Bicknell

@DulwichCentral Look at www.londonair.org.uk, go to Air Pollution, then Annual Pollution Maps, find Dulwich You can see which roads over legal limits (40) in 2016. Court Lane bad b ut roads around it much much worse. Yes I agree lets move forwards. but pusshing cars onto roads over legal pollution limits not the answer

@exdulwicher im against the Dulwich LTN, so I guess im part of the anti LTN lobby, but i dont recognize any of the things you say. I think its okay to say that you dont like something, and criticize it, without being told youre all the things you've said about the Anti- LTN lobby here. Its hard to talk about it because people get heated but i dont think you can say thats the fault of one side or the other. Otherwise you're just as bad as the people youre criticizing aren't you? We agree weve got to reduce traffic. But I dont personally think you do that by taking it off some roads and putting it on others.

Coalition4Dulwich is the usual suspects - Living streets, Safe routes to schools, Clean air Dulwich, southwark cyclists and "Better Streets for Southwark" which is a new one I hadnt heard of before. all the lobby groups the council likes in one handy leaflet with very tiny print. It says "some are wrestling with how to adapt" Too right. If the solution is wrong (which it is, in my view), alot of people will be wrestling for a long time. Unless the council starts to listen.

@Alice @legalalien Cant find zoom council meeting for dulwich ltns anywhere. Could you send link? Thanks

eastdulwichhenry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have a fear that the pro-car lobby are going to > win out when the trial comes to an end, as they > did in Camberwell Grove, but let's wait and see. > I'm enjoying it while it lasts. Really sad that people still frame the argument like this. Pro-car? Anti-cyclist? No - just want a solution taht's fair to all.

10 formal objections to Calton Ave and Court Lane closure on One Dulwich website www.onedulwich.uk/objections: 1. The ETOs are not delivering the Council?s stated objectives. 2. The ETOs are socially unjust. 3. The ETOs discriminate against vulnerable groups in contravention of The Equality Act 2010. 4. The ETOs do not have the support of the local community. 5. The ETOs are not bringing about a modal shift. 6. The ETOs are damaging local businesses. 7. The Council has failed to introduce adequate, evidence-based, monitoring of its objectives. 8. The ETOs are making life less safe for local residents by blocking access for Emergency Services. 9. The ETOs have disrupted road networks, causing the Council to fail to fulfil its obligation under the Traffic Management Act 2004 to ensure they are managed effectively. 10. 24/7 closures are disproportionate; timed closures, as in Phase 2 ETOs, would be sufficient.

People who live round here just beginning to realize they will be fined ?130 if they drive through resrictions on Townley, DV, Burbage or Turney...

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is plenty of evidence of pro car groups > campaigning against local initiatives from outside > the area. I'm sure there is probably the same > thing happening on the other side too (those in > favour of low traffic neighbourhoods). The council > should assess the reality and do what in their > judgement is best for the area. I am pretty > suspicious of online petitions tbh as you can find > one arguing for almost any position nowadays and > it shouldn't be about how shout loudest. Could you point me to the evidnece of pro car lobbies campaigning from outside the area @rahrahrah? Would be good to see that.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Assuming the recommendations to the South > multiward meeting on 25 Feb were approved (I can't > find the decision / minutes anywhere), Southwark > are actually funding Clean Air for Dulwich to > campaign in favour of LTNs, out of the > Neighbourhoods Fund. > > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6618/ > Public%20reports%20pack%20Tuesday%2025-Feb-2020%20 > 19.00%20South%20multi-ward%20forum.pdf?T=10 > > You could squeeze clean air campaigning into the > criteria at a push (maybe, it's not really the > same as getting volunteers for a local clean up) > but generally campaigning groups haven't been > included before as far as I know, and certainly > not funded to advocate specific council policies! whens the next round? One Dulwich could apply. they are after all campaigning for cleaner air on roads like East Dulwich Grove, and for the council to monitor pollution (which hasnt happened so far)

