Rockets

It's when Leeming refers to anti-democracy groups tweeting about the application having received funding that is starts getting ridiculous. Perhaps P3girl can provide some background? I wonder if no-one from the council did any due diligence on the applications before the meeting and because it was listed as Clean Air for Dulwich they presumed it was from their friends in the pro-LTN lobby group and that the funding would get a straight-forward greenlight. Perhaps during the meeting someone actually read the details and realised it was from an anti-LTN lobby group and the council was about to greenlight funding for it and create a huge issue for themselves. From P3Girls post it seems the application was submitted on the basis of "well if you are happy to fund pro-LTN activities in the closed streets will you fund some anti-LTN activities too in the displacement streets in the spirit of democracy and fairness". So rather than fraud, as Cllr Newens and Leeming are suggesting, could it be that council incompetence led to the funding getting tabled at the meeting? The way the councillors are trying to backtrack on this does suggest that they are trying to deflect blame onto others. Interestingly, Cllr Leeming's long list of reasons not to fund it reads like a list of technical faults rather than a dissection of whether trying to do anything for the roads most affected by the displacement from LTNs is legitimate. BTW, out of interest, did the legitimate CAD group receive any funding from the councillors in this recent round?

Very telling this line from that Tyre Extinguisher website: Locate an SUV. In towns and cities, you won?t have to walk far to find one. Target posh / middle-class areas. It's like Class War for cars...... I love the caveats in bold they have on their site: Avoid: Cars clearly used for people with disabilities, traders? cars (even if they?re large), minibuses and normal-sized cars. They also seem to be encouraging their followers to damage the tyre by wedging something in the vale: To get the air out of the tyre, there must be something pushing down on the pin located in the center of the valve. Drop a small bean (we like green lentils, but you can experiment with couscous, bits of gravel, etc) inside the valve cap. Replace the cap, screwing it on with a few turns until you hear air hissing out. Even if it?s only hissing out a little bit, that?s enough - it will deflate slowly. The whole process should take about 10 seconds. The sooner these idiots get arrested/a visit from the police the better - if everyone decided to take direct action on any cause they felt passionate about the world would be a very dangerous place.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It is a one point measure, it has only had one > > measurement and therefore change cannot be > > calculated. A point measure is not a stretch. > All > > the schools have ED Grove buildings on this > road, > > the main entrance for Charter will be on ED > Grove > > when completed, the main entrance of JAGs is on > > EDG and it is the main route for children to > > travel. I would rather live in my 'ridiculous' > > questioning world than an appearance of blindly > > following dogma without question or inspection > of > > skewed data. > > I have actually called for local PT, bike > lanes, > > to keep school road timed closures and I > support > > road pricing. > > > > Telling people what they think, calling them > > ridiculous and misrepresenting their beliefs is > > called gaslighting, it happens a lot on this > > subject. > > The monitoring data for East Dulwich Grove Central > (near Tessa Jowell Health Centre), saw a 20% > decrease in traffic between Sept 19 and Sept 21. > The main entrance to ED Charter is in Melbourne > Grove; This is simply a fact. Your call to remove > the restrictions on through traffic would increase > traffic around the school. The monitoring data for that EDG Central section is based on modelling and is highly suspicious - there was no actual monitoring in place in Sep 19 - Sep 21 is the first time there has been actual monitoring in place in that section of road. There was monitoring on a different section of road in Jan 19 and the council has taken those numbers and added nearly 3,000 vehicles (they have not explained why) to create the Sep 19 figures. Those modelled Sep 19 figures have been compared to Sep 21 to create the "reduction". If you take the original Jan 19 figures and compare them to Sep 21 there has been only a slight reduction so without the 3,000+ modelling numbers added by the council there would be no reduction. Until the council explains their modelling and methodology you need to treat the "20% reduction" claim with a huge pinch of salt. It's a modelled number that has no grounding in fact.

CPR Dave Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The problem with diesel (as the labour government > that led the dash to diesel neglected to tell us) > is NOx emissions, not carbon emissions. > > If people are concerned about carbon specifically > there are other far more anti-social activities > with a high carbon foot print that get completely > ignored. Like dog ownership. A typical dog has the > same annual carbon foot print as a range rover. > And many dog owners have no civic responsibility > at all, leaving sh*t all over the pavements and > parks and letting their dogs p*ss on people's > private property and all over the street. > > Why aren't people going round deflating dogs too? Might I suggest that the brilliant idea of deflating dogs doesn't satiate the bizarre self-absorbed virtue-signalling needs of the type of person who feels compelled to go and deflate someone's car tyre to "disarm" it? Disarm it....really....talk about tone deaf given the current crisis in Ukraine. It's a special kind of person who engages in such direct action and thank goodness there aren't more of them else the world would be an even scarier place.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's only a waste if the policy of less road space > for cars is rolled back, and it won't be. So your > point is moot. Surely, it will have been a waste of money if it hasn't worked, hasn't delivered on the council's objectives or actually made the problem worse....

