Rockets

This is welcome news and about time. BBC News - Walking and biking prioritised in new Highway Code https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58021450

Yes I do wonder how many people who wage war on cars sit in houses with gas fueled boilers churning out all sorts of nasties... It would be refreshing to see people put as much energy into tackling all climate change contributors not just focussing on one of them.

That'll be one of those pesky kids with their chalk again......;-) Nice clear shots though....I wonder if anyone knows him....... I presume he was going down the road doing this to all the houses and then leaving the signs on the cars outside the house? It's beyond pathetic - just as damaging the planters is. The idiots on both sides really need to grow up.

Another interesting update from One Dulwich - was this the "something else" the council were alluding to on the review forms: As we move into the final weeks of the review of the Dulwich measures (the decision will be made in October), there is one central question: have Council officers already made up their minds what they plan to recommend? Based on the following evidence, the answer seems to be yes. Firstly, data analysts within One Dulwich (and the wider Dulwich Alliance) are working on the Council?s figures and uncovering a significant number of problems. If Council officers knew about these problems, it seems the late release of the traffic data (only four days before the original consultation deadline of 11 July) was intentional ? a tactical decision to make sure that no one responding to the consultation had time to raise awkward questions. Secondly, the air quality data has still not been published. No one responding to the review survey had any information from the Council about whether the measures were increasing pollution on roads like East Dulwich Grove, Croxted Road and Lordship Lane. Thirdly, the long-awaited Equality Impact Assessment was published two days before the extended deadline of 18 July ? again giving no one any time to respond. The EqIA was supposed to look at how the road measures affect groups in Dulwich with protected characteristics, like the elderly and disabled. This one, however, is an interim ?desktop review? ? in other words, an assessment made by someone sitting at a desk ? and it?s so general, and so incomplete, that it?s pretty meaningless. You can see our review of it here. Further engagement is planned, but nothing has been published about which organisations Southwark will consult. Meetings with elderly and disabled people have been postponed until August. Finally, information has just come to light showing that Council officers had already decided on a new plan for the junction in the middle of Dulwich Village before the public consultation had closed. An FOI (Freedom of Information) request to TfL (Transport for London), asking for any correspondence between TfL and Southwark Council about the temporarily closed junction, has revealed that Council officers were asking for TfL?s opinion on their new plan for the junction on 1 July. Please note the date. Southwark?s email is dated 1 July ? that is, before the close of the public consultation (11 July, extended to 18 July), before public questions on the traffic data at a meeting with the Council on 13 July (please see a list of the unanswered questions on the Dulwich Alliance website), and before the various meetings with residents? groups in Dulwich in the week of 19 July. In other words, the Council?s plan for amending the closure of Dulwich Village junction had been finalised without taking into account any views from the public. So what is this new plan? It shares a remarkable similarity with a leaflet circulated not long ago by a coalition of lobby groups in favour of keeping Dulwich Village junction closed. Council officers are proposing that emergency vehicles ? and only emergency vehicles ? should be allowed through the junction. In addition, they are proposing that cycles should have their own phase across the junction, and that the current staggered pedestrian crossing (between Harold George and the graveyard) should be removed. This new layout would apparently be temporary (for six to twelve months) ? although it?s hard to understand how physical changes to infrastructure like concrete pedestrian traffic islands could be temporary. So does this new plan answer all the concerns that local people have raised? It?s obviously welcome news that the Council is finally taking on board issues about access that the emergency services have been raising with them since the summer of 2020. But this new plan for the centre of Dulwich ? because it is still a 24/7 closure for everything but emergency vehicles ? does nothing to alleviate the traffic displacement on to neighbouring roads, which creates worse conditions for thousands of children walking and cycling to school, and serious delays to public transport (and, ironically the emergency services). It also does nothing to improve access for the elderly and disabled and those caring for them. It does nothing for key workers stuck in traffic jams, and nothing for local shops and businesses struggling to trade. It does nothing to help those from a wide area trying to reach after-school clubs, community and social groups, sports clubs, or dance and fitness classes, all of which are key to mental and physical health. It does nothing to address the spikes in congestion and pollution that are being caused by heavy increases in traffic on many local roads, including the South Circular. At a meeting with residents? groups on Monday 19 July, the leader of the council, Cllr Kieron Williams, said that no plan had been decided. Council officers, on the other hand, appear to have taken a decision already. Over to you, Cllr Williams. This is not just about road closures. This is about whether Southwark Council takes decisions in the best interests of the people it serves. It?s an issue of political leadership, and we badly need you to intervene.

