Rockets

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.

Pugwash - and there are thousands of people like you who rely/relied on their car to do their job - getting on a bike or public transport is not feasible. I do think the uniqueness of the Dulwich area does lead some to believe that their way of life can be adopted by everyone. Dulwich is something of a unique bubble in London in that it has a thriving high street within walking distance of most who live in the area (which goes some way to explain why the area's active travel is already much higher than other parts of London), it has both an older and younger generational mix and it also has some of the most expensive housing stock in London. So it naturally leads many who live here to view the world only through their lens. They may only ever need to go to the local shops, they may not need to work or are retired and they may live in properties where storing bikes is easy to do. It's why my wife argued with the lady she met outside of Au Ciel many months ago when the lady was lauding how good the LTNs were. My wife challenged her on some of her assertions as they were clearly based on this lady's particular bubble. But the lady would not listen and had a "bubble-influenced" response to everything my wife said: where people work vs where they live/bike storage etc etc - the lady couldn't, or wouldn't, grasp that some people weren't as privileged as she was. It's easy to be holier than thou when your ability to embrace a lifestyle shift is easy because of how much you have or the house you live in.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "but the only thing that will get people out of > their cars is when road pricing comes in - > everything else is just window-dressing." > > I keep thinking that there is little point in > posting but Rocks you then provide me with more > ammunition. What a bizarre sweeping statement. > I've certainly stopped driving and I can't be the > only one over the years due to numerous hard > interventions: > > - Restrictions on the rat runs that only I and the > cabbies knew > - Congestion charging, particularly now it is 24/7 > (that goes well beyond road user charging) > - Increased and often 24 hour bus lanes > - More parking restrictions, and more expensive > parking > > > And on the odd time that I have tried to use the > South Circ outside late eve through to early > morning in recent years, that is enough to put > anyone off driving and it is worse than I > experienced when I first came to London. > > Not sure why you are so blinkered in some aspects > of your thinking. You know more about traffic > counts than any normal person and by all means > talk about that level of detail with others. Not > me. But do cut out the knee jerk stuff. > > The Hammersmith example is yet another gem. Who > on earth, unless your journey is absolutely > essential, wants to get stuck crawling around > Clapham Common, Earls Court and the A4 in rush > hour. Even changing tube in central London cannot > be that masochistic. And the air quality is > particularly awful in the latter two, and has been > so for donkeys years. > > Heartblock, on a lighter note hadn't realised I > had assigned a gender to you, always try to be > gender neutral, and similarly keep myself gender > fluid. But Malumbu (still waiting for you to answer my questions BTW ;-)) you've stopped driving (but didn't you say you still had a very old car for journeys when you need a car or have you got rid of that now?) but these measures don't encourage enough people to stop driving. Car ownership within LTN areas is not declining nor is car usage around them - so what are they achieving? 60 more cycle journeys in an LTN is not enough to justify the chaos LTNs outside of LTN areas. Your claim that the Hammersmith example is a gem is more reflective of the parallel universe some of the pro-LTN lobby live in. So you can't understand why people might prefer to jump into their car compared to: walking for 15 minutes to East Dulwich station, jumping on a train to London Bridge, getting on a Jubilee line train to Westminster, change onto the district line to Hammersmith and then another 10 minute walk to the office. And then that all back again on the way home. I decided to cycle when I used to do that journey and on so many occasions there were delays due to the number of changes I had to make. This is the reality of travel in London. This is why people drive. Maybe you don't have to do that type of journey every day but many people do. There are even more people who rely on vehicles to transport tools or do multiple drops of visits. Again this is why LTNs will never work and were doomed to failure from day one.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd imagine that the decline in cycling (which i > think is mainly referenceable to the counts in > central London rather than areas like Dulwich )is > down to people no longer being in the office every > day. > > Since lockdown I cycle to the office, but only on > the days that I go in. I never used to because I > thought that cycling the route I needed to was > hostile, but have now sorted out better links as > cycling during the pandemic meant that I learnt > just how easy to get around it was. Its longer so > around the 15km mark, but worth it to avoid the > worst bits of the route. Linking back to your > previous posts though Rockets about how when > you're freezing cold it being tempting to get in > the car, I think that this is the issue. If I > don't cycle my alternative is public transport > (which is unreliable at the moment and frequency > still down), whereas those going to non central > locations still have a viable alternative of > driving. Asking people to use other modes of > transports has roundly failed, so putting in place > methods to inhibit car usage are key. I am not sure it is just people cycling to work that has caused the decline - remember the growth happened after lockdown and even fewer people were in work then. I think what has happened is that people were cycling to the park for exercise etc and did so as many times a day as they were able and now lockdown has lifted their patterns have changed and so just don't cycle as the pressures of life returning to normal means that cycling is no longer the go-to mode of transport for many. Couple that with those that used to cycle to work are doing so less frequently so the numbers have plummetted but, given the amount of money, effort and resources dedicated to increasing cycling it's not a good return on that. Also is there any proof that inhibiting car use actually works - wasn't it Greece or Turkey who invoked odd and even number plate days for cars and people just bought two cars? People are tied to their cars, unless you understand why that is you won't ever deal with the issue - just throwing in road blocks won't help, people just drive around them and when you layer in the fact that traffic growth has been driven by PHVs and delivery vehicles you can understand why LTNs are the bluntest of blunt tools. This is why so many believe LTNs increase pollution not reduce it and all of the evidence suggests they are failing to deliver on their objectives. Oh and the worst cycling related issue I had was when a pedal sheared off almost exactly halfway home from Hammersmith....during the mother of all rainstorms. After a mile or so I conceded defeat and ordered a cab to get me home.....

