West Dulwich LTN Action Group - needs your support

[malumbu]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

@Earl Aelfheah of course it is. You also dodged your question, are you still convinced after the 55% support nonsense you regurgitated that the majority supported the Dulwich LTN? Or have you changed your opinion when presented with actual fact rather than weak council spin? Is the Sydenham Hill consultation the only one left you can claim had "majority" support? Not sure how that gives the council a mandate for the ones in Dulwich do you?

It could have had zero support but many are now happy with it and most have accepted it.  A few of you will go to your grave still complaining.  I find that a little sad.  Most of us just go with the flow.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Is it? Google maps estimates the time to drive from the junction of townley road and calton avenue, to the junction of where Dulwich village passes the other end of calton avenue, is 3 minutes. In total.

So how long do you believe it took before the changes? You think it took less than 1 minute?

I think people have lost all perspective.

The difference now is that that at certain times of day there is more traffic on Dulwich Village and, at most times of day, more traffic on EDG, due to the closed junction.

By the way I don't have a car, this is what I experience on public transport.

[Rockets]

8 hours ago, malumbu said:

It could have had zero support but many are now happy with it and most have accepted it.

@malumbu on what evidence are you basing this on as every consultation, as your good friend Earl can atest, says exactly the opposite?

Edited June 15 by Rockets

[Spartacus]

@Rockets, I have for some time suspected @malumbu is in fact Donald Trump due to the incoherent rants and statements made on here 

I could, of course be wrong, but evidence and the obsession with cats in the street is to strong to ignore 😅

[malumbu]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

@malumbu on what evidence are you basing this on as every consultation, as your good friend Earl can atest, says exactly the opposite?

It's irrelevant now as it is in place and no doubt broadly accepted.  So even if everyone that responded opposed, that is now academic.   Most people who responded to consultations on new nuclear sites oppose them.  They still get built and I doubt if many objectors would refuse to be supplied electricity that may have been produced this way 

So on the basis of this, go and enjoy Dulwich Square.

[Rockets]

48 minutes ago, malumbu said:

It's irrelevant now as it is in place and no doubt broadly accepted.  So even if everyone that responded opposed, that is now academic.

Again, the overwhelming weight of more scientific evidence than just your hunch suggests you are, badly, wrong.

You're starting to sound like a despot dictator (or someone trying to prop up a regime)....honestly "if everyone that responded opposed, that is academic".

Someone put a blue plaque up on this site entitled...."today marks the day democracy died....". It is really starting to creep scarily into Active Travel Fascism now....

[malumbu]

Debate if it exists at all is getting tedious now, my point is that its in place and it is highly unlikely that it will go away.  If you believe you have a strong case otherwise, raise a few £10ks and challenge it in the courts.  I would expect that it is time limited ie too late but I'm not looking this up for you.

Definitely time for me to stop posting on the matter.  Goodnight all.

[Earl Aelfheah]

21 hours ago, Kathleen Olander said:

The difference now is that that at certain times of day there is more traffic on Dulwich Village and, at most times of day, more traffic on EDG, due to the closed junction.

By the way I don't have a car, this is what I experience on public transport.

There has always been heavy traffic at rush hour. What is a small 1 to 2 minute diversion at most times of day, is not likely to be contributing in any significant way to an increase in rush hour traffic; Indeed the 12 months of monitoring data confirmed that it is not.

17 hours ago, Rockets said:

You're starting to sound like a despot dictator (or someone trying to prop up a regime)....honestly "if everyone that responded opposed, that is academic".

People claiming that a policy of encouraging more active travel is 'fascistic', and now accusations of despotic dictatorship. Really? All because of a small change in road layout involving a 1 to 2 minute diversion, implemented half a decade ago?

To be clear, the consultation showed majority support for the aims set out under the ‘Streets for People’ strategy, which included things like improving road safety, reducing the amount of cut-through traffic etc. Alongside surveys to understand people's views on initial changes already implemented under an emergency traffic order (in response to COVID-19 and the need to make more space for social distancing), they also undertook an in-depth monitoring report that included traffic volumes, cyclist volumes, pedestrian activity, bus journey times and air quality modelling. The upshot of all of this, was that they decided to make the scheme permanent, making some changes to incorporate feedback from the public survey. Local councillors stood for re-election following these changes. Some opposition parties (and some on this forum) described those as a 'referendum on the LTN'. They increased their majority. 

