LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[redpost]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> goldilocks Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Lets combine these. Rockets, its a majority of

> > respondents. Have you ever read trip advisor?

> >

> > @Heartblock - don't think anyone is saying its

> a

> > statistical certainty - just that it shows it

> > might have fallen AND its backed up by the

> counts

> > in the latest data - again not a certainty

> because

> > of the way the data is presented. However, if

> the

> > council counts traffic outside the health

> centre

> > AND at the previous points, then they could

> > understand if it is correct

>

> You?re now trying to belittle the respondents to

> the review?.how depressingly predictable??you

> really are desperately trying to come up with some

> rod to hit people with. The facts remain, despite

> your protestations, Dulwich was asked for their

> input on the LTNs and they responded,

> overwhelmingly, against the measures - these

> aren?t Trip Advisor trolls these are actual

> Dulwich residents having to live with the chaos

> caused by the LTNs. I appreciate you, and many

> others who post here defending the measures, live

> on the closed roads and you aren?t happy to have

> your gated communities returned to how they were

> but maybe remove the blinkers and see what?s

> happening at the end of your road.

I'd trust Russian election results more than the online LTN consulation result

Let's stop spouting this 68% nonsense, the figure has zero significance as an accurate indication of opinion

[goldilocks]

No Rockets - there were some respondents - they were overwhelmingly negative, agreed. This doesn't mean they are a majority of people locally. Its not 'trying to belittle responses' its stating something that is factually true.

The only 'truth' is that people who responded to the consultation were not in favour. This is unequivocally not the same thing as a majority of people no matter how many times you say it. It could be that the majority of local people are against the measures, but you don't 'know' this.

[Rockets]

goldilocks Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> When someone claims they're disappointed and you

> respond with 'what about this then' it is the very

> definition of 'whataboutary'.

>

> When an organisation produces material that turns

> out to have been 'an absolute clanger' as the

> kindest way of describing that inappropriate /

> insensitive slogan then it remains their

> responsibility - not that of those pointing out

> how crass it is to go round requesting it to be

> removed.

Goldilocks - when you referred to the absolute clanger of a document I thought you were referring to the council?s review documents!

What makes me laugh is a lot of the pro-LTN lobbyists are happy to slam the anti-LTN lobby yet turn a blind eye to silly behaviour by their own peers. Just this week someone came on here and referred to anti-LTN voices as pro-carbon?..really?

If you can?t engage in a proper debate don?t try to engage.

How many questions have I been asked and answered yet many of the usual suspects refuse to answer questions I pose to them? Some people really are like Goldilocks (not you but the fictional character) who wants things just to their liking or not at all.

[ab29]

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Meanwhile - ab29 just wants the roads re-opened

> and doesn't drive. What is the main reason you

> want roads re-opened ab29?

Since the LTN were introduced, my stretch of LL has seen big increase in traffic.

We used to have am and pm rush hours and freely flowing traffic through the the rest of the day. Now more often than not it is idling, hardly moving line of cars. Lots of honking as people get angry and frustrated.

Talked to neighbours and many, many people in the area and all agree this started after the closures went in.

Overall, the scheme brought zero benefits and actually made things worst as the idling cars are polluting the air even more and many car journeys take much longer - which also means more pollution. Buses are stuck in this gridlock

and people have no choice but walk there and wait at bus stops.

[Rockets]

redpost Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rockets Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > goldilocks Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Lets combine these. Rockets, its a majority

> of

> > > respondents. Have you ever read trip

> advisor?

> > >

> > > @Heartblock - don't think anyone is saying

> its

> > a

> > > statistical certainty - just that it shows it

> > > might have fallen AND its backed up by the

> > counts

> > > in the latest data - again not a certainty

> > because

> > > of the way the data is presented. However,

> if

> > the

> > > council counts traffic outside the health

> > centre

> > > AND at the previous points, then they could

> > > understand if it is correct

> >

> > You?re now trying to belittle the respondents

> to

> > the review?.how depressingly predictable??you

> > really are desperately trying to come up with

> some

> > rod to hit people with. The facts remain,

> despite

> > your protestations, Dulwich was asked for their

> > input on the LTNs and they responded,

> > overwhelmingly, against the measures - these

> > aren?t Trip Advisor trolls these are actual

> > Dulwich residents having to live with the chaos

> > caused by the LTNs. I appreciate you, and many

> > others who post here defending the measures,

> live

> > on the closed roads and you aren?t happy to

> have

> > your gated communities returned to how they

> were

> > but maybe remove the blinkers and see what?s

> > happening at the end of your road.