DC just being realistic about why a lot of people don't cycle. But I agree but the addiction doesn't seem to have materialised post-lockdown which suggests something bigger is going on. Lots of people cycled during lockdown but now it appears cycling had declined to lower than pre-pandemic levels (which might be of course partly influenced by people, especially in London, no longer travelling to the office every day of the week). Any ideas why cycling levels are plummeting post-lockdown - bike sales went through the roof, huge amounts of cycling infrastructure went in, roads were closed yet people aren't maintaining the pandemic levels of bike use?

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The reality is that we aren't going to get masses > of east - west train / tram transport in the > coming 5-10 years, so whats the alternative. > Busses are the most obvious, but we need far fewer > private cars on the road to make busses feasible > and fast enough. Otherwise we're stuck with more > and more congestion. > > Car travel is the reality because frankly its > quicker than public transport and much more > comfortable. Until that changes then there is > little incentive to stop driving. ULEZ will > help eliminate some journeys for those with non > compliant cars as there is an assessment of > whether its worth paying the fee, but don't expect > it to make huge differences locally (although > would love to be wrong on that. > > The route you mentioned to Hammersmith in the > realm of 'longer commutes' is only 15km each way - > thats under an hour on a normal bike and far less > on an ebike with no need to be 'fit enough' to do > the journey (but with the added benefit of still > adding some built in exercise). The majority of > journeys carried out in London are shorter than > that and I would imagine from the area we live in > (zone 2) shorter still than average. Buses needed fewer LTNs......;-) What you say is absolutely right but the only thing that will get people out of their cars is when road pricing comes in - everything else is just window-dressing. You don't have to convince me of the merits of cycling to Hammersmith I did it for years but there were plenty of times when I couldn't feel my fingers in the dark depths of winter that I longed to be in my car with the radio on! That also plays a big role - even though the stats are something like if you cycled every working day for an hour each way for a year you would only get rained on 12 times the long dark winters are enough to test the hardiest cycling soul - it's why there is such a pronounced drop off during the winter months. And right now so much money has been invested in cycling infrastructure the bigger concern is that if cycling levels have indeed returned to below pre-Covid levels then has it all been wasted - are people just not willing/able to embrace cycling beyond the hardy few? Maybe the reasons are far more deep-rooted in lifestyle - the fact cycling boomed when everyone was forced to be at home might give some clues as to why the growth has completely reversed.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't actually work anywhere at all convenient > from London Bridge station - but where I work > isn't relevant here - we live in a city with > millions of other people so having individuals > commute in private cars is just unfeasible. > > > Hammersmith is a bit of a hassle to get to on > public transport I agree, but thankfully advances > in ebikes mean that cycling is becoming more > accessible for a much wider group of people and > lots of people aren't really making 15km trips, > more the under 5km ones that could easily be > swapped (and yes there is loads of data on the > average trip length in London). But it is relevant because any journey to the centre of London is easy - journeys across London are not easy because that's not the way the transport system developed - it followed lines in and out of the city not across it - it's why Crossrail has been demanded/mooted/needed for years. Commuting in cars is not unfeasible it is certainly unwelcome but it is, I am afraid, a reality of the city we live in. And life revolves around realities not fantasies and ebikes are not going to make much of an impact in terms of converting people from longer commutes in cars. We have to ground the debate on what is feasible and take a pragmatic approach to dealing with these issues and no-one ever accused the council of taking a pragmatic approach to LTNs!