And I feel many of these attacks are utterly misguided, often the motivation and catalyst for them is a belief in the lazy narrative pushed by some that "the car is the problem" when it is, in fact, all vehicles that are the problem. Granted the case for huge SUV ownership is very limited and they have become a status symbol but that doesn't justify anyone damaging them and putting the occupants and other road users at risk as a result of their blinkered foolishness. If I remember rightly buses, coaches and taxis were/are responsible for the largest share of NO2 and PM3 output in the capital and if you look at TFL's own figures on vehicle compliance with ULEZ rules cars are not the biggest problem. In fact, according to TFL's own Air Quality in London report from October 2020 TFL buses had 0% vehicles that were non-compliant to ULEZ, only 9% of HGVs and 10.9% of cars were non-compliant. The issues are when you look at taxis (71%), vans (36%) and non TFL buses and Coaches (23%) that had/have the highest level of non-compliance. Of course, this was pre-ULEZ extension but it really shows how targeting cars may be being motivated not by an understanding of the problem you are actually trying to tackle but something more ideological.

Yes I think those that support the council need to be very careful about questioning whether OneDulwich have spent their money wisely....people who live in glass houses etc.... Does anyone know how much the council has wasted on these projects? I know they will claim it's not "their" money as it was funded from central government but it is still "our" money.

"Yeah, but...direct action blah blah blah"...the usual defence from the usual suspects... It's time a few people started putting commonsense ahead of personal ideaology and recalibrated their right and wrong compass.

My, to see some people coming on here to somehow justify people vandalising cars is beyond belief. The "yeah but" community is seemingly strong in the pro-LTN community. At least Cllr Newens had the commonsense to point out that what these people are doing is incredibly dangerous as it can degrade the structural integrity of the tyre. But for some it seems completely justifiable to "make a point". I think it is time some people took a look in the mirror and decide whether this really is what we think people should be doing to make a point. It's idiotic and no-one should be condoning it.

It appears a lot of people are having their SUVs "disarmed" by climate activists in the Dulwich area - really idiotic and dangerous behaviour by whomever is behind this - a lot of vehicles have been targeted across Rosendale Road, Dulwich Village and East Dulwich. Whatever your views on SUV ownership keep your eyes peeled for anyone doing this as the person/persons need to be stopped as this is incredibly stupid. Perhaps this is the next step on from pulling down anti-LTN signs....

And Heartblock what many seem to forget is what we were all told repeatedly at school that sometimes it's not the answer that's important but how you got there....... The reason why Southwark refuses to engage on this issue is exactly this - the answers they have got don't stand-up to any scrutiny as to how they got to them.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But Rockets - you actually can't 'clear anything > up once and for all' because your assertions are > conjecture too. We need the council to confirm > that the Sept figures are adjusted. I don't think > they are because they don't follow the adjustment > figures stated. > > There was a count in the section between MG and > Townley near to the health centre. It may not > have been in exactly the same point as the Sept > 2021 one eg to the nearest cm, but in the same > section - so that 'in a different place' is doing > some heavy lifting in that sentence. > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Let's just clear this up once and for all - the > > EDG Central numbers deserve far more scrutiny > and > > showed be treated with extreme caution. > > > > Here's why: > > > > There was a count (in a different place on the > > road) in Jan 19. The council then "adjusted" > that > > figure to create a Sept 19 number (which was > not > > based on an actual count). They, without any > > explanation, adjusted it upwards from 11,832 to > > 14,214. The Sept 21 figure which was based on a > > count (but in a different place to the Jan 19 > one) > > counted 11,442 - this is what gave them the > > "decrease" in traffic on EDG Central. > > > > Without their adjustment of the Jan 19 figure > to > > create the Sep 19 figures the reduction would > have > > been negligible. > > > > So, until there is a clearer explanation from > the > > council on why they made such a large upwards > > adjustment to the figure then I don't think > anyone > > should be using the EDG Central figure of any > > proof of anything. > > > > The "reduction" is, basically, modelled. Goldilocks but I can. The basis for my analysis is fact based. According to the council's own reports there was no actual count in Sept 19. The council states that in both their Data Monitoring Appendix (slide 4). Take a look and you will see that it clearly indicates only two data collections for EDG Central - Jan 19 and Sep 21 and then in the council's traffic flow analysis document it says: Slide 45: Pre-implementation data for January 2019 has been adjusted to September 2019 levels to ensure comparability Slide 46: Directional analysis compares Jan 19 to Sept 21 - no mention of Sept 19.

