Rockets

No Rahx3 we are questioning why the council's plan to move the closure on Melbourne Grove has been changed and what /who influenced that decision and why the council seems happy to make u-turns (no pun intended) to appease some on Melbourne Grove yet won't hear or consider anyone else's concerns. Look at the bigger picture, you can see how the council works from the statement from the report on how they are justifying the u-turn on the Melbourne Grove relocation of the closure, which I have pasted below again (although this is a reference to the initial consultation before you accuse me of talking about the removal of the measures completely). That the turkeys didn't vote for Christmas comes as no surprise but the bigger concern is that the views of everyone else were ignored to keep the turkeys happy in the very first consultation.... For the few, Not the many...... Overall the response from the consultation regarding the measures on Melbourne Grove North, Derwent Grove, Elsie Road and Tintagel Crescent showed a preference for the measures to be removed. However, the measures were popular with those who were residents of the filtered streets.

This bit of that order speaks volumes: Overall the response from the consultation regarding the measures on Melbourne Grove North, Derwent Grove, Elsie Road and Tintagel Crescent showed a preference for the measures to be removed. However, the measures were popular with those who were residents of the filtered streets. I wonder how much pressure was exerted by those same residents on the filtered streets to not move forward with the revised measures? Is the Melbourne Grove Resident's Association now rivalling Southwark Cyclists for airtime and influence with the council? How much longer can they use the cover of Covid for the experimental/temporary TOs - it seems ludicrous they can still invoke them two years on - will this ability to avoid talking to residents continue forever - is this not a classic example of a council abusing the powers given to them in a time of emergency?

Heartblock - agree with all of the above and I would do more to incentivise people to move to electric vehicles - if they have to drive far better they go electric. I would go further and say road pricing on all roads. I would also look to focus on providing cycle and walking infrastructure that is not in isolation and forms part of a joined-up London-wide approach to helping facilitate modal shift (but also being cognisant of the challenges of trying to turn London into an Amsterdam)

SE22_2020er....just dream of what could have been!! ;-) And congrats to Rahx3 for shattering the Christmas Truce with the shots fired in the wee hours of this morning! ;-)

Southwark News reports from the scene.... There was an initial awkward stand-off. Approaching along Dulwich Village the anti-LTN lobby arrived in a fleet of diesel belching monster trucks all sporting wood burning stoves and announced their arrival by driving over the planters. The occupants, bloated on freshly shot game, emerged taking huge intakes of breath from freshly filled petrol cannisters. The pro-LTN group unicycled down Calton avenue and dismounted outside Au Ciel. Dressed entirely in Southwark Cyclist lycra the unhealthily emaciated riders dismounted with a resounding click of pedal clips on concrete. They walked towards the anti-LTN groups with an odd gait as if they had recently accidentally sat on something quite sharp. Cllrs Newens, Leeming, McAsh and Rose stood uncomfortably in no man's land between the two groups, shifting nervously from side to side and lamenting the days when the council could implement projects without anyone caring.... The tension was broken when the LTN Peace Quartet (featuring Rahx3, Malumbu, Heartblock and Rockets) struck up the LTN Peace song on a flute, harpsichord, tuba and Hawaiian ukulele...

In all seriousness if I was the council I would be getting both sides together and walking/cycling around the area to get the views of both sides of the arguments so everyone can hear the opposing sides' view on what is happening at certain key hotspots in the area. The council could also share their rationale for doing certain things. Perhaps we could organise it and call it the Dulwich Resident LTN Peace Walk ;-). The big problem both sides have, I think, is that the council is hiding from the residents on the issue - we have no forum to discuss with them and air our grievances so it looks like the council is operating within its own insular bubble where only the likes of Southwark Cyclists or LCC get invited in to the inner sanctum where the policy decisions are made that are affecting everyone in the area.

