Rockets

Huge crowds out around Court Lane this evening?..glad the weather held for everyone.

Heartblock that is a superb video that really highlights the massive flaws in the ludicrous LTN programmes that many on here have been highlighting since day one of this debacle - it was destined to fail as the maths just don't work. Remember the council reckoned 7000 cars a day used the DV junction - the most any LTN has reduced car use is 10% so even if those heady numbers (which came from the LTN lobby so are probably greatly exaggerated) were achieved over 6000 cars a day would be needing to find a new longer route. Throw in the fact that 68% of local journeys were already done on foot and bike and you can see why LTNs were destined to fail in Dulwich. It also begs the question why the council were so convinced they would work - maybe they couldn't cut through and see past the lobbying they were on tbe receiving end of from groups like the LCC. Maybe someone like Malumbu or DC can take a look and give us their thoughts (I know it's unlikely as most on the pro-LTN crowd like to ask, not answer, questions! ;-))?

Malumbu - aren't you a motorist too? Don't you have a very old car you use very infrequently?

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That is your view - but let?s remember you very > confidently said there was no monitoring on under > hill - whereas in effect there was. > > We would all like more granularity eg directional > and timed, but overall my sentence is factually > correct Yes because that was an easy mistake to make given tbe Underhill numbers were pretty much an addendum to tbe overall report with absolutely no data to support where the number for Underhill had come from. If I remember rightly, I will check tomorrow, the council just gave tbe figure (which was an increase if I remember rightly) separate to the rest of tbe monitoring data and didn't share any baseline data as they had for others. Maybe that satiates the pro-LTN lobbyists who will blindly believe what the council tells them but for some of us it raises yet more questions. One wonders why the council has yet to share the raw data they promised....another oversight perhaps or maybe they know they don't want any scrutiny on how they reached their conclusions?

And this is your regular reminder that the council's monitoring data was deliberately manipulated to try and create a positive outcome...and even after all of their tampering the results weren't close to what they had promised and were roundly torn apart on further analysis when people scratched beneath the propaganda....

Zaardvark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes and imagine how bad it would be if there were > no LTNs - people are afraid to get on public > transport, prefer cars and we would be in an even > worse scenario without LTNs. We are in a pandemic > and sometimes people's choices (solo travel by > car) will be to the detriment of the many. > > However, the car registrations could be an ULEZ > phenomenon also? Are people buying new cars for > that, and are yet to sell their old cars? ULEZ > versus another dense area of the SE without ULEZ > would be interesting to look at. > > Z. I am not sure people are afraid of public transport, at some times it is as busy as it ever was pre-pandemic, especially when you look at the below article in light of the fact most companies are not returning to offices full-time. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-58360193 A reduction in car ownership was one of the promised outcomes of LTNs and, like so many of the other promises, it isn't actually being realised.

Sorry to hear that.

Interesting thread on car ownership levels in areas with LTNs. Wasn't a reduction in car ownership slated as one of the aims, doesn't seem to be happening...

Malumbu - I am not sure what point you are trying to make about the right turn in and out of Wood Vale and I am not sure you are either to be honest....your rationale seems confused at best. What point are you trying to make, can you explain it please? Were those measures put in to create modal shift, did they lead to an increase in congestion and pollution? I am not sure why you think our position is hypocritical unless you are just trying to use that to deposition any opposition. Anyway, my question to you which I repeat for your benefit as you seem (again) reluctant to answer is...on the basis of Cllr McAshs post a year ago do you think the LTNs have achieved their objective? I think we all know why you refuse to answer and that answer helps you answer the question you post about what hard measures are needed whilst we wait for more strategic ones.....we need ones that work and these measures clearly do not work.

Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here's a new report... > > https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen > t/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1007 > 815/gear-change-one-year-on.pdf One wonders whether you will be heralding the 2021 report quite as enthusiastically.....2021 cycling levels (according to DfT) are now reportedly below pre-Covid levels so all of those gains will have been wiped out in a year suggesting that the pandemic was the major catalyst for temporary cycle growth not any of the measures put in to facilitate modal shift.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > OK Rocks, here's another question. Stopping > vehicles turning right into and out of the South > Circ on the junctions with Wood Vale and with > Underhill increased traffic flows on Honor Oak > Road, including passing a primary school, > Fairlawn. > > Should Southwark reinstate those restricted turns, > and what would you say to the citizens of Wood > Vale and Underhill? Some consistency would be > great. Malumbu - it's a bit of a daft question to be honest - we're talking about the LTNs installed under the OHS initiative. Those measures weren't put in under the pretence that they would reduce car use and pollution - were they? Nor did they cause massive congestion issues elsewhere - did they? I very much suspect they were put in to stop accidents as cars tried to turn across fast-moving traffic on the A205. Please do correct me if I am wrong and those measures were installed, in fact, to encourage modal shift. You love asking questions so here's one for you to answer - do you think the LTNs have delivered against the objectives Cllr McAsh stated in his blog post in October 2020 that being: The goal - to be absolutely clear - is to reduce traffic overall, not simply to move it from one road to another.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There has been modal shift in Dulwich - of course > some here will disagree but I see it on a daily > basis during school run. And I saw on Twitter it's > possible that traffic on some parts of EDG have > actually reduced. I don't see a massive increase > there - as I have said before - no doubt you'll > disagree because of what you see on a daily basis. > Fair enough. So it's a matter of opinion - what > you see and what I see. > > But if it's not possible to instantly install > everything Rockets suggests due to lack of ??? - > and you don't want LTNs either - then it seems the > only other option is to do nothing? > > That's definitely not going to do anything > urgently to help the climate crisis is it? But are those children cycling to school within the Dulwich triangle taking enough cars off the road to impact climate change? No. Are those children cycling to school within the Dulwich triangle reducing car usage sufficiently to not create congestion and increased pollution on boundary roads? No. Therein lies the point - the most any LTN has managed to allegedly reduce car use by is 11% (and that claim is one from the pro-LTN lobby) which is not enough to have a positive overall impact due to displacement. You have to stop looking at this from the purview of the few that are benefitting within the Dulwich triangle - that is not sustainable. I see pictures all the time on twitter heralding modal shift - I also saw a picture on twitter from Cllr Newens heralding that she had saved the cashpoint in Dulwich Village. When I walked to said cashpoint the day after it had been removed. Not everything on twitter is accurate or reflective of what is actually happening out there! ;-)

And let's see what Cllr McAsh said on his blog a year ago on the matter (https://www.jamesmcash.com/blog/se22-councillors-low-traffic-neighbourhoods): Low traffic neighbourhoods aim to do two things. First, they try to reduce emissions overall, by encouraging cycling and walking by making the road network safer and more pleasant. In addition, they try to segregate cars from cyclists as much as possible - making it safer for both groups. The ward I represent, Goose Green, has a small number of such measures on the streets around East Dulwich station: various roads which were cut-throughs are now cul-de-sacs, dramatically reducing their motor traffic. Although not in Goose Green, there have been similar - and potentially more significant - changes in Dulwich Village, which have had a knock-on effect in East Dulwich. The goal - to be absolutely clear - is to reduce traffic overall, not simply to move it from one road to another. At the moment, it is hard to measure its success. For a start, we always anticipated a transitional period with higher traffic whilst everyone grows accustomed to the new layout. But more significantly, car-use is rising across London so it is a complex job to assess whether the roads would be better or worse without the new measures. If you?re in a warm room and wear a sweater to go outside, you may still be cooler than you were before but that does not mean the jumper did not warm you. So, a year on from his blog and following the results of the monitoring and review the goal has not been achieved - the project has failed and I think we all know that the tweaking the council is suggesting won't resolve the issue. He even references the knock-on effect that the DV closures are causing in his ward yet he stays silent and toes the party line by not speaking up against the measures and the impact on his constituents.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So Rocks, the question I posed, which as you know > I have done fairly regularly over many months, is > how would you reduce traffic? Ask people nicely?? > No matter how good you make public transport and > the alternatives many will not switch; it has to > be a hard intervention unless you or others know > better. Malumbu - we have answered that time and time again yet you still keep asking the question but I will repeat again...you need road pricing, investment in public transport, segregated bike lanes, proper infrastructure to support modal shift, a commitment to embrace electric vehicles and the infrastructure needed to support it. So what you can't do is do what the council did which is throw in a handful of roadblocks, sit on your laurels and think that solves the problem - it doesn't - it makes it much worse as it is tactical and not at all strategic.

