Rockets

Rahx3 they most definitely should but e-bikes and e-scooters do come with a whole host of unique challenges. As someone who has visited Munich a lot I am shocked by the numbers of e-bikes and e-scooters that are left in clusters all over parts of the city - I believe a lot of that was due to rapid re-regulation and a host of operators rushing in to try to make money so hopefully London's approach will be more controlled.

Very much agree - Inside72 was something else everything a local hostelry should be!

Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Storage is an issue. We are a household of 4 > cyclists with no car. We have two in a bike > hangar. Our cargo bike is currently parked in the > living room, looking out enviously at the car > spots out front. We have requested a new hangar > that can house a cargo bike from > cyclehoop/council. I'll see if I can dig up the > link to request a bike hangar on your street and > edit it in here later -- you can add in that you'd > like one to accommodate a cargo bike in the > notes. > > Ah - here is all the info in this tweet thread: > > https://twitter.com/cyclehoop/status/1380092582705 > 909761?s=20 > > Also - if you don't have space for a cargo bike > but need to move things occasionally, the guys at > PedalMe can carry anything for you - including > fridges as well as doing house moves by giant > cargo bikes and they are often cheaper than the > man with the van enterprises. Otto2 - completely agree that storage is a massive issue (not just for cargo bikes) and one the council has failed to adequately address and they massively missed an opportunity to enable more modal shift to cycling. Look at the stats - back in 2018 68% of all local journeys in Dulwich were by foot or bike but only 3% were on bike. If we are a typical family then I think I know why - we walk all the time to Lordship Lane and have never thought of cycling - why? Because there is no where to park our bikes. I really wish the council had analysed the data they had in 2018 and looked at why so few of those local journeys were on bike and made infrastructure changes then things would be a lot easier for families like ours to use bikes more. We have been trying to get cycle hangars on our street for years but to no avail - you have to question whether this was a massive missed opportunity by the council. Cargo bikes are a great solution and allow people to make that change. Yes, they are expensive but against the cost of owning and running a car they aren't - if you can make the shift. And that's where so many people will struggle due to the lack of infrastructure provided by the council. Even though cycle hangars can store a cargo bike it looks like they take up numerous spaces from the twitter thread you linked that could store normal bikes (correct me if I am wrong) and there are not nearly enough cycle hangars to satiate the demand for normal bikes yet alone cargo bikes. The council really should have been doing far more over the last 18 months to provide cycle infrastructure rather than throwing money at closing roads and the infrastructure to police that.

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.