Rockets

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So - where do we think the traffic displaced by > the next round of Dulwich Village closures will > end up? As an aside, I hadn?t appreciated that > there was now a bus gate at the Burbage/ Gallery > intersection - don?t think that appeared on the > maps that accompanied the Southwark decision but > is included in the traffic order? It depends where it is going and of course the council does not know this - although it is clear from their own monitoring during OHS that a lot of traffic is coming down Gallery and College Road trying to head north. I would hazard a guess that Croxted, Herne Hill and Lordship Lane will take the brunt of it - it's basically creating a traffic free island (during large parts of the day) across the whole of Dulwich Village.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ah, but divide and rule is such a useful tactic. > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > We have to ensure this is an area-wide > > consultation and that the councillors are > engaging > > with all RAs and all stakeholders. For too long > > they have treated this issue on a ward-by-ward > > basis and this is why the problems are so bad. > Any > > discussion has to be with ALL stakeholders > across > > the whole of Dulwich - not just in the pockets > > where there are the most vocal pro-closure > > activists. > > > > The gentleman at the beginning is he from the > > Dulwich Village RA? It is indeed and the council is terrified of doing this on an area-wide basis as they know what happens next....it's simple to do; ask every resident of Dulwich are you for or against the closures. They can't manipulate the responses from that as they did the CPZ consultation or OHS.

Clearly there's a lot of Daily Mail readers around. Quite a few new readers can be found across Peckham Rye as news of the Phase 4 closures spreads ;-). Someone is setting up an e-petition on the Southwark website to lobby against those closures. I reckon the council will be spending a lot of their cabinet meetings talking about the road closures before long......although I did notice today someone set-up an e-petition to allow sheep to graze again on Goose Green....something I think we can all get behind! No doubt the sheep grazing petition will have substantially more than the 51 who have signed the pro-closure petition.... I noted during the council meeting that the pro-closure lady was trying invalidate the e-petition against the closures on the basis that postcodes aren't entered when supporting the e-petition and that people from outside the area had been signing.....I presume that's a bit like Southwark cyclists encouraging their members to leave comments on the Streetspace sites or infiltrating OHS consultations. There is a simple solution - the council runs an area-wide consultation and see what the public feedback is and make decisions on the wishes of the majority of Dulwich residents. I suspect there are far more local residents in the 2,600 who signed the anti-closure petition than the 51 signing for pro-closure!

We have to ensure this is an area-wide consultation and that the councillors are engaging with all RAs and all stakeholders. For too long they have treated this issue on a ward-by-ward basis and this is why the problems are so bad. Any discussion has to be with ALL stakeholders across the whole of Dulwich - not just in the pockets where there are the most vocal pro-closure activists. The gentleman at the beginning is he from the Dulwich Village RA?

Is it a co-incidence Dougie's video didn't run properly.....ahem....? Well done Dougie, great job.

Nor can I - can anyone find it? Nothing appears to be being streamed live.

For all of you interested the council meeting where they will discuss the e-petition to remove the road closures across Dulwich can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/user/southwarkcouncil And...doing my very best Martin Tyler from Sky Sports.....It's LIIIIVVVEEE from 4pm!!!

I don't think the council has done anything other than push out a survey during lockdown (and no doubt encouraged their supporters on Melbourne Grove to fill it in). The only non-emergency or public utility service group that has been consulted during this process is Southwark Cyclists. There has been zero effort to engage with the majority of residents who are impacted by these changes.

How come those streetspace sites are so skewed to leaving positive comments? Following the experimental road closures, what is working well at this location? That's a bit of a leading question. Why isn't there one that says: Following the experimental road closures, what is not working well at this location. These council websites are so skewed towards the narrative they want to deliver.

