slarti b

One point re Boomshakes letter, the roundabout with the misleading signs is at the junction with Burbage Road rather than Pickwick Road. btw those who suggested appealing to local councillors are, IMHO, a little naive. It is the local councillors and their Labour colleagues in the council Cabinet who have instigated these measures and worked with the Council officers to implement them. If they show support for any appeal it will show up their errors.

Dulwich Central One Dulwich and DA have suggested constructive solutions to the council and the councillors. However, even though council officers accepted the proposals "had merit" the councillors refused to consider them and spend their time attacking One Dulwich, despite 1D being supported by a large number of their constituents. Closed minds. Read the 1D web site; they are against 24\7 closures and wish to minimise disruption onto the displacement roads, the "Dulwich Village bypass roads". This ties in with the objectives of the OHS scheme. As for active travel, we know from Southwark's own report that active travel within Dulwich is far, far higher than elsewhere in Southwark and higher even than the Council's ambitious target for 2030.

Rahrah... According to Southwark, 27% of internal trips within Dulwich are taken by car, compared with 24% in Soutwark overall, so not much of a difference which is to a large extent caused by the poor public quality of public transport as shown by the low PTAL scores. On the other hand, the proportion of active travel trips within Dulwich (mainly walking) is 68%, far higher that Soutwark overall (40%) This completely contradicts the extreme pro-LTN view of Dulwich as being full of car loving petrol heads (cf ExDulwicher).

@LTN, You are right that my comments about C'llr Newens reaction to Darren Farmer were a bit flippant. I am afraid it was late, I was bored after rewatching the video several times and the "little finger to corner of mouth" moment sent my thoughts straight to Austin Powers:-). I have edited my post suitably and it now reads "by this stage C'llr Newens was looking pretty concerned as Darren confirmed what many people have been saying and she had been denying". Is that OK? But lets get to the substance of your posts. Darren from London Ambulance confirmed that emergency vehicles are being delayed by the road closures and an inordinately high proportion of the London wide delays are ocurring in Southwark. But you accuse OneDulwich of "falsehood" when they say the same thing. Do you think Darren is lying? You avoid my question about the deception that there has been a massive, 47% increase in traffic through the DV Junction. Used prominently in the consultation meetings by our Counillors and touted on social media and local activists such as SRS. It is not true; a lie of Trumpian proportions. And you ignore my question why permits for locals are fine when proposed by Councillors but not when proposed by OneDulwich. I guess you just can't answer it. Milo\Gilkes were closed during the Court Lane road hump fiasco back in the late 80's. I remember being assured by council officers at public meetings that those road humps would not displace traffic onto neighbouring roads - he was wrong. The council tried to show traffic had not increased on those roads by doing a traffic survey during the summer school holidays; locals had to commission their own survey to get realistic figures. Remember the one way scheme on Woodwarde (which was why Milo had to be closed?) It took several years to get traffic calming measures across the whole area which is what residents had suggested at the start. And of course Southwark completely screwed up buying the pre-fabricated Court Lane humps which started the whole fiasco! Nothing much has changed it seems.

@DulwichCentral Did you have a look at what Darren Farmer of the London Ambulance Service said about delays caused by LTNs, especially in Southwark? It seems not. Do you agree with his assertion that the emergency services are not in favour of hard road closures? And it seems you are still unable to justify your attempt to smear OneDulwich for their expos? of the Councillor's secret OHS working group. It would be nice if you could either justify your insults or apologise. DulwichCentral - deceitful, disingenuous and, like our local Councillors, getting even more desperate as their lies and intrigues are exposed. btw OneDulwich supporters now up to 1.900 and over 1,000 of those in the OHS consultation area. As you know, the council claimed 54 people in the same area provided "strong support" to close DV junction. What do you think 1,000 people means? https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters

