Rockets

Another OneDulwich update: Campaign Update | 16 July Southwark commits to equality and fairness Southwark Council has published a 34-page “transport strategy”, setting out how it intends to make the borough cleaner, greener and safer by 2030. In this strategy, the Council makes a commitment to: reducing and eliminating discrimination against people with protected characteristics, as set out in the Equality Act 2010 (page 5); ensuring that our road networks are managed effectively, as set out in the Traffic Management Act 2004 (page 5); and providing solutions that are safe, accessible, affordable and fair to all (page 12). If this commitment is genuine, the Council should modify the LTNs across Dulwich (including the 24/7 closure of the Dulwich Village junction), because the LTNs are currently causing discrimination, displacement of traffic, damage to local shops and businesses, and disruption of the road network. Yet again, consultation on a decision already taken The Council is holding “informal consultations” on introducing CPZs (Controlled Parking Zones) across Dulwich. Whatever your views on this, the online surveys only allow positive feedback. (Bizarre options that you can tick include “I would like to get out and use a local bench once a week.”) Perhaps the strange questions in the survey don’t matter very much, as Southwark councillors have made it clear that the Council intends to introduce CPZs throughout Southwark regardless of residents’ views. There are three “informal consultations”: Dulwich Village, closing on 10 September (respond to the online survey here, and reserve a place for the second drop-in session at Dulwich Library on 2 August, 2pm to 4pm, here); Dulwich Hill, also closing on 10 September (respond to the online survey here, or reserve a place for either of the drop-in sessions – 17 July, 6pm to 8pm, at Christ Church on Barry Road, or 16 August, 2pm to 4pm, at Dulwich Library – here); and Dulwich Wood, closing on 17 September (respond to the online survey here, or reserve a place for the drop-in session on 19 July, 6pm to 7.30pm, at Dulwich Library here). Department of Transport chief calls for “unpopular” LTNs to be scrapped Meanwhile the Secretary of State for Transport, Mark Harper, has joined the Mayor of London in calling for councils that implemented LTNs in the pandemic without public support to consider scrapping them. He said earlier this month that if local authorities have introduced schemes that are controversial and not well supported, they would be wise to look at them again. “Setting up different groups of people against each other is a very unhelpful thing to do,” he said. We completely agree. One Dulwich leaflet Finally our grateful thanks to the many volunteers who have been delivering our new leaflet. If your road hasn’t yet been leafleted, and you can help, please email [email protected]. Thank you for your support. The One Dulwich Team

They aren't keen on any voices that don't validate their own narrative...it also helps them try to control the narrative as it stops people seeing any dissenting voices on their timeline. You can't manipulate consultations and then see your constituents telling you what they really think on your social channels! Fully supportive of means-tested road pricing - the means-tested is an important part as only that can be considered fair to everyone but I have seen no talk of that. Interesting dynamic comes into play if road-pricing does come in in light of Cllr McAsh's "justice" mantra....

Good luck with that! I seem to remember someone putting a supportive petition up around LTNs and the number of signatories for that was dwarfed by those in opposition and it was used as part of the lobbying. A seating area dedicated to the exclusive use of the middle classes to discuss how gpod LTNs and CPZs are, drink and eat extraordinarily over-priced "artisan" coffee and pastries whilst talking about which ski resort they plan to holiday in during the winter and whether the Maldives or Mauritius is their destination of choice for the summer. Discussion may also turn to which Tesla they plan to buy now they have paved their front garden and which private school they plan to send their offspring to.

Someone's been drinking Cllr McAsh's "justice" Kool-Aid! And the claims that 95% of people in Southwark could go car-free are as blinkered and fantasy-fuelled as you have come to expect - no doubt built on someone's personal experience and the expectation that because they can live a certain lifestyle then everyone else can. London isn't Camberwick Green I am afraid....

The problem is there isn't much else left after gardens and cars that the council can justify as a "luxury reserved only for the super rich" that needs taxing...

Wow...the council seem to have hit a raw nerve with the CPZs.....

Hmmmm, dangerous "justice" path for Cllr McAsh to plot on that one because it then could set the precedent "well I don't make use of that facility so should not be paying for it". Is anyone going to the CPZ meeting at Dulwich Library tonight - if so could they report back it would be great?

Be careful everyone - don't get the forum into trouble.

If Mal does ban all cars they will need a caveat and special exemption clause for those emergency journeys made to run furniture to their second home in France of course...

There are going to be two meetings at Dulwich Library to discuss with councillors. You have to book tickets be quick cos rumours suggest some people got tipped off about this ahead of the general release. Click on tne Evenbrite link to register

Bravo Heartblock - swatted another pesky troll with consummate ease 😉 - there are a lot of them on here - it's troll swatting season on the EDF! The only time pro-LTN lobbyists look back at what people have said in the past is to try and dig out "incriminating" posts that are anything but (I am looking at you Earl!!! 😉

Heartblock, Anna Goodman's last (ahem) research of the Lambeth LTNs showed a 9% increase in parking permits within the LTN areas between 2020 and 2023. But it's Anna Goodman research so can't be considered impartial now! 😉 TFL's figures show cycling has increased 11% in London from 2019 and accounts for just under 3% of all London journeys - significantly lower than Will Norman's grandiose claims made during lockdown. TFL's cost per new cyclist analysis would not be too healthy given the money invested in infrastructure. Does anyone know what that has been since Covid, 7 years ago Sadiq was claiming TFL were going to invest 770m up to 2021/2022 but that was pre-pandemic.

Matil, sorry to hear that. I hope you are able to get this event off the ground another time.

