Rockets

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > DKHB - not entirely - again, you might want to > > read up on a few things. Southwark have > previously > > said they want to reduce car usage by 50% > across > > the borough. > > > > That would be a brilliant thing to achieve, in my > opinion - would you not agree? > > How we get to that point, plus the efficacy, costs > and externalities, etc of the efforts to date are > all up for discussion of course. Brilliant but not at all realistic. Far more realistic would be reducing fossil fuel car use by 50% but the council seems to be doing nothing to encourage the electrification of cars which seems like the most realistic, pragmatic and achievable goal to have a massively positive impact on emissions and air quality. They seem to have been brain-washed by lobby groups that brake dust etc is a reason not to pursue an electrification strategy.

Out manoeuvred by Boris and alienating themselves from their own constituents...this isn't going to end well. And yet Southwark still give more voice and influence to vested-interest lobby groups than their actual constituents......

DKHB - not entirely - again, you might want to read up on a few things. Southwark have previously said they want to reduce car usage by 50% across the borough. What frustrates me in all this is that there is a crying need for more cycle storage on Lordship lane yet the council are turning precious pavement space on Lordship Lane (in front of Superdrug) over to electric scooter companies rather than installing more bike storage themselves - and I am sure the motivation for that is that electric scooter companies will pay handsomely for the space due to the gold rush to try and establish their businesses whilst bike storage requires council money.

Has the sign vandal been out plying their trade again - I read that a lot of signs were been pulled down and thrown in people's gardens again yesterday.

Given the amount they have spent on them already and the fact they are not delivering I think we are all being financially penalised by the LTNs already.....with Southwark there's always someone else to blame.....accountability isn't their strong point

And it is telling that the GSTT report comes to a very different strategic conclusion than the council's own report on Dulwich LTNs - I know Cllr McAsh is trying to claim that an independent analyst firm did the Dulwich report but there is a huge gap between the detail, transparency, methodology and authenticity of the GSTT reports and the Dulwich reports and I suspect Southwark told the company they used what conclusion needed to be reached and that they needed to find the data to support the rational that the LTNs were a good thing. The council have dug themselves such a deep hole with the Dulwich LTNs that I suspect they are struggling to find a way out - which is why, despite Cllr Williams' promises to contrary, that the council has not released the raw data or methodology - because they know that their numbers won't stand up to scrutiny. And, typical of all politicians, they realise that transparency this deep into the mire might cost people their jobs/political reputations so they try to snake their way out of it. The next stage of the process will be the "blame someone else to protect myself" and I suspect that will come as we near the council elections in May as councillors fight to retain their seats.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Penguin68 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > The idea that we all > > become locked into our own locales, traveling > no > > more than we can walk or cycle...which 70 years > and more of real > > life have told me is not something to be wished > > for. > > You are criticising an idea that you yourself have > invented and that no-one (Swedish or otherwise) is > proposing. DKHB - you are obviously not aware of the 15-minute City concept being touted by the mayor of Paris and by many in London as the solution to all our woes! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15-minute_city

Scooters are indeed a new way to travel but they are inherently dangerous and I suspect, unfortunately, that there will be a debate on their continued usage after A&E figures get published. The same has happened in every city where they have been rolled out. In Berlin and Munich they had huge issues with increases in A&E admissions, drunk driving on scooters and abandoned e-scooters when they were first introduced. Paris has reduced their maximum speeds and has been threatening to ban them following a series of accidents and incidents. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57664420 I really can't see how the issues experienced elsewhere won't be repeated here and I find it amazing that TFL and councils are happy to roll these out fully aware of the issues across Europe.

July 2021 Cllr Williams: "Clearly there are questions about methodology and just about people being able to be clear what methodology we're using, is it accurate, is it transparent?" "So we've done some work to present that, but we absolutely take away there's more to do to make sure everyone's clear on the numbers - where they've come from - so that you can have trust and faith in them." November 2021....still waiting..... Cllr McAsh - your constituents aren't requesting more data, just the raw data and a explanation of the methodology used to create the numbers the council put into their report. It seems that when people start looking more deeply the numbers don't add up so they are, quite rightly, asking the council what methodology was used to generate the numbers they have presented. Cllr McAsh given there are some glaring errors in the report (Cllr Andy Simmons has told residents that the claim of a 61% reduction in traffic along Turney Road should have actually been reported as a significant increase) would you support, in the name of full transparency, the full report being republished and methodology shared? Maybe this would be a good opportunity for a cross-ward public meeting where all of the local councillors shared this with their constituents so there can be no doubt as to the validity and reliability of the data being presented and some faith in the process can be restored? This could be an online meeting but you really need to re-enable the chat function as a matter of urgency as the optics of disabling the function are not at all good as it appears you are just trying to mute anyone who wishes to voice an opinion. BTW at which meetings did things deteriorate on the chat as I attended a lot of them and nothing untoward was said on either the Dulwich Hill or Goose Green ward meetings?

The report does break down actual numbers to support the % figures so there does seem to be an element of granularity to their reporting.

Yes Legal - the stats being presented by the council are just the headline summaries and Cllr Williams has promised to release the supporting data so people can properly understand what has been measured, where and when and compared against (depsite Cllr Williams' assurances some months ago that it would be shared it has yet to materialise). People, understandably, want to look at the data - especially in light of some of the "oversights" that have been uncovered (like the Turney Road mistake). Let's hope this all gets shared with the September analysis rather than just the redacted/incomplete/summary headlines versions that have been shared previously.

