Rockets

dulwichfolk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Great work rockets...what is the attachment > picture of? > > I love the documents Southwark produces > > This one here > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/11717/S > outhwark-JSNA-2019-Childhood-Obesity.pdf > > Basically says children in dulwich village are > significantly better off (weight wise) than the > whole of the borough but yet the vocal minority I > guess who go to the schools on dulwich village > aided with the cycle lobby seem to lift the ward > to the top of the list to promote active > travel/council time irrespective of the > consequences. It's Friern Road around the back of St Anthony's school. The entrance to the school is actually on Etherow Street (where the same amount of bollards have gone in - but that is School No Parking anyway) but there is a small entrance at the back behind the playgrounds which I think they are using in Covid times which is why they have put that in on Friend. There are more around Goodrich on Dunstans and Upland (which is why the delivery lorries to the school now have to block the road completely to make their deliveries or, as I saw a few days ago, park with part of their lorry sticking out over the Dunstans Road roundabout.

Southwark is considering making it a commitment to reduce car use in the borough by 50% by 2025. So to get there they have to make using a car as painful as possible. In this context you can see why they are doing what they are doing. If you ever challenge them on it they, and their supporters, will tell you that 40% of Southwark residents have access to a car, as if car ownership is something to be ashamed of. What they fail to recognise is that a lot of Southwark residents have much better access to public transportation than we do in Dulwich and, as a result, car ownership is much higher than the 40% Southwark average - of course, there are also the social economic factors as well and Dulwich is an area of greater overall prosperity compared to many other parts of the borough. TFLs own research acknowledges that the further outside central London you go car ownership increases due to a variety of factors, including lack of transport infrastructure. In fact, we are closer to Bromley geographically than we are central Southwark and in Bromley car ownership is 70% which is probably more comparable to Dulwich. Given those higher car ownership figures Southwark sees Dulwich as an area that is a "problem" and goes to war on car drivers in the area. In Bromley there is no such war as the council realises that the further you get out of London so people become more reliant on the car. So Southwark needs to remove as many parking spaces as possible, close as many roads as possible, put in as much CPZ as possible, fine drivers at every opportunity with bus gates etc to try and make driving the most painful option of transportation. It's why Southwark extended double-yellow lines a couple of years ago to the maximum permissible and it is why things like the attached are popping up flanking all streets around every school in the area. Ostensibly it is, of course, for social distancing but the trojan horse is it creates parking pressure elsewhere by removing significant numbers of parking spaces on residential roads.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not really surprising from Peter Walker given he?s > a cycle campaigner in Southwark and one of the > people who urged Southwark to take its current > approach: ? > > He advocated reducing endless consultation and > getting more changes done faster.? (is he part of > the Tory conspiracy?). I love the fact that the > other chap described the Waltham Forest programme > as a ?scheme by scheme battle?. > > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=558 > 35 > > Genuine question that occurs to me though: do > those campaigning for LTNs believe that they only > work if we have them everywhere, blocking out > pretty much all traffic ie that it?s not possible > to compromise and have smaller scale > ones that have some beneficial effect without a > massive downside for those on neighbouring main > roads. If that is the case then the argument is > more binary than I had hoped. > > > > siousxiesue Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/ > > > > 2020/oct/22/despite-a-loud-opposing-minority-low-t > > > raffic-neighbourhoods-are-increasingly-popular > > > > Interesting read, comments also One presumes given the platform that he has with Southwark that he is a member of Southwark Cyclists? ;-)

It is an interesting read not least because the author, Peter Walker, has written a book called Bike Nation: How Cycling Can Save the World....so he obviously approached this article with a head cleared of any bias he might hold for bikes over cars! ;-) I do think the comments section demonstrate how it actually is not a vocal minority (as much as the pro-closure lobby would like everyone to believe). I can't imagine the comments section of the Guardian is the normal hang-out spot for the Daily Mail reading petrolheads that the pro-closure lobby likes to try to pigeon-hole people who oppose these closure as. It is obvious it is far more than a vocal minority - there is no way councils like Lewisham are forced to make changes without there being a significant amount of public support to do so - councils don't admit mistakes unless they absolutely have to.