Let's just clear this up once and for all - the EDG Central numbers deserve far more scrutiny and showed be treated with extreme caution. Here's why: There was a count (in a different place on the road) in Jan 19. The council then "adjusted" that figure to create a Sept 19 number (which was not based on an actual count). They, without any explanation, adjusted it upwards from 11,832 to 14,214. The Sept 21 figure which was based on a count (but in a different place to the Jan 19 one) counted 11,442 - this is what gave them the "decrease" in traffic on EDG Central. Without their adjustment of the Jan 19 figure to create the Sep 19 figures the reduction would have been negligible. So, until there is a clearer explanation from the council on why they made such a large upwards adjustment to the figure then I don't think anyone should be using the EDG Central figure of any proof of anything. The "reduction" is, basically, modelled.

Do the pro-LTN lobby have to attack anyone and everyone who doesn't whole-heartedly support their views? The moment someone mentions Cllr Burgess and flags that she seems to be taking a sensible approach and asking the questions we would all want any of our councillors to ask the attacks on her commence. It's all very sad and quite scary that this has become so polarised. Anyway, anyone else noticed how the council are having to send traffic enforcement officers to the newly opened junction to try and stop Hamlet school drop off parents from parking and blocking access for emergency vehicles? And people say it is just the private schools that have a problem with the school drop......

Ha ha....I wondered how long it would be before the Melbourne Grove fans bit on the suggestion of bars and nightclubs along the road! Brilliant. I know it was said in jest but it would make sense, some of those empty frontages would be great for a club....not since the heady days of Inside 72 have we had any proper dingy dive bars in Dulwich attracting a clientele that resembles those seen in the cafe scene in Star Wars;-) Anyway Cllr Burgess seems like the only sensible councillor in the area - from the beginning I have sensed she hasn't fully bought-in to the LTN plan narrative and is seemingly swimming against a tide of "toe the party line" pressure that so many councillors have muted themselves over. From 58 minutes in the council meeting she makes some really important points about measurement and properly assessing the impact. She also, very refreshingly references, Cairns and Goodwin (that is often cited by pro-LTN lobbyists about proof that 11% traffic evaporation can be achieved by such interventions) that actually in 84% of cases they looked at traffic increased on alternative routes. She says, very sensibly, that the council needs to look at journey miles and the impact of LTNs on that. I love the fact she poses a question to Dale Foden who legs it from the meeting (to be fair to him he was packing up for some time before she posed the question but he didn't hang around to answer the tricky curve ball....). She also sensibly says we should not conflate traffic and congestion and she says the council needs a data person to number crunch all of this info to give the council and public confidence of what is actually happening. Which suggests to me she doesn't have a huge amount of confidence that what the council is putting out there is completely accurate. I wonder what she thinks about the EDG Central number "miracle". I wish she was my councillor, she would win my vote because she is trying to get the council to do what many of us hoped they would.

You may be right as the space was certainly empty for the days after the council created the emergency access route and it is only the last day or so that the car has appeared. I presume then that the council would need to contact Car Club to get them to remove it before the bay can be removed.

The car club bay is still there, has not been moved and is blocking emergency vehicle access when filled with a car. A Car Club car is currently parked in it. Why? Because it is still marked as a Car Club Bay and people using Car Club are told to only return their cars to a marked Car Club bay?.which it still is?.. Looks like another council oversight??.

