Rockets

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.........

DC because we are all here to call out the hypocrisy..... Ah, so you were one of the small number of vocal advocates during the OHS consultations - that makes sense. Are you not even slightly concerned that the measures you so support are causing misery for thousands of Dulwich residents? It seems not. It seems you are only concerned about your world and everyone else can just live with the consequences - that is very sad and, unfortunately, very reflective of the views of many of the pro-LTN lobby. You'll probably then retort that we need more measures - can you answer me this question: in the two years since this started what has the council done beyond throwing in a load of road blocks that have endangered lives and increased traffic congestion and pollution?

DC - there is certainly a weight of evidence that it was the lobbying done by a few vocal local residents and self-interest lobby groups like Southwark Cyclists that influenced the council's decision-making process here (and during OHS) - it's all documented in various council meetings on the matter (from a time when councils and councillors actually held meetings). Now what has happened is that since the measures went in everyone in Dulwich has become aware of them and many have looked into how we got here. The majority don't like the measures (some like you, do like the measures) and those against the measures (which bar those roads benefitting most in the area) are a majority. The problem is that those, like you, who like the measures are now outweighed by those who do not like them and it seems that those few who do support the measures (and are living on car free roads) are, understandably, reluctant to admit there might be problems being caused elsewhere and are taking a deliberately blinkered view. These were the same people telling us...they need time to bed in, evaporation takes months....and yet 15 months on things have got no better and there is no sign that any evaporation has taken place. The more I read your posts the more it does look like NIMBYISM - you're happy that your son doesn't need to walk down a congested road but you seem to care little about those who now have to walk down even more congested roads so you don't have to. Passing the problem to someone else isn't dealing with the problem is it - it's called sweeping it under the carpet? P.S. I am glad you have cited Brandolini's law - do we take it that you do, in fact, believe that the council's data is BS to begin with.....at last, some progress....;-)

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > a) the entire neighbourhood are not against the > filters > > b) not all those who opted to remove the measures > even live in the area > > c) some people don't care that this was the > reality previously because they choose see this as > a 'us' or 'them' dog eat dog imaginary class war > when instead of being divisive they could support > what the council have done and push for more. But DC, the majority of residents who responded to the council's mechanism to determine the views of constituents towards the closures said remove them (68% in fact). Unless you have some other survey that shows a perspective that differs from that I am sure it is safe to say that the majority of residents don't want the measures. You may just have to accept that you are in the minority on this. And I know it was awful that your son had to walk down a congested Calton but that doesn't make it right that someone else has now has to endure that in even higher levels so you can walk down Calton with many fewer cars on it. Surely you can agree that robbing Peter to pay Paul does not solve the underlying issue? To be fair, I know you were trying to make a point but I can't help but sense a bit of NIMBYISM in your message. I think the bottom-line is that there is a have and have not element to all of this - there are those who have to live with pollution because some people are not having to live with it anymore and what annoys a lot of residents across the whole of Dulwich is that many of those not having to live with it anymore refuse to acknowledge that things have got worse for many, many more people so they can live in a car-free nirvana. And the next step on from that is a natural one where people say those living in the most affluent part of what is an affluent area are benefitting most at the expense of those who do not and seem to be turning a blind eye to the problems created for everyone else. That is not a class war that is the very definition of all the negative things associated with class.

DC I do think there is a case to press the council on why they selected DV to the be focal point of these closures. According to their own advice on the use of LTNs it is the worst place to site one so it does beg the question why they thought it was a good place for one. Do you have any ideas?

And let's be honest, the council hasn't been slow to release the data; they have missed their own deadlines for releasing said data. Why is it that they are so keen not to share the raw data and methodology....hmmmm one wonders? To challenge OneDulwich that they are making assertations and speculations that are unsupported by data is blindingly hypocritical when the council steadfastly refuses to deliver the raw data or methodology they have promised to support their own assertations which means the council's own conclusions remain, at best, speculations. We all know why they are afraid to share the raw data - because they know it doesn't back up their report conclusions. If they had confidence in the data they could have released the raw data and methodology at the same time as they published the report. And until such time as they do release both it remains a massive smoking gun - but as we know politicians tend to dig deeper when trying to dig themselves out of a hole and it doesn't take a genius to work out what is really going on here.

When you see if all listed out like that it is really astonishing - so many broken promises and holes in the council's analysis and granularity of the data that they have based their assumptions on.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hats off Dulville for your articulate post. Why > cannot others agree in principle in this even if > you disagree with the approach to closing roads. > As Greta says there is a lot of blah blah blah > from both politicians, but also the masses about > climate change. Not suggesting that this thread > is full of blah blah blah of course..... > > > " Ultimately I see the LTN's* as part of a raft of > measures that, if as a community we are serious > about climate change, are coming down the track to > change our relationship with the motorcar. When > people drive less, it will follow there will be > less traffic on any road. I can imagine for many > people growing up in a generation where the > private car was a powerful means of freedom and > independence, and indeed a symbol of success, > learning to adapt to measures that prevent them > driving at will is going to be hard. But the world > is changing fast." > > * insert a less emotive term such as 'local > restrictions' - which we have had imposed on us > certainly since I have lived in London > > (edited for typos) Blah, blah,blah....I can agree with the objective just not the means to get there....but let's pretend the means get us there whether it does or doesn't...#blahblahblah....

And let's not forget the council also repeatedly ignored the requests of the emergency services to remove the permanent closures...that to me is unforgivable and something I would not expect from Labour.

So sorry for your loss. Our thoughts are with you.