Many thanks DKHB.. your erudite contribution to this debate is so welcome! Anyway, back to business...see how Cllr Newens grandstands to her neighbours how she is working to get traffic out of the village quicker to cause congestion on EDG and onto Lordship Lane....hurrah, she says, now the problem is Cllr McAsh's... She doesn't seem too keen to engage people in a debate about the displacement....see some of the comments..

I think it is clear that the Tories are using Covid as an underhand opportunity to disrupt the regional devolution model - they don't like it and are learning from their Russian friends that disruption is good - any disruption, just disrupt for disruptions sake. They are seeing Covid as an opportunity to put pressure on Labour regional leaders and to try and destabilise them. They are also using these regional battles as a way to take attention away from the mess they are making of the overall handling of the crisis. Anyone in leadership during the Covid crisis is under huge pressure and will likely not be leading out of the other side of it (except perhaps Jacinda Ardern who is geographically advantaged!). Unfortunately politicians at all levels are as bad as each other.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Haha- I think you?re onto something there. > > Alternatively maybe they just read all the > documents published by Southwark.. > > It?s definitely one of those things though, just > hard to work out which! > > > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Rockets Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Wow.....that's a well organised lobby group. > > > Difficult for residents to work out what's > > going > > > on but Southwark Cyclists have all the > > > answers.....I wonder how they get such > detailed > > > info.....hmmmmmmm.....????? > > > > > > Has anyone dug a little deeper looking at how > > > intertwined these lobby groups are with the > > > council? We know they are being consulted on > > every > > > closure but does it go further than that? > > > > I heard Southwark Cyclists hosted the last > > Bilderberg Group meeting at which COVID was > > planned. Ha ha...if they have managed to find and read all the documents by themselves they deserve a medal as Southwark doesn't make it easy to find the information.....;-) Perhaps during one of their regular "Are you happy with these road closures/how would you like us to amend our road closures our great and magnificent cycling group" consultation meetings they slipped them a brown envelope, winked and said...that's where we have hidden the documents we don't want the constituents to find!!! ;-)

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark Cyclists? tracker, which I came across > earlier, says plans have changed. There was a > decision made in favour of closure but no TMO > seems to have been put in place. There is another > batch of schools streets due to be announced so > could be in that. > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1eBxvYU > YgFti9qYPZtl8FX0jTs74CnFHqaOKLk4UAwgw/htmlview Wow.....that's a well organised lobby group. Difficult for residents to work out what's going on but Southwark Cyclists have all the answers.....I wonder how they get such detailed info.....hmmmmmmm.....????? Has anyone dug a little deeper looking at how intertwined these lobby groups are with the council? We know they are being consulted on every closure but does it go further than that?

Our collective views on Brakes as a company aside (Malumbu I share you thoughts entirely - how dare schools not be using cargo bikes ;-)) - this is not a huge lorry trying to find it's way around the backstreets using Waze it is a lorry delivering (I presume the school meals) to the school that now has nowhere to stop due to the bollards that have been put in in front of the school, I presume these bollards are a pre-cursor to the Goodrich closure being put in? Did Goodrich ever agree to the measures that are about to go in? I heard they said to the council that they weren't what the school wanted - or was that because the gate would need to be manually operated by someone from the school?

The Brakes catering lorry that delivers to Goodrich now has problems as it used to pull over in the areas that are now blocked off. A couple of weeks ago he had to sit blocking the entire road as he unloaded the deliveries to the school.

So they're closing a road at school times that has already been closed - a double whammy!? Why do they need this - according to the pro-closure propaganda machine Melbourne Grove has now been fixed - reference the photos of children milling around the school. Or is it that the closure of the road has created a school drop-off cul-de-sac - as is happening at the end of Court Lane at the moment which looks like a car park? Have the traders been consulted as the council states that there is a "minor inconvenience" that no-one will be able to get access to the parking bays? This could be the final nail in the coffin for some businesses around Melbourne Grove. Are the residents in support as that prevents all access to their properties during those hours?