Yes the actual numbers make for scary reading because they are comparing vehicle movements during Nov2020 and April 2021 (so not even like to like in terms of weather): Their analysis shows (and this is based on totals for all streets): In the North Peckham trial they claim there has been a -4% decrease on weekdays and 17% increase on weekends in traffic on the closed streets and boundary roads In the East Faraday trial they claim there has been a 3% increase on weekdays and a 31% increase on weekends in traffic on the closed streets and boundary roads In the Brunswick Park they claim a 2% increase on weekdays and a 13% increase on weekends in traffic on the closed streets and boundary roads It makes Southwark's claims of a 16% reduction in traffic across the whole Dulwich area even more fanciful in light of these numbers. I will be interested to see what the Guy's Trust says as they were very clear from the outset that they would only support if there were tangible benefits. Of course, there have been increases in cycling but at what cost?

I wonder whether the council will be updating the reports Cllr McAsh linked to now the Turney Road "mistake" has been identified and whether that will be included in the September data that is released? Cllr McAsh - BTW I think the leaf clearing may have been done by a change of wind direction as when I walked down there today it now seems to be massing further towards Colwell Road.

Oh no....is this from one of the hire companies who are licensed to offer the service? I really think e-scooters will be a short-lived experiment that was doomed to fail from the start.

Interesting that the report calls out the potential displacement (and then goes on to stress it does not impact one group more than others). Is it a case, I wonder, whether the council is getting their defence in early by suggesting the displacement doesn't impact one particular group or another and that the displacement is shared by all (who live on boundary roads)! What is very clear is that this report highlights what we are seeing in Dulwich yet the council's data fails to highlight that there are significant increases of traffic on boundary roads. I also love the way they refer to the traffic increases as slight......the devil is in the detail and all that. Here are some choice cuts: On weekdays, the largest decrease in traffic was on Dalwood Street (-83%) and the largest increase was on Southampton Way (+26%). At the weekend, St Giles Road also experienced an increase in traffic (+65%), whereas Dalwood Street had the biggest decrease (-79%) Please see below Fig 1. On weekdays, Fenham Road (-79%) had been recorded a highest decrease in traffic volumes in weekday, followed by Marmont Road (south of Goldsmith) (-74%) whereas Naylor Road (+109%) and Commercial Way (+54%) saw an increase in traffic volumes in weekday In term of traffic volumes, East Faraday had the highest traffic volume increase (31%) at the weekend, followed by North Peckham (17%) and Brunswick Park (13%). If those types of increases are being felt in the areas with higher PTAL scores than Dulwich it doesn't take a genius to work out that maybe the council's manipulation of/errors with/oversight in counting the figures in Dulwich may actually be much much farther away from the truth. It's becoming clearer and clearer everyday that LTNs cause significant displacement and increases in pollution associated with it.

That's very interesting because that scheme is in an area with high PTAL scores - just the type of area Southwark recommended for LTNs. Is this the one where the Guys Trust insisted on thorough and transparent monitoring and analysis?

My offer would be DTNs - Displaced Traffic Neighbourhoods.....

The fact the ULEZ will deliver ?600m less is actually great news because it means that TFLs modelling on tbe number of higher polluting vehicles coming into London was wrong. It's bad news of course for TFL as that was a revenue plug they desperately need. It is also amazing that just one month after spending hundred of millions rolling out the ULEZ scheme TFL is basically admitting it probably wasn't needed or the threat of it alone has delivered the desired effect. I wonder if, again, TFL has modelled something that just wasn't actually happening in reality and got things very wrong. I don't know about anyone else but it seems a bit rich to use one of your own schemes that you are solely responsible for as an example of why you can't make the books add up and one of the reasons why you need more money from central government. Isn't this the point the Tories are trying to make about mismanagement at TFL?

Did they? Or was that another modelling/mathematical "mistake"?

Malumbu - you do realize don't you that you could always find quiet routes before LTNs? My route to Hammersmith used to take me along lots of quiet backstreets (in fact the busiest point was the Battersea Park roundabout) and the council didn't have to close roads, and the associated negative impacts, to allow me to do that. There even used to be a great website that would plot routes that used backstreets to get around London.

Northern - check out their note. ED NAGAIUTB posted it earlier today on this thread. It clearly says that the landlord, residents and council have all contributed to their demise and they call out the road closures as one of the factors. One wonders what will go in it?s place - another artisan coffee shop or two I wonder? It increasingly looks like the road closures are starting to take their toll. Remind me again, beyond a few children cycling to school, what are the actual benefits of these LTNs because with every passing day it seems there fewer and fewer?

Indeed but don't expect any noise from our council or councillors to tell Sadiq not to make the cuts to TFL - they will be forced to toe the party line and will stay silent even though it would impact their constituents. Of course, if the mayor was not Labour you would not be hearing the end of this. Gotta love party-politics hey! ;-)

Cllr McAsh - there has been some clearing of leaves on the affected part of Lordship Lane so thank you for escalating. It looks like some clearing has been done as it is not as bad as it was before (it may also be that more leaves have fallen since any clearing was done) - it is certainly much better than it was.

And one of the findings from the Dulwich LTN review was that bus services are being impacted on some routes - it's all a very vicious circle.

Unfortunately I suspect the TFL cutting services is another move in the political football games between the Tories and Sadiq over TFL funding - and, as usual, it is the people of London who end up suffering.