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In Heartblocks world - to square off her dislike > of LTNs shes constructed a parallel universe where > drivers are mostly 'busy mums taking kids to > school and then going onto their 'little job' or > care workers. Completely ignoring the fact that > car ownership is a luxury and one that many of the > poorest cannot afford. I'd also like to know > where all these 'mums' are working where they can > drive to work - and why that should be preserved. > I work in central London, I don't expect to be > able to drive to work because it isn't practical > in a city of this size. The same is true of zone > 2. Goldilocks - you work in central London. You live near a railway station that takes you into central London in under 15 minutes, so maybe having a car is a luxury for you but a lot of people don't work in central London. I used to work in Hammersmith and getting there by public transport from East Dulwich was a nightmare. So I used to cycle but a lot of people can't cycle those type of distances so for them a car is not a luxury but a necessity. This is the folly of the pro-LTN lobby - they lump everyone in a car as the category of "making an unnecessary journey or a journey that could be done in something other than a car" and, unfortunately, the world isn't as straight-forward as they would like it to be. A bit like the woman my wife argued with in Dulwich Square whose response to being presented with the dilemma that some people work a long way from where they live in parts of London other than central London was to say: "well they should move closer to where they work then".....

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have both 'actually looked at the report' and > read it. Nothing you have posted in that link > changes anything I said upfront. > > There are lots of responses from streets directly > affected, this is still not the same as a majority > of residents though. Its not actually even clear > that its a 'majority of residents' on those > streets. > > This is the problem that yet again the data isn't > really good enough to make such granular > assessments, so we're back to high level comments > - and my high level comments were accurate. > > ockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > goldilocks Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > If 7542 was made up solely of responses to > the > > > mailed out survey then you would have a point. > > > > But it isn't. It also includes responses > from > > > anyone who filled it in online, of whom you > > have > > > no means of knowing where they live. The > > relevant > > > detail from the consultation report is below: > > > > > > A consultation newsletter was posted to > 19,729 > > > postal addresses in May. We also notified > 3,339 > > > people by direct email, after they > > > had registered in the previous phase. 576 > paper > > > surveys were posted to people who had > requested > > > them. > > > We received 7,542 responses to the survey. Of > > > these 209 were voided as being duplicates > > (people > > > providing more than one > > > response). Of the remaining 7,333, some 5,538 > > > identified themselves as living or working on > > > streets within the consultation zone. > > > We operated a ?unique identifier? system with > > > numbers available either on the envelopes > that > > the > > > newsletter came in or in the > > > emails that were sent ? however only 1491 > > > responses included anything in the ?unique > > > identifier? field, and many of these were > > > incorrectly used ? therefore this metric has > > not > > > been used in the analysis below. > > > > Goldilocks - have you actually looked at the > > report or are you basing your assumptions on a > > presumption? You do realise the council has > broken > > the feedback down by a street-by-street basis > as > > well as within the Consultation Zone as a > whole? > > They even plot a map to show the % of > respondents > > on each street..... > > > > Take a look at the report - it's pretty > compelling > > that an overwhelming majority of those people > > within the Consultation Zone responded that > they > > wanted it returned to its original state. > > > > > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s1015 > > > > 17/Appendix%20D%20-%20Dulwich%20Review%20Consultat > > > ion%20Report.pdf But bar Court Lane and Calton a majority of residents responded against the closures didn't they? And the majority of respondents living within the Consultation Zone area responded against the closures didn't they? You say that it isn't clear that it is a majority of residents on those streets - why isn't it? Don't you think the council must have a high degree of certainty to plot the results, street-by-street, as they did? Just because you don't agree with the sentiment doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Hundreds of people who live in the area went to protest at the DV junction - perhaps you will try to convince us they were all taxis drivers from Surrey or figments of our imagination!? Just because you live on closed LTN street and your neighbours think they are great and support them doesn't mean that the next street along people hold the same view. I think it is pretty safe to say that the majority of people in the Dulwich area are not supportive of LTNs, they support the rational for doing it but not the specific execution and the consultation responses confirm this.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If 7542 was made up solely of responses to the > mailed out survey then you would have a point. > But it isn't. It also includes responses from > anyone who filled it in online, of whom you have > no means of knowing where they live. The relevant > detail from the consultation report is below: > > A consultation newsletter was posted to 19,729 > postal addresses in May. We also notified 3,339 > people by direct email, after they > had registered in the previous phase. 576 paper > surveys were posted to people who had requested > them. > We received 7,542 responses to the survey. Of > these 209 were voided as being duplicates (people > providing more than one > response). Of the remaining 7,333, some 5,538 > identified themselves as living or working on > streets within the consultation zone. > We operated a ?unique identifier? system with > numbers available either on the envelopes that the > newsletter came in or in the > emails that were sent ? however only 1491 > responses included anything in the ?unique > identifier? field, and many of these were > incorrectly used ? therefore this metric has not > been used in the analysis below. Goldilocks - have you actually looked at the report or are you basing your assumptions on a presumption? You do realise the council has broken the feedback down by a street-by-street basis as well as within the Consultation Zone as a whole? They even plot a map to show the % of respondents on each street..... Take a look at the report - it's pretty compelling that an overwhelming majority of those people within the Consultation Zone responded that they wanted it returned to its original state. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101517/Appendix%20D%20-%20Dulwich%20Review%20Consultation%20Report.pdf

