Earl Aelfheah

Does it matter? There is room to accommodate a cycle lane, people expressed support for a cycle lane, and it's used by (we can agree at least, some) people. So what purpose would it possibly serve to remove it, unless people are actually arguing that they would like to reverse a successful and popular road safety scheme (which would involve widening the carriage way and so might necessitate it's removal)? Again, though, what I'm particularly interested in, is who @Rockets wants to see ‘held accountable’ for supposed antidemocratic activity? Which councillors, or council staff, and which ‘cheerleaders and supporters’, how, and on what grounds?

Yeh, so you’ve fundamentally misunderstood the scheme, which was introduced 5 years ago to address a speeding and accident black spot. The road narrowing and the introduction of a 20mph limit was designed to slow traffic and had local support. It’s has been successful in the aim of reducing accidents. Different design options were put forward for consultation, and again, there was majority support for including a bike lane. The road wasn’t narrowed in order to create one. So you’re not arguing against a bike lane per se, but for the reversal of a successful and popular road safety intervention. Or simply to pointlessly remove a bike lane because you don’t like people travelling by bicycle possibly. Explains a lot. It’s simply not true that no one uses it. @Rockets also, on this, who exactly do you want to see ‘held accountable’? Which councillors, or council staff, which ‘cheerleaders and supporters’, how and on what grounds?

The council consulted over the cycle lane at the time. The majority of those who responded supported it. People use it regularly. Literally nothing would be achieved by removing the cycle lane. Are you also calling for the widening of the carriageway and returning to a higher speed limit (i.e. reversal of the whole scheme)? You realise that it has significantly improved road safety? So what do you actually want? Are you calling for re-elected councillors ‘and their supporters’ to be arrested, or fined? On what grounds exactly? What is the nature of this vengeance you’re after?

Don’t know who you’re referring to as ‘my pals’ - I assume another example of your irrational view of transport as a binary opposition / football match. I’ve not accused anyone of taking ‘pages from the despot dictator and fascist playbook’. You have. But nice attempt at deflecting. Again, one can call people fascist etc, but it’s not usually a sign that you’ve got a good point to make. I said ‘EDG Central’, which is the part of the road the person I was responding to referenced. And yes, traffic counts showed a fall in the number of vehicles post-implementation. Again, you’ll argue that vehicle counts are not reliable, and that traffic has fallen because of changes in commuting patterns, and any other mutually contradictory position you think might muddy the waters. But ‘flooding the zone’ doesn’t fundamentally change the facts. Again, this is all re-litigating the past. It’s pointless. Champaign to rip out the Square and to increase speed limits if it makes you happy. At least it would be forward looking, if still hopelessly misguided. Apparently there is a massive majority who would support it 🤔

From the junction of Townley road and Calton Avenue, to where Dulwich Village road passes Calton Avenue is maybe 2 to 3 minutes by car (via EDG). It’s added very little to a journey and that would suggest it’s not unlikely to have added to traffic on EDG. Indeed, vehicle counts showed a drop along that section of EDG (‘EDG central’). Following the implementation of the changes. Air quality also improved, but this will be down to a series of factors, not all related to the road changes (although modelling did predict a fall). As others have said, the traffic is better now than it used to be.

What an odd reply. I mentioned rush hour, because you said it was busier at other times. I assume that traffic is highest at rush hour, but if that offends you perhaps be more specific? If you don’t want any discussion, by all means put me on your ‘foe list’. Alternatively, don’t post on a discussion forum? @Rockets One can call people fascists etc. but it’s not usually a sign that you’ve a good point to make. Again, constantly trying to relitigate the past is very dull and completely pointless. If you want to campaign to rip out Dulwich Square, or to increase the speed limit on Sydenham Hill, then please do. I don't think you'll find much support for either

At this point, the continued obsession, the constant stream of misinformation, conspiracy and innuendo, is bordering on pathological. Constantly trying to relitigate the past is very dull and ultimately, completely pointless. If you want to campaign to rip out Dulwich Square, or to increase the speed limit on Sydenham Hill, then please do. I don't think you'll find much support for either.

There has always been heavy traffic at rush hour. What is a small 1 to 2 minute diversion at most times of day, is not likely to be contributing in any significant way to an increase in rush hour traffic; Indeed the 12 months of monitoring data confirmed that it is not. People claiming that a policy of encouraging more active travel is 'fascistic', and now accusations of despotic dictatorship. Really? All because of a small change in road layout involving a 1 to 2 minute diversion, implemented half a decade ago? To be clear, the consultation showed majority support for the aims set out under the ‘Streets for People’ strategy, which included things like improving road safety, reducing the amount of cut-through traffic etc. Alongside surveys to understand people's views on initial changes already implemented under an emergency traffic order (in response to COVID-19 and the need to make more space for social distancing), they also undertook an in-depth monitoring report that included traffic volumes, cyclist volumes, pedestrian activity, bus journey times and air quality modelling. The upshot of all of this, was that they decided to make the scheme permanent, making some changes to incorporate feedback from the public survey. Local councillors stood for re-election following these changes. Some opposition parties (and some on this forum) described those as a 'referendum on the LTN'. They increased their majority. The consultation on Sydenham Hill (the other scheme you seem exercised about) showed that each of the measures was supported by the majority of those who responded. Both were implemented more than 5 years ago, and evidence shows that both were successful in achieving what they set out to achieve. You still seem not to understand that consultations are not referenda, that all of these changes were made democratically and legitimately, and that your not personally liking them, does not mean that they are opposed by a majority of people.