The consultation on Sydenham Hill (the other scheme you seem exercised about) showed that each of the measures was supported by the majority of those who responded.

Both were implemented more than 5 years ago, and evidence shows that both were successful in achieving what they set out to achieve.

You still seem not to understand that consultations are not referenda, that all of these changes were made democratically and legitimately, and that your not personally liking them, does not mean that they are opposed by a majority of people.

Edited June 16 by Earl Aelfheah

[Earl Aelfheah]

At this point, the continued obsession, the constant stream of misinformation, conspiracy and innuendo, is bordering on pathological. Constantly trying to relitigate the past is very dull and ultimately, completely pointless.

If you want to campaign to rip out Dulwich Square, or to increase the speed limit on Sydenham Hill, then please do. I don't think you'll find much support for either.

Edited June 16 by Earl Aelfheah

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

There has always been heavy traffic at rush hour. What is a small 1 to 2 minute diversion at most times of day, is not likely to be contributing in any significant way to an increase in rush hour traffic; Indeed the 12 months of monitoring data confirmed that it is not.

I never mentioned rush hour.

Please don't bother responding to me anymore, I have stuck you on my foe list!

[SE22_2020er]

@Kathleen Olander I see exactly the opposite on East Dulwich grove to your observations.   The traffic frequently tailed back to the church on the corner of Melbourne and EDG.   This is something that never happens any more

[march46]

Same here. East Dulwich Grove is much improved from what I can see. I also remember long queues back to Melbourne Grove being the norm pre-covid, whereas now they are the exception. 
 

I note the traffic seems to be worse at the weekend than during the week now, possibly related to lack of timed restrictions and no parking restrictions at the weekend. 

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

To be clear, the consultation showed majority support for the aims set out under the ‘Streets for People’ strategy, which included things like improving road safety, reducing the amount of cut-through traffic etc. Alongside surveys to understand people's views on initial changes already implemented under an emergency traffic order (in response to COVID-19 and the need to make more space for social distancing), they also undertook an in-depth monitoring report that included traffic volumes, cyclist volumes, pedestrian activity, bus journey times and air quality modelling. The upshot of all of this, was that they decided to make the scheme permanent, making some changes to incorporate feedback from the public survey. Local councillors stood for re-election following these changes. Some opposition parties (and some on this forum) described those as a 'referendum on the LTN'. They increased their majority. 

But @Earl Aelfheah that one 55% stat showing support for the Streets for People strategy does not back up your claim that there was majority support. There was majority support for the streets for people STRATEGY - and it is exactly that it is a strategy. When you actually bother to look at the detail of the very same council report you can see that the TACTIC of the Dulwich LTN was not supported by the majority as the majority of respondents preferred for it to be returned to it's original state. That, I am afraid, shows majority opposition to the LTN - after all the consultation was on the TACTIC not the STRATEGY. I am sorry but the below means your claim is pure whimsical fantasy and a massive stretching of the truth. Ok, I know you can say "well that's what the council told me in their infographic I read" but you should really do more detailed research and try to cut through the council spin. I remind you it was that type of spin that the High Court judge in the West Dulwich case took a very dim view to.

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

At this point, the continued obsession, the constant stream of misinformation, conspiracy and innuendo, is bordering on pathological.

I refer my right honourable friend to the passage above and suggested one might get their own house in order before accusing others....;-) I am sorry but the 55% stat you quoted a proof of support for the Dulwich LTN is the very best example of misinformation.

 

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

People claiming that a policy of encouraging more active travel is 'fascistic', and now accusations of despotic dictatorship. Really? All because of a small change in road layout involving a 1 to 2 minute diversion, implemented half a decade ago?

Come on @Earl Aelfheah you're spinning again. My accusation was that some on here seem to have taken pages from the despot dictator and fascist playbook in trying to manipulate facts, deny the voices of anyone who dares be critical of the measures and encouraging people to move on - nothing to see here. Honestly the way some of you argue is very Trump/Vance'esque.

7 minutes ago, march46 said:

I note the traffic seems to be worse at the weekend than during the week now, possibly related to lack of timed restrictions and no parking restrictions at the weekend. 

I think the "worse at the weekend" is because weekday traffic patterns have changed a lot and has nothing to do with timed restrictions - fewer people are commuting to offices during the week.

Edited June 16 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Kathleen Olander said:

I never mentioned rush hour.

Please don't bother responding to me anymore, I have stuck you on my foe list!

