to "doubling down and underlining the tone-deaf message". Surely that requires some sort of apology or retraction as it was completely inaccurate? We have seen many on the pro-LTN side attack local businesses, lobbying for boycotts etc, so I am sure Bels123 would want to put the record straight on that error.

Bels1233 - That's all well and good but I think you owe Pickwick an apology because it is clear they did not "double-down and underline the tone-deaf message" as you claimed in your post.

bels123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shame to see Pickwick Estates doubled down and > underlined the tone deaf slogan > > https://twitter.com/unceyj/status/1392753883370360 > 833?s=21 Bels123 - did you check whether that underlining was done by Pickwick or the person who posted the picture to draw attention to it? Take a walk past Pickwick to check for yourself - whilst you're there, I am sure you will want to pop in and apologise to them for your post because there is no yellow underlining on the poster in their window.......;-)

DKHB - to be fair the same accusation of being "self-centred twonks who don't consider the impact of their actions on others" could be levelled at supporters of the LTNs! #justsayin The bottom line is that lots of posters are appearing all over Dulwich and it is a very visual reminder that it is, much to the annoyance of some, anything but a small vocal minority who oppose these measures. The council ought to be taking note......

Thanks DKHB??you just illustrated my point perfectly???.by default then are you suggesting Labour MP Rupa Huq is a white supremacist?

Genuine question: was there a backlash when Labour MP Rupa Huq used the phrase during her LTN presentation to a government minister in Westminster a few weeks ago which, in their apology, the Dulwich Alliance has cited as their inspiration for the use of the phrase? You can do a google search for Rupa Huq LTNs and see the speech where she says it. Whether the Dulwich Alliance were right or wrong to use the phrase is a debate that could rage forever but the important thing is that they have apologised and changed the poster - its the type of contrition and openness to correct a wrong that some of us would love to see from the council in relation to LTNs!

Siduhe - a great post - I think a lot of people feel the same way. I also thought it was interesting what Cllr McAsh said - it would be interesting if he shared more on where he thinks the measures may need improving - but it is an interesting change in tone - from an agnostic position/very much supportive to one of admitting that it need amending. I wonder if the council are seeing the monitoring data starting to come through and it is, indeed, showing what many of us have been saying about displacement for a long time. I very much suspect that the review will focus the council's mind on the need for changes and action - as I sense that a lot of people are going to use the review to finally be heard (or at least try to be heard through the official channel now given by the council).

Does anyone know why a no through road (except cycles) sign has gone up on Goodrich as you head up just before you get to the school?

Legal - I think something has to be done to relieve the throttling of east west routes across Dulwich so they have to look at the Court Lane DV junction and reopen some part of it (I had heard the council was exploring some one-way element). I think they will also have to remove the restrictions through Dulwich Village and Burbage. Melbourne Grove and Townley will probably end up staying in place.

DC I agree with many of the items on your list but how many of them are in play or anything more than a long term wishlist? It highlights what many of us have been saying that LTNs will never work in isolation, they need to be part of an area wide approach to traffic reduction. The council has had 18 months to work out what they could do but put all bets on a couple of LTNs, which are actually making things worse. What are we supposed to do, sit tight and live with the displacement and increased pollution for 10 years before they work out what the rest of their plan is? The LTN experiment has been a complete failure and it is time the council admits it - but we all know they won't as taking responsibility for their actions doesn't come easily to Southwark.

Duplicate post.

Or maybe, just maybe, they can see the negative impact these closures are having on their fellow Dulwich residents.

So DC you must then be concerned by the displacement being caused by the LTNs and the impact it is having on local residents? What other measures are you suggesting and when can we expect them to have sufficient impact to improve conditions for those living with the displacement? And remember, no LTN has ever delivered enough reduction in car use to not have a displacement impact.

And, in the fairness of balance, some on here are obsessed with LTNs being "the solution". On a other subject I am very heartened to see so many of the End 24 hour closure posters going up in windows throughout Dulwich Village. Maybe the councillors will now start to understand the level of opposition even amongst those households within the area benefitting most from the LTNs. How much longer can they pretend not to hear from their constituents?

We are angry at drivers making unnecessary journeys, we just don't agree that you fix the problem in the way Southwark council have tried to. In fact, I believe it is making things worse....and I would suspect the council does to because they refuse to monitor pollution levels. I am not sure that being misguided that's being sanguine...;-)

The biggest worry to me is Raeburn seems to be repeating a narrative that we have seen Cllr McAsh begin to circulate when he moved from a stated position of any increase anywhere means the measures have failed to if there has been an increase on some roads that has to be weighed up - almost that A roads were built for more traffic. It's a very worrying development and may be the way the council is going to try to justify these flawed measures. It's yet more obscufation and goal post moving from the supporters of LTNs. Oh and combine that with the...I haven't noticed any difference nonsense from Cllrs like Charlie Smith and you have the denial full house.

