Rockets

For those of you who have managed to have been blocked by the EDSTN Healthy Street propaganda machine here is the text from the thread.....pictures attached of the various access roads on the estates they have photographed......if you look very, very carefully you can just about see a single bike on the top floor balcony of the flats in the picture of the WMAM2asp.jpeg....thereby very visually illustrating why a large percentage of the local population will struggle to switch to bikes..... This EDSTN thread seems to be trying to make a rather spurious connection between access roads on our local estates and LTNs on Court Lane and Calton Avenue..... Anyway, the award for the most tone-deaf twitter thread of 2020 goes to......read on....;-) We love our new LTN, but did you know that Southwark has over 52 existing road filters already in place- one of the highest in London? In Dulwich many of Southwark?s estates have had extensive filtering for many years. Rather than LTNs being a new thing, it seems that our housing estates have long been trailblazers for safer & quieter streets. These estates have quiet streets, green space, with some currently getting new playgrounds and pavements / ramp access. So why is no one clamouring for the removal of these filters? Mainly it?s that they?ve been in place for years and the benefits are clear. They?re not even thought of as LTNs any more, though that?s how they were designed. LTNs need time to bed in, they need improving where necessary but they have a long history of being successful in Southwark.

This EDSTN Healthy Streets twitter thread........;-)

Indeed but I think in Dulwich more people are aware as people's daily lives are being impacted (given the large % of car ownership) and I think that is why One Dulwich have so much support - likely to become even more when the fines start coming in through the new timed closures. It was interesting that in the last One Dulwich email they promised to alert people to how they register their comments about the closures when the council opens up the "consultation and feedback" period. It is not in the interests of either the council or the pro-closure lobby to have broad awareness of the steps needing to be taken to register thoughts. I think that was why OneDulwich were very cleverly putting flyers on cars in Dulwich over the summer - alerting people to a resource that could help them if they don't like the changes. It's also why the What's App fuelled awareness of the Southwark e-petition led to so many local residents signing it. expect a similar thing to happen when the consultation process starts. The pro-closure lobby twitter feeds don't get any traction - they seem to be followed by the same group of pro and anti-closure lobbyists so they aren't moving the needle - they are either talking to themselves or their opponents. The challenge in any sort of debate like this is for the council and pro-closure lobby to try and ride out the storm of negative publicity and hope people get used to the changes, lose interest in the fight and can't be bothered to find out more. For the anti-closure lobby they have to try and keep the issue front of mind for the most number of people to get them to register their objections and lobby the council for change. The things you are doing will be annoying the hell out of the council and pro-closure lobby as it is shining a light on the process (so keep it up! ;-)). In previous council consultations constituent ignorance has been the council's bliss! I very much sense that has changed now.

Also the Guys and St Thomas' project is far better thought out and it looks like the implementation is going to be far better than the council ones to date. The charity is insisting on displacement analysis - which could be interesting and finally produce some granular data on what displacement does/does not actually occur. I actually think that any prior consultation will only apply to new programmes and this one has been in the council purview for some time. I think the council has rolled out all the phases in Dulwich super quick so they can get them in before the government forces them to, heaven forbid, consult with local residents! ;-) If Commonspace is to be the mode by which they consult this will explain why many of the pro-closure twitter handles encourage people to register their support via Commonspace.

Point 19 is interesting. Consultation with residents via Commonplace during the period of the ETMO. Is this the means by which the council will consult on all LTNs moving forward? The government made it clear (according to Peter Walker of The Guardian fame) that there needed to be prior consultation.