>

> I'd trust Russian election results more than the

> online LTN consulation result

>

> Let's stop spouting this 68% nonsense, the figure

> has zero significance as an accurate indication of

> opinion

Maybe in your world but back in the real world 68% of respondents to the Dulwich LTN review said they wanted them removed and that 68% was achieved despite some significant attempts to manipulate the results by the council and councillors - remember the deadline extension and then the door-to-door campaign waged by the local councillors.

The consultation result is very much an indicator of public opinion that is, after all, the point of consultations.

Out of interest you say you don?t trust the result of the council consultation process - why not?

[slarti b]

@Goldilocks @redpost

Been away for a little while and I come back to find you still trying to discredit the results of the Streetspace consultation. Remember Southwark council promised they would listen to the local community, they sent round a leaflet at our expense saying how many respsonses they had received, far, far higher than previous consultations? but then they looked at the results and decided they didn't like what they had been told. So they ignored it.

Just as they ignored the comments nd responses on the commonplace map that councillors had been telling their constituents to use to send feedback.

The reality is that in the highest response rate on this issue the overwhelming local public opinion was against the council's half baked measures that increase congestion and pollution by diverting traffic into the boundary roads.

Still, at least the residents of Calton Avenue are happy and the council seems to think their opinion matters more than anyone else.

[heartblock]

Thank you ab29 - and back to what this is really about - Our Healthy Streets???

More pollution, gridlock, noise and misery diverted to those people not rich enough to live in the gated luxury of Gilkes, Calton and Court - as supplied by a Labour Council.

[Rockets]

goldilocks Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No Rockets - there were some respondents - they

> were overwhelmingly negative, agreed. This

> doesn't mean they are a majority of people

> locally. Its not 'trying to belittle responses'

> its stating something that is factually true.

>

> The only 'truth' is that people who responded to

> the consultation were not in favour. This is

> unequivocally not the same thing as a majority of

> people no matter how many times you say it. It

> could be that the majority of local people are

> against the measures, but you don't 'know' this.

7542 respondents in fact. Of which 68% said remove the measures. The review was mailed to over 19,000 addresses in the Dulwich area. In terms of response rate that is incredibly high for a consultation. You may be desperately trying to convince yourself otherwise but the numbers speak for themselves and it comes as no surprise. Looks like that small vocal minority we were told the anti-LTN voices were was in fact a vocal majority.

[goldilocks]

If 7542 was made up solely of responses to the mailed out survey then you would have a point. But it isn't. It also includes responses from anyone who filled it in online, of whom you have no means of knowing where they live. The relevant detail from the consultation report is below:

A consultation newsletter was posted to 19,729 postal addresses in May. We also notified 3,339 people by direct email, after they

had registered in the previous phase. 576 paper surveys were posted to people who had requested them.

We received 7,542 responses to the survey. Of these 209 were voided as being duplicates (people providing more than one

response). Of the remaining 7,333, some 5,538 identified themselves as living or working on streets within the consultation zone.

We operated a ?unique identifier? system with numbers available either on the envelopes that the newsletter came in or in the

emails that were sent ? however only 1491 responses included anything in the ?unique identifier? field, and many of these were

incorrectly used ? therefore this metric has not been used in the analysis below.

[heartblock]

Southwark also apparently dismissed to EqIAs data that showed the LTNs were unpopular with those with mobility issues and the wider BAME community. Southwark seems to have dismissed a lot in 'their' consultation. They decided to spread the net widely - for instance encouraging people that travel through the area by bike and also children at schools who do not live in the area to respond - because they thought they would then have an over-wehliming number supporting LTNs.

They also produced questions with no ability to answer 'yes - I want less pollution, but I believe LTNs only increase traffic and pollution'

When it didn't go the way they had planned, despite carefully wording questions to lead and inviting certain lobby groups to reply - they had a little strop and just basically dismissed the results of the consultation that they had designed and created at a huge cost.

