Rockets

But they seem to be the go-to people for research on all things LTNs etc now that Aldred & Co have been shown to be anything other than impartial and have something of a bad name. One can only speculate as to why they are "opaque" - it makes you wonder who is behind them and how legitimate they are. Given Private Eye is sniffing around them I suspect it won't be long before we find out and my bet is they have very close ties to the very people commissioning the research or, as became all too apparent with Aldred & Co, they are not at all impartial and have massive conflicts of interest. It's interesting that Carlton Reid's article claimed: The newest poll was conducted by Redfield & Wilton Strategies, a 23-year-old London-based global polling and strategic consulting company. Yet Redfield and Wilton's own website says the company was started in 2020....it was almost as if Carlton (or whomever was pushing the research to him for coverage) was trying to legitimise the survey. The more you research into Redfield and Wilton the more you realise they are questionable to say the least - is that what the Private Eye article is suggesting DKHB?

I think a lot of people don't believe in activist research....the wild west of the research community where the conclusions are determined before the research has even started and the researchers have zero impartiality or credibility.

It's actually amazing they got 300 votes in a general election - does anyone remember when someone opened the Southwark petition for those against the closures and it got lots and lots of signatories and then someone decided to do one for those in favour and it struggled to reach double figures!

And that's just the money to pay for the work that is starting this week, one wonders how much the overall total is running at now - close to £5m perhaps? Apparently money is tight...they certainly dont spend like it is. Conway are making a pretty packet from this active travel racket.

I am not advocating a return to the traffic hell that was that junction previously but I certainly don't support the pouring of more and more tax-payers money into the junction - I read that the latest works are costing £1.5m....which is a complete waste of money - money that would be better spent elsewhere on the local road network but, for some reason, Southwark council are hellbent on spending it on that junction - it makes me wonder who they are pandering to.

Some would suggest that the works of Redfield & Wilton and the likes of Aldred & Co are also opinions.....

The criminal activity is targeted at areas where councils have an aggressive approach to revenue generation from parking enforcement because it sows uncertainty in those who receive the tickets. The criminals are playing in to the fact the council is hellbent on rolling out CPZs and has created pockets of CPZ zones and has a third company sending loads of parking enforcement officers to patrol the area. McAsh is commenting because he knows why this is happening and it is his policy that is the catalyst.

A sad side-effect of the council's approach to parking enforcement as a means of targeting constituents for revenue generation.

And your point is what exactly because it's pretty clear who commissioned the data isn't it - in fact they are quoted as the source of the information in the second paragraph of that article so they aren't exactly trying to hide it? Can you find any information on who paid for the Redfield & Wilton report.......? Because they didn't do it for free....I suspect if you ever manage to find who funded it it would be quite enlightening as to why they came to the conclusions they did.....

