Rockets

I think the issue is you cannot mix pedestrians and moving vehicles of any type - there are problems with pedestrians and cyclists mingling in the DV junction at the moment as no-one really knows who has right of way and many cyclists are approaching the junction at speed along Calton.

Interesting that Eynella (which has limited off-street parking) gets the two bays and that Court Lane (where almost every house has off-street parking around the park) was determine to have too many drop-kerbs for the new bays. I wonder if that is why someone objected. Whilst I understand and support the need for disabled bays around the park it's nice to see that the council is being consistent in ignoring any objections from local residents and moving forward regardless.... I hope they get used as the council does like throwing in loads of disabled bays (which seem to be the size of small tanks) that tend to sit there never being used whilst, conveniently, putting pressure on parking for homeowners (Crystal Palace Road outside the gym being the best example).

I do love how many of the pro-LTN supporters post things on here in the defence of LTNs and when we read them it merely amplifies and validates the anti-LTN/council manipulation narrative! ;-)

Ah, that makes sense - weren't Southwark promising some sort of independent / 3rd party assessment - or was that on the "monitoring" aspect of this debacle? Thanks for clarifying as it does very much put that "assessment" into context.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > You are deliberately conflating One Dulwich's > > timed restrictions lobbying versus the only > > reasonable option they were presented by the > > council in their flawed review process. > > There was an option to select 'modify existing > measures' and a box to fill in suggestions for > modifications. But One Dulwich told their > supporters to select 'remove all measures' because > they're prepared to jeopardise the whole scheme > just to get what they want. DC, come on.....do you really think, given the track-record of Southwark in this whole sorry saga that they could be trusted to react professionally and appropriately if everyone selected that? Nope. Nor do I. If you rewind the clock and get the 68% of people to vote for the modify the measures option rather than remove the measures here's what I can guarantee the council would say......."Hey, we have listened...we are modifying the measures" and then told us exactly what they said they are now going to do...... Turkeys don't vote for Christmas....that's why so many people voted to have the measures removed - it was the only way for us to try and have our voices heard. It's a sign that people no longer trust the council....understandably so.

But that wasn't my question was it March? You're pontificating. The question was why wasn't that an option on the review. I tell you why (as you seem reluctant to answer) because the council had already decided what the outcome of the consultation was going to be before they started it. And the document you share goes to further validate that point. The council claim the review wasn't a ballot yet there seems to have been some sort of voting scheme initiated by the council. You refer to an assessment and within that assessment the mysterious assessors (do you have any idea who they were by the way?) gave "nil points" to the option to remove the closures. Funny that. Look, they even give 0 points to the ability of that proposal to improve bus journey times....well that doesn't make any sense does it because one of the things being impacted most by the closure is bus journey times so surely removing the closures would give some positive impact to that? But no it gets a 0. Oh and look they even gave a 0 to the feasibility/buildability of the removal suggestion. That doesn't make any sense either does it because that would be the easiest fix of all of the suggestions? But again, it got a 0. The council has rejected it and basically struck it off as an option yet presented it as an option to constituents within the consultation. So what Cllr Rose meant to say was not "this was not a ballot" but "we offered everyone three options, one of which we had zero intention of honouring even if 100% of people voted for it". But look, the assessment throws up some other interesting points: the Friends of Dulwich Square have suggested almost a carbon copy of the council's favoured option.....what a surprise.... And the Southwark Cyclist proposals get one point more than a lot of the others. The others are rejected outright yet the Southwark Cyclists one gets a feasibility study.....come on....really.... I know you'll probably shout, well these are independent assessors. But Southwark's brand takes more prominence than the "independent" company Southwark paid to do the assessing....I'll leave you to fill in the gaps there and come to your own conclusions as to why that might be.... Please keep linking those types of documents though because it just goes to show how crocked this whole process has been from the outset and how Southwark have, shamefully, manipulated this whole process from start to finish. All of them should hang their heads in shame and this is the most un-socialist thing I have seen in years.