Yes I have seen that video and my thoughts are this: - yes it is terrifying what car pollution (and other types of pollution) are doing to the planet and we all agree something has to be done. - that video is from Andrew Simms who is a well-known climate change activist and campaigner - so you wouldn't expect him to say anything other than what he does (and I do note that he rolls out the usual "London short-journey" stats from TFL). The point I think you are missing is that you seem to be confusing my comments on the downside of LTNs with the need to reduce car usage. My point is that LTNs are not going to reduce car usage sufficiently for it not to cause problems elsewhere from displacement. Let me break it down further for you. Let's imagine this is smoking. Instead of saying "stop smoking" the campaign LTNs are running says "don't smoke cigarettes smoke cigars and don't smoke them in your house, smoke them in your neighbours". You may smoke fewer of them, you don't inhale as much but they take longer to smoke, produce more smoke but that smoke now sits in your neighbours house not yours so they breathe it in rather than you. Do you see the point now? LTNs may reduce car usage but the knock-on effect of the remaining cars creating congestion and increased pollution clogging up the open roads means there is not a net reduction in pollution. That is the only solace I took from Cllr McAsh's note that if they will decide the future of the closures on the basis of net/net comparisons of pollution then they are doomed. And even the most ardent pro-closure supporter must be able to see that and the risk we all run is that the complete hash-job the council has made of the implementation of LTNs sets the pollution debate back years and leaves us all, and future generations, worse off. So whilst Andrew Simms suggests putting health warnings on cars the surely LTNs should come with health warnings to which read: "May cause increased congestion and pollution in other areas".

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 2500 Londoners will be much more representative > than the unscientific snapshot on this forum. And > its the long game, behaviour change doesn't happen > overnight, it took decades in terms of smoking, > and drunk driving, and for some sadly using a > hands on mobile device whilst driving. In fact > some of this reminds me of those complaining in > the 60s when the breathalyser was introduced - > civil liberties and of course I drive more > carefully when drunk. But the fundamental difference, don't you agree, is that there is no downside to stopping smoking or stopping drunk driving or wearing seat belts? Doing all of those things has immediate positive impacts for everyone. The same cannot be said for LTNs.....

Those 2,500 Londoners must have been answering that poll for ages - RedfieldandWilton seemed to have asked them about just about everything: Covid, housing, what a great job Sadiq Khan is doing, roads, pavements, Hammermsmith Bridge, what a great job Sadiq Khan is doing, transport, post-Covid economic recovery, what a great job Sadiq Khan is doing and finally that TFL's woes are nothing to do with Sadiq Khan!!!! ;-) The 52% of Londoners stat tweeted by Cllr Livingstone omits to mention the part of the research that said the majority of Londoners think LTNs have not been effective in reducing car numbers! Certainly looks like a viral propaganda campaign based in flimsy research - the myriad of "HealthyStreets" twitter handles have been pumping out the stat a lot today!

Interesting update from One Dulwich sent by email yesterday. Interesting results from FOI that someone submitted to the council...so glad people are digging beneath the surface and exposing some of the things the council has been able to get away with for so long! 1. We had an initial meeting with our new cabinet members, Councillor Catherine Rose and Councillor Radha Burgess, ahead of formal council meetings next week. It was a constructive starting point, and plans to schedule a further meeting were agreed. 2. The traffic chaos following the burst water main on the South Circular highlights how acutely the road network is under stress from the experimental road closures. While they remain in place, this kind of extreme disruption because of temporary roadworks in the Dulwich area is likely to be a common occurrence. 3. The London Ambulance Service (LAS) opposes hard road closures and prefers camera enforced schemes as they allow for unfettered access for emergency service vehicles (see feedback on the Peckham Rye scheme here). Please take photographs of any emergency vehicles unable to get through because of closures or congestion and send to [email protected]. 4. The petition to Southwark to remove the current road closures (not a One Dulwich petition) will be discussed at the cabinet meeting on Tuesday 20 October at 4pm. A deputation from Dulwich Village RA may also be heard. The meeting will be livestreamed on YouTube: details, documents and the agenda here. 5. There are also two national petitions to parliament that you might like to read and consider: #552306 and #5508887 6. We have heard that the new phasing of the lights at the junction of Dulwich Village and East Dulwich Grove might be taking place this week on Monday 19 October. However, there is no news about the measures on Burbage Road, Turney Road, Dulwich Village or Townley Road. 7. In this newsletter, Councillor James McCash discusses the measures on and near Melbourne Grove. See especially the section Next Steps ?What does success look like?? 8. An FOI request has revealed further problems with the figures used to justify the closure of Dulwich Village junction ? please see the report on our website www.onedulwich.uk/fact-checker (11 October 2020). We are a growing body of protest. We continue to campaign for area-wide timed restrictions at peak hours, not 24/7 road closures, with fair and reasonable access for those who need it. We will be in touch again soon with further news and calls for action.