Interesting update from One Dulwich today: ear all, Southwark?s new plan for Dulwich Village junction An FOI (Freedom of Information request) to TfL has revealed that Council officers asked for a meeting to discuss their new plan for Dulwich Village junction on 1 July ? that is, well before the end of the public consultation on 18 July. See the attached news report here. A few questions: If Council officers had already come up with a plan for the central part of the scheme ? which affects traffic and air quality over a wide area ? why bother with all the trouble and expense of a public consultation? What else have they already decided? Why wasn?t this plan mentioned at any of the public meetings in July? Or didn?t Cllr Rose know about it? The plan allows emergency vehicles through ? a long-overdue change that the London Ambulance Service has been fighting for since the summer of 2020. But do Council officers not understand that this limited concession doesn?t answer any of the concerns raised by residents and local businesses about traffic displacement, access, and discrimination against vulnerable groups with mobility problems? Our response to Southwark?s Equality Impact Assessment Two days before the extended deadline of the public consultation, an interim EqIA appeared on Southwark?s website. It?s so general, and so biased ? no data or knowledge specifically relating to the Dulwich scheme ? that it isn?t fit for purpose. You can read our review of it here. Data: the unanswered questions Please see the Dulwich Alliance?s summary of all the questions that remain unanswered from the Dulwich Streetspace Review data meeting on 13 July. Southwark has said it intends to continue to publish data throughout the summer (with April traffic data and air quality modelling data available at the end of July, and June traffic data by the end of August). Why is this all so late? Our legal challenge Given everything we?ve seen and heard over the past few weeks, we don?t feel confident that Southwark Council?s decision on the final Streetspace scheme in October will be fair or just. With our friends and colleagues at the Dulwich Alliance, we have appointed a senior and experienced lawyer who, over the coming weeks, will review all relevant material and advise on our legal options. Please, if you can, donate to our fighting fund.

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dougiefreeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So any idea when we get to see the results of > the > > consultation? > > > > Have they said a timeframe? > > October. Metallic - do you know when they said this?

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is there any outcome from the 8 July meeting > (online, I think) regarding traffic measures > around Goodrich School? Nigello, do we know what was due to be discussed?

Each device that accesses the internet is allocated a seperate and unique IP address (not just the router that is acting as the gateway) so unless the flatmates are sharing the same device then each device that logs-in is uniquely identifiable. Anyway, there are plenty of people on here who have expressed pro-LTN views and haven't been banned so your banning is obviously for something else. Sorry to break it to you but admin doesn't ban people on the basis of pro-LTN (or-anti) views and if they have barred your IP address then you have clearly breached the rules of usage for the forum. Getting banned in little under a day is very impressive! - that must be some kind of record!

Ah, so a deletion of ALL accounts....there you go....if you you were posting under multiple handles from a single IP address then that's probably why you have been banned. And rightly so....

Manatee - do you have more than one account registered from your ip address? Admin maintains a very balanced and fair approach to policing the forum so the removal of your posts will not be for a trivial matter.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So what happens now? The consultation is finished > - are we waiting for the council to publish the > results? Or perhaps they have no intention of > doing so? I think that all probably depends on whether the extension to the deadline and subsequent fevered door-knocking by councillors has managed to swing the result their way..... But in all seriousness who knows....I am not sure they know themselves. They published interim results that was missing data from large parts of the most impacted areas so how do they manage the publication of that missing data? This has all been a lesson in council free-form jazz...just make it up as you go along.....

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Frankly I'm more concerned about the fact that > Southwark were asking TfL to meet and discuss > removing the staggered pedestrian crossing in the > Square of Shame (indicating a preference for > permanent closure) weeks before the consultation > even closed (see attached, am sure many will have > seen on twitter). Also mystified that there was > apparently no need to consult TfL before making > the initial closure... but now there is a need > (were someone's knuckles rapped?). > > Two options: (i) local councillors and the Cabinet > Member / Council Leader were aware of officers > trying to progress this before the consultation > exercise completed and comments were considered > (seems like bad faith to me); or (ii) the local > councillors and /or Cabinet Member/ Council Leader > weren't aware of what the officers were discussing > with TfL - in which case maybe they should be > making some noise and calling them out? > > Link to another recent FoI on TfL website for > completeness - > https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom- > of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI- > 0574-2122, seems Helen Hayes might be starting to > show some interest. Very interesting that they finally want to allow emergency vehicles access to the DV junction. I heard they have had their knuckles rapped about that as well.