But they are not disingenuous are they - you are suggesting cars are the problem but the data shows private car ownership and usage is declining in London and that the biggest problem in London is the growth of LGVs and PHVs driven by the online "mobility as a service" economy? Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's not correct. On your cycle ride during rush hour you may see more cars but that doesn't mean they are the sole problem and until you start trying to manage the problem in it's entirety you will never solve the problem. You are highlighting why we are in this mess because the council got seduced by the bike lobby idea that the private car was the root of all evil (fossil fuel or electric) and they implemented the cycle-lobby's grand plan as part of the war on cars and it was downhill from there. How do LTNs deal with the growth in LGVs and PHVs?

How many pages of hyperbolic drivel will it take > until people actually understand that the root > cause of the problem is the number of journeys > that are being made by car and the number of cars > that we've allowed to take over our streets and > absolutely not the LTNs. This just shows the blinkered view of the problem that so many have that is utterly paralysing the opportunity for rational debate and analysis - vehicle miles is not just about the car (private car ownership and use has been declining, albeit slowly, across London for years) but the huge rise in LGVs and PHVs has been driving the vehicle miles up - and LTNs don't do anything to deter that problem. When you start understanding the problem you can try and fix it but if you focus solely on the private car you are missing the bigger picture.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For those who are interested in what's actually > happening, rather than desperately looking for > anything that might be spun to support a prior > belief. Here is a summary of what's been > achieved: > > Assumes advert voice over voice.... *a liberal dose of council spin may have been applied to the numbers therein and users are advised to treat the numbers with caution. Other analysis may also be valid and you should seek advice from a professional without a vested interest....

Absolutely agree that the effect of bad drivers has much worse consequences than bad cyclists and this story (that someone posted elsewhere) highlights the absolute worst of some drivers. But it also demonstrates there are bad eggs on both sides and you can see that there were moments that both could have behaved better and de-escalated the situation. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/14/motorist-jailed-for-running-over-cyclist-who-spat-on-his-car?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2kdScweEgMq3rQIIPlOYqvs9ImMM3NiU_rmhRln4WEcSA7T4LQ6hqg27k#Echobox=1639485222 Cyclist hits car and cycles off Car driver goes to remonstrate with cyclist about the damage caused to his car Cyclist spits on man's car Car driver loses it and uses his car as a weapon and, deservedly, goes to prison.

CPR Dave Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hang on now you are saying that two thirds of East > Dulwich Grove has had an increase in traffic! > > Are you sure this a "good thing" ?? CPR - it's always a case of "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" with the pro-LTN lobby! Time and time again their claims are torn apart by people looking at the detail for themselves and it's often a case that the more the pro-LTN lobby talk the deeper the hole they dig (I refer you to Rahx3s 20% reduction along EDG statement which three messages later they have to admit is not true as the two other parts of EDG have increased traffic numbers). This is the worst situation for the council, and why they are so nervous as they know people will look at what they are putting out there (on this and everything moving forward), because the trust in them has been so eroded by this process. They can't get away with pushing things through without their constituents looking at it in minutia. They have made a huge rod for their own backs.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would rather that cars didn't cut pass the > entrance to East Dulwich Charter on Melbourne > Grove. It's instructive that you were arguing > against the LTN on the grounds that it supposedly > increased traffic outside the school, but now > argue that cars should be encouraged to pass the > school rather than drive an extra couple of > minutes to avoid it. It's clearly better to have > less traffic and more people walking and cycling. > It's clearly better to have cars avoid driving > passed the entrance to a school and yes, if that > means a 2 or 3 minute diversion further along the > road in order to avoid it, I do think that's > preferable. > > You didn't answer my question about whether the > number of kids walking and cycling to school would > increase or decrease if the LTN was removed, but > up to you. Rahx3 but I am not arguing that am I? Really you do seem to be tying yourself in knots trying desperately to make a point that doesn't exist. What I want is less traffic for everyone - not less for some and more for others. I want people to be able to walk and cycle safely and to answer your question I am not convinced the LTNs have had any positive impact on modal shift - I think the pandemic was responsible for that and I think the council needs to remove the LTNs but then put measures in that protect modal shift (especially walking that they seem to have neglected).

