Rockets

March46 - thanks for sending that. I do like it when people send me things to back up their argument as it forces me to do a bit more scratching beneath the surface (I just can't help myself) and 9 times out of 10 it helps further validate my point. This one is a classic example of that. So, here goes on this one (and I do hope you take the time to reply): 1) I am not sure the questions Cycling UK asked warranted an FOI as they are the type of questions you could ask any press officer and get the same response. Dressing it up as an FOI helps only to sell it as a "story". I was drawn to why the questions are at pushed to the bottom of the page and after doing some reading it became clear. LAS has been one of the most vocal opponents to LTNs (albeit privately to the councils) and I wanted to drill down on the responses of LAS as this is our local ambulance service. So....Cycling UK asked all the trusts this question: For the period from March to November 2020, for the following active travel schemes, can you name and identify any which have been implemented within the Trust's area without any CONSULTATION with the Trust. I have highlighted consultation very deliberately. Why? Well look at London's response: London said: "We are not aware of any active travel scheme that has been implemented without any consultation or NOTIFICATION to the Trust" So, does that mean they were both consulted and notified or just notified? I am sure you will agree there is a big difference and you need to ground that on noise that LAS were upset as they were notified of the changes and not consulted. And then you look at another LAS response: "LAS staff work closely with the boroughs' and TFLs traffic officers to ensure the design of proposed schemes BETTER REFLECT our operational needs, and also works with them to monitor, discuss and adapt schemes after implementation to improve traffic flow and emergency service access." Not sure about you but that better reflect part suggests to me that some schemes have been designed that don't reflect their operational needs. And again in another response: "No, the Trust does not support withdrawing funding for active travel measures. However, the Trust recognises that changes to road layouts, traffic management schemes and road closures all have the potential to impede our response to the most critically ill patients and could delay life-saving treatments or their conveyance to the nearest emergency department. For this reason, the Trust carries this risk on its Risk Register. The Trust also engages extensively with the boroughs and TFL to ensure changes and traffic schemes (to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality and road safety, and promote active travel) reflect our operational needs as an emergency service." So whilst both Cycling UK spin and the Guardian article tries to convince everyone that the Trusts are happy with the measures one Trust is so happy they put it on their Risk Register....hmmmmmm... And finally Cycling UK redacted one response from LAS and flagged it as "an extract from a longer answer" - one wonders what was included in the longer answer. So, can you see how both the info from Cycling UK and the Guardian story is massively spinning the result of the FOI one way - to their pro-closure agenda? You could easily take that info and write a story that says: "LAS flags active travel measures as potential risk to patients". And those LAS responses scream that and yet the journalist didn't even touch on that so it makes you wonder whether they actually read the responses or ignored the real story? I am also surprised Cycling UK didn't redact the answers more but they probably knew they were only going to be able to sell it in to the Guardian and that they were safe from further scrutiny.

Ha ha - the irony of a pro-closure lobbyist questioning what evidence objections might be based on.....;-) I think we can now officially state we have come full-circle on this one! ;-)

Raeburn - sat nav systems may be updated but the emergency services still say today, and continue to lobby Southwark, that they do not support the physical blocking of any road. It was referred to in the council's LTN Phase 4 Peckham Rye consultation document - quite clearly stating that neither the fire service nor LAS supported physical, immovable barriers. Yet still, the Court Lane, Calton junction with DV has physical, immovable barriers blocking the road - why? Surely the council is putting lives at risk/extending response times as a result? Removable barriers are in place on Melbourne Grove so why not the DV junction? In fact the Southwark news article you linked to says: Internally the ambulance service says it has seen ?multiple no/low harm incidents reported and an increase to on scene to hospital times,? as a side-effect of traffic calming measures across the capital. The service?s chief operating officer Khadir Meer wrote to local authorities earlier this year to express his concern, and the ambulance service is consistently opposing physical barriers like planters on the grounds they could delay ambulances. Pretty compelling don't you think? P.S. mounting the pavement is not recommended for emergency vehicles (or their occupants) so that is not a rational argument ;-) And I will ignore your comments that bike lanes are a good option for emergency vehicles - as a regular cyclist I don't fancy taking my chances with police cars, fire engines or ambulances hurtling at speed to respond to an emergency - bike lanes need to be for bikes.

