Rockets

I think many of us agree that we need more bike hangars - the issue to date has been the snail's like pace that the council has rolled them out and also some of the locations that seem to have two or three whilst others have none. It seems all so haphazard and without any strategic thinking behind it.

The more time I spend reading the council?s documents on the LTNs I am becoming more and more incredulous at the council?s audacity at continuing with this flawed programme of measures. Can any of the pro-lobby look at the documents and tell us what the pluses are in the report - there aren?t any jumping out from the council?s report? It appears to me that their report concludes: No reduction in pollution (in fact increases in areas such as East Dulwich Grove) 10% decrease in car journeys (although data incomplete due to lack of info from Underhill) Decreases in traffic on closed roads but increases in traffic on boundary roads (Burbage, EDG and Lordship Lane taking the brunt - but of course no data on Underhill which will show a significant increase) School journeys have seen a 6% shift from car use but some of the shift to cycling and scooting has been at the expense of walking Bus journey times have increased on many key routes such as EDG, South circular and Croxted The large majority of people who responded to the review backed the strategy but not the implementation. People agree that they are walking and cycling more but this is not because of the effectiveness of the measures The majority of Respondents are concerned about the impact on the old, disabled and local businesses. They are also concerned about displacement issues. And finally??(and this is the one I find astonishing) the measures have endangered lives with numerous issues of delays reported by LAS to the council during the duration of the closures. Yet the council did nothing to address them. And this is what I find incredible that it is clear from the emergency services report that both LAS and MPS were telling Southwark their measures (especially DV) were causing response time issues yet the council did nothing. How can the council ignore the requests of the emergency services - they have been putting Dulwich resident lives at risk because of this dogged pursuit of the LTN approach? No rational person can read any of those documents and suggest the measures have delivered against their goals and that the solution is to tweak the measures. This has been a disaster from day one and the council are digging a deeper and deeper hole for themselves (and for those who like to complain the aforementioned digging a hole is a metaphor!) And finally congratulations the people of Dulwich - looking at the distribution of responses the whole Dulwich area had their say, despite the council?s continued efforts to try to bury the review.

I wonder if some of the incumbent councillors may not stand for re-election and will cash in their ?5000 golden parachute payment from Cllr Williams. It's clear Southwark residents desperately need some sort of opposition in Tooley Street. The one party state only ever results in one thing and we are seeing that playing out in front of our eyes with every council led initiative - they do what they want and residents have zero say.

I actually think the various anti-LTN groups have done a good job keeping these issues top of mind amongst local residents. The council was very much hoping the "small vocal minority" would quietly lose interest and fade away but that small vocal minority turned into a large vocal majority - the council just now chooses to ignore them.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pugwash, in the consultation paper ...hidden > discreetly it does say that the cycling numbers > are already dropping. UK wide they are almost back > to pre-lockdown and pre LTN levels. I don?t find > this joyous as I would like more people to find > alternatives to private cars...but obviously I > don?t think LTNs encourage this. > And it seems, they probably don?t. And they are continuing to fall to below pre-Covid levels - driven in part because people are not commuting on bikes into London as often/at all. LTNs were designed to increase cycling and they have failed.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > P3girl Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Ealing anti-LTN group mustered around 3,000 > folk > > to each of their (legal) protests. Dulwich > > mustered only 150!... The operators were > nameless and > > uncontactable...> 5. They appeared to only want > to raise funds. The > > never said what money had been spent on. > > 6. Comments are unattributed eg by "a local > > resident" or by " a local business"... 9. Failed > to dispel the view that they were just a > > bunch of toffs from Dulwich Village. > > Have you considered the possibility that maybe the > changes just weren't as unpopular in real life as > they were among certain empty vessels on here? Are > dark money and untraceable, anonymous leaders > hallmarks of a movement with genuine popular > aupoort? 64% of residents within the LTN area would disagree.....you can't argue with that.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Viz 🙄. So a question. Why has Southwark > compared Sept 2019 pollution level to June 2021 > levels on ED Grove. Wasn?t the schools closed, so > traffic will not peak at school run? > Why only a month? > Am I missing something? Have they published any of the Underhill Road monitoring figures? I reckon when they include the figures from there their claimed 10% reduction in area-wide traffic drops to 0 - it may in fact register an increase.

