Rockets

Is anyone receiving any responses to emails on the subject - I know Cllr McAsh encourages people to email him but there seems to be radio silence on this issue from all councillors now?

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry rather ignorant comments, irrespective of > the comedic value (you can catch Yes Minister/PM > on Four Extra). > > And ..... Road closures funding (if Southwark will > be given anymore) should be focused in the more > northern parts of Southwark where poverty is > highest, BAME population highest, they have the > best public transport links and lowest car > ownership but the worst pollution. These are the > exact categories outlined for successful > LTNs..... > > Let them eat cake/brioche. Rather pompous > comments. That good education seems to have gone > to waste. I very much think that sketch captures precisely what a lot of people think about local councillors and the ones we have are demonstrating very aptly why people don?t trust them. They are refusing to engage with any debate around the issue (unless you support their ideas). They are hiding from the majority of their constituents, hoping desperately that this will blow over.....I am not sure it will. The tide of local public opinion is turning against them and as much as they try to pigeon-hole those with an opinion other than their own as a vocal minority they know what the reality is. Meanwhile the council cosies up to middle-class lobby groups whose only intention is to reduce traffic outside their own homes and don?t care what happens to anyone else. Groups who no doubt live in big houses, with space to store bikes, who like to cycle to the cheese shop to get some cheese for their dinner-parties, get home deliveries from Ocado and keep a big car for those long journeys to the country house (this is not the Tesla they have on the drive that?s just for show and can?t get back and forth to the Cotswolds on one charge) ;-) I jest of course but you get the drift!

Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Feels to me that im hearing a lot of anger about > road measures in dulwich wherever I go now. Maybe > the general public has woekn up to whats going on. The discussions will go up a level next week when the council puts the cameras in and activates them on the new measures next week. Cllr Newens confirmed the DV ones are expected to go in and start operating next week. At some point the council might actually start listening to their constituents I wonder when it might be though...

spider69 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All been to the Sir Humphrey Appleby school of > replying. I think the fact my dad was a big fan of Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister helped mould my general distrust of any politician. Their views of local councillors are oh so familiar!

Cllr McAsh - could you give us a definitive list of where monitoring is currently taking place (on which roads) when it went in and how long the monitoring will run for? Is, for example, any monitoring being done on the roads east of Lordship lane which now seem to be soaking up much of the displacement from the council's closures? Whateley, Underhill, Goodrich, Upland, Overhill, Melford etc?

Whilst car owners are sitting ducks our councillors are of the lame variety of ducks... It seems some of our councillors are quite fond on the opinions espoused by the esteemed Peter Walker...the comments are hilarious as the councillors try to dissect what is going on in their wards..... https://twitter.com/RM_Leeming/status/1319178810529632256?s=09 Just look at the language being used by the councillors (and I hasten to add these are snippets from conversations not a single thread and in no way are presented as such - I am just interested in the way they are all saying "too early to tell" "so many things changing" - this is the political language of people who know there is a problem but are not prepared to admit it) and notice how they refuse to engage with anyone who challenges them (there is a real pattern emerging here): Newens: One of the problems I find is that whilst supporters of these schemes are very conscious of the voices against, the reverse seems rarely to be true. It is unhelpful to deny that there is a considerable diversity of opinion locally. Leeming: I think this is a good point. But very often it is equally hard to establish if a scheme is successful or not. That can take several months & as traffic changes all the time & it takes time to design and build neighbouring schemes making that judgement is nigh on impossible McAsh: True, it's hard to assess the impact of the LTNs as they've come in at a time when so much else has been changing.

I drove down the A24 today and was really pleased to see how they have been able to put dedicated cycle lanes in place (with bollards) on what are some very busy stretches of road through Tooting and other areas. So nice to see a programme that allows all modes of transport to share the roadspace and live harmoniously together. Lots of people cycling and little disruption to those who drive - I can imagine that section of road would have been quite daunting prior to these measures. Now that is a pragmatic and sensible solution that benefits everyone. I think they have been rolling similar schemes out in west London through Kensington and as far out as Chiswick.

Sorry miss/sir - Nigello started it! ;-)

What I am hearing is that their inbox is far fuller of nays than they are the yays and a lot of people are giving their addresses so the councillors understand the weight of local feeling against these closures (including many who are on roads that are directly benefitting from the closures). Also, the council is very familiar with the yays as they have worked with them for years and aren't so inclined to write in given they get so much face and consultation time anyway...(sorry couldn't resist it ;-)).

And here are our local councillor email addresses. Drop them an email - they love hearing from their constituents - although tend not to reply if you aren't supporting the closures! ;-) [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm far more angry that we are f..king up the > planet. You should all be too. ...Our thoughts entirely which is why we are campaigning against these measures as they are actually making pollution worse.

FairTgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > 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? > > We brought this up months ago with Cllrs when > first becaome aware of the proposal, and actually > referenced it again to Cllrs today. It is pretty > unnecessary given the road is already closed, Head > of Charter admitted as much. > > There is no issue with these timed restrictions > for School Streets on it's own but the fact there > is already a closure, removed parking bays, CPZ > AND this will disrupt what little parking there > is... yes probably final nail in coffin. > > Depending on the barriers residents cars can > usually get through - but not sure how that > applies to business/delivieries etc - will they > just be doing U-turns on EDG? Wondering how that > will help the EDG congestion situation and safety > of pupils. What I find amazing is the blinkered, tone-deaf approach of some of the pro-closure lobby groups. Was the pro-closure lady on the council meeting from EDSTN Healthy Streets group? If so, they would have heard from Dougie and FairTGirl about the drastic reduction in footfall and sales being experienced by the shops on Melbourne Grove and the other streets and yet we see tweets like this the day after the council meeting....it's almost as if they are trying to convince themselves that everything is rosy..... Does anyone know, is that cafe thriving, is the owner supportive of the closures? What is interesting is that people are commenting and putting their views across.

Superb idea - often the council moves documents on their website so will be good to keep track of where everything is so anyone can access it.

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"!