DulwichCentral

Is it traffic jams of 'key staff' driving around in their SUVs at the weekend?

@slarti is this a typo? " I think he said average response times (across London?) had increased from 14 to 16 minutes since traffic measures put in, though this may be down to fewer cars on road as fewer people are using public transport." Fewer cars on the road as fewer people using public transport?

I agree and there seems to be a consensus here on monitoring. In normal times I think monitoring would have been done by now, and more easily. But with a pandemic and therefore abnormal traffic patterns (either zero traffic or heavy traffic as restrictions ease and people drive instead of public transport) it must be very difficult to monitor realistically. Believe me there are things I find frustrating about Southwark Council. But to be fair it is not their fault a pandemic has dramatically altered traffic patterns. The measures are experimental and need monitoring, particularly boundary roads, so they should stay in place until the monitoring can be done properly in as near to normal circumstances. One thing I would add to Rockets list is more measures on main roads. Cycleways, traffic calming, 24/7 bus lanes, remove car-parking to clear bus lanes. And if normal circumstances take some time to resume, as people continue to drive more than use public transport - then all the more reason for the measures to stay in place to continue enabling more people to opt for safe routes for active travel i.e. mitigate against a 'car recovery' in a climate emergency.

@legalalien to be fair please can you tell @rockets off too? I expect he'll be along shortly with his 'pro-LTN lobbyists' language? Lastly - a plea not to use the term "anti-LTN types". This kind of language, which suggests that everyone either supporting or against the specific LTNs with which this thread is concerned share the same views and are vehemently in favour or against each and every LTN in the world, is a big part of the problem imho.

Things could get a lot more inconvenient than that https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/see-your-street-underwater-2050-17212413

@Rockets thinks it's 'very clever' to interpret incomplete data to suit an agenda. There we have it.

Dear Spartacus, Rockets & Alice Rockets accuses JGreer of encouraging illegitimate response to a Camden consultation. Camden council have set up a feedback site asking where respondents live. It's up to Camden council what info they want. They are gathering data with the mechanism in place to understand where respondents come from. (If this bothers you all so deeply why don?t you complain to Camden council?) A person responding from outside Camden is not ?destabilising? the process. It is part of the process. The commonplace map is open to corruption - single respondents posting multiple posts. Petitions that don?t require postcode verification can be signed by people outside the area as per the first Southwark petition against the measures. Southwark have since added a feature whereby you have to register to sign. This indicates they want to limit petition responses to local residents only (UNLIKE CAMDEN). People on both sides of the argument involve themselves in London-wide LTN issues - it is up to each council whether they choose to mitigate against this (or not) in their feedback methods. However, if a local 'victory' is declared (such as 'Dulwich has Spoken') without recognising the limitations or parameters of the data-gathering method employed then I see that as problematic - or disingenuous. Don't you? Yours DC Member of the Closure Cult, regular attendee at **TOP SECRET** congregations at the Sacred Site of Dulwich Square on a full moon landing on Wednesdays where we sacrifice one of those fluffy dice things to the god of LTNs But sssssshhhh! Don?t tell anyone.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- "one of the council's pro-closure lobbyists and closest allies is encouraging people to get involved in a consultation they have no reason to be involved with" You mean Camden's transparent online consultation process? In a free country? I thought you supported democracy. "It is clear to everyone that is the point here and it adds fuel to the fire" Its not clear because its a fire that some people here (not mentioning anyone) spend an inordinate of time trying to stoke up with obfuscation, speculation and hyperbole. "a tactic being used by the pro-closure lobby" Or a perfectly legal and transparent process in a free country? "daft post to put on twitter given Julie's involvement in the Dulwich LTNs and her relationship with the council" Everyone is free to openly support the LTN if they want to. Again, its a free country. "certain individuals" Are we back to pro-closure mafia again? "the same accusation has been laid at the door of cycle lobby groups" Yes it seems to surprise some people that cycle lobby groups support cycle routes. "I think this is further evidence that..." Your p.o.v. is not 'evidence' any more than mine is. "the council needs to properly engage with and poll the views of all local residents in the Dulwich area in away that allows no room for misinterpretation" So petitions without postcode verification are therefore meaningless. Can we put that one to rest now? "don't try to play the goalpost card as you are part of a lobby group who have more goalposts than .... bla bla" You have no idea who I am or if I am part of any groups (tut tut speculation again) and which goalpost have I moved? "Enjoy your wine!" Thanks! I will :)