But you do realise, don?t you, that the traffic on these roads has increased massively since the closures went in as a direct consequence of them? Simple question??do you think that is acceptable as part of the bigger goal? From your refusal to answer the question I may suspect the answer is yes?;-)

Whilst we can acknowledge the uptake in cycling are you prepared to acknowledge the huge increase in traffic and pollution on displacement routes across the area as well? That's the point of my question. Is it acceptable, as part of our focus on reducing pollution, that large numbers of our community have to live with the increased pollution caused by the measures being put in by the council? To me, that doesn't seem very fair. Are we not just robbing Peter to pay Paul?

Raeburn - as part of the plan to resolve the issue do you think it is fair to push more of that yellow brown fug from the areas within the LTN to outside people like Heartblock's home? That's the crux of this issue - not that the yellow brown fug needs to go but the inequitable negative impact of the measures the council have put in place. Also, you claim a minority of people - you know that over 60% of people in Dulwich own a car and the highest car ownership, and those with more than one car, live within the LTN area.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I am more of a carrot than a stick person so I > > would say make other modes of transport more > > attractive and convenient in tandem with making > > car journeys less convenient and you might be > onto > > something. > > What you describe here @rockets sounds remarkably > like an LTN :) Like others have said; the safe > routes are the carrot for my family - not just > Dulwich safe routes, there are more than 400 modal > filters across London now. With more, and more > protected cycle paths, it all links up. > > But going back to the original question (which got > drowned out by descriptions of posh people causing > tsunamis of traffic) assuming we all agree in > reducing car usage and emissions urgently because > we agree that climate change is real, and we agree > that active travel is a factor in this and good > for our health - how can this be achieved by > meeting the following criteria:? > > 1. urgently > 2. equitably > 3. without causing inconvenience? > 4. succeed in behaviour change > 5. cheaply (as we know councils / TfL do not have > huge budgets right now*) > > IMO > - urgently needs to be cheaply so trams and tubes > unfortunately don't fit in that they will take > years > - equitably is more time consuming but less so > than building new public transport infrastructure > - main roads need addressing but they are designed > to take more traffic so in accordance with (1) > this is the first step. Addressing main road > congestion would be more productive than being > 'anti-LTN' > - hopefully we can all agree point (3) simply > can't be met in order to achieve (4) > > @slarti I had a quick look at One Dulwich's > proposal and they want timed restrictions with > resident permits as far as I can gather. This > would cause the same displacement of through > traffic onto boundary roads - but allow a select > few to get away with zero behaviour change. That > doesn't sound very equitable. And they want to > remove modal filters which would remove the safe > routes for those switching to active travel. So I > can't see how their alternative meets the criteria > above. Assuming this is the criteria we all agree > on? > > *Some might say the council are now loaded thanks > to the fines they've raked in - so why not push > the council to use that money for more measures on > main roads? DC - I think it depends on whether you think LTNs have to close the roads to car traffic or if you think an LTN should be designed to let cars and other forms of traffic co-exist safely. I fear the council has been listening too much to those who say a safe road is a carless road and there are other way to deal with this. I refer you to the list I posted in March (I post it unedited so some references may seem out of context now) on how I think this should have been done. 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. I think the biggest failing of the council was that they were so laser focussed on waging war on cars that they lost sight of properly assessing what the issue actually is. They had a solution but they didn't know what the problem was. Only when they determine where the traffic is coming from and going to can they properly intervene to resolve the issue. Remember, the council's own report says that 68% of local trips were being done on foot or on bike so it's clear that you, me and all the others on the forum contributing to the debate from the local area aren't the major cause of the problems - yet many of us are now being forced to live with the fallout from the council's ludicrous measures.

I am more of a carrot than a stick person so I would say make other modes of transport more attractive and convenient in tandem with making car journeys less convenient and you might be onto something. This was the biggest error by the council, they became obsessed and focussed solely on attacking car use without properly understanding what the issue was and putting anything in place to facilitate anything other than minor modal shift.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Rockets said 'Let me replay your idea back to > you: imagine if the council had engaged with the > community properly and tried to implement > area-wide measures that both addressed the > challenge of car-use but also ensured a fair and > equitable outcome for everyone.' > > So how can this 'fair and equitable' outcome be > achieved without causing inconvenience and at the > same time urgently pushing behaviour change? I say > urgently because I'm assuming you are not a > climate denier @Rockets? > > I just listened to a very interesting podcast > about cognitive dissonance. Best analogy I've > heard: it's the uncomfortable feeling a smoker > would have in knowing smoking is harmful and > foolish but wanting to carry on doing it. So the > smoker will go to great lengths to justify smoking > (it keeps me thin, I'm stressed etc etc). > > Clearly it's very difficult to change people's > minds, as this thread illustrates ad infinitum. > > But if we all agree in reducing car usage and > emissions urgently and that active travel is good > for our health - how can it be done urgently, > equitably, without causing inconvenience / pushing > behaviour change? > > It seems to me One Dulwich Alliance spend far too > much time attacking Southwark Council rather than > actually suggesting any constructive solutions. I > have no idea what they actually want - do you? DC - I am most definitely not a climate denier - it is the biggest challenge the planet faces but what the council has done will not make any impact. Let me take your smoking analogy - what the council is doing is saying don't smoke outside your house, go down the road and smoke outside someone else's instead......;-) And the areas within the LTN are some of the biggest smokers in the area! Dulwich Alliance et al attack Southwark Council because everything about these LTNs has been incredibly poorly communicated, managed and executed and it is the majority of residents of Dulwich who are having to live with the negative fallout whilst a minority live with the upside.