Oh my, there does seem like there has been a concerted effort to get the thread closed for some time. So very sad and, increasingly, desperate...... A lot of LTNs are being removed by councils who realise their residents don't want them and the displacement they bring. Not sure why Southwark deems itself exempt from listening to their constituents.

Yes it does require planning. I just parted with ?234 for the pleasure. Apparently the council views the applications favourably but do require you to pay for the pleasure - a bit surprised they don't waive the fee for bike storage given their commitment to active travel and their inability to satiate the demand for cycle hoops.

But why they did they have a review based on get rid of them, keep them as is or alter them? Malumbu - the suggested changes are diversionary kite-flying from the council so they can say - we're making changes... I don't see anything in their suggestions that will change the chaos they have created. And to Legal's point the biggest issue is the DV junction and they are doing nothing to solve that problem - seemingly at the behest of a few dozen people who live on Court Lane and Calton.

And even with all the cajoling the pro-LTN did to get the likes of LCC and Southwark Cyclists to have their say in tbe review the "remove them" share was still 55% of the overall total inputs received. They couldn't even manipulate that part of the review. Which is why the council are grasping at the "these two roads want them" nonsense. It's all they have, everything else gives them a resounding no. The longer the publication went on was reflective of how much work they were doing to try and find a reason to keep them.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The residents of Dulwich have spoken...Keeping > the DV > > measures on the basis of weak support on Court > > Lane and Calton is another very dangerous > > precedent for them to set. > > It's complete nonsense that "the residents of > Dulwich" all want rid of the scheme and that there > is only weak support only on Court Lane and Calton > Ave. This thread is a echo chamber that is not > representative of the outside world. DKHB - take the time to look at the data the council published from the review. It's all in there. Let us know if that changes your view......

The council are going warp factor 9 on the spin on this one.....some epic turd polishing going on in Tooley Street - you have to commend them for their continued blatant disregard for the democratic process!

Remember how we were kept being told that the emergency services had no issue with the closures by the council and the pro-LTN supporters. Check out the emergency services response document for the truth....a very different narrative than the one that was being peddled....

Legal - it looks like a token gesture to say "we're listening and making changes" and I don't think it will much difference at all. The residents of Dulwich have spoken and they want this disaster the council forced upon us at the behest of a few self-interest groups and self-interested individuals removed. It just shows the weight of feeling against the measures that despite trying to rally support for them by pulling every underhand trick in tbe book the council have not been able to rally a mandate to continue this horrendous experiment. Yet they chose to do so. The council cannot be allowed to put the will of a few over the will of the majority. Keeping the DV measures on the basis of weak support on Court Lane and Calton is another very dangerous precedent for them to set.

Chick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here is a link to their proposal. > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/i > mproving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review? > utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source > =govdelivery&utm_term= > > Laugh, I almost fell off my chair And a very selective group of documents that they link to....very different from the documents we saw last night. Talk about trying to bury the story and drive people to the data you want them to see rather than the data that tells you what is really happening and what people think of the measures.

Just seen the newsletter that dropped through our door. Apparently we told the council we are all supportive of the measures.....they seem to have forgotten to mention that 65%+ of local residents responded to tbe review saying they wanted them removed. This are the only stats they present from the review: The majority of respondents (55%) were supportive of the overall aims of Streets for People as set out as priorities in the survey. In particular, a majority of respondents (77%) agreed that improving air quality and road safety on the street where they lived was an important priority. The largest level of support in the survey (82%) was for improving air quality and road safety for local schools. This council is shameless, absolutely shameless and I hope they one day get held to account for their constant manipulation of what they are being told by their constituents. I really hope they have the backbone to hold some public meetings around this - I think they need to hear from people directly instead of hiding behind Covid as a reason not to engage with the people they represent.