What an odd reply. I mentioned rush hour, because you said it was busier at other times. I assume that traffic is highest at rush hour, but if that offends you perhaps be more specific? If you don’t want any discussion, by all means put me on your ‘foe list’. Alternatively, don’t post on a discussion forum?

@Rockets One can call people fascists etc. but it’s not usually a sign that you’ve a good point to make.

Again, constantly trying to relitigate the past is very dull and completely pointless. If you want to campaign to rip out Dulwich Square, or to increase the speed limit on Sydenham Hill, then please do. I don't think you'll find much support for either

Edited June 16 by Earl Aelfheah

[Guest]

1 hour ago, SE22_2020er said:

@Kathleen Olander I see exactly the opposite on East Dulwich grove to your observations.   The traffic frequently tailed back to the church on the corner of Melbourne and EDG.   This is something that never happens any more

I am referring to the Village end of EDG which is affected by the road closure of DV junction.

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Kathleen Olander said:

I am referring to the Village end of EDG which is affected by the road closure of DV junction.

From the junction of Townley road and Calton Avenue, to where Dulwich Village road passes Calton Avenue is maybe 2 to 3 minutes by car (via EDG). It’s added very little to a journey and that would suggest it’s not unlikely to have added to traffic on EDG.

Indeed, vehicle counts showed a drop along that section of EDG (‘EDG central’). Following the implementation of the changes.

Air quality also improved, but this will be down to a series of factors, not all related to the road changes (although modelling did predict a fall).

As others have said, the traffic is better now than it used to be. 

Edited June 16 by Earl Aelfheah

[ab29]

On 14/06/2025 at 20:19, ab29 said:

Agree - said as somone who does not drive or own the car. Malumbu on the other hand might be transferring the furniture to his France villa as we speak 🙂

Still stands 🙂

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

@Rockets One can call people fascists etc. but it’s not usually a sign that you’ve a good point to make

yes @Earl Aelfheah many of us have been saying this to many of your pals who have been very keen to accuse many us of being fascists just because we oppose the council's approach! There's certainly Trumpian fascist traits being displayed by some of your cohort.

24 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Indeed, vehicle counts showed a drop along that section of EDG (‘EDG central’). Following the implementation of the changes.

Oh don't start that again......not all of EDG benefited from this alleged "drop" though did it - which buts were red, was it the other two parts of EDG? By the way. does anyone know why the council removed the monitoring dashboard just when many of the roads started going and amber red when compared to traffic prior to lockdown?

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

yes @Earl Aelfheah many of us have been saying this to many of your pals who have been very keen to accuse many us of being fascists

Don’t know who you’re referring to as ‘my pals’ - I assume another example of your irrational view of transport as a binary opposition / football match.

I’ve not accused anyone of taking ‘pages from the despot dictator and fascist playbook’. You have. But nice attempt at deflecting. Again, one can call people fascist etc, but it’s not usually a sign that you’ve got a good point to make.

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Oh don't start that again......not all of EDG benefited from this alleged "drop" though did it

I said ‘EDG Central’, which is the part of the road the person I was responding to referenced. And yes, traffic counts showed a fall in the number of vehicles post-implementation. Again, you’ll argue that vehicle counts are not reliable, and that traffic has fallen because of changes in commuting patterns, and any other mutually contradictory position you think might muddy the waters. But ‘flooding the zone’ doesn’t fundamentally change the facts.

Again, this is all re-litigating the past. It’s pointless.

Champaign to rip out the Square and to increase speed limits if it makes you happy. At least it would be forward looking, if still hopelessly misguided. Apparently there is a massive majority who would support it 🤔 

Edited June 16 by Earl Aelfheah

[jazzer]

6 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

 

If you want to campaign to rip out Dulwich Square, or to increase the speed limit on Sydenham Hill, then please do. I don't think you'll find much support for either.

Absolute poppy cock. 

No one uses the cycle lane on Sydenham Hill, Never have I ever seen, not even one solitary cyclist use it. I think ripping out the that cycle lane would get huge support as would ripping out "Dulwich Sq" 

[Sue]

44 minutes ago, jazzer said:

Absolute poppy cock. 

No one uses the cycle lane on Sydenham Hill, Never have I ever seen, not even one solitary cyclist use it. I think ripping out the that cycle lane would get huge support as would ripping out "Dulwich Sq" 

How often are  you actually on Sydenham Hill?