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DC - Streets for People doesn't appear to have any > affiliation to Camden either. > > I have felt for a long time that there are a lot > of pro-closure lobbyists commenting on > consultations they have no business commenting > on. > > One wonders how much external interference there > is on our consultation process as well. I know One > Dulwich has been concerned by that for a long time > - and rightly so. > > Maybe this is why Southwark refuses to put a > proper registration process in place to determine > who has been leaving comments. > > Julie has been caught red-handed! Low and behold @Rockets shifts the goal posts - yet again. So first, you refer to *petitions* saying Julie Greer has suggested people sign something in Camden as if that is somehow corrupt - or equivalent to (just as bad as?) the One Dulwich petition accepting unverified signatures. What's your point? Both as bad as each other? So admitting One Dulwich petition was invalid? Then - I show the example you've given is not corrupt because it *specifically asks the question and therefore gathers the data* as to where commenters live. In fact it asks a number of specific questions as to what people's interests might be. And instead of saying OK fair enough... You shift the subject onto *another* means of gathering information (commonplace map??) used by Southwark council. And, as always chuck in a pile of speculative hyperbole on top - 'maybe she has a home there' (oooh! because she's a wealthy selfish LTN supporter) and 'has been caught red-handed' erm caught red-handed doing what exactly? Stick to the subject. Cut the hyperbole. And we might actually find some common ground. Meanwhile I'm off for a glass of wine this is really tedious. Cheers!

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Whilst you question the validity of the responders > to petitions that challenge your view of the world > one of your cohorts (Julie Greer) is providing > feedback and encouraging others to do so on a > consultation in Camden.....perhaps she has a home > there too....or maybe she is part of a network of > people within the pro-closure camp who like > nothing more than to meddle in consultations in other areas Or perhaps there's a much simpler explanation Rockets, if you look at question 5 on that survey it asks the following questions: 5. How are you connected to the proposed, trial walking, cycling and road safety changes on Haverstock Hill and Rosslyn Hill? (You can choose more than one) (Required) I live in the area I don't live in the area, but live in Camden I work in the area I'm a parent/carer of a child at school here I own/manage a business in this area I am a not a Camden resident I represent a local group or organisation In other words perfectly transparent. Unlike One Dulwich pretending their 1000+ signatories were all local. > other areas... > > > 25807623?s=19