Rah - EDG South is up, EDG East is up , EDG Central (miraculously) is down. So to say traffic is down on EDG is complete nonsense - the council alleges it is down on one section. Again, do you think it is fair that some are getting less traffic and some are getting more along the same stretch of road? I answered your question. Stop pontificating (but we have seen more than enough times that the pro-lobby aren't good under cross-examination!) ;-)

Rahx3 - you're avoiding my question.....again.... They have reduced traffic on the closed roads and increased them on the displacement routes (that is clear from the data). Active travel was at 68% in Dulwich already and was probably even higher due to the pandemic before the LTNs went in - the active travel gains solely because of the LTNs will be negligible (maybe a low single-figure %) and I am afraid more children cycling to JAGs/JAPS and Alleyns who used to walk is not enough to justify the chaos and misery being inflicted on others. Now, in case you missed it here is my question to you again: And to that end let me ask you a question - do you really think the measures are working and fair if Goldilocks can herald the "success" of the EDG Central "reduction" numbers whilst Heartblock sees them as a failure because 100 yards up the same road in either direction traffic has increased by over 25%?

Unfortunately there are bad eggs on both sides who give all of the good ones a bad name!

Rahx3 - removing LTNs would increase traffic on the roads that have been closed to traffic but would reduce traffic on roads that have been a displacement route for the closed roads. Would it increase overall traffic numbers - I very much doubt it - it would just redistribute the traffic to the levels it was at before? Remember, private car ownership is declining in London, what is increasing is PHV and delivery vehicles so LTNs don't magic that away with LTNs - so you need measures to tackle that or measures to reduce the environmental impact of that if you can't get it to go away. If the council puts in proper strategic area-wide measures to reduce the reliance on the car and to promote walking and cycling then I do believe it would decrease traffic and increase walking and cycling (but remember walking is already the most popular form of transport for people making local journeys in the area). But I also think we have to be realistic - something the council seems incapable of doing. What you forget is that these measures are designed to, ostensibly, reduce pollution but have been skewed by lobby groups to be about reducing vehicle use - all vehicle use whether they pollute a lot or not. LTNs are not the solution in isolation - you know that, the council knows that, we all know that. The problem is the council got seduced by the pro-LTN lobby groups (namely the cycle groups like the LCC and Southwark cyclists) into closing roads and using Covid and the need for social distancing as the underhand air-cover to roll them out without any engagement with the community as they had failed to get a consensus that these were the right measures during their OHS consultations. It was clear to many of us from those OHS days that all LTNs do is move the problem elsewhere and increases pollution - many have been consistent in that position since the outset. And to that end let me ask you a question - do you really think the measures are working and fair if Goldilocks can herald the "success" of the EDG Central "reduction" numbers whilst Heartblock sees them as a failure because 100 yards up the same road in either direction traffic has increased by over 25%?

Don't...I just got off the train at North Dulwich and there was one lady in our carriage who was not wearing a mask - annoying enough I am sure you'll agree. She then proceeded to unchain her bike from outside the station and then cycled off with no helmet and no lights on Red Post Hill to the traffic lights and the on to Dulwich Village. A car trying to turn left at the lights nearly took her out as they had no way to see her as she had no lights. Some cyclists are an accident waiting to happen.

I had the same but, like you, I registered to receive the updates. I wonder how the council are going to inform the thousands of people who received the mail shot but have not registered for email updates. Maybe they are relying on ESP. Honestly, this council is beyond reproach. Yet still, people will come on here and defend them and claim this is a genuine oversight. At what point do we have to question Cllr Williams' leadership and whether he is fit for the role?

But Rahx3 I am not saying that am I? What I am saying is that there is increasing evidence that, following pressure from Melbourne Grove residents, the council has created a new set of figures to help justify not making their proposed changes to Melbourne Grove thus continuing to inflict continued increased congestion and pollution on other streets in the area whilst appeasing the residents of Melbourne Grove who have been central to the support of LTNs. The fact the council removed the Jan 19 data from their website certainly suggests they were trying to hide it. The fact it then reappeared with their new Sep 19 figures magically added also suggests they were trying to bury something and deliver a very different message. Do you have anything, beyond the usual pro-LTN blah blah blah, that you can counter that accusation?