Me too - it's good to see them coming back.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > alice Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Has anyone changed their mind about LTNs after > > engaging with/ reading this thread? > > > For myself, I came to the thread largely in a > state of ignorance. Confession: I'd had a passing > look at the Healthy Streets leaflets that came > through the door and concluded it was something I > didn't need to pay much attention to as I don't > drive. At all, ever. However, once I started to > notice the massive decrease in air quality on East > Dulwich Grove I did some googling to find out how > everything had come about. As a result, I don't > have a doctrinal pro-or anti LTN stance. I > honestly don't think most of the "objectors" on > this thread do. Same with most of the people I > know locally. They think that LTNs probably work > in some places if properly designed. They also > think it's important that the council engage > properly with the community it serves. So my > bugbears related to this SPECIFIC LTN, are (i) the > council's processes, in particular the lack of > transparency around the way it consults/ engages > specific interest groups in its policy formation - > and that's what making a large number of > ordinarily "silent" people locally quite angry - > they feel as though they have been hijacked; and > (ii) what I personally perceive to be the impact > of this specific LTN, in terms of social justice > type points, the impact of some specific small > businesses (those who rely on making deliveries, > for example) and the unacceptable pockets of > congestion/ pollution that are being created. I'd > like to see more discussion on what "tweaks" could > be made to make the local LTN a bit better. > > But the whole argument seems to have become, as > I've said before, entirely polarised. I'm not the > "pro-LTN lobby", and it should be possible to make > specific points without the constant "well, you > don't really mean it, I believe you're an SUV > driver who wants to drive everywhere all the time" > response. Legal - spot on! And to answer Alice's question I am not sure anyone reading the thread will have swapped sides on the basis of what us lot carpet-bomb on here (from both sides!) but what cannot be denied is the closures are a talking point within the wider community (especially in East Dulwich where the displacement impact is being felt most). The challenge many of us have is that the way the council is handling this is turning more and more people against these interventions and their lack of proper communication is fuelling the anti-LTN sentiment and is doing long-term harm to the wider pollution discussion.

Nigello - do you think that it is right and fair that the council has displaced traffic from Dulwich Village (one of the most affluent areas in the whole of London) onto roads through more densely populated areas and created congestion problems throughout East Dulwich that is leading to higher pollution for everyone in the area? P.S. My exaggeration pales into insignificance when compared to the pro-closure lobby disinformation programmes - which seem to have gone into overdrive these last few days...;-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The 'social justice' argument, is being massively > over played by those against low traffic > neighbourhoods. The least affluent are much less > likely to own a car and to rely on walking or > cycling. The idea that the denizens of Dulwich > should be able to drive their SUVs through every > side street as a way of 'protecting' the less > affluent, rings pretty hollow to me. > I can't help feeling that in the majority of > cases, those who are against creating some spaces > where cars dominate a little less, are mainly > concerned about the personal inconvenience of not > being able to drive where they like. But would you not agree that the implementation of the LTNs has been to the benefit of the most wealthy areas of Dulwich which is causing massive displacement to those areas less well-off? So whilst you chastise those people in SUVs it is, in fact, the people most likely to drive SUVs who are benefiting from these closures. I am afraid the pro-closure cycling lobby are so blinkered in their view of the world that they don't realise that the majority of people have nowhere to store a bike. I laughed so loud today when I heard from someone that when they bought their electric cargo bike that it was recommended that they store it in a heated bike shed......I don't have room for a bike shed yet alone a heated one and yet all I hear is that the solution to all our woes is an e-cargo bike. These things are becoming a bit of an eco-accessory only for the super-rich. A bit like Teslas.

I think because they are having to course correct as they go. They wanted to block and close more roads but realised the emergency services are against that because they are impacting response times. If you remember the council claimed they could not afford camera controlled closures and now they have found the money for them.

There is certainly a wave of pro-LTN propoganda being pushed at the moment - there must be the realisation that the pressure is mounting so they have to push some of the usual hyperbole.... Very interesting twitter thread via that I found via LittleNinja in Lewisham sums up quite accurately what seems to be happening: There is an inner circle of Pro-LTN lobbyists who are fanning the flames of the LTNs are good rhetoric. I also enjoyed this spat between the FT's Travel writer and The Guardian's Peter Walker. Perhaps of most interest was when someone else waded in and suggested Peter is hardly objective and challenged him on why he appeared at Southwark's Dec 2019 Environmental Scrutiny Meeting (see page 10 of the minutes below). http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6464/Printed%20minutes%20Wednesday%2004-Dec-2019%2019.00%20Environment%20Scrutiny%20Commission.pdf?T=1 Peter, in the twitter thread admits he was invited to talk by a Southwark councillor because he is a "resident". I wonder which councillor invited him. Funny how the council only seems to invite "residents" to meetings who happen to be pro-closure lobbyists and very supportive of the council's agenda. Said person then writes an utterly biased article in the Guardian and our local councillors then retweet it basically saying...look we are right. Everything is so dangerously incestuous within the council and its echo chamber - there is no balance at all. At a time when we have Cllrs like Cllr McAsh trying to divide and conquer by refusing to engage with people who don't live in their ward, at a time when all councillors are refusing to engage in any dialogue with anyone who dares question these closures, at a time when the council refuses any sort of public consultation you can see why many residents in the area are questioning who their council is actually representing.