Manatee I will pick you up on a couple of things: > You're saying that acting on the results of research represents a conflict of interest. Nor did they arrive > without any form on consultation or implemented > using the Covid pandemic as the "excuse". >Given you seem unaware of what actually happened, I claim you just invented that on the spot because you like the way it sounds.> Trust me - it is you who are unaware of what happened. The measures were all implemented to aid "social distancing". In fact, if you scroll back far enough you will probably find a councillor post claiming just that when the measures were first mooted. >People have been whining about DV and court lane have they not? Gilkes cresent for example provides a parallel route to DV and was closed long ago > Because the council's own numbers suggested 7,000 cars a day used the DV junction - we all flagged our concern when we realised that LTNs don't deliver anything more than single digit % reduction in vehicles and we did the maths and tried to work out where all that traffic was going to travel to. >Also literally not true. One Dulwich is proposing going back to how it was.> Again, if you had been paying attention you would know the history behind that and the fact that one Dulwich and Dulwich Alliance were left with no option as the council did not engage with them or give people any option other than: Change it....but the council did not give any idea what that change would be. Surely, even you would agree that you need to understand what you are voting for? "Change" is a little vague don't you think? And I am not going to go back and forth with you on Spartacus' post - it wasn't my post and, as I said at the time, I didn't agree with them using that analogy. Please stop trying to tar everyone on this forum who doesn't agree with your view on LTNs with the same brush - we have seen that tried before and it is an underhand tactic. If anyone wants to judge for themselves the thread in question starts on page 177.

Ok, here we go..... * Studying traffic for decades, reaching a conclusion and acting on that is biased (if it's not pro car). Academics are never allowed to make use of their knowledge. I presume this is based on our de-positioning of ex-London Cycling Campaign head of policy Rachel Alrdred's "evidence" of success of the LTNs and other various reports on the benefits of LTNs. Do you not think that there is a slight conflict of interest there and that we are right to question the impartialness of the reprots? * Washable chalk pavement drawings are as bad as engine oil in a planter, spraypaint graffiti covering legally binding road signs and other expensive vandalism They are not on the pavement and they are not all chalk. If you wander down Lordship Lane you can see them. The vandalism of the signs in people's gardens just because they don't support the LTNs - you have overlooked that. My message was clear - the idiots on both sides have to stop being idiots. * Lordship lane was a low traffic near pollution free zone before LTNs. Nonsense. That's your interpretation - no-one has ever claimed that. What we are claiming though is that pollution was not as bad as it is now. * ...as was East Dulwich grove See above * Cyclists are to be despised No-one has ever said that. I am a cyclist and don't self-loathe because of it. * Whatever an anti-LTNer's current mood is completely outweighs all data because that's collected by the illuminati lizard men or some other conspirators. It's the pro-LTN supporters who keep talking about conspiracies and us supposedly holding conspiracy theories. What we can say is that the council has made a right pig's ear of the process and this opens them up to criticism and accusations that they are manipulating the process to their advantage. * In fact, no hard data or science counts. Only stories. Preferable angry ones. But not from pro LTN people. Show us some hard data that can't be torn apart. Do you think what the council has shared is hard data - the monitoring sites east of Lordship Lane are missing yet their supporters, and the councillors themselves, are using this to demonstrate that the LTNs are working. * Despite decades of study and observations in practice well known traffic enfineering effects like induced demand and its inverse don't actually exist [en.wikipedia.org]) Please share with us how this is working in Dulwich. * While nudges have a strong track record of failing to ever work, they're going to work this time. Because reasons Not sure what this question is trying to say, it looks like you didn't finish the point. * We ought to go back to the way it was 18 months ago because the massive car growth over the last 40 years which shows no sign of slowing will some how sort itself out if we do nothing No one wants to go back to how it was - we want measures that actually address the problem for everyone - not just make it great for a few but a lot worse for a many more. * More traffic will lead to less pollution No-one has said this. We are concerned about more traffic down fewer roads leading to more pollution on those roads. * Why cut pollution? Just make everyone breathe their fair share. Again, no-one has ever said that. * Whatever we had at the moment before lockdown happened was the peak of fairness and if we ever move a millimetre away from that for any time at all the it's clear we're all rich scum who hate poor people Again, not sure what this question is trying to say. * An LTN which applies to everyone from anywhere going to anywhere is a gated community but a residents permit system which excludes outsiders somehow is not. Lots of non car owning anti-LTNers seem to want residents driving permits. * Quiet, traffic roads with ambulance gates are worse for emergency vehicles than the clogged roads we used to have The DV junction doesn't have an ambulance gate. The increased congestion on the roads outside the LTN area are causing delays to emergency services. * You're not allowed an opinion if you have a car (I don't so I am I guess?) Again, not sure what the point is here. * All old LTN measures are absolutely fine and no one minds them at all. I mean no one stated this, but there are ones dotted about but over very many messages, not a single anti-LTNer has suggested ripping up old road closures to increase traffic. So the message is clear. But the old LTNs to which you refer didn't all arrive at once and close off the major east/west route across Dulwich did they. Nor did they arrive without any form on consultation or implemented using the Covid pandemic as the "excuse". * And my particular top pick because it's so astonishingly offensive that it's actually sickening (why yes I am Jewish) is that the plight of car drivers is just like the Jews in Germany in the 1930s: No-one said this..... Someone made (what I thought and said at the time was) a clumsy, over-to-top analogy about the ideological indoctrination of schoolchildren in 1930s Germany on the back of Southwark council briefing school children on LTNs.