This is why people have lost any trust in the current Council.

[heartblock]

Older and disabled people?s groups have overwhelmingly reported negative impacts on their ability to travel by car, and corresponding increases in fatigue, pain, stress, anxiety, and mental health issues; this included essential visitors and service providers trying to reach them by car.

? For many disabled and older people, a car does not just assist with mobility issues. It is a necessity with private space to carry out certain personal functions and therefore essential for them. Information on Blue Badge holder exemptions was not clear for many disabled people and they requested area-wide exemptions; those who use hire cars rather than own private cars also need exemptions with reports of some hire cars refusing to come into the schemes or park further away for pick up/drop off.

? Older people reported signage is confusing with multiple and unclear signs about road closures, and timed closures on certain streets causing stress.

? Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups reported significant negative impacts on ability to drive to work (many were key workers).

? Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups who were local business owners reported negative impacts on their trading / local businesses.

? General Practitioners (GPs) reported difficulty to drive to work and some locum GP?s were not accepting shifts in the area due to difficulties in driving to medical centres.

? Many respondents fed back a perceived perception of increased traffic on external boundary roads with congestion and increased levels of pollution.

? As a result of the changes there was an Increased dependence on buses and public transport, but these were reported to be unreliable and impacted by congestion on boundary roads ?people reported longer wait at bus stops with exposure to increased pollution levels.

? Increase in cycling levels is mainly reported as a disbenefit to older and disabled people?s groups due to fear of cyclists? not following the highway code.

? Disabled people felt excluded from exercise and active travel. Not all disabled people are able to take up active travel and the street environment is not conducive for walking ? reports of obstructions (bins and overgrown planting), poor surfaces, lack of seating; pedestrian crossing times too short and many do not have audible signals; motor traffic idling increases pollution and makes walking more difficult for some.

[redpost]

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Older and disabled people?s groups have

> overwhelmingly reported negative impacts on their

> ability to travel by car, and corresponding

> increases in fatigue, pain, stress, anxiety, and

> mental health issues; this included essential

> visitors and service providers trying to reach

> them by car.

> ? For many disabled and older people, a car does

> not just assist with mobility issues. It is a

> necessity with private space to carry out certain

> personal functions and therefore essential for

> them. Information on Blue Badge holder exemptions

> was not clear for many disabled people and they

> requested area-wide exemptions; those who use hire

> cars rather than own private cars also need

> exemptions with reports of some hire cars refusing

> to come into the schemes or park further away for

> pick up/drop off.

> ? Older people reported signage is confusing with

> multiple and unclear signs about road closures,

> and timed closures on certain streets causing

> stress.

> ? Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups reported

> significant negative impacts on ability to drive

> to work (many were key workers).

> ? Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups who were

> local business owners reported negative impacts on

> their trading / local businesses.

> ? General Practitioners (GPs) reported difficulty

> to drive to work and some locum GP?s were not

> accepting shifts in the area due to difficulties

> in driving to medical centres.

> ? Many respondents fed back a perceived perception

> of increased traffic on external boundary roads

> with congestion and increased levels of

> pollution.

> ? As a result of the changes there was an

> Increased dependence on buses and public

> transport, but these were reported to be

> unreliable and impacted by congestion on boundary

> roads ?people reported longer wait at bus stops

> with exposure to increased pollution levels.

> ? Increase in cycling levels is mainly reported as

> a disbenefit to older and disabled people?s groups

> due to fear of cyclists? not following the highway

> code.

> ? Disabled people felt excluded from exercise and

> active travel. Not all disabled people are able to

> take up active travel and the street environment

> is not conducive for walking ? reports of

> obstructions (bins and overgrown planting), poor

> surfaces, lack of seating; pedestrian crossing

> times too short and many do not have audible

> signals; motor traffic idling increases pollution

> and makes walking more difficult for some.

Let's just ignore the elephant in the room that lower income groups and older folks are by definition less likely to own a car

[Penguin68]

Rockets wrote (sorry for the delay in response - it was only yesterday yet 2 more pages have emerged since then...)