And I am not at all convinced the Tories have the gumption to do something like this....way too strategic, requiring forethought and a modicum of intelligence....

Townleygreen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > >Rockets said: I am more and more convinced the > LTNs are being used as a political tool ahead of > the mayoral and local >council elections - they > are being used as a trojan horse. I really didn't > think the Tories could be that smart but >the more > I look at it the more I realise they may be > playing the long game here. > > In Southwark, the Lib Dems are the opposition. I > think there are no Tories at all. > Could apply elsewhere though. Yes and I think London-wide it is going to be very disruptive and is hitting Labour run councils hard. The Tories know Labour are very entrenched in parts of London (one-party councils etc) and they also knew LTNs would be like cat-nip to the likes of Southwark and they would jump at the opportunity to roll them out and would be reluctant to let them go if people didn't like them. Tory run councils have either not rolled them out or are pulling them out - there have been protests in Labour stronghold councils like Islington, Hackney and Brent. I didn't think the Tories were smart enough to do this but the longer it goes on the more you can see change (even on a seat by seat level in councils) which will be disruptive and unsettling for the new Labour leadership. I suspect Sadiq might be in trouble at the next mayoral elections and see the Lib Dems and Independent councillors winning more seats at the council elections next time round.

I am more and more convinced the LTNs are being used as a political tool ahead of the mayoral and local council elections - they are being used as a trojan horse. I really didn't think the Tories could be that smart but the more I look at it the more I realise they may be playing the long game here.

But apparently, according to Cllr Livingstone, 52% of Londoners support the LTNs...we should all just step down and accept them as we are obviously in the minority.....;-) Important poll: 52% of Londoners support #LowTrafficNeighbourhood measures. Only 19% oppose them. Important poll: 52% of Londoners support #LowTrafficNeighbourhood measures. Only 19% oppose them. P.S as with all surveys probably good to check the source! ;-)

Yes this is why these closures are deeply, deeply flawed and I think the fact Cllr McAsh has said that they will look at impacts on pollution and congestion in the area (although given the track record of the council manipulating data for their own means there has to be deep scrutiny of whatever they find) means these closures are doomed. There will have been a substantial increase in pollution across local roads and the area as a whole with these closures (unless, of course the reduction in many car journeys due to Covid means the comparison from prior to and post Covid throws in an anomaly)- but from what we can all see with our own eyes is clear - pollution is a lot worse due to these closures. In fact, the A205 closure will have pushed those levels even higher over the last week.

FairTgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > slarti b Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Our councillors are claiming that the traffic > > chaos we have been encountering locally since > the > > road closures and other restictions were > > implemented are nothing to do with the closures. > > > They claim that congestion is instead the > result > > of an increase in traffic compared to > > pre-lockdown. However, The data I have seen > from > > DfT (covering UK) and TfL ( for London) > suggests > > that traffic volumes are actually still below > > pre-lock down levels. If so, this undermines > the > > councillors claims. > > > > Can anyone give me a link to any hard data (not > > opinion articles) on traffic volumes pre and > post > > lockdown? In particular the source of the > > COuncillor's claims? > > > Cllr McAsh used a survey in the Guardian - for > London as a whole. Not specific to here. They did > all quote first week September which was obviously > going to show an uptick as schools went back and > people who had not been able to work with kids at > home may have been able to return. It is possible > that would drop back as people got back into > routines. To be fair to Cllr McAsh he is only following what the likes of TFL do - all of the stats bandied around regarding car use only ever look at London as a whole. It is very interesting that in the council's own figures when they were monitoring the DV junction for OHS that year-on-year there had been a reduction in car use through the junction - which could be suggesting that car use was declining. Yet the pro-clousre narrative is that car-use if growing exponentially. The problem is that beyond the scary headlines the truth is often a lot different and because the likes of TFL and councils don't do the proper analysis we never know what the true picture actually is. It could well be that private car ownership and use is declining but it is being replaced by more Ubers and home deliveries but TFL and the council don't know this. If you don't know what the problem is you can't possibly know how to fix it and measures to thwart private car use can lead to bigger problems if the problem is actually home deliveries etc.

