Rockets

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.

Given the better grasp of calculator use by the opposition groups it probably explains why Southwark refuses to release the raw data (despite promises from Cllr Williams that they would do so). I wonder if he has looked at the numbers and realised that the council's review conclusions were a work of fiction. He is obviously concerned the raw data does not stand up to scrutiny. Southwark appear to be trying to bury the data from which they drew their conclusions. If Turney Road is indicative of the council's data analysis skills you can understand why. I do wonder whether the raw data shows an overall increase in traffic throughout the area.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > oimissus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > malumbu - I've seen you frequently ask people for > solutions, and yet every time they do just that, > you criticize them. > > You actually seem to want everyone to stop > criticizing the council and then just shut up. > Which sounds pretty much like what the council > want residents to do as well. > > ----------------------------- > > You've missed my points. Firstly that the default > position of many is to blame everything on > Southwark. > > Secondly that even with the best will in the world > they do not have the powers to compel either the > schools or parents to reduce the school run. > > If anything you should be feeling sorry for local > authorities who have been given the job by central > government to sort out air quality without the > funding or powers. A cop out, the point I have > made during various central government > consultations. Most of government effors is going > on big ticket interventions - Clean Air Zones and > the like working with the big metropolitan areas > where, for example, you have greater control over > public transport, such as Manchester, Birmingham, > and to a lesser extent GLA/TfL (they don't like > Mayor Khan). But little at the borough level. > > I was always disappointed in the lack of publicity > at borough level. But even where this was good, > such as Croydon, still had little impact. > https://lovecleanair.org/what-can-i-do/projects/cl > ean-air-4-croydon-schools/#.YZVJth3Leos > > I've also raised a couple of times where > Southwark's interventions a few years ago led to > more traffic passing a Lewisham primary. But not > one of you, not one of you, showed any empathy. > Which suggests a narrow perspective. > > I could go on about what I have done personally > and collectively to support sustainable travel to > school, but this is not my moral high ground > thread. And I reached out in the past as in the > late noughties I got very obsessed over a planning > matter and a local authority, which took over my > life, so have been in a similar space. Why do they need powers? Surely a dialogue with schools and some brainstorming of ideas would not go a miss? Ideas like the gamification of the school journey would be easy to do, easy to implement and far more effective than the short-sighted self-interest lobby group influenced ideas that are the LTNs. Southwark and our councillors are collectively responsible for the LTNs so they deserve the blame if they fail to deliver. I find one of the most frustrating things is that Southwark will never admit they got something wrong - it's one of the less pleasant traits of the left which is also adopted by our government. I don't think anyone feels sorry for local authorities - especially not after the way our local authority has acted around LTNs - I feel sorry for their constituents who are having to live with the negative impacts of their nonsense ideas. And Malumbu - you are the great question asker and pointer of fingers but very rarely do you ever respond to any questions put to you. Maybe this is why many don't engage in dialogue with you because it's all a little bit one-sided.

If that Turney Road error is as bad as it looks then does anyone have any faith in the council's claim that there has been an area-wide reduction in traffic? When those corrected figures are added into the report it must now be getting close to no reduction in area-wide traffic. On the basis of the multitude of oversights, errors, the lack of raw data being shared by the council then this must be called-in for further scrutiny - it's an utter shambles and it appears they are just trying to bury the actual facts to save face and avoid having to admit the LTN policy has been a disaster.

I hope you make a speedy recovery.

Malumbu - I am being critical of Southwark because they need to be called out for their inaction. Thus far, the council seems to think dealing with the climate emergency means listening to Southwark Cyclists and putting in a load of LTN roadblocks. It has to do more and we should all be challenging them to do so. Things like this would be easy to implemented and a good way to spend the public purse - why should the council not be leading the initiative on things like this? It seems to me that this would be a low cost initiative that has an immediate positive impact. To me it seems like they loaded all of their eggs into the LTN basket and sat back doing nothing else for the last 18 months - a case of poor window-dressing in my eyes.

Cllr McAsh - it is particularly bad just along the road from Mrs Robinson before you get to Melbourne Grove - that is your ward isn't it? I was merely bringing it to your attention as it has been getting progressively worse over the last few weeks and if it rains at any point it will become a significant slip hazard - in places the leaf collection is shin deep. Thanks Nigello for flagging where this type of thing can be reported. According to the leafing schedule it looks like parts of Lordship Lane have already been done, others are due to be done this week or the week of Nov 29th. I have reported it in the hope it can be expedited although I have to say reporting things like missed bin collections seems to disappear into a black hole and nothing done about it. And Cllr McAsh I can attest that Cllr Browning is very responsive but I am now living in the Village Ward and the councillors here are, ahem, less responsive....;-)

Cllr Mcash - is it the council's responsibility for sweeping the pavements? The depth of leaves at the end of Lordship Lane as you head towards Townley Road is getting ludicrous - if it rains the leave mulch will be ankle deep and a significant slip hazard. Is there anything you can do?