Penguin68 - you live on Underhill does a 3% increase in traffic seem accurate to you?

I wouldn't, to be honest, notice an increase of only 3% (would you?) - but I have seen the road much busier at times, and even standing traffic at the evening rush outside my house (which in 33 years of living here I have only ever seen when the road has been blocked by skip deliveries being made - not the case here, in the main). It is certainly noticeably worse at rush hours still - particularly the evening - although the middle of the day can be quite as quiet as it used to be. However, since the Thames Water road blocks have eased, so has the traffic, so I cannot put the worst of it to LTN diversions (nor can I say it wasn't those that stimulated the traffic, until people found alternative routes to spread the load). Overall my impression is that there is now more traffic than there used to be - and that would have to be an increase greater than 3% as I really wouldn't be able to judge something as small as that.

[Spartacus]

Redpost

That's a blatant statement and I hope you can produce very local stats to back it up ?

[DuncanW]

I thought that was a widely accepted fact - Google is there to assist you in such matters if you're unsure...

How and why would anyone be able to produce 'very local stats' to back up such a self-evidently true statement?

I Google'd it for you - hope that's helpful:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/784685/future_of_mobility_access.pdf

? Lowest income households have higher levels of non-car ownership, 40% still

have no car access ? female heads of house, children, young and older

people, BMEs and disabled people are concentrated in this quintile;

[heartblock]

Actually there is opposing evidence that in London lower income groups are more dependent on access to a car than higher income groups in order to work, look after extended families and as carers.

Also the information I quoted was copied and pasted from Southwark's EqIAs, so if any of you have an issue with their research outcomes for the consultation best take it up with them.

[Spartacus]

DuncanW

That's not local or even London specific

It's all well and good throwing stats out for the whole of the country, however what I asked for was specifically local information to back up the statement ...

5/10 for effort ,must try harder with your research

Oh and yes things can be found on Google but if someone says something then they should reference their source otherwise it's hearsay as happens a lot on here and shouldn't be down to the reader to research because the original poster was too lazy to reference it.

[Artemis]

Carers who visit my elderly relatives have reported that the LTNs have caused significant delays to journeys to visit clients. My elderly relatives are more dependent on access to cars than I (able bodied, younger and able to drive) am. They can?t drive themselves, but their support network (family, carers, medical professionals) have been negatively impacted by the LTNs.

[Rockets]

goldilocks Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If 7542 was made up solely of responses to the

> mailed out survey then you would have a point.

> But it isn't. It also includes responses from

> anyone who filled it in online, of whom you have

> no means of knowing where they live. The relevant

> detail from the consultation report is below:

>

> A consultation newsletter was posted to 19,729

> postal addresses in May. We also notified 3,339

> people by direct email, after they

> had registered in the previous phase. 576 paper

> surveys were posted to people who had requested

> them.

> We received 7,542 responses to the survey. Of

> these 209 were voided as being duplicates (people

> providing more than one

> response). Of the remaining 7,333, some 5,538

> identified themselves as living or working on

> streets within the consultation zone.

> We operated a ?unique identifier? system with

> numbers available either on the envelopes that the

> newsletter came in or in the

> emails that were sent ? however only 1491

> responses included anything in the ?unique

> identifier? field, and many of these were

> incorrectly used ? therefore this metric has not

> been used in the analysis below.

Goldilocks - have you actually looked at the report or are you basing your assumptions on a presumption? You do realise the council has broken the feedback down by a street-by-street basis as well as within the Consultation Zone as a whole? They even plot a map to show the % of respondents on each street.....

Take a look at the report - it's pretty compelling that an overwhelming majority of those people within the Consultation Zone responded that they wanted it returned to its original state.

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101517/Appendix%20D%20-%20Dulwich%20Review%20Consultation%20Report.pdf

[heartblock]

Between 1960 and 2008 the increase in car ownership amongst all households has been from 29% to 75%7 (2.6xs) so the increase in car ownership amongst lower in come households has been much faster than in households as a whole and very much faster than wealthy households ? where the increases have been mainly in multi car ownership.