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > northernmonkey Wrote: > >some people give focus to community roles and i'd > imagine statistically they're more likely to > participate in a number of things throughout the > community. Its not a massive conspiracy! > > Maybe not an active conspiracy but what I see is a > small number of local(?) activists create > overlapping groups, Clean Air Dulwich, Southwark > Cyclists, Mums for Lungs, Safe Routes to Schools > Dul Soc Environment C'ttee etc. These activists > claim to represent "local community" and are > engaged by local councillors and treated as key > stakeholders by the council who are happy to > accept these groups at face value and dismiss or > ignore the concerns of their own constituents and > Resident's Associations without questioning whose > these activists represent. > > At the meeting Katy Savage of Clean air for > Dulwich (Facebook group liked by 79 people, no > info where they are from) was happy to > condescendingly dismiss the 2,700 person petition > to reverse closures without mentioning that the > petition to keep the closures had received a > massive... 51 supporters. > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionListD > isplay.aspx?bcr=1 . The narrative she is trying > to put over is that objectors to these road > closures, which are causing such disruption and > pollution to roads such as Lordship Lane and EDG, > are a vocal minority; in reality it is the > supporter and proponents of these these poorly > thought through schemes that are the minority. > > One of Ms Savage's arguments was that there was no > verification where the respondents on the petition > lived - if true, that is clearly a failure by > Southwark council. However, the DV junction > closure has always been justified by the > councillors as the outcome of the OHS phase 2 > consultation. That exercise had about 200 > respondents, mainly on line, and the council has > refused to say where they lived. According to > her views that consultation was therefore > meaningless. > > Note that OneDulwich who , with over 1,700 > supporters is very open about where those > supporters live see > https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters. It is > unfortunate that the local councillors are doing > all they can to misrepresent the views and > proposals of those groups who represent a > significant number of local residents and have put > in huge amounts of effort to analyse the situation > and suggest reasonable compromises. Good points here @slarti b. local councillors arent listening. I wonder what could make this change?

Feels to me that im hearing a lot of anger about road measures in dulwich wherever I go now. Maybe the general public has woekn up to whats going on.

KatyKoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've had a quick scroll but can't find your > suggestions on how to reduce motor traffic and > pollution - would you mind posting them again > please? Genuinely interested to see what other > ideas there are on how to reduce cars and > pollution other than what the council are doing. I dont know Katy Koo but is this what they call Sealioning.

so when are all the other meausres going in like on Townley Road? anyone know? communication not southwarks strong point

Worry is that the council wont listen to objections. Closures are experimental -but who judges if experiments are success or failrue?

some streets empty of traffic, others crammed full. People in the empty streets say, its lovely, and wont listen to anyones problems. thats selfish I guess.

i will take pictures next week @rahrahrah. But Townley Road nose to tail traffic at drop off and pickup. schools have warned parents of chaos.lets see what happnes next.

Its OK to google @andrewc. but start from where we are - London suburb with no tube, used as direct route by cars vans lorrys from Kent and Surrey going north and Wandsworht, Clapham etc going east. Closing roads is an idea, thats all, one of many. May not work here.

New measures have bus gates which means Buses and teh private school coaches and taxis allowed through. ok for P4. OUtside the zone all the cars go on East Duwlich grove and lordship Lane where all the other buses are. Chaos for 176,185,40,37, etc etc.

its the kids I feel sorry for. we're pushing traffic from here to there, and theyre walknig past traffic jams breathing in all the pollution

Got legal advice from a QC. why did they care that much? beyond me. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f20556c9901276144543bb3/t/5f36be2c471fb44cb171bb47/1597423177107/Legal+Advice.pdf

except you dont need a license to campaign but you do need one to put on an event. Especially when there are rules because of covid. Unless youre Dominic Cummings.

Railton Road and road closures is at the end -36 minutes in- last nights newsnight - here https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000l9x0/newsnight-29072020

Railton Road closure was on Newsnight last night.

Dont bother about the elderly. Just a small minority....Let them sit in traffic jams..Better still throw a protective ring of planters round them.

Ive heard alot of people calling it the Dulwich Dead End.