Actually here is what really happened. The council had tried, for years, to convince people that the junctions needed closing but they could not get local support for it (it was the OHS programme) The DV junction was an awful junction not because it was a "rat run" as you claim but because it was one of the only East/West routes across the Dulwich area The council did, however, spend lots of money on making changes to the junction that actually (according to their own data) increased congestion and pollution. Covid came The council then used emergency Covid powers given to them to close the junction to "aid social distancing" The council did this because they didn't need to consult and get local support for their closures (which they had failed to do previously) - they used Covid as the Trojan Horse to get their changes through A lot of local people were very angry about this and One Dulwich was born to represent those voices as the council were trying to convince people that only a "small vocal minority" objected to them and were trying to actively drown out any people who dared question their actions. One Dulwich asked people to register their email on their site if they supported their cause - that total currently stands at 2,100 people and they shared the locations of where those people were located to drown out accusations that they were not representing local people https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters The closure made the junction wonderful because no traffic could use it but it displaced the traffic to other routes across the area increasing congestion and pollution for those not lucky enough to live in the closed area. The council then went chasing the displacement by rolling out timed closures and new traffic measures around the new routes people were taking because the shift to cycling they dreamed of never materialised because closures never have the % modal change needed for them to be effective The council had to put a red light filter on the turn from Dulwich Village onto East Dulwich Grove because the traffic was worse than it had ever been through Dulwich Village. The council put in timed closures along many of the displacement routes to try and mitigate the impact of their closure The closures caused huge issues with response times for emergency services but the council, for some reason, ignored the input from the emergency services for over a year - and actively tried to convince people there was no issue. The council prioritised cycle traffic over everything else at the junctions which is causing issues for pedestrians The council already spent huge amounts of tax payers money on that junction at a time when it was pleading poverty and when other parts of the Dulwich transport infrastructure was crying out for investment. They submitted a plan for around £8m that was laughed out of the room They were then forced to consult on the junction and they did not have a mandate from the responses to roll out anymore changes yet they are going ahead anyway The council are doing more than landscaping at a huge cost to the tax payer - attached is the copy of the letter sent to local residents to warn about the disruption which is due to last at least 5 months. Local residents are continuing to question why the council is hell-bent on wasting huge amounts of tax-payers money on that junction - but they are pleased that the council is putting cycle speed calming measures in place (despite the council and their supporters claiming there is no issue with this) Councillettertoresidents.pdf

There isn't any because the anti-LTN lobby didn't pay a company to find the results it wanted......the pro-LTN lobby on the other hand have used this tactic from the get-go and then they get pro-LTN journalists like Carlton Reid or Peter Walker (often giving them "exclusives") to amplify the results because they know they won't ever look at the detail and will just parrot supportive headlines. Activist researchers feeding activist journalists to amplify an activist agenda.

Please don't then post an article by a cycle protagonist using research from a pay to play research house who don't tell you who commissioned the research.....ah.... P.S. Interesting that in said research it also says that Londoners think that cycling should have the lowest priority..one presumes you validate that too? Funny how Carlton Reid didn't pick up on that finding.... When asked which mode of transport should be given the highest priority on London’s streets, 37% say buses should be given the highest priority. 21% believe pedestrians should be given the highest priority, followed by private cars (13%) and cyclists (12%).

...with people who live WITHIN the LTNs....a vital part of the story that you have, perhaps deliberately, left out......

The council ought to get some officers down there like the City of London police did at bank - there are rich pickings there and they're leaving a lot of money on the table! 😉 They could do with some cash as the works that are about to start at that junction, which are going to take 4 months and cause a lot of disruption according to the leaflet that the council dropped through our door warning residents about the disruption, is costing a fortune ion tax-payers money!

Greyhound Cars are very good.

I am surprised he got that many votes!

Well it seems the offer of a duel at dawn from Hen123 (are they any relation of Mr Chicken per chance) was the catalyst for Clean Air for all Dulwich to go stand at the DV junction...and just look what they saw...and filmed....scenes very familiar to anyone who uses that junction...but, you know, anyone who dares suggest there might be a big problem with cyclist behaviour is just a bigot.

Mal, you're back! The self imposed exile didn't last long! Welcome back - we missed you.

Whomever he is/they are - they are doing a fantastic job holding the council to account and shining a bright light on some of the lies the council, councillors and pro-LTN lobby are trying to spin to the wider public. Thank goodness someone is doing it.