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No Rockets - there were some respondents - they > were overwhelmingly negative, agreed. This > doesn't mean they are a majority of people > locally. Its not 'trying to belittle responses' > its stating something that is factually true. > > The only 'truth' is that people who responded to > the consultation were not in favour. This is > unequivocally not the same thing as a majority of > people no matter how many times you say it. It > could be that the majority of local people are > against the measures, but you don't 'know' this. 7542 respondents in fact. Of which 68% said remove the measures. The review was mailed to over 19,000 addresses in the Dulwich area. In terms of response rate that is incredibly high for a consultation. You may be desperately trying to convince yourself otherwise but the numbers speak for themselves and it comes as no surprise. Looks like that small vocal minority we were told the anti-LTN voices were was in fact a vocal majority.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > goldilocks Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Lets combine these. Rockets, its a majority > of > > > respondents. Have you ever read trip > advisor? > > > > > > @Heartblock - don't think anyone is saying > its > > a > > > statistical certainty - just that it shows it > > > might have fallen AND its backed up by the > > counts > > > in the latest data - again not a certainty > > because > > > of the way the data is presented. However, > if > > the > > > council counts traffic outside the health > > centre > > > AND at the previous points, then they could > > > understand if it is correct > > > > You?re now trying to belittle the respondents > to > > the review?.how depressingly predictable??you > > really are desperately trying to come up with > some > > rod to hit people with. The facts remain, > despite > > your protestations, Dulwich was asked for their > > input on the LTNs and they responded, > > overwhelmingly, against the measures - these > > aren?t Trip Advisor trolls these are actual > > Dulwich residents having to live with the chaos > > caused by the LTNs. I appreciate you, and many > > others who post here defending the measures, > live > > on the closed roads and you aren?t happy to > have > > your gated communities returned to how they > were > > but maybe remove the blinkers and see what?s > > happening at the end of your road. > > I'd trust Russian election results more than the > online LTN consulation result > > Let's stop spouting this 68% nonsense, the figure > has zero significance as an accurate indication of > opinion Maybe in your world but back in the real world 68% of respondents to the Dulwich LTN review said they wanted them removed and that 68% was achieved despite some significant attempts to manipulate the results by the council and councillors - remember the deadline extension and then the door-to-door campaign waged by the local councillors. The consultation result is very much an indicator of public opinion that is, after all, the point of consultations. Out of interest you say you don?t trust the result of the council consultation process - why not?

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When someone claims they're disappointed and you > respond with 'what about this then' it is the very > definition of 'whataboutary'. > > When an organisation produces material that turns > out to have been 'an absolute clanger' as the > kindest way of describing that inappropriate / > insensitive slogan then it remains their > responsibility - not that of those pointing out > how crass it is to go round requesting it to be > removed. Goldilocks - when you referred to the absolute clanger of a document I thought you were referring to the council?s review documents! What makes me laugh is a lot of the pro-LTN lobbyists are happy to slam the anti-LTN lobby yet turn a blind eye to silly behaviour by their own peers. Just this week someone came on here and referred to anti-LTN voices as pro-carbon?..really? If you can?t engage in a proper debate don?t try to engage. How many questions have I been asked and answered yet many of the usual suspects refuse to answer questions I pose to them? Some people really are like Goldilocks (not you but the fictional character) who wants things just to their liking or not at all.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lets combine these. Rockets, its a majority of > respondents. Have you ever read trip advisor? > > @Heartblock - don't think anyone is saying its a > statistical certainty - just that it shows it > might have fallen AND its backed up by the counts > in the latest data - again not a certainty because > of the way the data is presented. However, if the > council counts traffic outside the health centre > AND at the previous points, then they could > understand if it is correct You?re now trying to belittle the respondents to the review?.how depressingly predictable??you really are desperately trying to come up with some rod to hit people with. The facts remain, despite your protestations, Dulwich was asked for their input on the LTNs and they responded, overwhelmingly, against the measures - these aren?t Trip Advisor trolls these are actual Dulwich residents having to live with the chaos caused by the LTNs. I appreciate you, and many others who post here defending the measures, live on the closed roads and you aren?t happy to have your gated communities returned to how they were but maybe remove the blinkers and see what?s happening at the end of your road.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Didn't more people respond to the Consultation > than voted in the last council election... If they did our councillors should start preparing their: "I feel like now is the right time to stand down and let someone else pick up the mantle" twitter updates....I suspect a big turnout in the council elections in May.