The Jan 19 East Dulwich Grove Central data, the council website, the disappearing data, the "new data", the new conclusions..a thread... Draw your own conclusions....this council is an utter omnishambles....

This is interesting. Is anyone else surprised given all the fanfare from Mr Norman et al that this isn't as impressive as you would have expected? Breaking 2018 Boris bike hires numbers with two weeks to go doesn't suggest as many people are using them as they touted.

It's going to be very interesting to see what happens to traffic flow numbers when the council reduces the operating hours. If modal shift has taken place then there should not be a huge increase. If all the LTNs have done is displace traffic elsewhere then you would expect an increase.

Ha ha... it doesn't seem the council is even sure themselves whether they collected the data or not...on one page of the report it says they didn't, on another it says it did. You'd expect more clarity and consistency and attention to detail from the council wouldn't you....it may not be a smoking gun but the gun has definitely been loaded don't you agree? It is an amazing coincidence don't you think that the numbers that we are arguing about, and the numbers that the council isn't sure whether they collected or not, are the ones showing the biggest increase in numbers that allows you to claim what a rip roaring success the LTNs are on your street? Funny that....

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For those unable to find the table that shows no > ACTUAL measurement in Sept 2019 on ED Grove > Central - which is the only 'count' used as a > baseline to show the magical decrease of 20% - so > the figure is just made up. So not scrabbling > around at all, no need as table is published. > If you want to believe a made-up number then fine, > personally I would much rather Southwark measures > pollution on ED Grove - which it either hasn't so > far, or it has and is not publishing. > Where is the air quality data? That is the > question all those who support road closures > should be asking - rather than gaslighting their > neighbours - maybe start supporting us on boundary > roads who have to put up with extra traffic and > pollution - why do you care so little about us? Heartblock - and there it is - the smoking gun. Despite the claims from Goldilocks to the contrary it is clear no data was ever collected for Sep 19 by the council. They took the Jan 19 numbers and magically added 3,000 or so journeys to arrive at the Sept 19 figure. They then suddenly decided to begin monitoring at the ED Central location and got figures that showed an increase on the Jan 19 figures - one wonders if this was the trigger for the ghost Sep 19 figures after the MG residents complained they didn't want the changes to the road layout Southwark suggested. The only way Southwark could justify no change would be that they could demonstrate that the MG closures were working as is and, magically, those numbers appeared......call me a cynic but I smell a rat! ;-) They are taking everyone for a ride.....and when people on here suggest we should not be analysing the data for holes I laugh to myself quite heartily at the idea that we should all just go about our business and turn a blind eye to corruption and manipulation of the democratic process. Imagine if everyone just turned a blind eye - (on a different scale obviously but...) they'd be no Watergate, No Cash for Questions, No Tory party parties - hell we would all probably think that Chernobyl was an unexplained freakish act of nature! Our council and councillors are supposed to be accountable to their constituents and at the moment Southwark and our local councillors are treating us with utter contempt and lying to us and refusing to engage with us because they are terrified of what we have uncovered as they know their process and output in relation to LTNs is as flawed at the LTNs themselves. They got away with it for years over things like the CPZs but now they have a problem on their hands as everyone is aware of the issues around the LTNs and it appears far more people in the area hate them than like them and we are months away from a council vote where a few hundred votes against them ends their political careers - particularly problematic for any of them that harbour desires to progress within the Labour party.

Goldilocks - absolutely it is too many. As a resident of that road do you believe it was nearly 4,000 cars a day - that seems an awfully high number? Are we to believe that Melbourne Grove had one third of the traffic Lordship Lane central is currently experiencing or half of the traffic going through the DV junction? It was busy and a cut-through but not that busy w. I have always said that I thought that Melbourne Grove was a justified closure because it was a cut-through but what I was hoping for was that those benefitting most from it might show a bit of community spirit for those living with the displacement - there seems to be way too much "I am alright Jack so it's all great" grandstanding going on at the moment.