That Guardian article is fundamentally flawed in a couple of aspects and, when you scratch beneath the surface, reads like more of their pro-LTN propaganda via an article that is, dare we say it, wilfully misleading. Let's look at the article. Firstly the quote from Cycling UK, who submitted the FOI is massively revealing: Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at Cycling UK, told the Guardian: ?What those freedom of information requests have revealed is that there is no evidence to support the argument that cycle lanes delay ambulances." He then adds at the end of the article: ?The claim that cycle lanes were causing mayhem and disaster for ambulances was manifestly untrue.? As I mentioned at the time the headline of the article refers to LTNs but Cycling UK is referring to an FOI in relation to cycle lanes - two very, very different things. I can't imagine that cycle lanes delay response times - LTNs on the other hand...... It looks like the journalist is confusing (perhaps deliberately) cycle lanes and LTNs - they are two very different things That's why, and it pains me to say it - that the Torygraph article is probably more accurate than the Guardian one in that the FOI they refer to is specific to LTNs and it confirms that there have been delays caused by LTNs (especially in the Dulwich area) with specific examples. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/06/road-closures-see-paramedics-struggling-reach-injured-cyclists/

Actually a lot of cars disable start/stop functionality automatically when the car isn't able to sufficiently charge the battery as it needs to be moving to charge. So, paradoxically, the increased congestion caused by the LTNs has a double-whammy negative impact as start/stop becomes less effective.

Waltham Forest Council's own data showed that displacement was, and continues to be, a big issue. Those who use it as the beacon of hope for LTNs fail to acknowledge that there was a big displacement issue created by it - the council's own stat showed that there was a 28% increase on traffic on a road 3.1 miles from the outer most boundary of the LTN. Given what Cllr McAsh said last night I think we can put another part of the jigsaw in place as to how the council are going to present their review. Given his focus on overall reduction in traffic volumes I suspect the council are trying to keep the review area deliberately small (only the roads, and the ones most neighbourly to them in the area) so they can show a decrease in traffic volume and claim this as success. This is how Waltham Forest was, and continues to be, presented - an overall reduction in traffic volumes within the boundaries of the LTN = success. It obviously doesn't. The council will do everything to fight against including displacement roads like Underhill and Croxted as then their figures will not show a reduction in overall traffic volumes (or one so small - the 135 journeys people are now doing on bikes in the review area as they drop their kids to Dulwich Hamlet school or whatever the cycle count number that was done by the pro-closure lobbyists shows - that it cannot be classified as a success). Everyone should lobby their local councillor to ensure the review is an area-wide review and data is collected and presented from all the roads that are being impacted - that is the only way a proper decision can be made and ensures the LTNs are fair to all.

Cllr McAsh, If the overall traffic has reduced (even by a small %) but because of the closures traffic, congestion and pollution has increased on roads neighbouring the closure area due to displacement would that be considered a success or failure? What you have said can easily be interpreted as that if you can prove that there has been a decrease in overall traffic then you would consider this a success (regardless of displacement impact). Can you clarify please as this is an important point, especially for those residents living with the displacement and, to be honest, is a bit of a u-turn on your comments on wanting to ensure the measures are fair to all?

Goodness me - I wonder if his memoirs will be entitled: My own stupidity and it's part in my downfall. What a prize idiot. At a time when many are questioning the council's fairness, balance and attitude towards constituents this is not a good look at all - the lengths he went to to undermine a local resident group is shocking.

Malumbu - trust me, most people on here aren't having to trawl the internet to find something negative about LTNs - they just have to step outside their house to see evidence of it!

Cllr McAsh - many thanks for your response. I trust you are asking why you haven't seen the map - it seems odd that the map as presented by Cllr Rose has not been sent to you as it directly impacts the majority of your constituents on the eastern side of Lordship Lane who will not be given a voice (or a weakened voice) in the review. Would you not agree that is imperative that those impacted negatively by the closures are given equal weighting as those who live in areas gaining from the closures in the review? Yes, Cllr Browning and Cllr Hartley are lobbying to get the review area extended to cover their ward too. P.S. did your comment to Heartblock come from a council playbook/Q&A on how to respond to such questions? ;-) I have always been impressed by how direct and matter of fact you are but that comment is straight from the politicians' playbook of how to avoid answering an awkward question and to bridge to something less negative! I think we can also read into that that many of your comments about wanting the LTNs assessed on their impact to all as maybe somewhat hollow, or perhaps have been over-ridden by directions from the council hierarchy on how to spin this?

