slarti b

@Otto2 What is your point? I think Dulwich is way ahead of that, and the councils targets for active travel, already. Edited to add, have you changed your link?

KidKruger Wrote: Oh I don?t know that counsellors are to blame I disagree. Our local councillors should consider their duty to represent their constituents and to comply with Southwark Council code of conduct, see https://www.southwark.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/councillors-and-mps/your-councillors?chapter=2.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Hardly surprising though - implement an unjust experiment, for the benefit of a very few (who happen to appear to have privilege), deny it?s negative impacts, obfuscate or misrepresent the data to justify your actions, get found out, deny/ignore allegations, meanwhile leaving those most affected to figure/fight it out while you whistle. Excellent summary of the situation. I must say I am very disappointed that the council leader, Cll'r Williams, has not stepped in to manage the situation better. When he took over as leader last year he had the opportunity for a re-think but despite his promises of consulting with and listening to the local community and his commitment to a transparent, unbiased review this has not happened. And with the shameful refusal of the council to call in C'llr Rose's decision for review it is now too late. Still, it seems the next step will need to be a judicial review. If so, it will be interesting to see how well Southwark's data, analysis and governance stands up to independent scrutiny.

@Goldilocks You are (deliberatley?) misreading my post. The vast majority of local residents refers, not to the 500 or 1,000 people who attended the demo, but the respondents to the Soutwark Streetspace consultation. Can you provide numbers (from any of the consultations over the last 2-3 years) showing how many local residents support the closure ofthe DV junction?

@keptthin Interesting point about local history (which I normally enjoy) but the clue is history. You are quoting some political rallys from over 80 years ago which rather confirms my original posting. And again it does appear to be part of the ongoing campaign to divert attentions from a large and sucessful demonstration reflecting the majority local opinion objecting to these road closures, which is being undemocratically and shamefully being ignored by the council.

@golidilocks. You ignore, of course my main point, that the demonstration shows much higher support for OneDulwich than for keeping the junction closed. As for the numbers, they are different estimate, crowd counting is not easy. I woudl esimate over 500 people. And given the stream of erroneous, biased and misleading propoganda produced by Southwark in support of its schemes over the last couple of years I don't think you need ot be careful about accusing others of lies!

@DulvilleRes and @NorthernMonkey Whether it was 300, 500 or a thousand, it was still a signifcant turnout for Dulwich, not an area know for its demonstrations, and on a morning which until about midday had been drizzling and wet. And remember this was also the start of half term when many residents with families may well have gone on holiday. And, despite the weather, the turnout completely dwarfed the number of people who attended and supproted the propaganda concerts funded and marketed by council taxpayers money. But, as we know from the figures in the consultation that Southwark tried to conceal, the vast majority of local residents are agasint the DV junction closure so the high turnout is not really surprising. It is a shame our local councillors, or indeed other Southwark Labour councillors, seem to have been unable to attend the event to hear the concerns about displaced traffic and the frustration of so many people about the undemocratic and biased process used to push it through.

@March24 I hadn't seen that report before but, from a quick read it looks highly subjective (indeed the authors admit that) with a dodgy methodology. It also provides no explanation or detils of many of their opinion such as why timed restrictions at DV junction would confuse motortists but timed restrictions at, eg junction of EDG and Townley are fine. I wonder whether the bias is explained by the fact that the authors, Metis\NRP, have recently received a 5 year contract from Southwark? CLearly they wouldn't want to bit the hand that feeds them, especially with the carrot of a 2 year extension... https://www.nrpltd.com/metis-nrp-win-southwark-highways-professional-services-contract-lots/ "It is with great pleasure that we can announce that Metis-NRP have won the Highways and Drainage/SuDS lots of the Southwark Highways Professional Services Contract. Metis and NRP have been working in partnership to deliver exceptional services to public sector clients for some years, and it is with great satisfaction that our formal partnership bid has been successful. Metis-NRP is the sole provider on the lots, which run for 5 years, with the opportunity to extend for a further 2 years.

