One (part of) Dulwich

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

On 09/07/2024 at 14:47, Earl Aelfheah said:

'One Dulwich' are a group who have been campaigning for this.

OneDulwich is not a group. It's the alter ego of a single individual. 

[first mate]

Doesn't really matter if one or many. The questions OD are/is asking the council reflect the views of many-  not all-  living in ED and Dulwich. I for one am glad they are keeping up scrutiny and pressure.

[Earl Aelfheah]

7 hours ago, first mate said:

Doesn't really matter if one or many. The questions OD are/is asking the council reflect the views of many-  not all-  living in ED and Dulwich. I for one am glad they are keeping up scrutiny and pressure.

Those views have been expressed and reflected upon (almost ad nauseum) for 4 years. There have been various consultations and a local election since then.

Removing a popular pedestrian / seating area and a safe cycle route used by lot's of school children so that cars can sit in a queue, idling at the junction again, is an odd thing to put years of energy into.

Edited July 15, 2024 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Popular with some but deeply unpopular with others. The consultation process questionable. As already observed, some 300 locals used a GE vote to indicate their dissatisfaction with the current state of play.

I don't think this is going away any time soon.

[Rockets]

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.

[Kathleen Olander]

The works at Dulwich Village junction have started today.  Conways again!

[alice]

how many times must you upgrade before nirvana is reached?

 

£1,500,000

[Rockets]

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.

[Earl Aelfheah]

22 hours ago, first mate said:

Popular with some but deeply unpopular with others. The consultation process questionable. As already observed, some 300 locals used a GE vote to indicate their dissatisfaction with the current state of play.

I don't think this is going away any time soon.

Over 70,000 in the constituency, so around 0.4%

[Rockets]

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!

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Over 70,000 in the constituency, so around 0.4%

70,099 in detail. And the labour victor only got 39.1% of these. Once again, this was a hopeless (literally) candidate for a national election only interested in a single local topic, and yet 300 people were prepared, in a low turnout, to bother to vote for him. He wasn't even a funny candidate, where voting for him could be seen as a general satirical protest. Of course there weren't more - it was a mad and wasted vote. I was just amazed that as many as 300 stood there to be counted.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I'm confused. Is it being argued that 300 votes in a constituency of 70K+ indicates a significant number of people in favour of replacing the square with a queue of idling traffic, or that it doesn't?

[first mate]

Only you have used the word significant, I believe 🙂 

[first mate]

I guess what we can say is that while 300 locals chose to use their GE vote against local LTNs, not one person voted exclusively in favour.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

On 15/07/2024 at 07:25, first mate said:

Doesn't really matter if one or many. 

The OneDulwich guy should just sign his own name to his letters and opinions then or at least be transparent that it is a nom de plume. 

Has he ever explained his relationship - if any - with the other "OneSomethings" that appeared in other parts of London at the same time with similar branding? 🤔 

-- Signed on behalf of London Action Strategy Against Group Nontransparency Everywhere (LASAGNE), membership: 1, supporters: 6 billion. Sign up for our newsletter!

1 hour ago, first mate said:

I guess what we can say is that while 300 locals chose to use their GE vote against local LTNs, not one person voted exclusively in favour.

That's absolutely true. There were also no votes exclusively in favour of decimalisation, independence for India, or the disestablishment of the Catholic Church.

[Penguin68]

33 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

That's absolutely true. There were also no votes exclusively in favour of decimalisation, independence for India, or the disestablishment of the Catholic Church.

Entirely true, of course, although apart from the Tudor break from Rome (rather pre general democracy) all the others formed part of a party electoral platform, I believe. The LTN introduction, on the back of general enabling legislation, never however formed part of any local party manifesto, and indeed had been roundly rejected previously by those most impacted in Dulwich, though through 'consultation' and not through any voting process.

[Rockets]

10 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

The LTN introduction, on the back of general enabling legislation, never however formed part of any local party manifesto,

Southwark Labour actively avoided any mention of LTNs in their council election missives, hustings or propaganda. It was almost as if they were not a thing they ever forced upon their constituents under the cover of Covid without any proper consultation.

 

The moment they won....ta dah...they are back again...claiming they had a mandate to continue rolling them out...charlatans....!

[malumbu]

Good. I'm pleased.

[Rockets]

Yes Malumbu, of course you are, because you got what you wanted (but of course had no actual input as you don't actually live in the borough) but let's see how you feel if the same thing gets played back to you on something you don't want...then let's see if you are happy to turn a blind eye to willful political abuses of power.

Be careful what you wish for and all that.

[first mate]

Southwark Council has proposed paving over a swathe of the Dulwich Village junction to create a ‘public space’ with trees and outdoor seating.

The council says the changes would mean “reclaiming space” so the community can “connect, socialise and play” in a “safe and pleasant environment”. 

It’s the latest proposed changes to the junction which has increasingly restricted motor traffic ever since the Dulwich Village Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) was installed in June 2020. 

 

So the above is the rationale for overhauling this space. A need to connect, play and socialise. In one of the wealthiest parts of the borough, in a locale brimming with restaurants and cafes, a Picture Gallery ( with plans for children's play areas), with no less than three massive areas of parkland in which to meet, socialise and play (Dulwich Park, land next to Picture Gallery, Belair Park)?

What is the overall cost of the whole Dulwich Square deal? Cycling through there yesterday, could not believe extent to which everything dug up and ripped out. Really major work and disruption. I thought the council was struggling for cash?

Edited July 28, 2024 by first mate

[Rockets]

I believe this phase of the works is costing £1.5m and the running total of spend at that junction since the very initial OHS alterations that made congestion and pollution worse, now upwards of £5m.

[malumbu]

Congestion is due to people driving.  If there is less driving then there is less pollution.  If more drivers took their responsibilities seriously the world would be a better place.  Is this journey necessary?  Can I use alternative means?  Could I lift share??? 

I'm looking forward to the improvements at Court Lane junction.  I recall the traffic jams there when I used it as my bike commuting route in the 90s

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Congestion is due to people driving.

But the increased congestion at that junction (and associated increased pollution) occurred after the council made their alterations. The uptick was part of the council's report into the alterations - they basically admitted they had made the problem worse (at great expense to the tax payer).

It was an awful junction and is much better now but no-one has yet managed to explain why the council keeps throwing millions of tax-payer's money at it and why they are so obsessed with that junction when they overlook far more dangerous and pressing needs like the junction of Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove.

 

All they have done is moved the problem on from there to other areas - the very best example of displacement actions in play.

[first mate]

In summary, £5million for an improved junction in one of the borough's most wealthy areas,  by an allegedly cash-strapped council. Go figure.

[alice]

It has never been anything to do with cars, never anything to do with pollution or bikes. It is to do with preserving privilege in, as stated, an already very wealthy and powerful area.