Legal - I can take the Dulwich Hill proposals and I will ask the councillors. Could someone who is within the ward for the others initiate outreach to their local councillors to get an idea of what is planned in each? I would but we, ahem, know councillors refuse to engage with anyone from outside of their wards.....;-) Has anyone else noticed how many more projects seem to be on the table for consideration in Goose Green and Dulwich Village for the Devolved Highways Funding - is that because their councillors are far more active or is it something else i.e. they are getting more because of the LTNs?

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here's the agenda for next week's South Multiward > forum meeting. > > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments. > aspx?MId=6871 > It will be > > - announcing funding decisions on the list of > applications for Cleaner, Greener, Safer funding > (list of applicants attached to agenda) - about > ?250k in total. A few cycle parking things that > people might be interested in > > - announcing funding decisions on the list of > applications for the Neighbourhoods Fund, I think > ?10k per councillor. List of applicants also > attached, including a ?3k application from Friends > of Dulwich Square for a minimusic festival on the > square, the aims of which are " To bring the local > community together, support local businesses and > showcase local musicians & artists. The closure of > the junction in Dulwich Village has been > controversial and has caused divisions with some > in our community. The concept of a mini music > festival on the newly formed public space is to > demonstrate the positive potential of this new > community space that was once a dangerous and > polluting road junction. We hope to encourage > footfall to help support the local businesses in > Dulwich Village." > > Lastly, approving the allocation of "Devolved > Highways Funding" for particular highways projects > suggested by the local community(As I understand > it, local councillors hold the purse strings on > this funding pot). Here's the link to the > list.http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s > 93813/Appendix%201.pdf. No entirely clear to me > whether they all get funded (about ?140k > available) > > Anyone know /want to guess what the following > are: > > East Dulwich Square > Dulwich Village Cycle Roundabout ( something to do > with the Burbage Roundabout, or will it go around > "Dulwich Square"?) > "Measures to complement the Streetspace > programme". > College Road and Huntsslip road safer routes > masterplan (its the word masterplan that makes > this sound sinister!) > > More seriously, worth taking a look, as seems to > give an indication of things that are being > proposed by the community / considered. Various > road calming and cycle parking measures, the > proposal for traffic lights/ ped crossing at > LL/EDG junction, a proposal for less pollution on > EDG. You can't see the details, but if anyone > feels strongly about any of them (for or against), > may be worth emailing the relevant councillors to > share views in advance of the meeting/decision. East Dulwich Square is intriguing indeed - I wonder where/what that will be? Is there anywhere that we can find more information on those programmes/suggestions - all of the other suggestions have a paragraph of explanation but none of those ones do?

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > "Most Dulwich residents can afford a > > taxi".....honestly every time Julie Greer opens > > her mouth or tweets something it further > exposes > > how myopic and self-centred the pro-closure > lobby > > is. If I was a Labour councillor I would be > > distancing myself from them and their bizarre > > views of life through their bizarre > village-lens > > but, of course, many are neighbours of certain > > local councillors so probably they share the > same > > bizarre views of life beyond Dulwich Square. > > You continually complain that the only people > benefiting from the closures are the wealthy elite > of Dulwich Village. Then when someone suggests > that the wealthy elite of Dulwich Village can > afford a taxi to the Dr's - you're outraged. > > Can't have it both ways ;) Or alternatively maybe I am highlighting the myopic and blinkered view of some of the pro-closure lobbyists who live in the Village who are happy to make wide sweeping generalisations and assumptions about their fellow residents in Dulwich? i.e. if I can afford a taxi to the doctors then everyone else must be able to or if I can store my bikes in my garden thanks to my big garden and nice side-return then by goodness everyone else surely can....do I need to go on? ;-) Time after time the pro-closure lobby shows scant regard for anyone other than those in their immediate vicinity and echo chamber. They fail to acknowledge that displacement is happening or having a negative impact on residents streets at the end of their road and the recent deputations to the council highlighted this point very powerfully (and the fact the council left them unchallenged speaks volumes too).

