Rockets

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hmm. Feel free to continue to think you were > voting for or against LTNs but you weren't. You > were being consulted. > You've been consulted. They've spun the results. > You don't like the outcome and by all means > protest. But just like the *whispers* CPZ, this > wasn't a vote with a binary outcome. So where we are now then is council's ask us "tell us what you think and what you want us to do" (which at the end of the day is what a consultation is) and when they offer residents the option to say they would like the measures removed and when 65% respond saying that's what they want, they then say, nah...we, the elected officials, don't want that so we will continue on the path we want to follow. There are elections going on in Russia at the moment that are following a similar path....be careful what you wish for. If you think what is happening now with the LTNs is some sort of balanced and fair democratic process you are wrong. It is funny how people are coming on now and questioning the results of the consultation and putting a load of ifs, buts and maybes. The facts speak for themselves - 65% of residents who live within the consultation area replied saying they want the LTNs removed. Immediately. No ifs, buts or maybes. I think what is actually happening here is that many who wouldn't listen to people saying "most people don't want/like this" and refused to acknowledge the weight of public opinion now realise the small vocal minority are, in fact, those supporting the LTNs.

DKHB - I am not sure it is as some charges have been over-turned on review due to the lack of proper or obscured signage - this sets a precedent. The council admitting that they will improve signage also sets a precedent. Some of the signs are clear - others aren't. For example if you approach along Gallery Road you can't see the timing signs on the corner of Burbage - that has nothing to do with a lack of driver awareness of the Highway Code. The fact that a resident of Burbage used to stand on the corner to alert people they were about to get a sign speaks volumes for how poorly the signage has been implemented.

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Each of the Streetspace measures was rejected by > two out of three people living and working in the > three Dulwich LTNs, who opted for ?return it to > the original state?. > > Look I'm no apologist for the council who I know > have heavily spun their presentation of the data > but surely this is factually incorrect. > > Each of the Streetspace measures was rejected by > two out of three people, who responded to a > survey, living and working in the three Dulwich > LTNs, who opted for ?return it to the original > state?. > > We don't know how many people are classified as > living and working in the three Dulwich LTNs but > we do know that the consultation newsletter was > posted to 19,729 addresses and of the survey > respondents 5,538 classified themselves as living > and working in the three Dulwich LTNs. > > Source: > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s1015 > 17/Appendix%20D%20-%20Dulwich%20Review%20Consultat > ion%20Report.pdf You're right but isn't that a bit like saying the result of a general election is not the will of the people but the will of the people who bothered to vote? The review was the bar the council set to determine local resident sentiment to the closures. Two-thirds of people said they don't want it and they should be removed - that's pretty compelling and certainly bucks the council-led narrative that it was just a "small local minority" who were opposing the measures. And that resounding vote against the council and their measures came despite all the efforts the council and councillors went to to try and rally support for them. In fact, the "turnout" was higher than the turnout for council elections - which if I was one of the councillors would worry me no-end given their tiny majorities. To Heartblock's point I very much suspect that the council would have listened if 65% had voted to keep them and they would be telling us what a resounding vote of confidence there was from residents for the measures. And Heartblock - we all need to take that 10% reduction with a very large pinch of salt as no monitoring data has been shared or included for Underhill Road, which has become a major displacement route for traffic trying to avoid the chaos at the Lordship Lane/A205 junction.

Just to clarify - my wife was wearing her bag across her body (she spent many years living in cities around Europe where bag snatching is rife so is always on her guard and never carries a bag on one shoulder or just in the hand). This didn't stop the thief from trying to rip it from her (she had a mark on her neck for a few day where he tried to pull it to rip the bag strap). People get their phones out to do a plethora of things nowadays. I had one snatched a few years ago outside an event as I went to book an Uber as I left. The security guard I spoke to after it happened said every time an event is on the thieves descend as they know the moment people get outside they reach to book an Uber etc. These thieves are not opportunists and are, unfortunately, very good at what they do - they also know that knocking into someone when they are not expecting it causes a momentary distraction where they can pretty much take what they want. And they revel in what they do - apparently as a few of the Kwik Fit team gave chase the thief rode off waving my wife's phone in the air as he was safe in the knowledge no-one would catch him. Just be careful everyone.

Latest update from One Dulwich: Two-thirds reject the Dulwich LTNs | 20 Sep On Friday evening, Southwark published its report on the Dulwich Streetspace measures with 19 supporting documents. You may also have received an 8-page newsletter through your door. The results of the consultation are hidden, but they are very clear. Each of the Streetspace measures was rejected by two out of three people living and working in the three Dulwich LTNs, who opted for ?return it to the original state?. (This doesn?t mean, incidentally, that a third of respondents agreed with them. Only one in five ? around 20% ? of those who answered were in favour. The rest wanted different measures or modifications.) Despite this huge opposition from those who took part in the consultation, Southwark is going ahead with the scheme, with a few minor changes. The closures still displace traffic and pollution on to residential streets with schools and health centres. They still discriminate against those who are more vulnerable, including older people and people with disabilities, and they still damage the viability of our local shops and businesses. With our colleagues in the Dulwich Alliance, we have drafted an initial statement, which you can read here. Now the work begins. We have all been given ten days to respond (via [email protected], deadline Monday 27 September). Our initial assessment is that the standard of reporting in the documents is extremely poor and that we have strong and valid criticisms. We will update you next weekend with our findings so that you can draw on our analysis for your own objections. The final decision will be in November, according to Southwark?s newsletter. So the next few weeks are crucial. Our legal team is assessing our options. We are also planning more immediate action. In the meantime, please contribute to our fighting fund. It is time for our elected councillors ? and our local MP Helen Hayes ? to listen to the majority. In other constituencies, local MPs have spoken out when councils tried to ride roughshod over the results of public consultations. Two-thirds of local people have rejected the Dulwich Streetspace scheme. We deserve a better and fairer solution. Thank you for your support.

I think it is telling that the council are saying they will improve signage - is this an admission that the current signage is not sufficient - could someone challenge the ?3m worth of fines to date on that basis?

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.

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.