LTN BooHoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Boo Hoo - I think what DA and One Dulwich are > > trying to do is redress the balance and give > voice > > to those members of the local community who > feel > > they are being ignored and sidelined by the > > council, their supporters and their agenda. If > the > > council had engaged in a balanced, transparent > and > > open process from the beginning then community > > members would not have felt the need to start > or > > join groups like DA and OneDulwich - they were > > born from the council repeatedly refusing to > > listen to many members of the community > choosing > > instead to seek guidance from pro-closure lobby > > and cycle groups. > > > > In the same way that you are frustrated by what > DA > > and One Dulwich are putting out there are many > who > > will be frustrated by the stats you are > quoting, > > many of which have been touted extensively by > the > > pro-closure lobby (and have since been > questioned, > > discredited or exposed as false). > > > > Also, your note highlights the challenge here. > You > > quote lots of figures for London (and I see > > councillors like CllR McAsh claiming that a > > minority of people own cars when in fact in > area > > like Dulwich, and his own constituency to which > he > > was referring, the majority own cars) and > whilst > > we live in London you really need to analyse > what > > is happening in your area. > > > > You quote the 3.8bn extra miles - did you know > > that the Dulwich area has seen a decrease in > miles > > (although the decrease wasn't as much as the > > council thought it would be)? > > > > You quote road safety - no-one will argue with > you > > that we need to get all injuries caused on the > > road down but, did you know, for example, that > > Dulwich has 50% less injuries on the roads than > > the Southwark average? This, according to the > > Southwark Council 2018 Dulwich Traffic > Management > > report (7 injuries per km of road in 3 years > for > > Southwark, compared to 3.8 in Dulwich) which > also > > sheds broader light on the folly of this LTN > > intervention by the council. > > > > Did you know, for example, that 68% of all > > internal trips within the Dulwich area were > > already being done on foot (in the majority > 65%) > > or bike (3%) in 2018? > > > > Or that Dulwich has some of the lowest PTAL > scores > > in the whole of Southwark (and the whole of > > Dulwich ranks as having poor transport links) - > > meaning that public transport is not at all > good? > > Or that Dulwich has both a young (under 16) and > > old (over 65) population (much higher than the > > rest of Southwark) which leads to more > dependency > > on cars? > > > > It's all in here from the council: > > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Du > > > lwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf > > > > I would challenge even the most fervent > supporter > > of the LTNs not to read that council report and > > not question why the council deemed Dulwich as > > appropriate for these measures. It was clear > from > > day one what the impact of closing many of the > > routes east/west across Dulwich was going to do > to > > the surrounding roads. > > > > This line from that report is very telling: On > the > > other hand, the lower E-W public transport > > connectivity is reflected in higher numbers of > > people travelling from/to neighbouring boroughs > by > > car. > > > > So why then, has the council targeted E-W > travel > > with these closures? Surely they must have > known > > what was going to happen? > > > > And please - don't fall into the trap of > playing > > the petrol-head anti-LTN trope - we've been > there > > a lot already over the last year or so and it's > a > > little worn now. Also, the change in use of > > side-roads is not all rat-runners using sat nav > - > > far more likely is the changing use of online > > shopping and home delivery services delivering > to > > residents. > > > > Let me replay your idea back to you: imagine if > > the council had engaged with the community > > properly and tried to implement area-wide > measures > > that both addressed the challenge of car-use > but > > also ensured a fair and equitable outcome for > > everyone. We probably wouldn't be in this mess > or > > having this debate right now! ;-) > > THE STATS COME FROM THE GOVERNMENT WEB SITE. > > If you hear one thing hear this: the debate is not > about Dulwich. What government website...do please share your source....it seems to be in complete contradiction to the stats being put out by Southwark? But this is very much is about Dulwich - the implementation of LTNs in Dulwich is very much about Dulwich and the impact on the local community in Dulwich. The debate is about the impact these measures are having on other members of our community who are having to live with the negative impact of the displacement. These closures have created a displacement tsunami - every LTN ever installed has created an LTN tsunami - remember the much heralded and championed Waltham Forest LTN caused a 28% increase in traffic on a road 3.1 miles away from the outer most edge of the LTN. Of course, there is a bigger picture but you cannot behave in the way the council is behaving by creating a nirvana in some areas and a living hell in others - that is not at all fair or equitable and no bigger cause can be used to justify that.