Rockets

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.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cllr McAsh, > I hope you had a good summer. > > I am just wondering if you had any thoughts on the > LTN review data that was published by the council > last week? > > The constituents within the review area have, > overwhelmingly (64%), voted for the measures to be > removed yet the council is suggesting amendments > to the current closures that will do nothing to > alleviate the problems the measures have created. > > It is clear, from the council's data published in > the review, that there has not been the > "significant reduction in traffic across the > Dulwich area" as you claimed in your recent > newsletter. The council is claiming a 10% > reduction in traffic across the area but the > monitoring data from roads like Underhill (which > is a key displacement route) has not been > published or included which means that the 10% > figure is likely to reduce to closer to 0% once > that data is included. > > Could you summarise what you believe the benefits > of the scheme to date have been as it is unclear > to me, from reading the report, what they are? The > measures have had more than enough time to bed in, > yet: > > - Pollution has not decreased (in fact it is > likely to have increased) > - Modal shift has not happened (the report admits > that cycling numbers are now decreasing to > pre-Covid levels) > - Displacement roads are more congested > - Bus journey times have increased in many parts > of the area > - Local businesses are being impacted negatively > as is the attractiveness of the area as a shopping > destination > - Emergency service response times have been > impacted by the closures and lives have been put > at risk > > It is clear the council has failed to deliver > against the stated objectives for these measures > so why are you continuing to pursue them and for > whose benefit exactly? It seems the majority of > your constituents are being impacted negatively by > them and don't want them. Cllr McAsh - just popping this to the top of your inbox - you seem to have missed this when you were posting yesterday.

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There was an accelerator on fuel tax introduced > for that purpose by the Major government, and > subsequently increased by Blair. > As you will remember, there were large-scale > protests and it was scrapped. > > I wouldn't say it was the 'most fair' solution. As > with any of these measures, the discomfort is > never evenly spread. It would be effective though. Agree. Means-tested road pricing is the only fair way forward. It also hits the delivery and logistics companies hard forcing them to change bad practices. Look what happened when we had an inadvertent road pricing example initiated by fuel shortages - car usage dropped because people questioned whether they really needed to make that journey in their car/by car.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > sally buying Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > DulwichCentral Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > legalalien Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > In hindsight, perhaps we > > > > should have done before and after counts in > > the > > > > bike sheds at the various schools? > > > > > > Cycle sheds at Charter North Dulwich have > been > > > recently rebuilt about 4 times bigger - and > are > > > now overflowing. > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/CleanAirDulwich/status/1435230 > > > > > > 921565908992 > > > > How many bikes did the sheds hold in the first > > place when they were built? > > > > Without knowing this the above has no meaning. > > > As I said in my original post - the bike sheds > were made about four times bigger than they > originally were. > You could count the bikes in the picture which are > under the storage area and divide by four to get > the original > capacity. Bearing in mind it's now four times > bigger - and overflowing. > > I thought that meaning was pretty clear in my > original post? And this is brilliant - it is great to see more kids cycling to and from school but the council can only claim this as a victory for LTNs if those children were being driven previously. Given the catchment area of Charter North is very small I suspect the majority of that transition to cycling is from walking - which is not what the LTNs were designed for (well, maybe the cycle lobby would disagree but let's not go there!).

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From 2009 onwards, motoring on minor roads in > London almost doubled from 5.5bn vehicle miles to > nearly 9.5bn in 2019. Traffic on main roads > remained relatively stable in the same period. > Navigation apps such as Waze have caused huge > displacement on to side streets. Where?s the > outrage over this, significant ?displacement?. I don't think there is outrage over it because those stats, which are touted exclusively by the pro-LTN groups, don't stack up. Look at what you said. You're saying that traffic on sideroads has almost doubled yet traffic on main roads remained stable. So, the only conclusion there is that there must have been an almost doubling of the number of vehicles because those extra journeys on side roads have to come from somewhere and if levels are stable on main roads then you can't claim these are people rat-running. Car ownership in London is declining. Van ownership and PHV ownership is rocketing on the back home deliveries and private hire vehicles and those two things are not deterred by LTNs - the journeys still happen. It's clear that's where the increase on side roads is coming from and the main catalyst is not apps such as Waze as you claim.

Legal - I completely agree. The council's approach should have been a targeted roll-out of the school streets programme (and they needed to get the private schools on board but I know the relationship between them and the council has been strained due to some council member's ideological views on private schools) allied with a programme of segregated bike lanes and building the infrastructure to support modal shift (more bike storage for those who don't have anywhere to store their bikes, more places to secure bikes on Lordship Labe etc etc etc). Instead they put all their energy and money into the flawed LTN programme that has utterly failed, divided a community (well divided suggests a 50/50 split so maybe I should rephrase that as turn the majority of the community against the measures) and made the very problems they were trying to solve even worse.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So we should allocate as much space as possible to > cars, across as broad an area as possible. No > attempt to create quieter routes. > > The huge growth of traffic on minor roads over the > last few years caused by navigation apps must > continue. With luck we can ensure every road is > equally congested as that?s ?fairer? for > everyone. > > People who have no option but to walk and cycle > because they don?t own a car should get one (even > if they can?t afford one), and stop ?virtue > signalling?. > > All the research suggest that making driving > easier increases the amount of driving. Literally > all of it. But until it?s definitive we?ll pick > holes in individual studies or data sets, and > ignore the emerging picture across a growing body > of evidence. Yup, let?s go with the view that > making driving as convenient as possible (and > walking and cycling less pleasant and / or safe) > will reduce car use. There?s no evidence at all > for that but, it?s obvious isn?t it? Rahx3 - I am not sure that is virtue-signalling. Virtue signalling would be, I don't know, cycling towards the Court Lane/DV junction, seeing a group of elderly people protesting against the closures and taking umbrage that a couple of their bags were blocking a small part of the junction and then coming on here and moaning about how dangerous it was. P.S. did you see the complete blockage of the same junction during the recent Margy Party in the Square? I am presuming not because you didn't come on here and moan about it dangerously blocking your cycle route.....;-)

If that is the council strategy then we are done for - 50 kids a generation in the Dulwich area - it's going to take 10 lifetimes! ;-) All joking aside we were sold the myth that LTNs create traffic evaporation. They don't. The council can't prove that the LTNs have delivered any traffic evaporation at all so, instead they herald an "increase" in cycling. That increase in cycling was in play before the LTNs went in and the catalyst for it was the lockdown (and of course cycling levels have now declined to below pre-pandemic levels invariably because we are not in lockdown anymore, life is returning to normal yet people aren't cycling into their offices or places of work as much as they used to because of the shift to working from home on a permanent basis). Now the council desperately clings to that cycling up stat to validate their continued persistence with the flawed LTN strategy. A large percentage of that "growth" is derived from pupils cycling from Dulwich to the plethora of schools in the immediate area and only if those journeys used to be made by car (and I am not convinced many of them were) can it be considered a win for the LTNs.