@LTN Welcome to the forum and congratulations on your first, and second, post. I hope you are not one of those who pop on the forum to disparage and abuse anyone who questions the local Councillor's botched traffic changes and their impacts, especially One Dulwich, but then refuses to answer any challenges and disappears. (eg @DulwichCentral ,how is your data analysis going? ) However, you have not made a good start, lets look at your comments so far: "We have One Dulwich promoting the falsehood that ambulance services are being delayed, However, Darren Farmer gave evidence in March 2021 to Southwark's Environment Scrutiny Committee and stated that this was not the case. (Look it up)" Are you referring to the same meeting I watched? Darren stated that following the London wide Covid traffic schemes, travel time from scene to hospital had risen from 14 to 16.5 minutes (1:05:45. Darren then says (1:06:09) that the number of delayed responses due to infrastructure changes (ie LTN's) across London is 170 of which 51 are in Southwark!! Darren goes on to say how the Ambulance Service would prefer camera controlled access as in Islington rather than hard 24\7 closures as at Dulwich Village(1:06:29 By this stage C'llr Newens was looking pretty concerned as Darren confirmed what many people have been saying and she had been denying. Maybe YOU should look it up. "We have long standing LTNs in the area that didn't raise any issues. What's the problem now? E.g. Gilkes Crescent and Milo Road, closed road due to rat running." An interesting example. Neither are LTN's but both closures were eventually imposed many years ago following poorly thought through traffic measures implemented by Southwark Council despite warnings by local residents that traffic would be diverted along those roads. Southwark were warned about the implications of their scheme but carried on regardless and used rigged traffic count figures to mislead the public. Sounds familiar? "On balance I think the LTNs are a good thing but they will only be successful if the community works together as more must be done to encourage people out of their cars. Trump style scaremongering and falsehoods will serve no one." Well,the Trump style scaremongering has come from our local Councillors and their favoured "vocal minority"activists. Do you remember those claims that urgent action was needed because traffic along Dulwich Village had increased by 47% ? It was the leading argument in the OHSD consultations and was constantly repeated by SRS and such like. And that there had been a massive increase in traffic along Calton Avenue. Neither of these claims are true, they have been totally discredited. However, they are still being promulgated by SRS etc amongst the naive and innocent. "I?ve not seen much that is positive coming from the One Dulwich group who seem to want the LTNs removed or for residents to have permits which is a proposal I don?t understand. " You are clearly just misrepresenting OneDulwich and haven't read their web site. OneDulwich have no problem with time limited restrictions but are against 24\7 hard closures. Indeed, many of the people behind OneDulwich proposed such a scheme during the QW7 consultations 5 years ago. however the council however decided to go ahead with the botched remodelling of the junction. It seems they are repeating their mistakes. As for permits, well these were a key feature of the OHS scheme proposed by our local Councillors and Southwark Council during the OHS phase 3 consultations. These are also standard in other boroughs. If you don't understand them I suggest you ask C'llrs Newens and Leeming to help you understand why they who were championing them a year ago. I really look forward to your reply. Edited to remove a couple of flippant comments about C'llr Newen's reaction when Darren Farmer contradicted what she has been telling her constituents.

@Pugwash In the case of the OHS consultation and the subsequent so called "Covid" traffic measures the changes have been promoted and pushed through by the local Councillors, mainly C'llrs Newens and Leeming. It is those councillors who set up the secret working group of activists to help steer the OHSD process; together with C'llr Simmonds they chaired and led the public meetings and happily trotted out the misleading statistics; they have been cheer leaders for the schemes while ignoring the displaced traffic and abusing and bad mouthing anyone who queried them or suggested compromises ( C'llr Leeming even making Private Eye's "rotten boroughs" section!). It is C'llrs Newens and Leeming who awarded ?3,000 of tax payers money to the anonymous so called "Friends of Dulwich Square" (aka Margy Plaza) and they are the people who instigated the benches in the road as part of their land grab. In the case of the misleading statistics, the C'llrs were repeatedly challenged whether the numbers were correct. Despite being presented with the evidence, they insisted, and till recently were still insisting, the figures were correct. So, either they are naive, incompetent and innumerate or they were lying. Not sure which is worse. Furthermore, if Council officers were misleading Councillors I would expect disciplinary action to be taken. That does not seem to have happened.

@Snowy, Many people, including One Dulwich, can support the concept of LTN's but still object to the poorly thought out, badly implmented, undemocratic mess imposed on Dulwich by the Southwark Labour administration. Are you suggesting the Tory Government is to blame for the 24\7 closure of DV\Calton and the displaced traffic and congestion on EDG and Lordship Lane? My understanding is that all the Covid " temporary" work is being designed and implemented by Southwark Council under the auspices of Mayor Khan's TfL Streetpspace scheme ? That's certainly what is says on the planters but happy to be corrected. As for Bailey, he is a poor candidate from a Brexit supporting Tory Govt, he should be completely wiped out, if he isn't Labour should get worried. Finally, are you able to give me a bit more information about Academic peer review as you promised a few days ago? In particular, can you answer my query whether a peer review would approve a report based on a tiny, self-selecting sample, unrepresentative of the local community, supplemented by a potentially biased database, claiming to be a long term longtitdinal survey but with a 50% drop out after a year. If so, are the peer reviewers named?