In 2008 49% of households in the lowest income quintile had cars and 64% of households in the second lowest9 . If we take these together as representing low income households then it is more common for a low income household to have a car as not.Access to health facilities is twice as easy for people in households with cars and this is particularly important for the higher proportion of people in these households who are disabled or elderly. Low income car owning households tend to be larger than non car owning households.

The increased flexibility, convenience and ?time affordability? of car travel is such that even poorer households are prepared to substantially increase their transport spending to enable the much higher level of accessibility car travel provides.

Trip rates of people in Q1/Q2 households are higher for education and education escort- reflecting the high proportion of families with children in this income range and lower for ersonal business, social and holiday journeys - reflecting lower discretionary expenditure.

Since the turn of the century the amount of car driver travel by people in low car ownership households has increased by 28% or about 660kms/head for all people in these households.

Difficulty of access to shops is cut by at least two thirds compared with people in households without cars - which increases the opportunity for comparative shopping and greater availability of choice and lower prices from supermarkets. Access to health facilities is twice as easy for people in households with cars and this is particularly important for the higher proportion of people in these households who are disabled or elderly.

DFT/ ONS and social exclusion unit data.

[goldilocks]

I have both 'actually looked at the report' and read it. Nothing you have posted in that link changes anything I said upfront.

There are lots of responses from streets directly affected, this is still not the same as a majority of residents though. Its not actually even clear that its a 'majority of residents' on those streets.

This is the problem that yet again the data isn't really good enough to make such granular assessments, so we're back to high level comments - and my high level comments were accurate.

ockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> goldilocks Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > If 7542 was made up solely of responses to the

> > mailed out survey then you would have a point.

> > But it isn't. It also includes responses from

> > anyone who filled it in online, of whom you

> have

> > no means of knowing where they live. The

> relevant

> > detail from the consultation report is below:

> >

> > A consultation newsletter was posted to 19,729

> > postal addresses in May. We also notified 3,339

> > people by direct email, after they

> > had registered in the previous phase. 576 paper

> > surveys were posted to people who had requested

> > them.

> > We received 7,542 responses to the survey. Of

> > these 209 were voided as being duplicates

> (people

> > providing more than one

> > response). Of the remaining 7,333, some 5,538

> > identified themselves as living or working on

> > streets within the consultation zone.

> > We operated a ?unique identifier? system with

> > numbers available either on the envelopes that

> the

> > newsletter came in or in the

> > emails that were sent ? however only 1491

> > responses included anything in the ?unique

> > identifier? field, and many of these were

> > incorrectly used ? therefore this metric has

> not

> > been used in the analysis below.

>

> Goldilocks - have you actually looked at the

> report or are you basing your assumptions on a

> presumption? You do realise the council has broken

> the feedback down by a street-by-street basis as

> well as within the Consultation Zone as a whole?

> They even plot a map to show the % of respondents

> on each street.....

>

> Take a look at the report - it's pretty compelling

> that an overwhelming majority of those people

> within the Consultation Zone responded that they

> wanted it returned to its original state.

>

> https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s1015

> 17/Appendix%20D%20-%20Dulwich%20Review%20Consultat

> ion%20Report.pdf

[heartblock]

What is a high level comment? By the way I am always happy to be educated and my mind changed by evidence, so would love to be convinced that LTNs do reduce pollution and traffic overall.

I have read lot's of studies but still can't gather all this up in a meta-analysis that shows me otherwise. If someone can show me that in a year the traffic and pollution on ED Grove will reduce to less than the pre-LTN levels, due to Southwark's interventions and that pollution will decrease across the whole area, with significant changes in cycling and walking above the 10 year trend upwards - I will change tack and become the biggest and proudest LTN supporter.

[DuncanW]

Spartacus:

I would say you don't need to include reference links to wideley accepted and easily proven facts - the sky is blue, the sea is wet etc... but each to their own. Maybe up to the individual contributor, but I wouldn't characterise Redpost as lazy for not doing so.

Thank you for taking the time to score my contribution although I feel you were a little harsh. I recognise I was a little sarcy so I probably dropped a point or two for that :)

Heartblock:

I don't have any issue with Southwark Council, I thought that was your schtick?

Heartblock (again, cripes!)