Imagine is you incentivised the school run for kids by encouraging them to walk or cycle - I reckon you would see a 75% decrease in car journeys to school. Probably really cheap to rollout and maintain and something everyone could get behind. I just wish our council would show some lateral thinking about how to address the challenges Dulwich faces.

There are some tremendous examples of proper nudge initiatives at work (like the one HP linked to)..... I really like this one...so simple yet so clever.

It's a complex issue and one that is becoming more complex after the council's policy to sell off a lot of council sites to private property developers over the last 10 years or so (much of it because the running costs had become too high as buildings aged and fell into disrepair). Much of the re-development of Elephant and Castle has come at the cost of council homes so the council has to find new places to build homes to replace those lost.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where did you get that from Rockets? Whilst I > guess it?s not impossible, it would seem unlikely > on a road that is partially restricted From what I understand they didn't compare like with like on Turney and that's why their numbers are wrong and have now been adjusted - I am trying to find out more but I think they mixed up the monitoring results, one from the end with the restrictions and one from the end without the restrictions to achieve the 61% reduction. Apparently some Turney residents have been informed which is why I wondered whether anyone had the correct back-story to this. If this is correct then it may mean there has been no area-wide reduction as the council claims. Traffic was very heavy today along EDG towards the Red Post Hill and DV junction today and also through the village to tbe same junction. Is it just me or does traffic seem to be a lot heavier at weekends?

Does anyone have more info on tbe council admitting to residents on Turney Road that the monitoring data in the LTN review was wrong and instead of that road having a 61% decline it actually saw an 18% increase?

Chris - do you have a copy of the Thurlow Park ward councillors letter (if it is in the public domain)? It would be interesting to see if Labour councillors are fighting each other over these measures - probably reflective of how bad, and self-interested, the measures are.

It looks like the new tree is going in today.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Even if all new cars were electric now it would > still take 15-20 years to replace the world's > fossil fuel fleet. > > All vehicles even electric and hydrogen - produce > non-exhaust emmissions (particles from brake, tyre > and road surface wear known as Particulate Matter > - PM2.5 or PM10) > > These can enter all major organs of the body - not > just the lungs, heart and brain but also the > placenta, affecting the life chances of unborn > children. > > Electric vehicles still cause congestion and road > danger, they do nothing to encourage space or > transport equity and they compound the inactivity > crisis and social isolation in our communities. > > So no - the answer isn't just newer cars - but > fewer cars. > > (credit: www.wearepossible.org) There was an interesting debate on Radio 5 about this this morning featuring a pragmatic transport specialist who spent time debunking some of the myths around the electrification of transport. He said that many who oppose electrification use the brake pad argument but he pointed out that the levels of such things in electric cars are no more than petrol cars and such emissions are a small percentage of overall emissions and the fastest way to address emissions is through a combination of electrification and modal shift. There was also an anvironmentalist who was saying changing the way we live (citing Paris' 15 minute city initiative as an example) and massively reducing car use was the only viable solution. The BBC presenter did challenge the environmentalist on the fact many people live out of cities and the 15 minute city could not apply there. I would like to see the council put more energy into electrification and the infrastructure needed. It seems clear that is a short term win waiting to happen but the council seems reluctant to pursue it because they have been lobbied to believe that eliminating vehicle use, rather than manipulating it's omission output is key. Apparently over the course of its lifetime an electric vehicle (including manufacture which emits far more when manufacturing an electric car) will emit between one quarter and one third of a fossil fuel vehicle. Why are the council so opposed to embracing this?

DC - we all want traffic reduction - it's just some of us want genuine area-wide (and beyond) traffic reduction, not just a reduction in traffic on a few roads at the cost of many other roads. I really struggle to see why many on the pro-LTN side of the argument can't see that what is happening today is not progress nor is it part of an ongoing process. So many councillors have responded to questions from local constituents about increases in traffic on their streets by saying - "well do you want road closures on your road then"? The council's strategy seems to be (like many things like CPZs) to say if we create enough chaos here someone there will be forced to ask us for more. If the on-going process involves making things a lot worse for many more people then surely that can't be right can it? I am sure you might say "well let them bed in" but there is no proof from anywhere that any LTN has delivered anything close to what was sold for them (look at Waltham Forest for example)- what there is though clear evidence that LTNs created displacement, a reduction of traffic within the LTN but significant increases of traffic, congestion and pollution outside of the LTN (which negate the benefits of the reduction inside the LTN), zero reduction in car ownership within LTNs and huge amounts of revenue for councils. And for what? Seemingly a single figure percentage increase in cycle journeys within the LTN - most likely stimulated by people like yourself whose children used to walk along Calton but now cycle instead. Do you really think that that is progress and is going to have any discernible impact on climate change?

Heartblock - that was, afterall, what they claimed these measures would deliver from the outset.........