The problem is that each councillor has been trying to appease their local pro-closure lobbyists who, for a long time, were the only people who had their ear. On the one-side of us we have Cllr Newens et al in the DV ward who are looking after the interests of their neighbours in Dulwich Village, on the other Cllr McAsh who was listening to the pro-closure lobby group around the Melbourne Grove area. Neither groups of councillors were talking to each other and neither of them giving any consideration to the impact of the closures outside of their own area. Let's be honest, it wasn't as if people weren't warning them about what was going to happen when the OHS consultation started - check out any of the threads on here and lots of people were predicting exactly what is occurring. Now Cllr McAsh, given his strong socialist DNA, is genuinely concerned about the plight of people having to live with the consequences of the closures. I sense other councillors are less concerned about what happens at the end of their roads and more worried about their local popularity. Unfortunately for Cllr McAsh his ward, and his constituents, have become the squeezed middle - it is his ward that is taking the brunt of the DV closures (and will again when the Peckham Rye closures go in). So the councillors are reaping what they have sowed. They were warned this would happen and took no notice and now they have created massive divisions (both physical and attitudinal) between their wards and constituents and I am not sure how they will rescue this. It's a complete mess that the council seems hell-bent on making worse as they try desperately to chase the displacement out of their wards so they can say "look the roads are finally quieter - success"!

I agree I think what the Dulwich Village RA stated was a very good plan and something that everyone could live with (although I am not sure Southwark would agree to area-wide resident permits as I think they think Dulwich residents are the problem). Nimbyism is a huge issue. Over the summer my wife met a friend for a drink in Gail's in the Village and the table next to her were talking very loudly about the closures. My wife described the people on the table next to her as "too posh to wash" and one of them stated very loudly "We pay a premium for our houses in the Village so why should we have to deal with the traffic". Unfortunately this is the view of many - happy to see their road free from traffic but not giving one jot for what happens at the end of their road.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?ve worked it out - it wasn?t included in the > original decision on 1 Sept but has been hidden in > the small print of another decision relating to > other parts of Southwark Batch 4 on 30 Sept. > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s91050 > /Report%20-%20C19%20Post%20lockdown%20highway%20sc > hemes%20Batch%204.pdf. This also includes one of > the Peckham b > Rye bus gates. > > How on earth any ordinary person is supposed to > keep track of what?s going on is beyond me...! It > doesn?t inspire confidence. The ordinary person isn't supposed to - that's the way all councils get things through. They don't want public scrutiny because the public has an opinion and opinions get in the way of "progress"! ;-) Think back to the council's happier times of the CPZ and OHS consultations when they could pretty much do what they want. Now people like your good selves are scrutinising everything they do or say - councils hate that as it makes them accountable!

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jazzhino Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Judicial Review > > > > > > There needs to be a legal challenge by means of > a Judicial Review. I have obtained legal advice > > which confirms that in order to legally > enforceable the roadblocks, there needs to be a > > second order under section 9 and 10 of the Road > Traffic Act 1984. > > > > Furthermore, the 15 October 2020 order > experimental orders under sections 9, 10 and 63 > of > > the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 can be > challengeable within six weeks. In the the first > > instance a pre-action protocol letter would need > to be served on the council. > > A few points: ETRO is already made under Sections > 9 and 10, there isn't a second order. > ETROs are made under sections 9 and 10 of the > RTRA84 and sections 22 and 23 of the LATOR(EW) The > provisions of regulations 7 (publication of > proposals) and 8 (objections) shall not apply to > an experimental order. > > (2) No provision of an experimental order shall > come into force before the expiration of the > period of seven days beginning with the day on > which a notice of making in relation to the order > is published. > > (3) The order making authority shall comply with > the requirements of Schedule 2 as to the making of > deposited documents relating to an experimental > order available for public inspection. > > (4) Deposited documents shall be so made > available, at the times and at the places > specified in the notice of making in relation to > the experimental order, for a period beginning > with the date on which that advertisement is first > published and ending when the order ceases to have > effect. > > -------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------- > > You've also noted Section 63 of the Road Traffic > Regulation Act 1984 - that refers to providing > cycle parking / cycle stands so not sure what that > has to do with things? Ex- do these count as "experimental" given they were planned during the OHS consultation? Is there also not a reference to needing to consult with stakeholders in either the "emergency" or "experimental" traffic orders and, if so, does the admission that they failed to consult shopkeepers on Melbourne Grove mean those are unlawful?

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".