Spartacus

Keep clinging to your fantasy about LTNs RahRahRah. My fantasy is that I'm married to Kylie Minogue but that doesn't make it any truer than yours 😭

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wow - only 800 people wanted to keep them...it's > not a vote of confidence is it! I can't verify it, but didn't the council extend the deadline for the consultation then go out lobbying for a supportive result and (this is the bit I can't verify) from groups representing interests outside the area ? If so then they really did misjudge the mood of the masses 🤔

For those who can't get past the firewall Two-thirds of residents oppose low-traffic neighborhoods Transport Secretary urged to abolish controversial green schemes after council survey reveals strength of community backlash By Steve Bird 25 September 2021 ? 3:20pm Grant Shapps is being urged to intervene to scrap a series of low-traffic neighbourhoods after a council survey found two out of three people wanted them abolished. Between 64 and 69 per cent of people living in three areas of South London where roads have been closed to try to promote walking and cycling told a Southwark Council consultation they were against the schemes. And, in a damning indictment of how low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) can hit local businesses, 58 per cent said they use nearby shops less because of transport problems. Despite the research, town hall bosses want to keep the LTNs in Dulwich Village, East Dulwich and Champion Hill because they claim they have decreased traffic by 10 per cent while increasing ?overall? cycling by 66 per cent. 'Undemocratic and unfair' Now residents and businesses fighting the schemes have written to the Transport Secretary urging him to withdraw ?770,000 LTN funding because the authority was being ?undemocratic and unfair?. The council?s consultations between May and July saw more than 7,000 people respond, 5,538 of whom were residents living within the LTNs. A council report says ?the majority of respondents, both within and outside the consultation zone, did not feel the schemes were achieving their aims? despite ?some evidence of a shift from car use to walking or cycling". It adds how ?the majority of respondents? wanted the streets to ?return to their original state?. Key issues raised include ?displacement of traffic and pollution onto other roads?, increased congestion and journey times, ?difficulties for older people and people with disabilities? and ?concern at loss of access for emergency services?. Of those living within seven separate sections of Dulwich Village, East Dulwich and Champion Hill LTNs, more than 3,000 people (between 64 and 69 per cent) wanted the road closures scrapped, compared to about 800 (17 to 23 per cent) who wanted to keep them, around 400 were calling for a different scheme and 500 wanted the LTN modified. Meanwhile, 4,087 people (58 per cent) disagree with the suggestion that road closures encouraged them to use local shops more, with only 2,080 (29 per cent) agreeing with the statement. 'Catastrophic downturn in sales' The report says ?a significant proportion of business owners and [their] staff would favour a reduction in restrictions?, after 4,157 people (64 per cent) said one LTNs had created a bad ?trading environment? in the area, with just 1,403 (22 per cent) believing it had improved. Hazel Broadfoot, chairwoman of the Dulwich Village Association which represents 30 local businesses, said 95 per cent tradespeople were against its LTN because they had caused a ?catastrophic downturn in sales?. She says the area is like a ?ghost town? for five hours from 10am when tighter motoring restrictions are in place. Councillor Catherine Rose, Southwark?s cabinet member for transport, said: ?This was never a ballot, and there are strong views on both sides of the argument.? She added that while restricting traffic and parking is ?not popular? it was ?necessary?. A Department for Transport spokesman said: ?Decisions on individual schemes are a matter for local authorities.?

Unfortunately you can't fix people panic buying which is the real cause of queues and petrol price hikes, the shortage initially only effected a small number of 2 retailers petrol stations yet due to the media (both traditional and social) people are panicking unnecessarily which is causing the scenes we see for the last few days. Considering we've gone 10 months without petrol shortages due to drivers then it's highly likely that the tanker sector was resilient to outside interference (be it brexit, Covid or driver shortages ) so this is in all reality a blip causes by people panicking that in 3 weeks they will run out of petrol and those that need it now (emergency crews, night workers who have to drive and similar to name a few) are being impacted by the same mentality that created toilet roll shortages, panic food buying and by now, I suspect, Turkey Rustling. If all forms of media were more balanced in how they report things, we wouldn't be jumping from one crisis to another like trained sheep at the mercy of the news outlets sheep dogs.

The curious question is : in normal times when one or two petrol stations run dry for what ever reason , drivers are mildly frustrated but don't panic buy as a result This may happen at various places across the country in any given day. However at the moment this exact scenario occurred and the media picked up on it then poured fuel in the fire. The question is, if the media hadn't mentioned it,would there still be panic or would there be just a few places in each area shut and drivers being mildly inconvenienced ?

Maybe, the very people who bought all the toilet rolls are now finding creative uses for them as wicks in Molotov cocktails... it's the only excuse I can see for panic buying .. Roll in the revolution brothers and sisters 😱

Oh absolutely trust them , to twist facts in their favour and stick two fingers up at the people who voted them in 😭

DC I see you've gone down the "nuclear power station doom" route We're developing better wind, solar and tidal power options so whilst one or two power stations would possibly be needed, we will have other sources. The front garden issue really isn't, chargers will be everywhere so the need to have a drive or garden isn't going to be a great driver and with the newer generation of fast charges, cars can be topped up quickly then moved on so someone else can use it. Just because you're able to cycle don't expect everyone to give up their car and toe the council line. Cycling, walking, pubici transporter and motorised vehicles should all be considered part of the solution and not just one size suits all as you seem to be preaching. Not everyone, as I've pointed out to you before, can give up their car and some really need it (or are you still pushing electric mobility scooters for all 😱)