The link on the FOI trail and whether emergency services were consulted is very interesting...are the council being economical with the truth..again...or are these a series of unfortunate oversights.....again? https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/blocking-calton-avenue-to-emergency-vehicles-who-knew-what-and-when?ss_source=sscampaigns&ss_campaign_id=6681ad2971bd226a85c91e53&ss_email_id=6681bf7971bd226a85ca451a&ss_campaign_name=Campaign+Update+|+30+June&ss_campaign_sent_date=2024-06-30T20%3A27%3A02Z Blocking Calton Avenue to Emergency Vehicles: who knew what and when 30 Jun One Dulwich has been accused of spreading lies about Southwark’s decision to block Calton Avenue to Emergency Vehicles – who was consulted, how many ES vehicles access the junction, and whether the £1.5m designs are fit for purpose. We stand by our reporting, and reproduce the evidence in the timeline below. 1. When does Southwark decide to block Calton Avenue? 17 January 2024: Southwark Council closes the public consultation on proposed designs for the Dulwich Village junction. At this point, there has been no mention of a plan to close Calton Avenue Southbound to Emergency Services (ES) Vehicles. 7 March 2024: Southwark Council announces it intends to approve the new £1.5m designs for the junction, including plans to introduce a bollard on Calton Avenue to prevent ES vehicles from accessing Calton Avenue “in view of the safety concerns caused by the level of non-compliance at this arm”. There is no mention of this being a trial. There is no public consultation on this new feature. The decision is formally taken on 12 March 2024. 2. Is the London Fire Brigade consulted? 28 March 2024: An FOI response (Ref: FOIA 8524.1) from the London Fire Brigade (LFB) to an FOI submitted to them on 8 March (“Please can you provide any correspondence between the London Fire Brigade and Southwark council asking LFB to participate in the consultation”) says that the LFB “can confirm we have had no confirmation of this proposal or communications regarding this and hold no correspondence”. A further FOI response (Ref: 8524.2) from the LFB on 14 May includes an email dated 9 March from the Borough Commander of the LFB to Southwark saying the LFB has been contacted by concerned residents about the closure of Calton Avenue to Emergency Vehicles and asking if the Council can confirm this is the case. After chasing up this email on 20 March, the Borough Commander receives a reply from a Southwark Officer saying “Apologies, the project manager was supposed to get in touch”, and adding that this was an informal consultation and not the statutory consultation which has yet to start. An FOI response (Ref: 24996313) from Southwark Council on 3 May – broken down into four separate parts, and providing copies of correspondence and meetings between the Council and the Emergency Services – sheds a little more light on this confused picture. It appears that Southwark had invited all three emergency services to a Teams meeting (see Part 4) on 1 February 2024 – that is, after the public consultation had ended – but that the LFB didn’t attend (see Part 1). Afterwards, on 5 February, a Southwark Officer emails all three emergency services (see Part 3) to say that Calton Avenue Southbound will be closed to ES vehicles on a trial basis. After claims are made on X (formerly Twitter) that the LFB had not been consulted about blocking Calton Avenue, Southwark Council asks the LFB to correct their FOI response (see the long thread in Part 2). On 5 April, Cllr Richard Leeming comments on X (formerly Twitter) that he has been “assured by officers that the LFB were consulted, their response to the FOI was inaccurate & will be corrected”. On 9 April, a Southwark Officer advises local councillors that the LFB has indicated it does not intend to comment further. As of today’s date, the London Fire Brigade’s FOI response of 28 March has not been corrected. 3. Is the London Ambulance Service consulted? 9 April 2024: An FOI response (Ref: FOI 6164) from the London Ambulance Service (LAS) to an FOI submitted on 8 March reveals that the LAS attended the Teams meeting with Southwark Council on 1 February (see above), where they raise concerns about the re-introduction of physical closures on Calton Avenue “due to the potential that they could cause delays to emergency vehicles”. The LAS goes on to say that following discussions at the meeting, “it was decided that…the re-introduction of the physical closures would be accepted”. However, the LAS adds that the impact of the closure will be closely monitored and “where necessary the requirement for the road closure would need to be reviewed and if needed would be removed”. It is clear from the concerns expressed and the words used that – having fought so hard for the junction to be reopened to ES vehicles in 2021 – the LAS have reservations about the plan and have agreed to it on a trial basis only. 4. How many Emergency Vehicles use the Dulwich Village junction? 17 April 2024: An FOI response (Ref: 24050749) from Southwark Council to an FOI submitted on 12 April contains a spreadsheet showing how many Emergency Vehicles have used the junction in 2022, 2023 and the first three months of 2024. In 2023, 179 ES vehicles used the junction – an average of 15 a month, and a 39% increase on the number using the junction in 2022. In January 2024, a total of 24 ES vehicles used the junction – the highest number for one month recorded so far. The spreadsheet does not make clear which route ES vehicles most commonly take when exiting the junction but, either way, the numbers do not support Cllr Richard Leeming’s claim on X (formerly Twitter) on 14 March 2024 that “the ES have only exited onto Calton Avenue a handful of times in the last few years”. 5. Are the new designs for the junction fit for purpose? 22 April 2024: An FOI response (Ref: 25058345) from Southwark Council on 22 April gives details of a Swept Path Analysis for the new junction designs. This reveals that ES vehicles will not be able to travel through the junction to and from Court Lane without overhanging or overrunning the footway (i.e. mounting the pavement), which is clearly a hazard for pedestrians. The accompanying set of designs (dated 17 April) highlights the problems. We are waiting to hear Southwark’s response to what appears to be a design fault. 6. Are the Metropolitan Police consulted? 5 June 2024: An FOI response (Ref: 01/FOI/24/036507) from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to an FOI submitted to them on 8 March (“Please can you provide any correspondence between the Met police and Southwark council asking the Met to participate in the consultation”) reveals that this information was not held by the MPS at the time the request was received on 8 March. This confirms that the Police were not consulted before Southwark Council announced their intention on 7 March to install a bollard on Calton Avenue.