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What point are you trying to make exactly? > It seems you have an issue that people are using > the only means the council gives to them to voice > their concerns If you mean the commonplace map I didn't say I have an issue with people using this as means for the council to gauge views. I have an issue with people attempting to distort that process to suit their agenda. Sorry - I thought that was clear? As ExDulwicher says, it's simply impossible for anyone (except the council) to know whether there are multiple posts from single users. So on that basis the One Dulwich analysis is questionable. My point is you can't have it both ways - accuse the council of 'not listening' then attempt to distort their attempt to listen. IMHO that's hypocritical. Whether or not the commonplace is a valuable tool is another discussion. > and then when they do you default > to "we don't know where they are from". You refer to petitions here right? Yes I do question the signatories on a petition that doesn't verify postcode. Don't you? And then > when we point you to independent groups trying to > galvanise support you say: "Do they know what they > are signing up for". The example I gave was of a person who clearly doesn't appear to know what they have signed up for. Surely my point here was obvious? > It's endless pointless de-positioning - I am sure > you would find fault whatever dynamic was used to > present data that opposes your view. What data? > So the second petition which required verification > has received 729 signatures - that is very > impressive considering it is a second petition and > the log-in process was not working for many. Dulwich Village has an estimated population of 11K, ED 12K and Goose Green 14K. So 729, whilst possibly more reliable than the first petition which was unverified, it still isn't anywhere near a large representation of the local population. Some would call that a minority. > So bottom-line can we agree that there are a lot > of people in the Dulwich area who are not happy > with the way the council has implemented these > closures and the impact they are having on the > whole community? Or are you going to tell us it's > just a small, vocal minority...... Depends what you mean by 'a lot'.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > OneDulwich are a group of 1,800 local > (predominantly) local residents (check out their > website if you want to see where the members live) > who have concerns about the way the council has > implemented these schemes and the way the council > repeatedly puts the interests of pro-closure > lobbyists and groups ahead of the wider community. > I suspect the majority of OneDulwich members are > dismayed at the utter disregard shown by the > council and the pro-closure lobbyists for the > negative impact these closures are having on the > wider Dulwich community. > I was speaking to someone the other day who has signed up for One Dulwich - they want the council to install *more* measures not less, so keeping the current measures but do more to address surrounding areas. Maybe they aren't clear what One Dulwich want. Do people sign up to One Dulwich thinking they'll get a permit? Signing up for 'news' flashes from One Dulwich doesn't necessarily mean you agree with or fully understand their proposals. As pointed out above by @March46 the commonplace feedback is open to corruption, as was the petition against the closures which didn't request postcode verification. Interestingly the petition that did require verificaton received a lot less signatures. Hmmmm, I wonder why. One Dulwich would not have access to data to detect multiple entries on the commonplace map. I expect replies to this will be 'well its the council's fault for using unreliable tech to gather info' - but that's just shifting the goal post to avoid the point I'm making, which tends to happen a lot here. Either you're against the methods or not. But total hypocrisy to use the methods (you claim to be against) in order to support your own agenda.

@slarti Why does the person who wrote the One Dulwich report want to be anonymous? The academics you mistrust so deeply are accountable for their work and can be openly challenged. One Dulwich pump our their theories dressed up as 'News reports' and 'facts' in a nice glossy format. But who are they? They clearly have the time and money to spend on this - are they a group of wealthy retirees in the heart of Dulwich Village? I don't know, I'm just speculating. But their anonymity doesn't inspire confidence in me.

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Just because you > don't like the results doesn't mean they should be > ignored. > > Pot calling kettle black :)

Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you know what would be great @dulwichcentral Maybe > Southwark could publish its data for all to see. > then anyone could analyze it. eg. how many emails > objecting to the Duwlich road closures have they > recieved? it would be good to know. Well yes that would be interesting - and what evidence the objections are based on.

slarti b Wrote: > No idea whether they are tree hugging but the > authors are pretty biased activists and > propogandists for LTN's, far from objective > academics. Hmmmm when it comes to evidence - who would I trust more? A Professor of Transport at the University of Westminster, who teaches on Westminster?s MSc Transport Planning and Management. OR an anonymous member of One Dulwich who analyses a commonplace feedback site with no access to actual data. God that's a tough one ;)

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Most Dulwich residents can afford a > taxi".....honestly every time Julie Greer opens > her mouth or tweets something it further exposes > how myopic and self-centred the pro-closure lobby > is. If I was a Labour councillor I would be > distancing myself from them and their bizarre > views of life through their bizarre village-lens > but, of course, many are neighbours of certain > local councillors so probably they share the same > bizarre views of life beyond Dulwich Square. You continually complain that the only people benefiting from the closures are the wealthy elite of Dulwich Village. Then when someone suggests that the wealthy elite of Dulwich Village can afford a taxi to the Dr's - you're outraged. Can't have it both ways ;)