March - mandate verb not mandate noun.....jeez..... You are deliberately conflating One Dulwich's timed restrictions lobbying versus the only reasonable option they were presented by the council in their flawed review process. It's not that difficult to understand - you seem awfully confused and I think you're just trying desperately to create some FUD and try to deposition an organisation that has garnered a lot of local public support to stand up to the council. Anyway, are you going to answer my question about why you think Southwark didn't put an area-wide timed closure into the review as an option - I answered your question when you challenged me?

Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's a LOT of police presence, especially since > the two men had left. > > Awful for the children to experience. I think the police responded in numbers because the two aggressors had also threatened the people outside and inside the cafe with knives.

March - on the basis of their mandate being pushing for timed restrictions then I would say yes but you would really need to address that question to them as you're splitting hairs a little bit - the crux of the issue and the main catalyst for the traffic displacement all across Dulwich is the DV closure so unless the council addresses that one then the problems will continue. Now, I have answered your question perhaps you would now answer mine - why do you think the council refused to put an option of area-wide timed restrictions in to the review?

One Dulwich have called, repeatedly, for timed restrictions across the whole of Dulwich. They have bee continually ignored by the council - it's documented here: https://www.onedulwich.uk/mission It's clear the council were hoping this would all just wash-over and people would lose interest and that their repeated public de-positioning of anyone who dared question their LTNs as "a small, vocal minority" would have turned into just that. But it didn't. Opposition to the measures grew and grew to the point where nearly 70% of those in Dulwich who responded to the review said "take them out". And March - let me turn your question around - why do you think the council didn't put an option of a timed closure in the review? Surely, given the weight of public support behind a group asking for timed, not permanent, closures then some concession needed to be given? But no, the council offered, keep them as is, do something else (the something was unspecified), remove them and then ignored the fact nearly 70% of people said remove them. But as Cllr Rose keeps repeating and repeating: apparently "it wasn't a ballot". Well what on earth was it then?

march46 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Artemis you mention common ground, does anyone > know why One Dulwich / Dulwich Alliance isn't > supporting the timed restrictions being reduced? > It seems like a good compromise. Because it is window-dressing that doesn't address the fundamental issue - the permanent closure of the DV junction which is the root of all of the displacement issues.

March - well there is a bit more transparency than we get from the council as One Dulwich asks people when they sign-up to receive information about the campaign if they can plot their postcode on their map. So there's a high probability that that map does accurately reflect the pan-Dulwich sentiment against the council and their LTNs. You might be confused about what One Dulwich are calling for but we all know what happened. The council did not offer timed restrictions option on their review so One Dulwich were forced to call for the measures to be removed (which is the closest option the council offered in terms of timed restrictions - the closures will need to be removed for timed closures to go in surely......) Anyway, Saturday and the protest at the junction at noon will be interesting and will probably demonstrate the weight of feeling and how many of those 2,000 people still feel strongly about the closures. I know lots of people who have said they are fed-up with the way the council is ignoring the views of their constituents and are really angry with the way the review has been presented - and to be honest if the One Dulwich mailing list didn't exist they probably would not how the council has been manipulating the review process.

One Dulwich people (all 2,000 of them) seem to be located all across Dulwich. I am sure the founders may be located within the LTN area but then again, so are some of the small vocal minority of supporters of the LTNs (see what I did there ;-) ), so an accusation of selfishness could easily be levelled at them too. Yes Calton, Court Lane and DV was always an awful junction but, to be fair, it got a lot worse when the council put their previous "improvement" measures in. Those measures turned a busy junction into a massively congested polluting junction that made it more dangerous than it had ever been for all road users. After those measures went in lots of people told the council that the junction had become more polluted and dangerous but they did nothing about it (even though they admitted it had in their own report on the junction works). Why? You also have to ask why the junction was so busy in the first place? Well, because it is one of the only east/west routes across Dulwich. So by closing it they forced traffic to find other routes and that's where we are today. And people on here have been saying, from day one these plans were mooted, that the measures would merely cause displacement and any modal shift would not be sufficient to positively impact displacement traffic - funny how people on the forum were able to accurately predict what was going to happen but the council couldn't. Again, why?