DulwichCentral Wrote: @Artemis - my point is that of the 2000 people signed up to One Dulwich it is unlikely they are all fully aware what One Dulwich actually want ie timed restrictions with permits **for those living in Dulwich Village**. One Dulwich want an end to the 24\7 road closure at the DV Junction and its replacement by timed closures. It was the council, support by our local councillors, who originally proposed residents permits (not just for "Dulwich Village" as you suggest) in the OHS scheme so stop demonising and smearing OneDulwich for suggesting the same solution for DV junction. Presumably @rockets supports the 'One Dulwich> alternative scheme' which the council have rejected as dangerous and confusing and doesn't mind that a large proportion of the 2000 supporters are unwittingly signed up to still being fined. I believe the scheme you are referring to was actually proposed by DVRA but is supported by OneDulwich. This was based on timed restrictions and I think suggested permits for all Soutwark residents (similar to Hammersmith and Fulham?) but that was a point for discussion. Can you provide evidence of the council rejecting the DVRA scheme as "dangerous and confusing" with a proper analysis of their reasons ? My understanding is that the head of Highways thought the scheme "had merit", though of course he has subequently had to fall into line with what his politicial masters want him to say. And after 30,000 plus fines for motorists who have been confused by the current signs, I don't think Southwark council are in a position to make judgements on clarity. Finally, your posts just seem to continue the campaign of misinformation, untruths, errors, smears and bias by councillors and Southwark council which has characterised the whole OHS and Streetspace process. It is unfortunate that councillors did not talk to their constituents and are ignoring the huge response to the Streetspace review; if they did a reasonable compromise might be arrived at.

andrewc Wrote: I saw this on the Southwark Website ...> Specifically, in June 2021, cycling journeys had doubled or more on average, per day, on the > following streets6: >  Calton Avenue (+266%, +688) >  Burbage Road N (+85%, +400 ) >  Eynella Road (+124%, +327) >  Turney Road E (+102%, +310) >  Dulwich Village (+266%, +688) Do you really believe those figures are are accurate and based on true like for like comparisons, adjusting for other changes such as seasonality and changes to cycling patterns caused by Covid? If so you are naive beyond belief or desperate to believe Southwark's biased propoganda. Lets look at the 2 biggest increases in the council's list that you have quoted~: - Calton Avenue, One Dulwich did an excellent analysis of the interim report. The 266% increase in cycling stated in the report used an innacurate, erroneous baseline (either Nov or Dec) and compared it with June 2021 figures without any adjustements for seasonality. Southwark could have used their own June 2020, pre-closure count but didn't, becuase it would show a much smaller inrcease. To claim that this is a true like for like increased directly caused by the road closure is beyond misleading, it is fraudulent. - Dulwich Village Strange that this shows exactly the same increase in both absolute and percentage terms as the increase for Calton Avenue. Is this a con-incidence or a mistake, deliberate or otherwise. If it IS yet another of Southwark Highway's department's errors it undermines even further what is a already a flawed and biased report. And please, if you disagree with these points please explain why and which parts of the OneDulwich analysis are incorrect.

peckhamside Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- If you don't want LTN come up with another workable suggestion to reduce car traffic. But these LTNs don't reduce car traffic, they merely divert it onto other roads, causing more congestion. Other workable suggestions? Key one is improving public transport but the council is not interested in that.

Spartacus Wrote: > But closing a junction in Dulwich village isn't quite the same league And of course this goes to the heart of the issue for local residents. The 24/7 junction closure is not a single LTN; Southwark has effectively created 2 separate LTN's within Dulwich which split the community. Southwark often mention the OHS scheme and its flawed consultation as justification to support the junction closure. However, thc current LTN's and closures contradict several of the main objectives of OHS.