I agree totally....what I am worried about is the council being less than transparent and less than accountable and I fear they are trying to buy time with the publication of the review to try and manipulate the review to their advantage. Siduhe - can we assume then that the council are reverting to the review area shared by Cllr Rose - did they give you a copy of the map? I am actually starting to wonder who is actually in control of this process at council level. If Cllr Rose said she believed the area should be increased (BTW is there a recording of the meeting available so we can see what was said?), the Dulwich Hill ward councillors saying that they are trying to get the area increased and Cllr McAsh saying it isn't true that the area is limited to west of Lordship Lane only - it makes you wonder what on earth is going on? And we must remember details of the review were promised this month and it now looks as it it is delayed until next month. My only hope is that the council is having to have a rethink/redesign of the review as they realise a lot of people will be scrutinising the minutia of detail within it. It was shocking (but maybe not a shock given the way the council operates) that the draft of the review map shared by Cllr Rose shared was as limited as it was. The review is flawed from the start if the roads and areas soaking up the displacement aren't covered.

Cllr McAsh - the map shown by Cllr Rose on the recent Dulwich Hill ward LTN call clearly showed the area for the LTN review stopping at Lordship Lane and going no further east than about 6 houses on each road coming off LL east. Your fellow councillors from the Dulwich Hill ward have said that they are going to be lobbying to get the review area extended to include the majority of their constituents. Has the review area map been shared with you? If so, perhaps you could share it? Any idea why there is another delay to the review? It was promised in February (even Cllr Williams was suggesting its publication was imminent on the council cabinet meeting on Feb 2nd) yet it seems to be slipping. P.S. If Cllr McAsh refuses to answer this as I am resident of the Dulwich Hill ward perhaps someone from within his ward can ask the question!! ;-)

Ex - the irrefutable facts are that the Dulwich LTNs are displacing traffic from some of the least populated streets onto some of the most densely populated and visited streets in the area - that cannot be considered equitable. The championing of the closures is coming from some voices from the heart of one of London's wealthiest areas - I do wonder if those given the opportunity by the council to give the deputation in response to the reopen the closures petition on the recent council meeting care for anyone beyond the Village borders - it certainly did not come across as so. I also refer you to the impassioned plea from a resident from the Lordship Lane estate to the councillors on the recent Dulwich Hill ward LTN call - she was not gas-lighting - she was reporting on the direct impact the closures were having on her family and neighbours due to the displacement and increases in pollution. The fact that these measures are being promoted, executed, supported and defended by councillors who pretend to represent fairness for all is what makes this even more galling. I would expect it from the Tories, not from Labour. As someone who works in planning and is seemingly on the pro-closure lobby it is easy for you to sit there and say "oh, well this and that is because of media manipulation" - it's a bit like the council's repeated claims that any opposition was a "small and vocal minority". Both are utter nonsense and a tactic to try and deposition any dissenting voices. As a resident of East Dulwich I have seen, with my own eyes, the impact these closures have had and I do not think they are fair. Did you happen to walk down (either end of) Lordship Lane before the most recent lockdown and see the traffic for yourself - I know you are ex of Dulwich but I am hoping you are basing your inputs on this on your first-hand experience of what is happening on the ground in the area?

Why is it that this article has a photo, headline and opening para referencing LTNs (which are built around road closures) yet all the quotes (and seemingly the rest of the article) talk exclusively about cycle lanes? Hmmmmmm...... https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/13/covid-bike-and-walking-schemes-do-not-delay-ambulances-trusts-say?__twitter_impression=true

"Most Dulwich residents can afford a taxi".....honestly every time Julie Greer opens her mouth or tweets something it further exposes how myopic and self-centred the pro-closure lobby is. If I was a Labour councillor I would be distancing myself from them and their bizarre views of life through their bizarre village-lens but, of course, many are neighbours of certain local councillors so probably they share the same bizarre views of life beyond Dulwich Square. I am actually starting to think that the Dulwich Village ward councillors are trying to create a modern day Trmupton.