As we are entering mayoral election period and our local Labour Councillors are having to engage with their actual constituents (rather than just minority activists) it seems they are trying to re-write history. In conversations with neighbours the councillors have claimed: - When they opened the OHS public meetings by insisting a 47% increase in traffic through DV required urgent action, and continued using it over many months despite repeated queries, they had no idea it was a totally misleading figure; they had themselves been misled by Southwark officers. - The councillors had investigated timed closures at Calton\DV junction but it was not technically possible. - Implementing a permit scheme for residents is also not possible ( even though it had been included in the OHS proposals) - Councillors had been concerned about the effect of closures on disabled and less mobile users right from the start and had been fighting for exemptions - The traffic displacement and increased congestion along the DV bypass roads is the fault of the Tory Government for funding the Covid emergency traffic orders and not the responsibility of teh C'llrs or Southwark Council (who together designed and forced through the measures despite many local objections). Deceitful, disingenuous, desperate, if not outright lies. I am a floating voter and have voted for all major parties at different points. After Brexit, I vowed I would never vote Tory again but given the complete contempt for democracy, decency and truth shown by this disgraceful Southwark Labour administration and our local Labour Councillors I will vote for any mayoral and GLA candidate with a chance of unseating or upsetting labour.

@devs, @73jem To be fair to the cyclists going through the junction (of whom I am one) it is a main commuter cycling route and on Quietway 7 (or whatever it is now called). Indeed the objective of the expensive, but flawed, remodelling of the junction 4 years ago was to make it easier for cyclists. Now however our local Councillors have decided to turn this cycling route into a vanity-project square with no proper consultation and no consideration of displaced traffic or indeed cyclists. It is a poorly thought through, badly implemented mess, dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists alike. I am astonished (though not really surprised) that the council officers were prepared to carry out these measures; did they carry out any sort of safety assessment or is one not needed?

@heartblock ...it?s just 50 or so residents in Calton (which on my last stroll has a high ownership of SUVs) that have forced this closure...is there something we don?t know about the Village Councillors? The Councillors have very willingly allowed themeselves to be manipulated by a small but very vocal minority of activists into thinking they represent the local community. Often, like Clean Air for Dulwich Village, Friends of Dulwich square, Mums for Lungs (and to a certain extent SRS) these are small, shadowy, overlapping organisations with no constitution or public accountability. Neverthless, these are treated formally by Southwark Council as key stakeholders representing those who live in the area and their views are given undue weight. These groups formed the basis of the secret working party the councillors set up to help steer the OHS consultation. However, they have very little local support which is presumably why they also invited Calton Avenue RA to join given how much they would benefit from the closure. Interesting that since the road closure the former chair of the Calton Avenue RA has sold his house in the now delightfully traffic free semi-gated community. I bet he is feeling very smug.

@heartblock I?m heartened to hear that some of the Village is embarrassed and think that the changes are counterproductive, so thank you for that correction. I just haven?t personally witnessed this myself. Our RA, one of the roads road in the LTN area, carried out a survey back in March last year. There were about 100 responses and 75% of them opposed the closure of the junction so you can be assured that there are many in the area who agree with you, not just our roads but several others who had similar results. The Councillors of course dismissed this as a minority viewpoint. The council claimed "strong support" for closing the junciton in phase 2 of the OHSD process. But don't be misled, there were only 54 in favour from within the whole LTN area and most of those were from Calton or close to the junction. See https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/who-closed-dulwich-village-junction If the forthcoming consultation is objective, open and fair, I think you will see many people supporting your view. However, it has not got off to a good start, with leaflets not being delivered, boundary roads not being included and one of our Village Ward Councillors encouraging responses from activists outside the area; almost as though he is afraid of his own constituents.

@Legal, That consultation guidance is helpful and very interesting. I wonder if the "parklets" that have suddenly sprung up are part of Tfl Streetspace measures? If so, our local OCuncillors have definitely not followed the guidelines.

Abhh Dulwich Central. Still don't understand numbers or data do you? Look at the One Dulwich website and tell me how many supporters are in the OHS consultation area And you keep ignoring my question why you think the exposure of the Councils secret working group is deceitful! Seems like you just like throwing insults.

The Council has been positioning the forthcoming survey as gaining the view of local residents. If they wish to include views from those outside the area who may be affected, whether people cycling to work, patients attending Kings for appointments or bus users held up by congetsion on EDG then fine. But Southwark should clearly separate response from inside and outside the consultation area and should ask teh basis on which people are responding, as they did with the commonplace map. People living outside the area are much less likely to know the downside or impacts of propose solution. What we need to avoid is the situation whith the phase 3 OHS consultation where Southwark Cyclists, local chapter of the LCC, publicised the survey on their web site and actively coached their respondents in how to answer while ignoring the knock-on effects of the proposals on the displacement roads. What is still strange, though not surprising, is that C'llr Leeming prefers to encourage people outside the area to take part rather than his constituents.