I think the council deliberately put them up to confuse as they are not at all accurate - it's almost as if they were trying to dissuade people from turning into the LTN area at all - or I did wonder if it was done to improve their monitoring figures when they had the strips down.

Malumbu, admin has warned you about these diversionary tactics before which led to you being restricted from some threads that were related to East Dulwich and they warned you that if you tried to derail threads you would be banned from more. You can thank me later for drawing your attention to the fact that admin is watching your posts as you may have just saved yourself from a ban with your post-derail put it back on the rails post! 😉 One thing that was interesting was that in the full Inrix report it showed that they estimate the average car commute in London was 7 miles - as someone who regularly cycled 10 miles to work and then 10 miles back I can tell you it is not easy - and maybe those distances shed some light on why the nudge tactics of restricting roadspace for cars are clearly not working as many London commuters cannot switch to other modes to make their journeys. This might also explain why cycling is struggling to break out of low single figure percentages for daily journeys in London compared to other modes.

And you don't know that they weren't. Given the way a lot of cyclists are ignoring the rules of the road it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that some of them were caused by inconsiderate cycling. I grimace on a daily basis when I see some of the stupidity displayed by some cyclists. It's funny isn't it that we hear constantly from pro-cycle lobby about injuries caused by cars there is never any scrutiny of where the fault lies - that ludicrous Dulwich Roads twitter feed constantly tries to apportion blame on drivers without any consideration for what actually caused an accident - it seems they default to the car must be to blame. What we do know is that 26 accidents last year in Southwark were caused by bikes hitting pedestrians - some of whom were seriously injured and the issue I took was with those so blinkered that they do not think we need to address it and those who came on here to desperately try to distract attention away from the issue by throwing in the "yeah, but what about cars". We will never be able to make progress until such time as people acknowledge there is an issue. The Royal Parks were forced to address the problem and I suspect many more will have to follow suit.

Malumbu - your blatant and deliberate diversionary tactics to try and stop discussion on things you don't agree with is getting beyond a joke. Admin - I thought people were being told not to do this? P.S. Malumbu - are you suggesting that Adam Tranter stepping down is a good thing - had he upset you somehow? Returning to the subject in hand the fact that some "laugh" at the story (one can only presume they think it is funny that London is the most congested city in Europe as if it is something to aspire to) and the fact others say it is not interesting very aptly demonstrates the head-in-the-sand and blinkered attitude some have. More congestion means more pollution - and that is bad news for all of us, surely something not to "laugh" at.

Interesting article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz447jl05yno