Let?s be honest it?s complete tokenism. Dulwich is well served by the current North Cross Road market and to demonstrate they are trying to do something to reverse the negative impact on businesses caused by the LTN they are pushing this idea. People said that when the LTN came in that it would affect the businesses and no matter the why?s or what?s Melbourne Grove has lost a lot of businesses and now has a lot of empty frontage. It will be interesting to see what impact a market might have but markets and shops along streets markets are located have to both be strong to attract footfall and Melbourne Grove might be too far from Lordship Lane to attract people who are drawn to Lordship Lane and North Cross Road.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't really understand that last comment. Lots > of people enjoying coffees outside of cafes > currently are car owners; I don't drive and taught > my child to ride a bike on a quite road pre the > changes; and plenty of people who don't own a car > live on boundary roads and it doesn't feel very > clean air for all. I don't think the Dulwich LTN > is working primarily for the benefit of non-car > owners, to put in another way (some other LTNs > might be, who knows?) Am I missing something? And the point many on the pro-LTN argument repeatedly miss is that Dulwich has the highest car ownership rates in the borough with over 60% owning a car, many owning more than one car. The council always says?but only 42% of people own a car across the borough?as some sort of justification for the measures but in their own TMS from 2018 they state that one of the reasons for high car ownership in Dulwich is because of the poor PTAl scores. So it doesn?t take a genius to work out that many of those enjoying the cafes and teaching their kids to cycle on quiet roads in Dulwich also own cars and are probably defend their closed roads whilst happily polluting others. I bet there has been no decline in Dulwich car ownership figures since the LTNs went in.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the new timings came in last Thursday I think? > The signs about timing have changed. So I think > the emergency access thing is now operational as > well? I hate to say it but maybe another sign is > needed re not parking to block the access. They?ll have to move the car club bay as it actually breaks the plane of where the planters have been moved to. Let?s hope no emergency vehicle tries to gain access whilst the council tries to sort it out. Looks like bad planning again.

Do I take it the emergency vehicle access at the DV junction doesn?t start operating until all the new timing measures came in? It?s just that the gap they have created for emergency vehicle access along Calton by moving the planters is now blocked anytime someone parks a Car Club car in the allotted space.

Means test the registered keeper of the car and then charge for use accordingly - no facial recognition needed then. Do you agree that road pricing (whether means tested or not - I just wanted to make it fair on everyone) would be a more effective way to combat the issue of too much traffic than LTNs? There are plenty of other interventions suggested by many on this forum that were far more equitable and less damaging than the disastrous LTNs but unfortunately the council only listened to one set of lobbyists when determining what course of action to take during OHS and that ultimately delivered us to where we are today.

Waseley come on - you stated it couldn't work. I was merely pointing out that it can work and means-testing is made to work in Scandinavia and now you've gone off on a track likening me to an anti-vaxxer. But you do have previous in this regard after your "wow, you do have issues" statement to me on another thread. Honestly, if all you are doing is come on here is to pick a fight then maybe the forum isn't the right place for you. It gets combative here but people, in the main, keep it polite and are respectful of one another. Means testing road pricing seems an infinitely better way to reduce vehicle miles than chucking in a load of roadblocks and trying to convince people that overall car use declines as a result. I am not sure you would need facial recognition - you merely would charge the car for the miles it did based on a means-test - they could link it to the tax-codes of the registered owner and insured driver of the car. On the subject of ANPR cameras they are going up all over the place - in fact, today I noticed the new path finally cleared in the square for emergency vehicles - has new cameras (or cash epicentres as the council likes to call them ;-)) installed. Also, I have to say the Calton Road approach looks really ugly now as they have a plethora of new no cars signs plastered everywhere and on new poles to warn drivers that despite there being a gap it is for emergency vehicles only. But overall I am glad to see that the council finally did a U-turn and listened to the emergency services about how their roadblocks were slowing response times and endangering lives. Only two years too late.

If there was an award for "things you don't expect to see posted on the EDF" this must be it! Fantastic! So glad that the snake has been returned home!

Due to the storm local parks may be locked tomorrow. Note from Southwark pasted below. Dear Tennis players, I wanted to make you aware that there is a strong likelihood that we will be closing some of our parks (the lockable ones) tomorrow due to the risk of danger to residents from tree and branch fall as Storm Eunice moves across the south east. The safety of our park users is a priority and this precautionary action is in line with the council's Tree Risk Management Strategy and best practice relating to high winds. The aim is to reopen the parks that have been locked, and tennis activities, on Saturday subject to safety checks and any clearance works that are required. Not knowing the extent of the damage and debris that might be caused we are unable to judge how much time it will take for parks to be cleared, so court bookings will be cancelled on Saturday in case venues have not been cleared / reopened earlier. Court bookers within this time will be cancelled and refunded automatically. Anyone that might be affected outside of this time can request a refund by emailing [email protected] with photo evidence of the issue preventing play. As is always the case with the weather, things may change over the course of the next 24 hours and the best way to stay in touch with developments is via the council social media channels. We invite you to share these posts more widely. Our tree service team, tree contractors and grounds maintenance team will be on standby to deal with any issues as we will be keen to get back to normal service as soon as possible. If you have any questions please contact the sports email - [email protected] I appreciate your patience and understanding at this potentially busy time.