Rockets

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.

Lewisham gave out 8,000 warnings before hitting 47,000 with actual fines......

From tomorrow morning I think....I am sure we will see some grandstanding from the usual suspects when it goes live. Let the fun begin......let's see what the displacement is like and who loses the displacement lottery with these latest closures.......place your bets.....

Lucymerc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > good article in Guardian explaining how LTNs myths > > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/1 > 6/mythbusters-eight-common-objections-to-ltns-and- > why-they-are-wrong Per the other thread.... Written by their pro-cycling activist, lobbyist and author of a book called Bike Nation: How Cycling Can Save the World, Peter Walker......#takeitwithaverylargepinchofsalt...;-)

Ex- and to be fair, and in the interests of balance, nor is Peter Walker and the The Guardian interested in the truth.......;-) The truth is out there somewhere...and I think this is what is acting as the catalyst for so much push back against these closures...people can see for themselves what is happening in their own local area and they are not taking well to some faceless local bureaucrats and pro-closure lobby groups telling them everything is going really well....

I think this was also a catalyst for the pro-closure lobby push - this piece on the ITV News last week (pretty much you can do a find and replace on any mentioned of Ealing with Southwark in terms of the accusations of councils not listening and well done Crystal Palace for their protest against the closures!):

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "How about execessive car usage affecting > emergency response times?" > > Traffic is up 50% over the past 10 years > > You won't read that headline in the daily mail, > because it's true > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > nxjen Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Myths about LTNs - must be true it?s in The > > > Guardian > > > > > > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/1 > > > > > > > > > 6/mythbusters-eight-common-objections-to-ltns-and- > > > > > > why-they-are-wrong?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other > > > > Ha ha, yes indeed....and look at who the author > > is.....none other than cycling activist and > > Guardian political correspondent Peter Walker > > ....I wonder how sales of his book: Bike > Nation: > > How Cycling Can Save the World are > going.....;-) > > > > As I read each of the points he tries to, > > unsuccessfully make, I laughed a little louder > > each time....the level of cultish delusion runs > > strongly through each.... > > > > Peter, and the pro-closure lobby, are going > into > > overdrive at the moment - they must sense that > > they are under pressure. Peter is posting an > > exclusive report today saying that there is no > > evidence that LTN's cause social > injustice...the > > report is penned by Rachel Aldred who is the > > director of the Active Travel Academy.....and a > > big cycle lobbyist and activist..... > > > > Edit: Ah I have just seen why they are going > into > > overdrive The Mail on Sunday > > (#washesmouthoutwithsoap) did a piece quoting > the > > UK's head paramedic saying that closures are > > impacting response times.....both sides are > upping > > the > > > ante....https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8 > > > > 949617/Top-paramedic-warns-bike-lanes-holding-ambu > > > lances-traffic-jams.html Of course you won't read that headline in the Daily Mail because they are as much on an agenda push as the Guardian - they are coming from polar opposites of the debate. Nor will the pro-lobby who have been publicising those estimated (the estimated is the key here and I will explain why in a moment) traffic increase figures want you to scratch beneath the surface. Even those estimated figures show that traffic is still markedly lower than it's peak in 1999 and the trend has been downwards for a long period of time. There has been no analysis as to what is causing the rise - it started in 2013 so I suspect it is linked to home delivery services. Now, people are rightly challenging those estimated figures because, well, they are estimates. And when you actually look at real data using road counts and monitoring these numbers are not being seen. Take our local area the OHS figures for DV (which were based on actual traffic counts using monitoring) clearly demonstrated that traffic through the DV junction has been declining year on year for a number of year. Not a huge drop but still year on year reductions - surely if there had been this huge increase in traffic since 2013 on the borough by borough basis seen in the estimated study then there would have been an increase in the real world? This is at a time when the council is refusing to be transparent about their plans for monitoring and are suggesting that modelling will work to determine how much displacement and increases in pollution there has (or has not) been from these closures. The only way to get a real world view of the what is going on is to physically monitor.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Myths about LTNs - must be true it?s in The > Guardian > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/1 > 6/mythbusters-eight-common-objections-to-ltns-and- > why-they-are-wrong?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other Ha ha, yes indeed....and look at who the author is.....none other than cycling activist and Guardian political correspondent Peter Walker ....I wonder how sales of his book: Bike Nation: How Cycling Can Save the World are going.....;-) As I read each of the points he tries to, unsuccessfully make, I laughed a little louder each time....the level of cultish delusion runs strongly through each.... Peter, and the pro-closure lobby, are going into overdrive at the moment - they must sense that they are under pressure. Peter is posting an exclusive report today saying that there is no evidence that LTN's cause social injustice...the report is penned by Rachel Aldred who is the director of the Active Travel Academy.....and a big cycle lobbyist and activist..... Edit: Ah I have just seen why they are going into overdrive The Mail on Sunday (#washesmouthoutwithsoap) did a piece quoting the UK's head paramedic saying that closures are impacting response times.....both sides are upping the ante....https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8949617/Top-paramedic-warns-bike-lanes-holding-ambulances-traffic-jams.html