Waze says exactly the same …in fact, if you leave now, Waze says it will take 2 minutes. In total. How long do people think it took previously?

Is it? Google maps estimates the time to drive from the junction of townley road and calton avenue, to the junction of where Dulwich village passes the other end of calton avenue, is 3 minutes. In total. So how long do you believe it took before the changes? You think it took less than 1 minute? I think people have lost all perspective.

@Rockets you dodged the question. If one opposes every change, regardless of what it is, do you think it could just amount to nimbyism?

Not going over this again. You are obsessed. It was half a decade ago - drive round, it's a 2 minute diversion. Is there a single change that the council or tfl have implemented that you haven't objected to in say the last 10 or 15 years?

I don't have anything to say about them, no. Like I said, these matters were settled years ago. My point is simply that one should not assume that because we have heard repeatedly from a handful of noisy obsessives, (who object to all and any change), over many years, that it represents anything close to a settled, or majority view. Claims that the council are implementing schemes that no one wants, or is 'fascistic', should be treated with extreme scepticism (or justly, derision). As I said, the council who have made these apparently 'unpopular' decisions have usually been returned to office with bigger majorities.

On Dulwich LTN - Dulwich Review Consultation Report (August 2021) 55 per cent supported the aims set out in its ‘Streets for People’ initiative. Sydenham Hill - Southwark consulted on the proposals in February and March 2020. Each of the measures was supported by the majority of those who responded.

These works do appear to take a long time and have extended periods of inactivity. That said, I don't think we can say why there are periods of inactivity - it may well be that things needs to settle / set, or whatever, and that they move people onto other works whilst that's happening. Who knows? I can't imagine it's in anyone's interests to extend these things out any longer than necessary.

This is ridiculous. Is it fascist to 'coerce' people out of cycling because they feel it's too dangerous? Why do you think that giving 80% of public space over to cars isn't a choice, (just the natural order), but say, building a segregated bike lane for example, is a choice (and is fascist)? You think the council have stopped you driving? What are you talking about? Literally no one has said that 'avoiding active travel' is, or should be illegal. To suggest that driving a private car doesn't effect anyone else though is demonstrably untrue. All of our choices effect others people and the council, as the ones who have responsibility for allocating and maintaining public space, have to consider everyone and their competing demands. The mentality of the 'war on motorists' brigade is incredible. In what sense could anyone seriously claim that the (minority) of private car owners in Southwark aren't being catered to adequately - aren't allocated enough space, or given enough infrastructure? 🤪 The fact that a small change to road layout at the junction of Calton avenue (involving a 2 minute diversion for private cars) is still being regularly ranted about half a decade on, really does tell you all you need to know. Cries of fascism, are just entitled nonsense.

And there is the rub. The fact is that there was majority support recorded for both schemes during consultation, and councillors have successfully stood for re-election since they were implemented, but years on, and following a non stop stream of misinformation, and general 'noise' its easy for people to lose sight of some of the basic facts.

Well, many people vote in local elections. Not everyone bothers to respond to every consultation exercise, or continues to be extremely vocal about schemes long after they've been implemented. The council have been clear about their policies around active travel, their intention to increase the number of people walking and cycling, and to reduce reliance on private motor vehicles. They've implemented schemes in line with these policies and they've been repeatedly voted back in. So when I say 'silent majority', what I mean is, the majority of people who aren't obsessed and still vocal about individual schemes years after they've been established. It's easy to get the impression (from this forum for example) that there are huge numbers of people who would like to see Dulwich square ripped up and replaced with a queue of idling cars, or who are furious about changes made to Sydenham Hill; But I guarantee this is not the case (both had support during consultation btw, but most people don't continue to think about them years later).

People would also have moaned had they put in other crossings nearby. It's the same people who object to every single change to the public realm, regardless of what it is.

Although that raises another good improvement that could be made locally - secure bike parking at Brixton tube. Never understood why it wasn't included as part of the plans when they did the station up several years ago. Finsbury Park at the other end of the Victoria line has a great facility.

I'm not sure they are necessarily going against the wishes of local residents (at least not the silent majority). There are often very noisy objections to attempts to rebalance the use of public space (to loosen the stranglehold of private cars dominating almost everywhere), but the majority of the Borough's residents do not have access to a car. There is a culture amongst many that assumes giving over say 80%+ of all public space to cars is the natural order, and not a choice, just as much as it is to widen pavements, create nicer pedestrian areas, or create space for people using a bicycle. I don't believe they spend very much on these schemes in terms of the total budget. Often they're self funding, and / or come with additional funding from either central government or the London authority. Can't find any evidence that they do you zero based budgeting though: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/about-council/how-council-works/budgets-and-spending

Fair enough. At least you've tried. I'm surprised they haven't responded. Usually, they come back pretty quickly.

You can say “I can’t find something on the website, it’s a conspiracy”, or you can email and ask them to provide the info you’re after. I know which is more constructive. But I guess it comes down to what you actually want to achieve. Claiming information doesn’t exist, or is being deliberately withheld without making any effort to look, or ask te right people is a repeated pattern and it’s a bit ridiculous.

Why don’t you email the council?

Have you ever tried emailing the council when you want to find something, rather than posting in here about how it’s some sort of conspiracy? Yes, website are updated, but whenever I have emailed the council asking for info, they’ve always provided it