ohthehugemanateeLTN Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > What an inspiring, if not slightly myopic, > first > > post that is?.welcome to the forum Manatee! > > > What's myopic about it Rockets? > > Is it myopic to read what the anti-LTN people > write and take them at their word? > > Is it myopic to call out holocaust > trivialisation? > > Or is this more of a case of "the data doesn't > count. Don't listen to science! If you cannot see > it is because you are blind"? > > > > ab29 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I live on LL, the traffic has been much, much > much > > worst after the LTNs were introduced, I do not > own > > the car, I walk pretty much everywhere. Unless > > you've lived on one of the main roads long > enough > > to compare the before and after the LTNs you > > really have no idea what you are talking about. > > > The LTNs were introduced during the pandemic, at a > point where traffic was incredibly low. The > traffic would be higher now than just before, and > moreso because people aren't using public > transport as much due to covid. Even if your > observations are accurate, your conclusions that > LTNs are at fault is not necessarily correct. > > But let's say it is, for sake of argument. Go on, > propose something that will reduce car use. Not > something vague, or impossible. Something real and > concrete. It was very myopic - the usual blinkered pro-LTN narrative that many of us have been dissecting and depositioning for a very long time on here. By all means feel free to join the debate but you claim you have been lurking for a while so you will be well aware that many on the anti- side of the debate have provided their own suggestions for solutions and gone to great lengths to answer many of the questions you have posed. Maybe check back in the thread. Out of interest, and in the interests of balance, is there anything from the pro-LTN that you think is absurd?

What an inspiring, if not slightly myopic, first post that is?.welcome to the forum Manatee!

It always makes me marvel how people line-up like lemmings outside Gails in the village for overpriced bakery products and rude service yet around the corner sits Au Ciel which is far better in every respect.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The government before last (or before that) was > supposed to deal with excessive enforcement > charges, aimed at the private clampers. Not sure > if they delivered in that manifesto commitment. > They were also keen on reducing town centre > parking charges, scuppering a wonderful park and > ride scheme in Coventry where electric buses > ferried people into the high street. Not very > joined up thinking from national government. Shame they didn?t look at excessive charges from council sponsored schemes??the one at the village roundabout is one of the very worst examples of poor implementations which the council seems more than happy to tolerate as it is good for the coffers and punishes those pesky drivers they so love to hate?..

Alan, did you get the ticket for going along Dulwich Village or Burbage. If it was the latter you could claim the sign on Burbage is obscured because of its position so forward on the junction.

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fair point. > Though I think it?s true to say congestion at that > junction predates the recently introduced LTNs. It's a lot worse since the LTNs went in but, according to our councillors, that's what the A roads were designed to do - soak up the traffic and pollution others don't want.