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just to add to Penguin68's comments - as I > understand it, the review area for the Dulwich > Village LTNs will not include Underhill, Melford, > Wood Vale or the Lordship Lane Estate - all of > which were experiencing material impacts from the > closure of Court Lane and the failure to adjust > right filter at the South Circular lights to allow > for the additional traffic - up until the point > that Thames Water started digging up the road and > put in place three way lights for twelve weeks > which has given us all a bit of relief. > > This is notwithstanding residents being told to > use Commonspace to register our concerns, which > many of us have done - and where the feedback is > clear, consistent and from multiple residents. > I'm still trying to get a formal confirmation why > but the informal feedback is that our roads are > not close enough to be considered directly > affected, and the review area will only focus on > the area of the LTNs and the immediately adjacent > roads. Which is next to useless when the roads > experiencing displacement are not immediately > adjacent. > > As I've said before, I don't think any of my > neighbours or me are particularly opposed to LTNs > or even necessarily to the Court Lane closure, but > we'd like a proper assessment of the impacts of > the displacement on our local roads - which are > less safe for cyclists and more polluted for > pedestrians - and the fact that many of us don't > live in ?2m+ houses or have access to large > gardens like Court Lane resident do (although to > be fair, some on Underhill and Wood Vale do!) ;-) You are correct - the review zone Cllr Rose shared on the Dulwich Hill ward meeting went no further east than Lordship Lane so none of those roads are included in the review so the views of residents in those areas will be discounted. Which is ludicrous.

Rahrahrah - we have made our points on many, many occasions on some far more equitable and measured actions that would help tackle the climate crisis but not cause the havoc the LTNs have brough to the majority of residents in Dulwich. So please, stop playing your usual weak diversionary tactics and trying to imply that people are not suggesting any alternatives - you know that isn't true and you only have to look back at the last time someone asked for the other proposals to find them a plenty and in great detail. If I remember correctly, the last time you (or one of your pro-closure lobbyist friends) asked and we delivered some thoughts you had nothing to say about them - which is a debating habit you all seem to share in common!

...and then you look at the council's plans for the LTN review area and you see that they are trying to prevent people who have to live with the displacement away from the closed roads from having a voice in the review - it's sickening the way they are trying to manipulate the review to their advantage. Meanwhile in Sutton (where they have just announced they are pulling the LTNs out) - the SOuthwark Way clearly differs massively from the Sutton Way!: Transport Chair, councillor Manuel Abellan, said: ?Since the recent High Court ruling on the Mayor of London?s Streetspace schemes, there has been no clear guidance on what councils should do next. "In light of this, I will be recommending to councillors that we remove all the existing trial schemes. ?In future, the council will do things very differently - the Sutton way - for any area traffic improvements. "There will be full consultation of the residents and businesses affected before schemes are launched with support for any ideas or schemes. ?The council has heard very clearly residents? concerns about the Mayor of London?s mandated process to bring in experimental schemes.?

This is disgusting. I would let the council know and give them the police incident number so they can investigate it as it sounds like this person was fulfilling a council recycling collection and they must speak to Veolia about it.

Malumbu - really? Is that the best you can do? Do you have anything to say that actually adds value to the debate or are you just here to vent your "everyone who opposes LTNs is a right-wing, Daily Mail reading facist" trope? You must be getting close to getting a warning from admin by now.