legalalien Wrote: I don?t think there have even been online ward meetings, though? I guess because they think they?d be difficult to run/ control? Legal, yes, I think you are correct. The meetings I am thinking of are wider council ones, eg to do with the Dulwich Review. Souns like our local councillors are trying to hide away, given the feelings of the majority of people in my road and surrounding roads I can see why they are running scared! https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/80-of-local-households-do-not-support-closure-of-dulwich-village-junction

legalalien Wrote: ...I'm not aware of a ward meeting in the last couple of years, the council webpage seems to have been updated in July to say that a date for one would be added shortly. They're supposed to have six per year (including the two South multi-ward meetings), although I think the council decided it would be reduced to two during COVID I quite understand the difficulty of holding pysical meetings since Covid but it has certainly made it much easier for our Councillors to minimise scrutiny. The on-line zoom meetings make it much easier for them to limit debate and avoid questions. Given tha lockdown ended 3 montsh ago there is no reason why physical meetings could not resume, probably with some sort of video link for those unable or unwilling to attend in person.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > "LTNs discourage car use" - how? > by making it less convenient to drive. But you ignore the fact that Dulwich already has an extremely high level of active travel, much much higher than the rest of Southwark and already far higher that Southwark's target for 2025(?). If local residents are driving it is because they need to (eg weekly shopping) or are older or less mobile and cannot cycle or walk. So closing roads doesdn't mean they will use cars less, only that they will travel longer distances and cause more congestion and pollution.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Data from Vivacity Sensors shows increases in the number of cycles counted of +126%, +48% +86%, +69% and +292% on Calton Avenue, Townley Road, Burbage Road, Melbourne Grove and Champion Hill respectively. Sadly, as we know from previous "evidence packs" from Southwark we cannot trust any of their numbers. Remember the claimed 47% increase in traffic through the junction which was actually just becuase they used a base figure when the junction was being re-modelled and they had 4 way traffic lights? Did they have Vivacity sensors in place before the DV junction was closed and the other LTN meaures implemented? If not they are not comparing like with like, a standard Southwark trick.

peckhamside Wrote: > I wrote to my councilor to complain about poor signage and lack of widespread pre-publicity. I don't think that will help. Our local councillors were the instigators of this scheme, including the cameras and the resulting penalties. They fully support it despite the poor signage and the impact on perople such as carers and less mobile residents. Sadly, they are more interested in representing some very vocal minority pressure groups rather than their own constituents. Something to remember in the council elections in May 2022!!

@mr.chicken "And to do that we can should scrap the LTNs right now so the people living in their 3 flat Victorian conversions can take their kids to school in their SUVs " You are suggesting scrapping, or even just altering, the so-called LTN's? What an outrageous suggestion. Me and my neighbours on Calton Avenue put a lot of effort into persuading Margy and Richard to close off our road and divert the traffic onto EDG and Lordship Lane. Those of us who haven't yet sold up are really pleased by the how much our house prices have increased now we have own private enclave. I know the congestion and pollution on the Dulwich Village bypass roads has increased massively but, do they really matter?

@Pierre Interesting about the Dutch. Maybe it is because they use cars when they need to and walk or cycle at other times? If so, will be similar to the residents of Dulwich. As our coucillors keep pointing out, car ownership is Dulwich is higher than in the north of Southwark (where public transport is much better annd demographics are different). But what they foget to mention is that Dulwich residents have a much,much higher level of active travel, especially walking, than the rest of Southwark. Imagine how much better it would be if the councillors put their efforts into improving public transport rather than creating vanity projects such as "Margy Plaza".

@DulwichCentral So you seem to accept that your original quotation was out-of-date misleading. Thank you. By all means lets have a discussion but please stop makig alarmist, irrelevant or, as in the case of many claims from OSUtwark and our local Councillors, frankly incoprrect claims.

@Penguin, Unfortunately sales of new SUVs now outnumber electric vehicle sales at a rate of 37 to 1 Dulwich Central's figures are out of date and wrong. They give a misleading impression of the current position which is changing rapidly as technology improves and more EV cars becone available. April 2021 YTD figures show 13% of UK new car sales are electric vehicles. No idea about SUVs