So - the inevitable increase in road traffic = a good reason to take away safe space for walking and cycling? Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The vaccination roll out is looking great at the > moment, and the possibilities are that things will > be massively improving shortly and perhaps as > early as Easter for a significant easing of the > lock down. This will lead (a) to an increase in > road traffic and road usage as people start to > travel again and (b) a reduction in the needs to > create a 'safe (i.e. with a capacity for huge > distancing) environment for pedestrians. So many > of the pedestrian inspired restrictions now placed > on roads will not be needed for pedestrians to be > able to use pavements safely - and the impact of > diverted traffic onto a few roads will become more > marked as air quality plummets for those living, > working and walking on those roads. > > I wonder how quickly, when things are back to > normal (or as close as they will ever be) will the > council move to restore roads and parts of roads > now sealed off for the benefit of pedestrians who > will no longer need, or use, such benefits?

A cycle ride from Paxton Green to Dog Kennel Hill - with panniers for books - takes about 15 minutes. My child has been taught climate change since primary school. There are posters about climate change all over schools. Kids have anxiety about it. Are they taught climate science by teachers who have no other way of getting around than driving 15 minutes to school? tiddles Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Perhaps we should also consult with the many > educational staff whose journeys to work have been > incredibly convoluted. A teacher commuting from > Paxton green area to dkh has been impacted > enormously, and there are clear indicators the > Crystal Palace staff have their 10/15 min journeys > become a 50 min one. Staff moving between schools > are similarly impacted. They are often carrying > books and other materials not easily packed into a > single carrier bag let alone being able to use > public transport for their particular journeys. > > Can we not just assume it is lack of a will or > laziness that people are very concerned about the > impact of these Ltns (and of course the rise in > dangerous pollution on the other roads)

Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove are very quiet at the moment and have been since lockdown. That's my point. People here say 'it's awful' every day - there is never any mention of 'well not right now because we're in lockdown'. I can't imagine Croxted is bad at the moment either. It's quiet everywhere. ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Or on Lordship Lane. Or East Dulwich Grove. And > many others. > > > Bicknell Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Think people on croxted road have a pretty good > > idea of what the reality is @DulwichCentral

What I find odd, whether it's how people choose to spend their free time or not, is that people here talk in the present tense - Slarti B: "and issue that *is* displacing traffic and causing congestion outside schools and on residential roads, harming local businesses and causing problems and disruption for the older and less mobile members of the local community." When in reality - we've been in lockdown since Christmas and the roads are very quiet. Look out the window. To keep banging on that it's 'hell out there' on a daily basis, when it clearly isn't at the moment, seems a little hysterical - and erm, dare I say it - disingenuous. The fact that we have been in and out of lockdown since the measures were put in place makes it quite difficult to tell what the reality is.

march46 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I see Dulwich Alliance are no longer listing the > Dulwich Picture Gallery as one of their > supporters. Were they not aware they'd be included > I wonder? Yes I noticed this. Very odd. Does make one wonder how genuine the whole thing is.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwich central > > Can you show us a petition that represents more > than 3000 people in an area of 11,255 residents in > favour ? > No I can't. But with respect, neither can you. A neighbour told me that petition didn't have postcode verification - so it could have been signed by people outside London even. Like the one in Kensington and Chelsea to get the cycle lane removed there - it was signed by people Africa. :)

Not just me, Rockets too: '..it may be 1% of the overall Southwark population..' And ex dulwicher: 'Southwark is home to more than 314,000 people so a 3000 signature petition is a little under 1%' That's assuming the signatories were all from Southwark - if not then it's even less than 1% and therefore less in Dulwich. Seems a bit flakey to me. Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DulwichCentral Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The petition with 3000 signatures accepted > > signatures from outside Southwark though didn't > > it? So ex dulwicher is being generous with 1%. > > The pro lobby also use the same tactic and as it > represents a distinct area it's not 1% of the > borough but 26% of the area > > Your use of stats is terrible

The petition with 3000 signatures accepted signatures from outside Southwark though didn't it? So ex dulwicher is being generous with 1%.