CWJ yes a lot of people from our street, myself included, did during the first lockdown. I would encourage anyone else to do the same as the council must be monitoring the demand - let's hope they start actioning a few more of them to help the modal shift they so desire. Does anyone know why there appears to be so few new ones going in?

Ex- yes in a very cynical mood right now - been burnt too many times by this council and their manipulative ways!!! ;-) I can see how they might start to skew things their way already....maybe that's not cynicism but realism...the council don't have a very good track record when it comes to transparency....;-)

Given the councils are now being, ahem, encouraged, to engage with local residents over all of these closures does anyone expect them to engage in an area wide consultation project or should we expect them to revert to type and poll only those people who live on the closed roads (as they have done time and time before?)? Council: "Hello resident who lives on road now closed to through traffic (BTW I am the hero who closed the road for you, please vote for me). Are you happy that we closed your road for you and now your road is very quiet and you can park your car outside your house?". Resident: "Yes". Council: "Would you like us to remove said closure and allow traffic along your road again?" Resident: "No" Council: "We thought you would say that. Thank you for your input."

Coming back to the subject of whether the council is doing enough (bar closing roads) to encourage cycling I read, with interest, the Cycle Hanger pdf found here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/traffic-orders-licensing-strategies-and-regulation/traffic-management-orders?chapter=5&article It suggests that since lockdown the council has managed to put cycle hangers (or proposals for cycle hangers) in two locations in SE22 - one on Dunstans Road and one on Lordship Lane. Have they done more than this or is that it? If so, it doesn't look like they are doing enough for those who don't have huge houses or gardens to store their bikes.

Lewisham gave out 8,000 warnings before hitting 47,000 with actual fines......

From tomorrow morning I think....I am sure we will see some grandstanding from the usual suspects when it goes live. Let the fun begin......let's see what the displacement is like and who loses the displacement lottery with these latest closures.......place your bets.....

Lucymerc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > good article in Guardian explaining how LTNs myths > > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/1 > 6/mythbusters-eight-common-objections-to-ltns-and- > why-they-are-wrong Per the other thread.... Written by their pro-cycling activist, lobbyist and author of a book called Bike Nation: How Cycling Can Save the World, Peter Walker......#takeitwithaverylargepinchofsalt...;-)

Ex- and to be fair, and in the interests of balance, nor is Peter Walker and the The Guardian interested in the truth.......;-) The truth is out there somewhere...and I think this is what is acting as the catalyst for so much push back against these closures...people can see for themselves what is happening in their own local area and they are not taking well to some faceless local bureaucrats and pro-closure lobby groups telling them everything is going really well....

I think this was also a catalyst for the pro-closure lobby push - this piece on the ITV News last week (pretty much you can do a find and replace on any mentioned of Ealing with Southwark in terms of the accusations of councils not listening and well done Crystal Palace for their protest against the closures!):

