heartblock

I know Sue...and we were promised by Southwark it would stay....while Calton gets parklets while having acres in Dulwich Park, ED Grove gets its only public garden removed. It was lovely for the bees 🐝 as well.

Thanks Slarti, as someone on a boundary rd, I haven?t had a leaflet, my neighbours didn?t know about the consultation, so I imagine most of my street are unaware. If most in the Village don?t want the ?square of shame? and 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?

I was really sad to see the community garden on ED Grove dug up...as we were promised it would be replaced....any news?

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.

I think Alice is right, for Dulwich Village it was never about cyclists or clean air for all residents ... it was for very rich people to have access to all that a large city provides, cleaners, gardeners, Waitrose delivery, wine shops, sourdough, expensive restaurants, excellent private education, private areas for parking the second car - while living the life in an exclusive area, as close to a rural Village as possible...and they don?t give a flying fig for anyone who suffers from displaced traffic. Croxted Rd and Lordship Lane residents do not matter to the Villagers.

Oh they were putting them in Melbourne as well, I imagine I paid for those in my Council Tax, I really want pollution monitors on ED Grove but apparently the council can?t afford to measure NO2 and particulates on my rd, but benches...........

Love that idea Alice EDG - buses, bikes, taxis, blue badge and residents only. Court and Calton cars. Fixed! Melbourne, Elsie etc. LTNs could go, because EDG no longer a car route and as EDG is a school road the improvement in air quality, faster bus journeys and safer cycling will be great for the school children.

Could someone check if this is true? It just that I still haven?t received a leaflet about LTN consultation and there are still no air pollution monitors on ED Grove due to the ?cost?. ?tomorrow two ?parklets? will be erected in Dulwich Village, one outside Romeo & Jones and one in ?Dulwich Square? ?20k a pop? as seen on a Twitter account. I don?t know if it is a true statement.

Thank you James, you were very helpful sorting out teething problems with the payment site last year.

Southwark ?gifts? gated roads and Village squares for the rich, encourages cycling groups outside of Dulwich to join consultation while not informing residents on boundary rds....it takes green spaces away from people with no access to gardens in the less affluent areas. Infilling ..I.e. building on green spaces and play areas on estates. If you cannot see this is socially unjust, then you make a choice not to see.

Cycling groups outside of Dulwich re-tweeting the Southwark consultation on LTNs...including Councillor Leemings - meanwhile none of my neighbours on EDG have the leaflet to inform them about the consultation online. Obviously I have alerted my close neighbours but it is Southwarks duty to engage with residents on boundary rds.

Yep....Remember Lancet getting into hot water for publishing before peer review, because they were ?excited? by preliminary results. It?s an important process.

No leaflet..no consultation....still waiting.

yep..that's my policy.

Dear James, When will residents on East Dulwich Grove revive a leaflet about the LTN consultation?

As an EDG resident this is the first time I have seen this survey, thank you Serena. I?m actually shocked that this was not sent to residents in EDG. Hopefully I have maintained some semblance of politeness, with occasional moments of less well worded interactions, but this is disgraceful! How dare they make changes that effect us, our children, our neighbours by consulting these roads and not our road!

It is simplistic, but as with many discussions and policies inference is taken from the data available. This simplistic view is very much what LTN policy is built on, even on data that needs to be re-adjusted or has small samples and very wide confidence levels.

Very few BB in the Village LTNs ... as disability rights UK points out ?Nearly half of everyone in poverty is either a disabled person or lives with a disabled person? so unlikely to be living in a 1-3mill or more house with two cars on the drive...

Thank you legalalien, that will be great news for my disabled neighbour. I?ll try and get onto the site. :)

The FOI request was from Caroline Russell...Green Party, Paul just retweeted the FOI. Caroline?s question Department for Transport (DfT) road traffic estimates have been revised upwards, after a benchmarking exercise to review minor road traffic flows. What work has Transport for London (TfL) undertaken to review their modelling and data in light of this revision? TFL responded - ?TfL is currently reviewing its key statistics potentially affected by this change, with a view to reporting in Travel in London Report 14 towards the end of 2021? It?s interesting only because this flawed and incorrect data has been used to put LTNs in minor roads. According to roads counted only 3 minor roads in London were part of the data set, all the others were main roads. So even the small rise in traffic is on main roads like LL, Croxted and not Calton, Court, Melbourne. Why does this matter? It matters because this was one of the reasons given for LTNs on minor roads, the 70% increase that never happened.

slati b, Look for Paul Lomax on Twitter and you are correct, the figure has now been ?corrected? as I read it. It?s always very possible I have read the information incorrectly.

Also a FOI request has shown the original increase of around 70% more traffic on minor roads over 10 years as a reason for LTNs put out by DfT, was a ?benchmarking? exercise, the actual growth was around 3%.

Also in terms of LTNs Prof Aldred also states ?In particular, we have been asked what our findings mean in relation to ?traffic evaporation? ? i.e. the extent to which measures like LTNs may lead to an overall reduction in motor traffic across an area. We had reported no statistically significant change in car use in our findings?.

It will be interesting to see the policies for next year's locals - I think many in the left might use it to give an opinion on the current LOTO as well as local stuff. As for this one - I have only had a Labour Party leaflet and a LibDem and one that made it's way very quickly into the recycling from Brian Rose, who remind's me of Alan B'Stard.. Sian Berry Green I think for me. MsFarah is interesting but politically not for me.

A paper is submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, who then send the article out to experts for scrutiny. The current paper was used by Councils, LCC, Guardian writers in it's pre-submission stage. Personally I think the small numbers, the exclusion of boundary roads and the high percentage use of cyclists, Oyster card users compared to residents makes the data interesting, but not conclusive in the way the authors have decided. If asked to give review commentary before publication I would ask for some additional research or some major re-writes. Unfortunately, sometimes Journals are so keen to publish data that confirms a belief or a bias, that poorly researched, reviewed or analysed articles are published as peer reviewed, The Lancet attracted criticism in May 2020 for publishing the hydroxychloroquine paper - with dodgy data, not the first and not the last.