Just an FYI the A205 is open again now. And before any of the pro-closure lobby accuse me of driving along the A205 we walked to The Rosendale for a very nice Sunday lunch! ;-)

It is interesting that the council is now putting flyers through people's doors in the Peckham Rye area to alert them to the Phase 4 closures. I wonder if they realise now that a survey posted by a councillor (a la Goose Green) is not sufficient to be considered legal notice or a consultation. Incidentally there seems to be a lot of local resident opposition to the plans in that part do the area as no resident is not impacted negatively. It looks like the council may get a lot more opposition as they can't count on those who get closed roads in front of their houses to support the plans like in other areas.

Metallic - to be fair there's not a lot on the DV RA website that makes me think their concerns go much further than the "hardship" the residents in DV are having to endure....their thoughts are outlined below and they are lobbying to get Phase 2 put in quickly to close DV to traffic...which of course makes the problem a lot of worse for others outside of DV. Here is a clip from their website; In summary, we expressed the following views which reflect the balance of opinion among the 40+ residents we have spoken to: ? the junction closure has caused significant issues and in some cases real hardship for residents, particularly those living on Dulwich Village ? the phase 2 measures are needed to fix a problem which Southwark should not have created in the first place ? the key issue for our residents arising from the phase 2 measures is access; in combination, they mean that during the restricted hours, it will be very hard for residents on Dulwich Village to access their homes by car from the south, or for residents on College Road/ Woodyard Lane to head north (for instance to Kings Hospital) ? this raises many issues around carers, deliveries, hospital visits, mini-cabs ? we also pressed for increased frequency of the P4 bus, though in practice steps being taken by TFL are likely to reduce access to the P4 It also makes one wonder whether other RAs from across Dulwich are attending the meeting on Oct 20th and if not why only the group in support of the Phase 2 closures made the list. It will be interesting to see if their "delegation" is called upon by the council. What the council seems to be avoiding is a cross-area public meeting on this. I very much hope Oct 20th is a democratic event and not something that just appears as one-sided and biased as other council actions around this issue.

I think the cardboard section at the OKR site had been removed during Covid to allow for social distancing between the bays. The first time I went there during Covid (incidentally because the council stopped collecting recycling that was not in the blue bin - they had done previously) I was surprised there was no longer a cardboard section but glad to read it is back.

They are trying to rig it as they did the CPZ representations. They are trying to make it as difficult as possible for any dissenting voices to be heard and for democracy to prevail. Cllr McAsh would have been aware of this hearing date yet did not mention it. One suspects the councillors have alerted and mobilised the opposition. It's probably going to be a whitewash. It is ludicrous that they can admit their own (unlawful) failings in terms of a lack of consultation, can admit the current closures are causing pollution problems yet steadfastly stick to rolling out further closures. If this was the Tories they would be up in arms.

It will be interesting to tune in. Looks like the deadline to submit questions has passed...why do I suspect the pro-closure lobby would have been given a heads-up about this. I very much suspect the council will say they won't do anything until the 6 months has passed for each closure and will push ahead with their, unlawful, closures. Also interesting to see that someone set an e-petition up in support of the closures and it managed to get 29 signatures.....