Do we think the council might be expecting there to be a big increase in displaced traffic along Lordship Lane northbound as a result of the timed closures in DV and are putting those signs in preemptively as they know people will try to find new routes?

Yes that makes sense, so warning people who were doing that dog's leg detour that there is now no way out at Townley. It's all very confusing.

I think that is the one that says no through route to the right....which is a bit vague. It is suggesting you cannot turn right there if you intend to use it as a through route. Which then led me to question where the cameras are to be placed because that will give us a clue how the council intend to police it. Looking at the TMO it is not clear but it uses legalise jargon which suggests no traffic at all can make the turns during those times (bar the exempt vehicles) or enter the area. Given this is all due to go live next week it doesn't seem clear from the council as to what is actually going to be happening. Does anyone have any idea as to me it looks as if all the residents around Court Lane and Eynella will be locked in during those times as there is no escape route with Townley being the same, or am I missing something? Here is the link, can anyone smarter than me work out what is going to happen: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/traffic-orders-licensing-strategies-and-regulation/traffic-management-orders?chapter=5&article

Is the threshold for the timed closures the red sign or are the cameras going elsewhere? The reason I ask is the red no through route signs have also gone up at the junction of Lordship Lane and Eynella Road next to the library. Does that mean no-one will be able to cross that threshold during the hours or is it alerting people to timed closures further ahead? Apparently one of the problems in Lewisham, and why 47,000 people got tickets, was that it wasn?t clear to anyone where the threshold for the closure began. Looking at the TMO it is very confusing and seems to suggest that you cannot pass the red signs during the operational hours - but if that is the case how do any residents get back to their houses? Also does anyone know where the cameras are going?

I wonder if the planters might be coming out at DV. The sign I saw last week on the southbound part of Lordship Lane at the junction of Upland Road just before the Court Lane turn is now revealing more of itself and it says...No through route to the right mon-fri etc etc. There is also a fully covered sign just before the Court Lane junction on the northbound side. Could this be the end of the planters and the council is having to implement timed closures everywhere?

Also a heads-up that Lordship Lane southbound to the Grove Tavern is nose-to-tail tonight and, as a result, heavy traffic going up Underhill to cut the corner.

Looks like we need to see what Southwark's next move is...this might explain why Cllr McAsh has been unable to get answers to his questions to the council as they are having to have a bit of a re-assessment of how they monitor and consult on these changes. It seems the days of charging forth with neither is no longer an option for councils. Could this explain why the Peckham Rye closures are on hold? I think planters and other immovable blocks are doomed.....;-) Both the utilities and emergency service seem to want to have them replaced with something else (removable bollards etc).