What makes me laugh is they claim to be socialists and take every opportunity to call out corruption and sleaze yet are more than happy to stand back and let it happen on their watch. Hypocrites every single one of them and a classic illustration why politicians of all political persuasions are so despised by so many - putting their own party's ideology ahead of the will of the people they are supposed to represent.

For the few not the many. How are they going to try and spin this? Every trick they pulled to try and validate their approach has backfired royally yet they are keeping the measures. The measures clearly aren't working and the majority of people in the area don't want them. The data is there to support it yet they continue regardless.

We finally got offered a single space in a bike hangar two streets away from our house....which wasn't much use as we applied for spaces for each of our bikes. Now had to spend ?234 to get the council to review planning permission to put an Asgard in our front garden. Expensive business trying to embrace active travel if you don't own a house with a side return......

To me this seems like a very sensible use of LTNs and I can see the justification and rationale for keeping them. BBC News - Covent Garden and St John's Wood to continue al fresco dining https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-58583771

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the village ward councillors may only > exist online. I've never seen them in the flesh - > not even out canvassing. I'm not aware of a ward > meeting in the last couple of years, the council > webpage seems to have been updated in July to say > that a date for one would be added shortly. > They're supposed to have six per year (including > the two South multi-ward meetings), although I > think the council decided it would be reduced to > two during COVID (ie only the multi ward meetings > which have a very limited remit - surprising, > that,at a time when constituents were likely to be > vocal were a ward meeting held). Surely they must be able to start proper meetings again now. If you can sit in a football stadium, go to a concert or the theatre then surely councillors can start doing surgeries and meetings again? I suspect they are using Covid as a cover to not have to face their constituents!

The police responding to my wife's incident (she is fine thanks she put up a fight and the idiot may have thought he had bitten off more than he could chew!) came from Stockwell as there are no responding officers at Peckham anymore apparently (don't know if this is temporary). Unfortunately for the police many of the kids doing this are exactly that, kids, and they know they are untouchable and know how to play the system. It's why they are all wearing the same clothes and riding the same bikes so it makes it very difficult to identify them.

You would presume our local councillors would have been there - does anyone know?

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Its true that if the LTNs threatened businesses > then consideration should be given to what could > be done. Its not clear though that the effects > quoted are actually as a result of the LTN (a > bunch of people against LTNs saying' its affected > my business, definitely not the pandemic isn't the > same thing as showing demonstrable reduction in > trade). Also suspect that the wording has been > carefully crafted to date - where some businesses > like dry cleaners will be down lots, others less > so. > > Final point is that despite it being so apparently > dreadful for businesses we are in a position were > 3 businesses are opening up - one of them directly > onto Dulwich Square. I'm going to assume that > they did their due diligence before opening and > considered that the location would be good - which > does make the claims that LTNs are death to the > high street difficult to reconcile. Whilst its > clear that new businesses often get rent > reductions / rent free periods, I'm also assuming > that they've forcasted on a future rent paying > basis. > > > > Bicknell Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > but councilors should care if local shops say > > duwlich ltns are threatening thier business? > > shouldnt they? > > if not why not? The new shop in "The Square" is a cheese shop. I like a bit of cheese but I did asked myself "really" does someone think that they can sustain a shop selling cheese in a location like that with such limited footfall? Even the cafes are struggling there (and that was before the new one opened) as when the sun isn't shining footfall drops to negligible levels. It is interesting that some of the shopkeepers are saying that they have lost a lot of the destination shoppers. If I remember rightly the council's own research on Lordship Lane suggested that 22% of all shoppers were from outside the immediate area and had driven and it would be interesting to see if the council has, or is planning to do, a similar survey to determine what the combined impacts of the CPZ and LTNs have been on visitors now.