This "panic" is all over at the moment, it's causing chaos on the roads as people queue to get petrol (with some stations now at 147 a lt and others at 135 no profiteering there then) Sheer madness, apparently we're all doomed Captain Mainwaring. Thank the stars we didn't go through this sort of petrol shortage in the 70s when social media (or Chinese whispers to give it the correct name) was first introduced ... we would have all struggled to do anything ..... 🤔

Are you really expecting one ? There's a better chance of winning the lottery tonight and that's even if you don't but a ticket 😄

It's all in hand Sephiroth You can now build your own lorry and by time it's ready you can also have gained an HGV licence. https://www.buildeddiestobart.com/

I wonder what would be happening if privatisation of the energy sector didn't occur and we were all on British gas and London Electricity as there was no option or competition by other companies. Would the government be forced to bail them both out ?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh my....Richard Leeming....very undignified > responses on this thread. > > https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/143772366 > 8734435333?s=19 Obviously he's read "how to make friends and influence your enemies" 😆 As a councillor he really should be held to account for his social media posts and actions as they, whilst on his account, do reflect on the council. Wonder how he would feel if traffic was diverted to outside his home ?

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Each of the Streetspace measures was rejected by > two out of three people living and working in the > three Dulwich LTNs, who opted for ?return it to > the original state?. > > Look I'm no apologist for the council who I know > have heavily spun their presentation of the data > but surely this is factually incorrect. > > Each of the Streetspace measures was rejected by > two out of three people, who responded to a > survey, living and working in the three Dulwich > LTNs, who opted for ?return it to the original > state?. > > We don't know how many people are classified as > living and working in the three Dulwich LTNs but > we do know that the consultation newsletter was > posted to 19,729 addresses and of the survey > respondents 5,538 classified themselves as living > and working in the three Dulwich LTNs. > > Source: > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s1015 > 17/Appendix%20D%20-%20Dulwich%20Review%20Consultat > ion%20Report.pdf That's democracy in action for you Bit like saying after an election, "but not everyone voted for 'the monster raving loony party*' !" doesn't matter as those that did bother to vote are only the ones who count. If others didn't respond to the survey then their voices are lost and you can't try to retrospectively say but they do / don't agree. Of those that 'bothered' to respond 65% said remove the LTNs and as in life regarding those who didn't respond we can't make assumptions for them but we can say their views don't add to the argument as they didn't say anything. *other political parties are also available

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > OD should go after their seats. One Direction ? They're good, but maybe not that good 😂

Does anyone know if the organisations against the LTNs including Dulwich Alliance, One Dulwich or the Dulwich Traders have put together a boilerplate email to send to the council in response to all of this? Obviously the more objections that are received by the council can only be good as they add more weight on the decision process.

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Any excuse... > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNLQ-SGWwAA41dA?format=jpg&name=small We so need a like button on the forum

The first rule about LTN fight club is ... 😱😂

Also p3girl put your objections into the proposed scheme: Email your response on the published report to [email protected] by the 27th September

Actually Dulvilleres, the council can get rid of them however they have to justify why to Grant Shapps and if not backed up by local consultation evidence, then they face loosing future funding for such schemes. Overall the consultation asked for the schemes to be removed and the council have their fingers in their ears saying "LA LA LA can't hear you" It's not a case of can't, it's more of a case of shan't !

Interesting dulvilleres On June the 7th (your last post) said "As to where anti LTN support comes from, and how deep it is, I hope the consultation will shed some further light. What has dogged constructive debate around this divisive issue has been hard data. Even allowing for the fact that some people feel the consultation has limitations in it's terms of reference, it will still probably offer up some comprehensive insights for everyone." Now the hard data about where the anti LTN support and how deep it is (basically the whole area) you now try and say that the consultation is in fact a fair representative of the views of local residents. It's not.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The residents of Dulwich have spoken...Keeping > the DV > > measures on the basis of weak support on Court > > Lane and Calton is another very dangerous > > precedent for them to set. > > It's complete nonsense that "the residents of > Dulwich" all want rid of the scheme and that there > is only weak support only on Court Lane and Calton > Ave. This thread is a echo chamber that is not > representative of the outside world. Read the data behind the report. Over 65% of respondents said they want the schemes removed. That comes directly from the real world, not the EDF Yes, true, it doesn't represent every resident of the SE22 postcode zone, but as in all things you either speak up or you put up with what the majority of those who respond said. So no echo chamber DKHB, but consulted on fact.

The paper version of the update just came through my door. Page 2 bottom right reads "A majority of respondents said they would like to see changes to the current measures." How is it that in the data presented by the council the majority wanted to see the measures removed yet the summary provided doesn't mention that once. There's spin and there's downright lies Email your response on the published report to [email protected] by the 27th September to object to this overall sham of a consultation.

Maybe, like in game of thrones, we should make all the council officers and councillors involved in this proposal walk naked through the streets of Dulwich whilst the crowds chant "shame" But that is too horrific a vision for delicate eyes 😱😖

From reading the summary of the survey, they are spinning the rationale of keeping 'the square because the residents of the two roads directly connected to it want to retain it despite the overall majority of responses asking for it to be removed Could just be my reading of the report but seems the richer residents want quieter streets. Did the traders from East Dulwich and the village have their views represented in the documents ? There were, I believe, meetings and a written response but I couldn't see any feedback in the documents produced by the council. I guess the next steps are for residents and businesses to formally object to the proposals