Yes I just saw that too and it's a very interesting article - even though it is penned by Peter Walker - and we know which side his bread is buttered in this debate. Perhaps the most interesting section for me was this... Shapps is sending a letter to all councils receiving the money to remind them that consultation on LTNs and other schemes should involve objective gauges such as polling, rather than ?listening only to the loudest voices or giving any one group a veto?. So despite what Shapps says about local support he is telling the councils to go and find out what the real sentiment towards them is amongst their constituents. Maybe that is just how I am reading it through my one-eyed view of this issue (twinned with a healthy dose of cynicism towards what the Tories are actually up to here) but I read it as he is upping the pressure for councils to find out from their residents what they think of the plans. Now, if that polling shows support the Tories then claim it as a victory for their initiative. On the other hand if they show a lack of support for them it does damage to the relationship between councils (especially the Labour councils who have rolled these out aggressively) and their constituents which at the macro political level (especially in London where they want to unseat Sadiq) is a far better outcome for the them.

I think Lambeth are light-years ahead of Southwark in their ability to communicate and execute properly. I think they learnt the same lessons during the Loughborough Junction debacle that Southwark are learning now through the LTN process. Lambeth were much quicker on the draw to aid social distancing for their residents. They had barriers up around Herne Hill under the bridge incredibly quickly. Lambeth really are a beacon for other councils on how to do things but they didn't always get it right so there's hope that Southwark will improve over time.

Cllr McAsh - you have, on many occasions, come on here to court opinion from the community beyond your own ward and you have been more than happy to do that when it suits you. It cannot then become a surprise when that community asks questions back to you. And let me remind you of your opening post on this forum...... I'm James McAsh. I'm one of the three newly elected Labour councillors for Goose Green ward, along with Victoria Olisa and Charlie Smith. I wanted to introduce myself to the East Dulwich Forum community, and to thank everyone who voted in yesterday's local elections. I know I speak for Victoria and Charlie as well when I say that it is a true honour and privilege to have your trust placed in us. Regardless of whom you support politically, or whether you vote at all, we three Labour Councillors for Goose Green are keen to do whatever we can to help. You represent the council in the ward that is the heart of our community and you are part of a council team that is making decisions within that ward that affect and impact everyone - not just those members who live within the boundaries of your ward. Your decisions resonate much further than the boundaries of your ward and Lordship Lane is the focal point for the whole community. I knew exactly why you were asking me where I lived because I knew you wanted an out from having to answer the questions. I was very surprised you were willing to play that card as the optics of doing that, for an elected official, are very bad. And I joked about it because you demanding to know where I lived on two occasions is very odd and could easily be construed as somewhat menacing. (You will be glad to hear, however, that I have a very thick skin so did not interpret it that way but you knew that anyway ;-)) You have to be commended because you are one of the only councillors who bothers to try and engage with the community. But it appears your engagement now only goes so far, that's fine and that's your personal decision, but at a time when the council is being accused of only listening to those who it agrees with you have to admit that your retrenching will add more fuel to that fire. Are we to presume you will only now engage with anyone from your ward and should we request all posters clearly mark their notes with their home addresses? On your responses to my questions it is clear the council has no idea what it is doing. It rushed through the LTNs and now has no answers to any of the questions people are asking it - you have failed in consulting with local businesses and are now trying to stick plasters on deep wounds that the council inflicted on the business community. The council has made a complete pig's ear of this and appears it has no idea how to get itself, or the community, out of it. It makes a lot of us wonder what on earth the council is doing. If I was advising the council I would say the council has now reached the point where it has to throw its hands in the air and admit - everyone, we messed this up, sorry - how can we work together to fix it. I am hoping Cllr Williams realises that and makes the decision for you all before any more damage is done. I do really wish you all the best. I feel for you as your constituents and the businesses in the Lordship Lane area are the ones who are taking the brunt of negative fallout from the DV closures and you are the face of the council in the ward. I am sure, deep in your heart, that it annoys the hell out of you that the super rich in Dulwich Village are benefiting from these closures whilst everyone else lives with the fallout and the social injustice that is causing from the displacement.