@Abe_froeman Well they are communicating it in their own way. For instance, Richard Lemming retweeted this lobby group's tweet encouraging people simply passing tyhrough the area to participate in the survey: https://twitter.com/southwarkcycle/status/13740114 Hmmm, that link doesn't work. Maybe Cllr Leeming has had second thoughts about openly encouraging people outside the area to rig the consultation? Presumably it won't stop him, and others, doing so behind teh scenes though. The Council will have no excuse if they don't find some way of validating responses to the forthcoming survey to separate those from the area and those form outside.

@Alice, @Heartblock, @Abe Normally my policy too but I made an exception this time as it was actually something of reference to the thread.

@Malumbu, There is nothing wrong with LTN's in principle, but the traffic measures the councillors have put in place in Dulwich are badly thought out and poorly designed. They are displacing traffic onto residential roads, increasing congestion and pollution and causing disruption to vulnerable and less mobile residents. As to the study you linked based on London, it says 24% of respondents lived in an LTN, 49% didn't and 27% weren't sure. According to Aldred, 4% of London inhabitants live in an LTN so it seems a hopelessly biased sample in the study.

@legalalian You say that the ward councillors have "pretty much zero power here". Unusually I disagree with you. The OHS consultation, used as the basis for the current "temporary" traffic measures, was wholly supported and pushed through by our local councillors. They are the ones who led the public meetings, claiming a highly misleading 47% increase in traffic through the junction made urgent action necessary; a claim which even now they refuse to retract. They set up the secret working group, made up of local activists and Calton Ave RA, to help lead the consultation process. They pushed for and supported the ETO's which allowed them to implement the highly controversial OHS phase 3 measure without consultation and they are the ones who are trying to make "Margy Plaza" permanent by spaffing public money on shadowy organisations. Our concillors have also refused to accept any responsibility for the impact of their flawed scheme on the displacement roads and rejected any suggestions for changes or compromise. I suspect that, as the elections approach next year, we will see them claiming they had their hands tied or the traffic jams on EDG and Croxted were not their fault, if so they will be lying. That still leaves residents with the issue of who to vote for next year. I will vote for anyone who promises to listen to and respect the views of local residents rather than a vocal group of minority activists.

@scrawford Unfortunately this May is only the mayoral and GLA elections. We have to wait until next year before we can vote on our Dulwich Village Labour councillors (Newens and Leeming) who have insisted on forcing these schemes through, ignoring local residents who questioned any aspects and even now are squandering local taxpayers money on anymous groups to support their objectives. As the elections approach I expect they will try and distance themselves from the consequences of their actions, lets make sure people remember who casued this chaos and disruption.

Hahaha. NOpe, just adding a bit more detail to your highly selective list Is that the best response you can come up with??

@snowy Dennis (which Lomax left 4 years ago) also publish: Cyclist PCPro Science & Nature The Week and finally Viz magazine. However, "4 years ago I worked for a company that published some car magazines as part of its portfolio" doesn't really sounds like a current conflict of interest to me. I suspect he is more in the tradition of the "amateur" investigator such as Brian Deer or Elliot Higgins. I am off to office now but, thanks for replying about academic peer review, it is a genuine question by the way and I look forward to your answer. btw Looking at Aldred's latest Waltham Forest study she is claiming a 20% reduction in car ownership due to the introduction of the LTN. As we know, her longitudinal study is based on a small number of self selecting respondents (many from a cycling database) which doesn't represent the local demographic so is already questionable. If I have understood her latest figures correctly the initial base for her claim is 49 respondents who actually live in the LTN (2.8% of her total respondents). Oddly, though, the number of LTN respondents increases to 66 over the next 2 waves while the number of other respondents decreases and it is these 66 people on whom she bases her claim of a 20% reduction. How can the number of respondents actually increase during a longitudinal study? Given such a tiny sample number it would be very easy for people to respond to the study part way through to skew the results. Aldred doesn't seem to addrress this possibility but would a peer review question this methodology or analysis?

@snowy Who does Paul Lomax work for? From his linkedin profile he is CTO of a company that manages publishing rights for Newspapers and magazines, looks similar to PRS. Backround in digital publishing, Guardian Media, Dennis publishing, Virgin Group loyalty scheme. Why do you ask? While you are here, are you able to help with my question (April 5th at 11.00 pm) about how academic peer review works and whether it would address the issues i pointed out in Aldred's mini-Holland study?

@Heartblock I must say the so called "increase" confused me because it seemed to contradict previous figures released by DfT an\or TfL. Can you link to the FoI you mention ?

@DulwichCentral I am still waiting for you to justify your claim that OneDulwich's exposure of the OHSD secret working group was devious and deceitful. Or are you just trying to smear a group with over a thousand supporters in the OHS consultation area?