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What a load of fuss. You get road rage every day > on our roads. I'm not sure why you have raised > this beyond a tut tut, or if you had to raise it > why you needed to link it to LTNs. > > I've had hassle before telling people not to drive > the wrong way down one way streets. Didn't feel > any need to start a thread. "What a load of fuss".....wow, new depths are being plumbed.....someone tried to smash the front window of a cafe behind which a child was sitting. I am glad that in my world I live in that is not considered something that is part of the everyday fabric of life....deserving of no-more attention than a "tut tut". I can't even begin to think how distressing that was for the staff and customers in the cafe, especially the children quite clearly seen in the video.

I very much suspect these two will be "known to police". If this is their response to someone, quite rightly, remonstrating with them about riding their mopeds through the LTN roadblocks then I think we can all predict the type of idiot they are. The way they aggressively remonstrate with the woman, the man by the door and the way they ride their mopeds on the pavement, then try to smash a window, behind which a child is sitting, is just beyond belief. Unfortunately, they probably also know they can do this without fear of ever being caught.

When it comes to the council's analysis of data from the LTNs review the saying: "Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story" comes to mind. It's scary the way they have manipulated the data, and data analysis, to give them the headline they so desire and, whether you are pro- or anti-LTNs everyone should be very concerned that this is the way the council analyses and presents data. If they are doing it with this what else are they doing it with?

That is horrific. I hope everyone is ok and that the police can identify the two in question.

Did get a visit from Cllrs Leeming or Newens yesterday? It appears they were knocking on doors - we had a leaflet put through the door saying they had called. Unfortunately we were out as I would love to have been able to discuss the LTN review "process" with them to get their thoughts.

It will be interesting to see how TFL and Sadiq react to the criticism of the colourful crossing initiative. Whilst I love a splash of colour it has clearly been done with inadequate thought, assessment or proper engagement. https://www.transportforall.org.uk/campaign/colourful-crossings/

I really hope this is not true. Do any traders on Melbourne Grove have any info?

Superb, well done to you all. This is a fantastic project, you should all be incredibly proud.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just musing on the idea that the active travel > benefits may have disproportionately benefited > children at the independent and more affluent > schools (and the air pollution from displaced > traffic disproportionately affected some of the > less affluent ones). Perhaps one of the many > things that should have gone into the analysis of > compliance with the council?s new socioeconomic > duty (something that seems to have been given very > little consideration in the report accompanying > the decision notice). > > I see on Twitter that the LDs have requested the > decision to be called in before Overview and > Scrutiny (stating concerns about adequacy of > consultation). Let?s see if the council approve > that request. A chance for both sides to air their > concerns about process flaws. If it happens I > wonder if the meeting is a public one. Legal, do you have any idea how the Overview and Scrutiny committee works as I see that Margy and Victoria Olisa are both members of it. Do they have to withdraw from the committee if it goes for review due to a conflict of interest?

I see articles like this and never know whether Southwark councillors recoil to see the negative publicity or frame it and pin it on their walls as some sort of validation of the great job they (think) they are doing!

And the fact Southwark calls out the DfT data showing a drop in cycling is because they know their next tranche of "monitoring" will show a decline in cycling and they are getting their defence in early! Because they fudged the increase numbers by using a dodgy baseline may mean the decrease numbers become way more pronounced. But look, the numbers shown above goes to validate how much of an impact the school cycle run is having on the overall numbers - the main increase is being driven by local children who go to DC, DPL, Jags, Alleyns and Hamlet cycling to school.

Goldilocks - it's not chat. It's fact. Southwark even references the decline in cycling to pre-pandemic levels (which comes from DfT data) in their final Dulwich LTN review report at the point when they talk about the increase they "monitored" in Dulwich during the pandemic. The catalyst for cycling was lockdown and not LTNs and now lockdown is over cycling is down as a result. And I suspect the reason that cycling numbers are down below pre-pandemic levels is because people are not going to their offices as much as they used to.