Rockets

Well done Dulwich - a superb turnout and well done to all the excellent speakers who attended.

Good news! Glad you found it!

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am writing about the LTN row so this is the > right page. > > Isn't it horrid for the viewpoints to be so split? > And here we are listening to news of another MP > murdered. Passion runs so high, and some of the > nastier comments I have read on here about the > different angles of this very local row, seem to > show a bit of simmering hatred for people who > don't agree with you and who you think you can > badmouth as you are anonymous. > > So let's all be more respectful to each other, > please. And that includes the Councillors who pay > no heed to what their constituents say to them, or > listen to that other viewpoint. It's probably the only thing all the contributors on here will agree with: it's divided a community.

This is fascinating: Kieron Williams talking on BBC Radio London - he gets asked about LTNs at 6.31.... So he admits there is increased congestion on some roads. A lot of bluster and puff though..... He says they are consulting on the proposed changes and residents will be responding over the next few weeks - does anyone know what that is - he is implying there is a consultation of the suggested changes from the consultation? https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p09ynqjt

It's funny isn't it - how many sensible ideas that have been put forward by residents since the LTNs went in? Makes you wonder why the council/TFL didn't think of some of them instead of putting all their time, money and energy into a policy so fundamentally flawed as the LTNs. What I find incredible is that since the LTNs have gone in the council has done nothing to initiate any programmes to further facilitate active travel - the roll-out of cycle hangars has been shameful and other boroughs have created segregated cycle lanes. Southwark seems to have been a bit of a one-trick pony; it's LTNs or nothing. They have wasted 18 months on a glorified vanity project.

march46 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One Dulwich clearly were involved in putting the > signs up. Their email account facilitated it. > > https://i.imgur.com/K1mWt6D.jpg > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > March - let us be clear One Dulwich have not > put > > any signs up. People who believe the council > needs > > to "Stop the Road Closures" put the signs up. I really don't know what point you are trying to make - you seem to be just trying to portray One Dulwich in a negative light. One Dulwich didn't go around putting the signs up randomly in people's gardens - people requested them - and a lot of people requested them. And you say people have been banned from the forum you have no proof that the person who set-up the onedulwich account on the forum had anything to do with the onedulwich organisation - LTNBooHoo, Manatee etc were also banned around the same time - so again, what point are you trying to make exactly? If truth be told I think what you're really angry about is the fact that OneDulwich has been doing a great job educating the majority of Dulwich residents as to what has been happening and how poorly the council has been treating residents who live here.

March - let us be clear One Dulwich have not put any signs up. People who believe the council needs to "Stop the Road Closures" put the signs up. The position of One Dulwich and, seemingly, the majority of people in Dulwich is that the road closures are a "solution" that is making the problem worse and benefitting a few but negatively impacting the majority. Let me ask you a question: do you think the road closures in DV are a fair and equitable solution to the problem? Are you happy that they have totally failed to deliver on the stated aims the council sold you on?

Errr March - Stop the Road Closures has applied since day one. One Dulwich, and the emergency services for that matter, have, since day 1 been saying that closing roads is not the solution and create more problems than they alleviate. Timed closures are not closed roads - there is a big difference. Closed roads are roads where no traffic can pass through at any time. I am afraid you keep labouring a point where none exists as nowhere on the council's review documentation could you select "timed closures" as an option.

Unfortunately, the nudge element of the LTN strategy is to try to create just this scenario where people say, quite rightly, why should I have to live with the displacement whilst others have less traffic and ask their councillors for support and the best the councillors can muster is "do you want one?". It happened on the Dulwich Hill ward call after the LTNs went in. All the councillors knew what was going to happen when the OHS measures were suggested and didn't put up any sort of fight. It was, after all, why Cllr McAsh was, pre-Covid, going door to door on Melbourne Grove and surrounding streets as part of OHS and was telling people - DV/Court Lane will get closed and this will increase the traffic on your streets - do you want an LTN? A lot of us were hoping that at least one of the councillors would have stood-up and pushed back against the DV closures as it was clear what the fallout was going to be on their constituents.

One Dulwich update on the protest on Saturday: Saturday 16 October at 12 noon in Dulwich Village This Saturday 16 October, at 12 noon, we will be joining together at the central junction of Dulwich Village/Court Lane/Calton Avenue to protest against the LTNs in Dulwich Village, East Dulwich and Champion Hill. More information here. The police have been notified and will be in attendance, and we are putting in place all their requests to ensure a safe and peaceful protest. Now is the time for the majority ? the two-thirds of us living and working in the Dulwich area who responded to the consultation by rejecting the current scheme ? to come together and demand that Southwark Council scrap their flawed, unfair and divisive plans and start again. Southwark must listen to what local people are saying. Even with the recent tweaks, this is a bad scheme that displaces traffic on to residential roads with schools and health centres, discriminates against the vulnerable, and damages local businesses. Dulwich deserves better. Come and protest for the benefit of the whole community. See you on Saturday ? and thank you, as always, for your support.

But CPR, who then has to live with the traffic. Therein lies the biggest problems with LTNs - they don't solve the problem, they move it somewhere else.

So it basically renders consultations as a pointless waste of tax-payers money, a tick-box approach to say - we fulfilled our obligations by pretending to be interested in what people think! Meanwhile, I cannot help but notice that there is a concerted effort by the pro-LTN lobby to try to deposition One Dulwich on the basis of the narrative we have seen on here "what do they want, how can they ask for timed closures yet still push for the removal of the hard closures, do they agree with Townley etc etc etc". Anytime that happens you know they must be cutting through. Well done One Dulwich, keep up the excellent work. Roll on Saturday at noon at The Junction!

Malumbu - so what's the point of the consultation? A consultation cannot be something you only do to try to get validation of what you want to do - which is how Southwark council seem to use them now. According to the Local Government Association a consultation is: Consultation is technically any activity that gives local people a voice and an opportunity to influence important decisions. It involves listening to and learning from local people before decisions are made or priorities are set. Can you explain to me how that definition applies to how Southwark have acted on the LTN consultation? Southwark are not giving local people a voice - they are, in fact, ignoring the majority of local people. Whichever side of the debate you are on what Southwark is doing now sets a very dangerous precedent.

Cllr McAsh - in the same way that you believe that the Rye Lane closure is impacting the residents of Goose Green the LTN closures in your ward and the Dulwich Village ward are impacting all residents in the Dulwich area. I know you are trying to play the "please talk to other councillors card" to avoid giving a response but surely you can give us your opinion. You just gave us your opinion on a matter creating issues for your constituents within your ward but not directly linked to your ward so maybe you could do the same for the LTN issue. You were, after all, a key advocate for the closures and were lobbying for them but you cannot be happy that 68% of constituents (many of them your constituents) have said they want the closures removed and yet the council is ignoring them. I think many of the posters here are interested in hearing a response from you, especially what you perceive the benefits to be as they are not clear to many of us. Of course, if the party line is not to comment on this then that's fair enough but there are a lot of people who you, and your colleagues, claim to represent who are feeling very let down right now. If you steadfastly refuse to engage with someone who lives outside your ward then maybe one of your constituents who posts here can ask the same questions in an attempt to garner a response.

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.