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Apparently there is a massive majority who would support it 🤔

Good that you have finally admitted that your  "55% majority support" for the LTN consultation nonsense was about as accurate as a pneumatic traffic counter under 10kmp/h - only part of the story and not being close to reality!!! 🙂 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I said ‘EDG Central’, which is the part of the road the person I was responding to referenced. And yes, traffic counts showed a fall in the number of vehicles post-implementation.

But that wasn't the case, per the council's monitoring, on all of East Dulwich Grove was it?

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Champaign to rip out the Square and to increase speed limits if it makes you happy.

Ripping out the square or increasing speeds limits would not make me happy. Holding those within the council, and their cheerleaders and supporters, to account for the un-democratic way they have forced measures against the will of the majority (the results of the consultation spell this out very clearly despite your, and the council's desperate spin) would make me, and a lot of others very happy. Bring it on.

14 minutes ago, Sue said:

How often are  you actually on Sydenham Hill?

Perhaps the council should take the same approach with cycle lanes that it does with abandoned cars....if there are weeds growing on the cycle lane and clear signs that it is not being used then they will remove it for us! I am sorry but no-one can claim that cycle lane is well used - it's an abomination of an active travel intervention and a complete waste of tax-payer's money.

[Earl Aelfheah]

9 hours ago, jazzer said:

No one uses the cycle lane on Sydenham Hill, Never have I ever seen, not even one solitary cyclist use it. I think ripping out the that cycle lane would get huge support

The council consulted over the cycle lane at the time. The majority of those who responded supported it. People use it regularly.

Literally nothing would be achieved by removing the cycle lane. Are you also calling for the widening of the carriageway and returning to a higher speed limit (i.e. reversal of the whole scheme)? You realise that it has significantly improved road safety?

8 hours ago, Rockets said:

Ripping out the square or increasing speeds limits would not make me happy. Holding those within the council, and their cheerleaders and supporters, to account for the un-democratic way they have forced measures against the will of the majority … would make me, and a lot of others very happy.

So what do you actually want? Are you calling for re-elected councillors ‘and their supporters’ to be arrested, or fined? On what grounds exactly? 

What is the nature of this vengeance you’re after? 

Edited June 17 by Earl Aelfheah

[jazzer]

8 hours ago, Sue said:

How often are  you actually on Sydenham Hill?

I'm on Sydenham Hill when I need to be, depends what I'm doing.

37 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The council consulted over the cycle lane at the time. The majority of those who responded supported it. People use it regularly.

Literally nothing would be achieved by removing the cycle lane. Are you also calling for the widening of the carriageway and returning to a higher speed limit (i.e. reversal of the whole scheme)? You realise that it has significantly improved road safety?

So what do you actually want? Are you calling for re-elected councillors ‘and their supporters’ to be arrested, or fined? On what grounds exactly? 

What is the nature of this vengeance you’re after? 

Everything will be achieved by ripping i out, it will widen the road and allow traffic to flow as it did. You may not like that, but it makes total sense. And if so many who responded supported it, why isn't it ever used? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, jazzer said:

I'm on Sydenham Hill when I need to be, depends what I'm doing.

Everything will be achieved by ripping i out, it will widen the road and allow traffic to flow as it did. You may not like that, but it makes total sense. And if so many who responded supported it, why isn't it ever used? 

Yeh, so you’ve fundamentally misunderstood the scheme, which was introduced 5 years ago to address a speeding and accident black spot. The road narrowing and the introduction of a 20mph limit was designed to slow traffic and had local support. It’s has been successful in the aim of reducing accidents. Different design options were put forward for consultation, and again, there was majority support for including a bike lane. The road wasn’t narrowed in order to create one.

So you’re not arguing against a bike lane per se, but for the reversal of a successful and popular road safety intervention. Or simply to pointlessly remove a bike lane because you don’t like people travelling by bicycle possibly.

1 hour ago, jazzer said:

I'm on Sydenham Hill when I need to be, depends what I'm doing.

Explains a lot. It’s simply not true that no one uses it.

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So what do you actually want? Are you calling for re-elected councillors ‘and their supporters’ to be arrested, or fined? On what grounds exactly? 

What is the nature of this vengeance you’re after? 

@Rockets also, on this, who exactly do you want to see ‘held accountable’? Which councillors, or council staff, which ‘cheerleaders and supporters’, how and on what grounds? 

Edited June 17 by Earl Aelfheah