@Dulwich Central Some comments on your earlier post Unfortunately sales of new SUVs now outnumber electric vehicle sales at a rate of 37 to 1. See link to article "the trend towards purchasing bigger cars is threatening the UK?s attempts to reduce emissions from the transport sector" [ukerc.ac.uk] As we know from your previous posts you do not understand data so it is not surprising the figures you quoted are out of date and do not represent what is happening now. The EV sector is expanding rapidly as a result of technological, infrastructure and commercial improvements and the proportion of new car sales is increasing rapidly. In 2020, approx 11% of new car sales were electric vehicles (EVs) and for Apr 2021 ytd sales of EVs are over 13% of new car sales. See https://www.nextgreencar.com/electric-cars/statistics/ Stop spreading alarmist misinformation. I am sure more people would buy EVs if the council would make it easier to access charge points. Sadly they seem more interested in political posturing and vanity projects such as "Margy Plaza" > 1. Traffic displacement rather than reduction. >The idea behind the measures is that people will opt for active travel if it's safe for them to do so. You clearly don't understand local traffic patterns. Within Dulwich, there is already an extremely high proportion of active travel ( far higher that Southwark's anmbitious target for 2030). The issue is through traffic and, during term time, parents from the private schools bringing children from across London. They are not going to opt for active travel and their traffic will merely be displaced onto the Dulwich Village bypass roads > 2. Displaced traffic causing unacceptable increases in pollution. I would support any measures to improve congestion on main roads. Dedicated bus lanes, remove car parking blocking buses, 20 mph speed limits, ULEZ, road pricing, and more protected cycle ways to link up the safe routes. What a muddled, inconsistent comment. How do 20 mph limits and ULEZ reduce congestion? And, as well as displacing traffic onto the bypass roads, you wish to increase congestion by adding dedicated cycle ways which will reduce capacity. > 3. Impact on local businesses. It's impossible to tell what the impact on businesses has been until we are back to normal after the pandemic. Claims that traffic measures have impacted business more than Covid seems highly unlikely to me. Listen to the local businesses > 4. Emergency vehicles are being delayed Yes, they are being delayed by the road closures. Stop sticking your fingers in your ears Southwark have declared a climate emergency and are elected on their policy to reduce motor traffic and increase active travel - same with Sadiq Kahn. Interesting that Shaun Bailey, a weak candidate in a strong Labour area, did so well against Sadiq Khan. In the local elections next year, I hope Labour candidates are very clear on their policies on reducing car useage, encouraging EV's ( or not?), imposing CPZ's etc rather than just vague generalisations about "encouraging active travel".

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Milo Road (between Beauval Road and Lordship Lane)is another local example, again that has been in place for decades. Milo Road closure is nothing to do with LTN's. It was to stop traffic dispalced when Southwark made top-end of Woodwarde Road one way following the Council's botched intallation of road humps on Court Lane.

Good video here showing how nice it is in the morning in Dulwich Village when all the traffic has ben diverted onto Croxted Rd, EDG, Lordship Lane etc. Really nice that the residents of Calton can enjopy their morning cappuccino in peace now. An earlier video shows how awful it is on Croxted road now...

@DulwichCentral I had a quick look at One Dulwich's proposal and they want timed restrictions with resident permits as far as I can gather. This would cause the same displacement of through traffic onto boundary roads - but allow a select few to get away with zero behaviour change. That doesn't sound very equitable. And they want to remove modal filters which would remove the safe routes for those switching to active travel. The OneDulwich proposal has a central objective, no 24\7 road closures, but camera controlled timed closures instead. This allows for adjustments to timing and the use of permits if there is support. The proposal aims to protect active travel to school while keeping the timed closures as short as possible, minimising traffic displacement. Is it perfect? No but a lot better than the mess we currently have. The OneDulwich proposal is fully consistent with the stated objectives of the OHS scheme, to tackle only peak hour through traffic and to minimise inconvenience to local journeys. You disparage resident permits but these were a fundamental part of the scheme put forward by Southwark and the local councillors during the OHS Phase 3. They now say permits are against council policy or in your phrase not "equitable". Did the C'llrs mislead people on this just as they did with their alleged huge traffic increases? Remember that, as the council's own figures show, The proportion of trips already carried by active travel within Dulwich at 68% is is far, far higher than Soutwark average and also higher than the Southwark target for 2030. Rather than trying to change force behaviour change on local residents who already walk and cycle, perhaps the council should be looking at the private shools with their wide catchment areas and large numbers of staff and pupils who travel by car. The volume of traffic they generate is glaringly obvious when you see the change during their school holidays. But I guess SRS, heavily dominated by the Private schools, in particular Alleyns, JAGs and Dulwich College, have too strong an influence with Southwark for this to happen.