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "How about execessive car usage affecting > emergency response times?" > > Traffic is up 50% over the past 10 years > > You won't read that headline in the daily mail, > because it's true > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > nxjen Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Myths about LTNs - must be true it?s in The > > > Guardian > > > > > > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/1 > > > > > > > > > 6/mythbusters-eight-common-objections-to-ltns-and- > > > > > > why-they-are-wrong?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other > > > > Ha ha, yes indeed....and look at who the author > > is.....none other than cycling activist and > > Guardian political correspondent Peter Walker > > ....I wonder how sales of his book: Bike > Nation: > > How Cycling Can Save the World are > going.....;-) > > > > As I read each of the points he tries to, > > unsuccessfully make, I laughed a little louder > > each time....the level of cultish delusion runs > > strongly through each.... > > > > Peter, and the pro-closure lobby, are going > into > > overdrive at the moment - they must sense that > > they are under pressure. Peter is posting an > > exclusive report today saying that there is no > > evidence that LTN's cause social > injustice...the > > report is penned by Rachel Aldred who is the > > director of the Active Travel Academy.....and a > > big cycle lobbyist and activist..... > > > > Edit: Ah I have just seen why they are going > into > > overdrive The Mail on Sunday > > (#washesmouthoutwithsoap) did a piece quoting > the > > UK's head paramedic saying that closures are > > impacting response times.....both sides are > upping > > the > > > ante....https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8 > > > > 949617/Top-paramedic-warns-bike-lanes-holding-ambu > > > lances-traffic-jams.html Of course you won't read that headline in the Daily Mail because they are as much on an agenda push as the Guardian - they are coming from polar opposites of the debate. Nor will the pro-lobby who have been publicising those estimated (the estimated is the key here and I will explain why in a moment) traffic increase figures want you to scratch beneath the surface. Even those estimated figures show that traffic is still markedly lower than it's peak in 1999 and the trend has been downwards for a long period of time. There has been no analysis as to what is causing the rise - it started in 2013 so I suspect it is linked to home delivery services. Now, people are rightly challenging those estimated figures because, well, they are estimates. And when you actually look at real data using road counts and monitoring these numbers are not being seen. Take our local area the OHS figures for DV (which were based on actual traffic counts using monitoring) clearly demonstrated that traffic through the DV junction has been declining year on year for a number of year. Not a huge drop but still year on year reductions - surely if there had been this huge increase in traffic since 2013 on the borough by borough basis seen in the estimated study then there would have been an increase in the real world? This is at a time when the council is refusing to be transparent about their plans for monitoring and are suggesting that modelling will work to determine how much displacement and increases in pollution there has (or has not) been from these closures. The only way to get a real world view of the what is going on is to physically monitor.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Myths about LTNs - must be true it?s in The > Guardian > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/1 > 6/mythbusters-eight-common-objections-to-ltns-and- > why-they-are-wrong?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other Ha ha, yes indeed....and look at who the author is.....none other than cycling activist and Guardian political correspondent Peter Walker ....I wonder how sales of his book: Bike Nation: How Cycling Can Save the World are going.....;-) As I read each of the points he tries to, unsuccessfully make, I laughed a little louder each time....the level of cultish delusion runs strongly through each.... Peter, and the pro-closure lobby, are going into overdrive at the moment - they must sense that they are under pressure. Peter is posting an exclusive report today saying that there is no evidence that LTN's cause social injustice...the report is penned by Rachel Aldred who is the director of the Active Travel Academy.....and a big cycle lobbyist and activist..... Edit: Ah I have just seen why they are going into overdrive The Mail on Sunday (#washesmouthoutwithsoap) did a piece quoting the UK's head paramedic saying that closures are impacting response times.....both sides are upping the ante....https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8949617/Top-paramedic-warns-bike-lanes-holding-ambulances-traffic-jams.html

Do we think the council might be expecting there to be a big increase in displaced traffic along Lordship Lane northbound as a result of the timed closures in DV and are putting those signs in preemptively as they know people will try to find new routes?

Yes that makes sense, so warning people who were doing that dog's leg detour that there is now no way out at Townley. It's all very confusing.

I think that is the one that says no through route to the right....which is a bit vague. It is suggesting you cannot turn right there if you intend to use it as a through route. Which then led me to question where the cameras are to be placed because that will give us a clue how the council intend to police it. Looking at the TMO it is not clear but it uses legalise jargon which suggests no traffic at all can make the turns during those times (bar the exempt vehicles) or enter the area. Given this is all due to go live next week it doesn't seem clear from the council as to what is actually going to be happening. Does anyone have any idea as to me it looks as if all the residents around Court Lane and Eynella will be locked in during those times as there is no escape route with Townley being the same, or am I missing something? Here is the link, can anyone smarter than me work out what is going to happen: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/traffic-orders-licensing-strategies-and-regulation/traffic-management-orders?chapter=5&article