Cllr Rose was on the Dulwich Hill meeting and said she was going to leave early to attend another meeting (wonder if it was the other one you mention) but stayed for the duration. The Dulwich Hill meeting was interesting. As I suspected there were far more voices challenging the council on the impact of the displacement, especially on roads like Underhill. Most interestingly, Cllr Rose shared the area covered by the much heralded "review" and the area is focussed on the closed roads and those neighbouring them - I believe it also stretches up to Champion Hill (I suspect so they can take in the Dulwich Village, Melbourne Grove and Champion Hill closures). I tried to take a photo but didn't get my phone out quickly enough so we will have to wait until the replay is available but what concerned me was that the area for the review is not nearly wide enough to take input from, say the residents in the Dulwich Hill ward living with the displacement, as the area does not cover any area east of Lordship Lane. We saw a similar move made by the council during the CPZ consultation (input gathered from any resident in the area but only those in the review area taken into consideration and used to make decisions). I very much suspect they are trying to keep the review area as small as possible to ensure the supporting voices are not drowned out by the wider community who may be feeling the negative elements of the displacement. The council defended this by saying that they don't want people from outside the area commenting (which is fair) but I believe anyone with an SE22 postcode (or those in Dulwich Village if they are not SE22) should be given equal weighting in the review - the council cannot be allowed to shrink the review area in the hope that they can rely on those on the closed roads outweighing the broader community. It is clear to me what they are trying to do to manipulate the figures and when you see the review map you will see it too. The meeting had a couple of "I love the measures, I love to be able to cycle down the closed roads etc" but quickly moved to the majority of those who spoke who were clearly against them. Everyone was asked to say where they live and it was clear that those who spoke and lived in the ward were against it (I might be wrong but it seems the only supportive voices came from someone who lives near Melbourne Grove and another from in the village). There was some incredibly moving testimony from one lady in particular who lives on the Lordship Lane estate who has a son suffering from severe asthma and how his condition has worsened since the traffic queues at the Grove Tavern junction and how they feel trapped. Her testimony was incredibly moving and it really demonstrated that whilst a few who live in the wealthiest part of our area have been prioritised everyone else is living with the fallout. The meeting was less combative than the Melbourne Grove meetings but there still isn't anything to suggest to me that the council is doing anything other than paying lip service to listening to the broader community but with each meeting they are seeing that there are plenty of dissenting voices and that it is very much more than "a small, vocal minority".

Scary update from One Dulwich. Looks like the council are continuing risking lives for their failed project. + Ambulances routinely delayed by 24/7 road closures (8 February 2021) Some of you may have seen the article in the Daily Telegraph on Friday about how the road closures in Dulwich Village and East Dulwich are causing long delays to ambulances on 999 calls, with life-threatening consequences. The article was based on a series of emails between the London Ambulance Service (LAS) and Southwark Highways Department (Southwark), obtained through a Freedom of Information request submitted last October. These reveal that ambulances in Dulwich are routinely delayed by the current road closures. In September last year alone, the last month for which figures are available, ambulance crews reported 10 delays because of 24/7 closures in the Dulwich area, including responses to at least two Category 2 (life-threatening) 999 calls and three Category 1 (immediately life-threatening) 999 calls. Paramedics repeatedly highlight the hard closure at Calton Avenue as the cause of the problem in Dulwich Village, with delays ranging from between 5 and 10 minutes. What is really concerning is that the documents also appear to show that repeated requests by the LAS to Southwark to replace the planters with cameras are being ignored. At a meeting on 16 July last year with Southwark transport project managers, all three Emergency Services asked for hard closures to be removed and ANPR cameras installed instead. ?We know ANPR cameras are expensive,? said the Metropolitan Police representative, ?but it?s about saving a life.? One Dulwich has repeatedly asked our Councillors, and the decision-maker Cllr Rose, to introduce ANPR cameras at Dulwich Village junction instead of 24/7 closures. We know from your emails that many of you have done the same. We have raised the issue of access for the emergency services in our objections to the closures in both Dulwich Village and East Dulwich. But the Council is refusing to listen. The problem has not gone away, as Cllr Rose implies in the Daily Telegraph article. In fact, the LAS continues to ask for ANPR cameras instead of hard closures that prevent access. Ambulances doing three-point turns at planters is still a regular occurrence, as are reports of ambulances getting stuck in traffic. As well as putting residents? lives at risk, it?s not fair on ambulance crews, whose lives are difficult and stressful enough as it is without having to do long detours and weave through congested traffic. What will it take for Southwark to comply with the Emergency Services? requests? The death of a resident because an ambulance can?t reach them in time? Or a house or flat burning down because a fire engine gets stuck in displaced traffic? Refusing to make changes when lives are at stake is irresponsible and immoral. We have now written yet again to MP Helen Hayes asking her to intervene. When former MP Kate Hoey intervened in the disastrous Loughborough Road traffic experiments in 2015, after the London Ambulance Service complained, Lambeth Council ended the experiment. We hope our MP and Southwark Council will now do the same