Dodging bikes is now becoming a daily sport for many in Dulwich. Is it a lack of cycling education/ignorance or pig headedness? Are these folks even aware of the rules? It seems not many are aware of the rules as I have yet to see a single cyclist give way to pedestrians at junctions (I am sure there are those that do but the majority don't).

Ex- was he forced to, as in the Tories said, you have to extend ULEZ or, when he was told you need to commit to generating revenue to pay back the bail-outs he offered up ULEZ expansion..."committed to" could be accurate in either context. Or did the Tories know the only way to generate that revenue would be ULEZ expansion? As part of the settlement, mayor of London Sadiq Khan has committed to generating between £500m and £1bn additional revenue a year through measures such as road user charging. This would involve extending the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to cover all of Greater London by 2023.

Many people have provided more details for them and still the post remains with no sign of a retraction. What a weird world some of these people live in, talk about self-centred and blinkered. They really aren't helping themselves.

And Southwark Cyclists really don't help themselves with tweets like this in relation to Anna Goodman taking down the anti-LTN petition poster and taking it home with her - talk about tone deaf and a ludicrous "justification defence".

Well Mal, go to the lounge then...be our guest...;-) The point I am making is that transport is becoming a sticky issue in London. Clearly the Labour candidate feels he has the best chance to win if he takes a position of resisting ULEZ expansion, no doubt because his advisors have told him a lot of people have concerns about it and he increases his chances of winning by doing so. But this is at odds with the mayor from within his own party and it put the leader of their party in a difficult position. Now for the mayor it is a concern because if there is similar discontent in other areas where ULEZ is being expanded to that could be bad news for him as people may vote against him on the basis of this. Now, how does this relate to the CPZs? Well, and its not too difficult to work out, LTNs caused discontent but those impacted enough to try and do something about it weren't in the same sort of numbers as any car owner who feels the council are taking the p**s. And a large majority of people in the Dulwich area have cars. So what of there is a protest vote against the mayor in the mayoral elections because Sadiq's transport policies are disliked. In the same way there was a large anti-Tory protest vote in the last council elections it could happen in the mayoral elections. This type of thing has, historically, been to the advantage of the Lib Dems who prosper during protest votes when people become fed-up of the two leading parties. At the national level the sentiment is anti-Tory but I sense a growing apathy towards Labour and much of it the catalyst for is transport policy. Does that help explain it for you? But Mal, extending ULEZ is down to Sadiq is it not? Any politician will tell you people have short memories - he is responsible for extending ULEZ and the wrath is aimed at him - I actually saw a very unpleasant sign on a buildong company van from Bromley recently saying F**k Sadiq.

Transport is becoming a bit of a political hot potato in London. Keir Starmer refused to be drawn today on whether he supported Ulez expansion or not because the Labour candidate in the Uxbridge by-election wants it delayed and Sadiq Khan doesn't - its all going to get very interesting in the run up to the mayoral election next year. BBC News - Uxbridge by-election: Keir Starmer won't say whether he backs ULEZ expansion https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66124191

Earl, what I have learnt over my time on this forum is that many on the pro-LTN side love to dish it out yet aren't so comfortable when it gets played back to them. You searched for a few posts that did nothing to back up your accusation against me and tried to concoct a narrative to try to attack me (and you comtinue to do so) - which failed, and is failing, miserably. But we have seen this time and time again from many on the pro-LTN lobby - if you can't debate then go on the attack. I have also learnt that you'll invariably find some posts that undermines their position. I have also learnt that hypocrisy is strong amongst many on the pro-LTN side.....

Southwark cyclists and LCC are stakeholders and have been the go-to lobby group the council actively engages. Remember the Peckham Rye LTN suggestions (can't remember what phase that was) and the fact the council prioritised input from Southwark cyclists over the emergency services and rejected emergency service input? I suspect the council's refusal to make DV permeable for emergency services was because of pressure from lobby groups. And look how long it took for them to see sense - utterly shameful. These are the things that created the imbalance that so many local people are angry with (and led to the very existence of One Dulwich and them getting over 2000 sign-ups) - the council only initially engaged with and took counsel and guidance from groups that supported its vision.

And it was clear during those infamous online council meetings about the Melbourne Grove closures that some folks (I suspect CAD) had been given "front row seats" and given the mike to herald the closures as part of the council organised filibuster whilst anyone else who had a question was forced to the chat...that they then subsequently closed for other online meetings.

Yes sorry they stood to be councillors, you're right they were candidates who did not become councillors. I do think our council has a respect problem - that video probably goes some way to show why Will Norman had to step in to intervene between Southwark councillors and TFL after the treatment of TFL staff by members of Southwark Council reduced them to tears. There seems to be something very wrong with the way Southwark council interacts with people - there seem to be a few unsavoury characters who seem to think it is OK to treat people appallingly if they don't agree with them.

DKHB - but what do you mean by members - it's not a private members club? When you sign up by giving your email, address and postcode they don't then try to upsell you to ask you to become a "member". So really not sure what you are getting at? Do you mean the founders of the campaign or something else?

Ha ha...that's hilarious...they spoke to 1,025 people across the whole of Southwark. Young Advisers provided a lot of responses and they are 9 to 18 year olds....and students (many of whom don't live in Southwark) made up a big proportion of that 1,025 as well - 52% of all the street surveys conducted were by people who don't live in Southwark. Is this a joke - is that what they are trying to claim was a consultation ? Do you think they have to had "notified" residents of this move and are trying to cover their backsides and have dug up this obscure document as "proof"? The actual Movement Plan makes one mention of area-wide CPZs (Page 18) and states that, as part of the delivery plan, borough-wide parking controls would be introduced in 2025. Moovart - was this response to an email you sent them about the CPZ consultation - if it was would you be happy to share it?