Good point - yes I remember that the school objected. I am sure this is the only school street to only operate for one part of the day so it will be interesting to see if the background to that comes out.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Description of closure: > Goodrich Community Primary School, the part of > DUNSTANS ROAD between its junctions with Goodrich > Road and Mount Adon Park/Upland Road during term > time (Monday to Friday 3:00 pm ? 3:45 pm) which > will be physically enforced with traffic signs and > the installation of temporary barriers located (i) > at a point 1 metre south-west of the south-western > kerb-line of Goodrich Road and (ii) at a point 7 > metres north-east of the north-eastern kerb-line > of Mount Adon Park; Any idea why it is only the afternoon when the other schools streets are morning as well?

NorthhernMonkey - I can assure you I am not over-playing it - it takes 45 minutes for me to get my family's bikes out of our garden (hidden under our balcony for security and weathering purposes), up over said balcony into our kitchen and then through the house. We can't the bikes out front because we have no room for them as the bins are there. The people who can afford ?4.5k for a cargo bike or have the space to store it is so small. I am jealous of those who can. The reference to the council not getting anymore bike storage was based on the the message I, and my neighbours, received form the website you register your interest for bike hangers which said something along the lines of the council has no plans to install bike hangers in your area please join the waiting list for one of the other ones. I also heard that the council wants some answers from the bike hanger manufacturers about safety given the spate of thefts from them recently. Does anyone know if any new hangers have gone in since lockdown? I did hear Cllr Williams say they want to double the number of cycle storage on the recent council meeting but the video glitched at that point and he seemed to say by 2022. I think they need to do it quicker than that if 2022 is the target date. Surely some of the LTN money could have been put to that use? Also, does anyone know if the council put any new bike racks in on Lordship Lane? It was one of the suggestions generated following Cllr McAsh's request for ideas. I just think if the council if truly committed to encouraging a modal shift they have to be doing more to cater for those people who don't live in big houses with lots of garden space to store their bikes.

Cllr McAsh, You are so school-master like with the way you DEMAND a response to your question..did you go to private school per chance.....;-) For the record I didn't - before you lambast me for being part of the problem! ;-) Why would where I live in East Dulwich be of interest to you? Seeing as you are so determined to find out I can confirm that I have lived within the Goose Green ward (if that is what you meant) but now live outside it but well within the area of SE22 being affected by the closures - does that narrow it down enough for you - are you planning to send a Marxist intervention team to come and try and pull me back to the far-left!!! ;-) Whilst I have your attention and answered your question I am sure you will return the compliment and answer a couple of mine: Lordship Lane / East Dulwich Grove junction When will we know what is happening with the LTNs - we have had statements from the council that they are in for at least six months and no longer than 18 months. Do we need to wait 18 months for any action at that junction? That junction is even more dangerous now the LTNs have gone in - why do we have to wait until we know what is happening with the LTNs - we cannot wait forever and just hope no-one gets injured. Traffic lights would be a great solution but people have been saying that for years. Data collection, monitoring and evaluation Why don't you or the council know? Why can't the council provide any clarity on this? It's been 5 months since the first LTNs went in and monitoring is supposed to be part of the process. What are we suppose to conclude form this? In previous OHS programmes like the original DV "improvements" the council monitored traffic movements and NO2 readings at the junction - why is the council now saying such NO2 readings are no longer reliable? Why is it Dulwich Village got NO2 monitoring for OHS and yet the council can't provide the same for the residents of Lordship Lane or EDG who are living with the displacement from the closures in DV? Does the council think DV is somehow more worthy of the investment? Parking on Melbourne Grove Shops are losing more access to the parking spaces with the school street that is going to be operating morning and afternoon on that road. Do you now think that to help the traders it should be one or the other? Both seems especially damaging for the traders on that street.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > During the great double yellow debate, I seem to > remember a fair few objections to cycle hangers on > the road taking away car parking spaces, or > perhaps I'm getting my rants mixed up? I do think you are getting your rants mixed up as the double yellow line debate was more to do with the council extending double yellows to the legally permitted maximum to remove as many parking spaces as possible - even Cllr Barber admitted as much at the time I believe. But, is it a rant or are people pointing out the hypocrisy of the council that whilst they wage war on cars do little to help facilitate the transition for more of the community. Or are you happy that cycling remains only accessible to the most privileged and well off in our community? Please discuss.......