Dulville - the measures have been in for over a year already (about 15 months now) and the monitoring completed by the council clearly demonstrates they have not delivered against their stated objectives. They have bedded in and so has the displacement. So, they don't work but I think what the council is now doing by stating to play that hand is buying themselves more time because they will say "we have made changes and we now need leave them for a year to see what happens". It's repeating what that have done on Champion Hill - permanent measures under the guise of temporary to get around any proper accountability. On the subject of the ambulance gate - why did it take the council 15 months to agree to doing something about that when LAS, the police and fire service were telling them lives were being put at risk by their permanent closure? Also, I am interested in your comment that LTNs are part of a raft of measures....what other measures have Southwark and our local councillors actioned since the LTNs went in? It seems to me that the council is a bit of a one-trick pony and that trick was LTNs.

Heartblock - you hit the nail on the head. The pro-LTN lobby seems to just want to point fingers and name-call rather than engage in the debate and we know that is the first sign that someone realises they are losing the debate and don't have any responses..... And DC - according to the responses to the council's consultation it is, indeed, an overwhelming majority.....

DC you really are trying hard to deposition One Dulwich aren't you - it really does validate what a cracking job they are doing?! The fact you are trying to throw mud is wonderful - unfortunately none of it is sticking..... What must really annoy you is that the supposed "small, vocal minority" isn't small at all - that must really grate when you were being told that by the councillors in the hope the noise against these measures would just fade away. The fact you can see where One Dulwich's supporters are from (and by far the overwhelming majority are from the Dulwich area) is a thousand times more granular and transparent than anything the council has done in this whole debacle. And, please, don't start on the bussing people in nonsense because there are far more smoking guns in that regard on your side of the fence......

What is driving this - do the councillors think there won't be any repercussions come council elections in May or do they believe they are untouchable?

Redpost - per the comments of Penguin68 and Heartblock your comment on PTAL scores is massively undermined by the council referring to Dulwich having a "low level of public transport accessibility" and a low PTAL score. The full report can be found here, should you wish to take a look: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Dulwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf It's pretty compelling. Maybe the transport links are good compared to other parts of the country but this isn't other parts of the country this is London, a densely populated urban area sandwiched between other densely populated urban areas. Within the London Borough of Southwark the PTAL scores for Dulwich are some of the lowest and the council has used that low PTAL score to explain why car usage is at the level it is but, interestingly, no higher than in other parts of the borough. It says: This is confirmed also by more general DfT accessibility statistics which show that, in general the area has a lower public transport accessibility level than the remainder of Southwark whilst by car it tends to be on par with the other parts of the borough or somewhat higher for hospitals, particularly due to the proximity of Dulwich Community Hospital. So, can you explain why the council decided, against it's own advice, that Dulwich was a good place for LTNs? Don't you think in light of the council's own data in reports like the one above that it was clear what the only outcome of the LTNs going in was going to be?

hpsaucey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DulwichCentral Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > For anyone new to this forum - just to > summarise > > 7,775 posts: > > > > Anti Low traffic measures: > > - People who drive *always* need to drive > because > > they are poor, disabled, elderly, key workers > or > > single parents. > > - People who cycle are privileged, smug, > wealthy > > because they have big houses with bike storage > > facilities. > > - No more people will switch from driving to > > active travel in Dulwich because they've all > > already done so. > > - The only people benefiting from the filtered > > roads are wealthy mates of the councillors > > - The filtered roads never needed any changes > in > > the first place, and cycling is just a Covid > > related fad > > - Southwark Council are a totalitarian > > dictatorship. > > - The only way to stop people driving is > improve > > public transport and road pricing - which will > > take years so we may as well give up. > > > > Pro Low traffic measures: > > - Safe routes enable people to switch from > driving > > to active travel > > - More monitoring and assessment needs to be > done > > - More needs to be done to reduce non-essential > > car journeys > > - More Safe routes needed to link up throughout > > the area - and London-wide > > - 24/7 bus lanes - removing parking at pinch > > points - would reduce congestion > > - We're in a climate emergency so it's good the > > council have made a start - it needs improving > and > > more done. > > Love it DC!!! Not just good for newbies - also > pretty bloody useful for those who've doggedly > ploughed through most of the thread. > > HP *other, more balanced, perspectives may be prevalent in a majority of Dulwich residents ;-)

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nigello - you realise that what you've essentially > just said is 'how can you think this how > ridiculous, have a word with yourself, then also > added - if you don't think that, don't dare > comment'. Really dude, its not how discussion > forums work! You don't get to comment and then > say - no comebacks. > > Rockets was the one explaining how the idea of > walking 15 mins on both ends was something that is > offputting for people in using public transsport. > I'm inclined to agree that it can be offputting if > you have an easier option. > > > Nigello Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Goldilocks - if walking fifteen minutes both > ends > > is a deal ender, well, what a state of affairs. > (I > > don't say that you think this is too much to > walk > > or not, so don't have a go if not. If you do, > > then, see above!) And yes that was my point - in an area with such low PTAL scores it naturally means that many people are some way away from public transport and that when they factor that in it becomes part of the decision-making process whether they jump in the car or not - which is why, of course, Southwark initially suggested that LTNs should on go in in areas with high PTAL scores.....which, of course, Dulwich is not. Additionally, the reason school buses comes up is that still many people drive their children to state schools - we do, however, need to be mindful that school catchment areas are growing - didn't Southwark say as part of their school place funding discussion claim some are now travelling 4kms to schools? Just go and stand outside any of the state schools in Dulwich and you can see parents dropping children off every day. School traffic still accounts for a large proportion of the journeys in Dulwich, be that state or private schools, and if the council would funnel more energy into working with schools to fix that problem then there probably would not be any need for LTNs.