But it is a majority isn't it? And a quite significant one.....so why do you think the council is ignoring the 68%?

Redpost - our local councillors are supposed to represent the interests of their local constituents are they not? That's why they are known as local councillors. If we cannot rely on them to stand up for their constituents then what are they there for - window dressing? I expect them to not toe the party line and do, instead, what is right for their constituents - that is what they are there for. 68% of Dulwich residents want the closures removed yet there is deafening silence from our local councillors - their silence speaks volumes. Maybe it is reflective of the quandary the Labour party has got itself into that it has forgotten and neglected who actually elects them. Roll on May when, one hopes, some independent candidates will run and stand-up for Dulwich residents.

Heartblock - me too. It seems being a good party member is more important that being a good constituent councillor. It still galls me that Cllr McAsh (pre-pandemic) used the fact he thought the DV closure was coming to lobby residents on Melbourne to support their own closures on the basis of the displacement heading their way yet he cared not one jot for anyone else in his ward and the impact on them. He should have been calling out the foolishness of the DV closures and fighting for his constituents - a little less "solidarity comrade" and a bit more "you're doing what comrade" would have been a more appropriate response for a councillor who knew the displacement was coming. He and every other councillor is culpable for standing back and letting this happen - bowing to the party machine and being weak at the expense of the constituents they are supposed to represent.

Penguin68 - you live on Underhill does a 3% increase in traffic seem accurate to you?

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Erm excuse me @Rockets I wasn't asking you. I was > asking @heartblock as I've never seen heartblock's > alternative suggestions. I may have missed them. DC - you have missed them (it seems a lot of the pro-LTN lobby miss them every time someone posts them - one might suggest it was deliberate.....there is a lot of "post them remorse" going on here as in people ask someone to post something, they do and then the "post them" questioner pretends they have never seen them - I suspect because they don't have a rational response). BTW in case you missed my comments on Underhill do feel free to share you thoughts on that when you're ready.........#iwontholdmybreath.....

Redpost - firstly trying to paint everyone who is anti-LTN as pro-carbon is as ludicrous as it is utterly predictable and demonstrates how having a rational debate with many on the issues is a fruitless task as they put their own prejudices ahead of pragmatic discussion. That being said, handwaving is a very good way to describe the LTNs - just the difference being that that particular handwaving exercise is actually doing more harm than good and making pollution worse. I am glad I am on the side of the debate that is challenging the council on this and not just rolling over and pretending everything is great - no-one should be turning a blind eye to the reality of the LTNs. There is no proof that LTNs are delivering or have delivered the things you claim anywhere in the world and I suspect these "many studies" you refer to are sponsored reports by the pro-LTN lobby. It's clear from the council's own report that the LTNs in Dulwich are not delivering against the intended aims and I am afraid that is irrefutable. Can you just help me pull out the upside from the rogue's gallery of LTN failure below (all of which is taken from the council's own report)? Really as yourself if the below is really worth it to sustain an 8% increase in children/parents cycling to school within the Dulwich Village triangle? - No reduction in pollution (in fact increases in areas such as East Dulwich Grove) - 10% decrease in car journeys (although data collection and analysis from the council is dodgy to say the least and it is unlikely any reduction has been observed) Decreases in traffic on closed roads but increases in traffic on boundary roads (Burbage, EDG, Lordship Lane and Underhill taking the brunt ) School journeys have seen a 6% shift from car use but some of the shift to cycling and scooting has been at the expense of walking Bus journey times have increased on many key routes such as EDG, South circular and Croxted