You do love to spin a good yarn don't you! Does all that talk of %increases invalidate the absolute realities of car-ownership by income splits? Or are you suggesting ONS have their facts wrong

[heartblock]

Nope - the increases in car ownership isn't to be applauded.

I think it is due to the lack of investment in public transport so many poorer families end-up spending a bigger proportion on a car than a wealthier family as it gives them access to wage increases, cheaper food shopping and the ability to make multiple journeys in a time poor day.

The car is seen as a way to improve income and access.

I would much rather Boris and his chums were investing in local transport links that provided families/ elderly and the less mobile with easy access to schools, work, health hubs, supermarkets, caring responsibilities etc.

Sadly the defunding of PT by this and past governments has made the car the king - this is why LTNs are ridiculous - car ownership/road building all promoted by government, while also creating gated communities for the wealthy multi-car owning house-holders.

It allows the new puritans to howl at Mums taking kids to school in some old rubbish car, or a cleaner driving to multiple house-holds to be accused of being a car-owning, petrol head, carbon-lover while actually not tackling the real issues of lack of investment and inequality.

Boris has pulled a fast one and Southwark Councillors fell for it.

[Rockets]

goldilocks Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have both 'actually looked at the report' and

> read it. Nothing you have posted in that link

> changes anything I said upfront.

>

> There are lots of responses from streets directly

> affected, this is still not the same as a majority

> of residents though. Its not actually even clear

> that its a 'majority of residents' on those

> streets.

>

> This is the problem that yet again the data isn't

> really good enough to make such granular

> assessments, so we're back to high level comments

> - and my high level comments were accurate.

>

> ockets Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > goldilocks Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > If 7542 was made up solely of responses to

> the

> > > mailed out survey then you would have a point.

>

> > > But it isn't. It also includes responses

> from

> > > anyone who filled it in online, of whom you

> > have

> > > no means of knowing where they live. The

> > relevant

> > > detail from the consultation report is below:

> > >

> > > A consultation newsletter was posted to

> 19,729

> > > postal addresses in May. We also notified

> 3,339

> > > people by direct email, after they

> > > had registered in the previous phase. 576

> paper

> > > surveys were posted to people who had

> requested

> > > them.

> > > We received 7,542 responses to the survey. Of

> > > these 209 were voided as being duplicates

> > (people

> > > providing more than one

> > > response). Of the remaining 7,333, some 5,538

> > > identified themselves as living or working on

> > > streets within the consultation zone.

> > > We operated a ?unique identifier? system with

> > > numbers available either on the envelopes

> that

> > the

> > > newsletter came in or in the

> > > emails that were sent ? however only 1491

> > > responses included anything in the ?unique

> > > identifier? field, and many of these were

> > > incorrectly used ? therefore this metric has

> > not

> > > been used in the analysis below.

> >

> > Goldilocks - have you actually looked at the

> > report or are you basing your assumptions on a

> > presumption? You do realise the council has

> broken

> > the feedback down by a street-by-street basis

> as

> > well as within the Consultation Zone as a

> whole?

> > They even plot a map to show the % of

> respondents

> > on each street.....

> >

> > Take a look at the report - it's pretty

> compelling

> > that an overwhelming majority of those people

> > within the Consultation Zone responded that

> they

> > wanted it returned to its original state.

> >

> >

> https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s1015

>

> >

> 17/Appendix%20D%20-%20Dulwich%20Review%20Consultat

>

> > ion%20Report.pdf

But bar Court Lane and Calton a majority of residents responded against the closures didn't they? And the majority of respondents living within the Consultation Zone area responded against the closures didn't they?

You say that it isn't clear that it is a majority of residents on those streets - why isn't it? Don't you think the council must have a high degree of certainty to plot the results, street-by-street, as they did?

Just because you don't agree with the sentiment doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Hundreds of people who live in the area went to protest at the DV junction - perhaps you will try to convince us they were all taxis drivers from Surrey or figments of our imagination!? Just because you live on closed LTN street and your neighbours think they are great and support them doesn't mean that the next street along people hold the same view.

I think it is pretty safe to say that the majority of people in the Dulwich area are not supportive of LTNs, they support the rational for doing it but not the specific execution and the consultation responses confirm this.