DuncanW - really, come on. Those estates are not LTNs - that's a narrative many of the pro-lobby have tried to sell but no-one is buying it. If you heard the testimony from Luciana, the lady who joined the Dulwich Hill ward virtual meeting some months ago from the Lordship Lane estate, and heard the hugely negative impact the congestion caused by the LTNs outside her flat was having on her and her family I would hope you would take a different view. Even some of the councillors on the call looked shocked when she recounted her son's health problems and how bad the congestion was due to the displacement from the LTNs. And you're right, next May seems to be the only opportunity for those who think these measures are unfair to have their voices (finally) heard by the council. It will be interesting to see what happens but if they do loose some seats it won't be the only time in recent history that Labour has lost seats on the basis of them failing to listen to the people who vote for them and ploughing their own, misguided, furrow.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All the research on LTNs suggest they lead to > fewer cars, increases in active travel and > reduction in road injuries. It?s crazy how it is > all biased. The lack of any counter evidence is > startling. It just shows how far the conspiracy > goes. > > Surely there must be at least one brave academic > who isn?t willing to falsify research or > manipulate data to hide the truth... Which is > *checks notes* that encouraging cars onto more > roads reduces car use and encourages active > travel. But Rahx3 did you notice that there has been no reduction in cycle injuries within the LTNs in Allred?s report - I am (not) surprised that Peter Walker failed to pick up on that? There is something weird in the data as you would expect that with a reduction in vehicles within the LTNs that would lead to a reduction in cycle injuries within them too(as it has with all other injuries) - unless, of course, vehicles aren?t causing the injuries.

Or "only speak evil" if you are hiding behind anonymous twitter accounts (a la Councillor Leo Pollack!) https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/council-housing-boss-resigns-after-running-anonymous-twitter-account-that-harangued-residents/ It seems that politicians are all the same - scream out against sleaze yet happy to indulge in some when it suits their own agenda. I wonder if Cllr Pollack got the ?5,000 pay-off from the council that Cllr Williams promised him - that council meeting with the Lib Dem councillors tearing the councillors to shreds over that was something really quite fascinating to watch and exactly why this council desperately needs some opposition to hold them to account.

Chris_1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There was a comment earlier about traffic count on > Croxted Road - and how confusingly it looks down. > We looked at TfL SCOOT data just for the direction > that?s actually impacted by the LTN - eg heading > north towards HH, and at the timings that roughly > coincide with timed closures (data 7-10am) vs > timed closures 8-10am. > > Traffic is up over that period - I don?t have the > stats in front of me but something like 3-5% in > each of Feb/May and up north of 10% in April. > > Obviously fair pushback would be that I?m cherry > picking the worst of it to look at - my comment > would be that this is the problem time so it makes > most sense to look at that. > > I think the data presented in the council report > was all day and both directions - the road is > pretty quiet outside of peak times (outside of > timed closures times too), and there?s no impact > southbound from the LTN. Suspicion is that south > is down a LOT, north is > Flat-to-up depending on whether you look at peak > or all day. > > Congestion is way up, can see that thru the same > scoot data set. > > Would have been helpful if the council had broken > out the data in a few different ways, I try hard > not to be a pessimist but it does appear like at > least for our street a fair picture has not quite > been painted. I think the council is trying to share as little data as possible because they know that once we get more granularity their "it's working" narrative falls apart pretty quickly. It will be interesting to see if they ever share any of the data they have been gathering on roads east of Lordship Lane like Underhill Road - the interesting thing is the monitoring strips were in on Underhill in April yet no data was shared. I had always feared they were trying to keep the review area to west of Lordship Lane because they knew a lot of traffic was heading east of Lordship Lane to navigate around the congestion around the Grove Tavern junction. They were challenged on this numerous times and people were told that the areas east would be included in the review but this seems to have gone no further than sending the plain envelopes containing the info on the review to some households. They have to, and should be compelled to, include those streets in the data analysis.

What's also interesting is that cyclist casualties within the LTNs didn't drop as pronounced as the other categories: Pedestrian casualties dropped from 30 to 3, car driver or passenger from 21 to 6 yet cyclists only from 18 to 17 - anyone have any idea what is going on there? Surely you would expect a similar big drop for cyclists? Also the London mean for cyclist injuries went up - is this just because of the increase in cycling?