Mal - no, no, no a thousand times no?..everyone wants to reduce traffic just most don?t believe LTNs are the solution to this problem and you cannot present a single piece of evidence that shows they are delivering the changes that were promised by the council at the outset - wasn?t it councillor McAsh who said if they don?t reduce traffic everywhere then they would have failed? They have had plenty of time to bed in and the council had to manipulate their monitoring figures to come close to any sort of ?positive? outcome. LTNs have never reduced the amount of traffic anywhere they just divert traffic along fewer and fewer roads - you know that, the council knows that, we all know that. LTNs do more harm than good and are actually harming the majority of residents of Dulwich. The council knows this they just haven?t got the honesty and backbone to admit failure. They have wasted 2 years pursuing a policy that was doomed to failure from the start - just imagine what could have been achieved in that time - this is the LTN legacy - a wasted opportunity to do something positive - our council and councillors should hang their heads in shame.

Mal - no, no, no a thousand times no?..everyone wants to reduce traffic just most don?t believe LTNs are the solution to this problem and you cannot present a single piece of evidence that shows they are delivering the changes that were promised by the council at the outset - wasn?t it councillor McAsh who said if they don?t reduce traffic everywhere then they would have failed? They have had plenty of time to bed in and the council had to manipulate their monitoring figures to come close to any sort of ?positive? outcome. LTNs have never reduced the amount of traffic anywhere they just divert traffic along fewer and fewer roads - you know that, the council knows that, we all know that. LTNs do more harm than good and are actually harming the majority of residents of Dulwich. The council knows this they just haven?t got the honesty and backbone to admit failure. They have wasted 2 years pursuing a policy that was doomed to failure from the start - just imagine what could have been achieved in that time - this is the LTN legacy - a wasted opportunity to do something positive - our council and councillors should hang their heads in shame.

The problem with Labour nowadays is that sorry really does seem to be the hardest word and I really worry that even if they lose seats in the council elections in May it will have no bearing on the course they have chosen. I am afraid what we saw at national level in the last election is being repeated at local level: the Labour party has lost touch with its constituents and doesn't seem to care - it puts it's own ideology ahead of the will and desires of the people even when they are roundly rejecting it. Of course the difference being that losing a few Dulwich seats won't upset Cllr Williams too much and not have the wide ranging ramifications of the most humiliating election defeat in a generation that Corbyn presided over that gave us this shower we have governing us now!

The problem with Labour nowadays is that sorry really does seem to be the hardest word and I really worry that even if they lose seats in the council elections in May it will have no bearing on the course they have chosen. I am afraid what we saw at national level in the last election is being repeated at local level: the Labour party has lost touch with its constituents and doesn't seem to care - it puts it's own ideology ahead of the will and desires of the people even when they are roundly rejecting it. Of course the difference being that losing a few Dulwich seats won't upset Cllr Williams too much and not have the wide ranging ramifications of the most humiliating election defeat in a generation that Corbyn presided over that gave us this shower we have governing us now!

I agree completely - I believe the measures on Melbourne Grove (for example) make sense but they don't at the DV junction and it is the DV junction that is causing the problems across Dulwich and the council stedfastedly refuses to acknowledge that fact.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes if they were based around school streets it > would be fairer and more logical. Short closures > work well for schools. Agree... A far more rational and pragmatic solution to the problem....but does anyone know if Southwark Cyclists or the LCC support such a plan?

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is all coming across as the groups that shout > loudest should dictate how policy is developed and > implemented. Now that would be undemocratic! I > expect a retort that this is exactly what the > militant cyclists are doing, in an unholy alliance > with the militant Dulwich villagers living in > their leafy/gated communities. > > It reminds me of the coalition government, big > society, and proposals that government policy > could actively involve citizens through the cloud. > I don't think that ever saw the light of day. Mal - in a way you are spot on. It was the groups who shouted loudest first who influenced the councils decision making. But then when the wider local population were asked for their views they said, overwhelmingly, no thanks these measures are not working for us. That is very democratic if it were not for the fact the council are ignoring that input from the Dulwich community and instead, listening to those who shouted loudest at the beginning. That 68% of local residents saying no thanks is going to haunt the council for a long time.

Artemis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > malumbu Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > This is all coming across as the groups that > shout > > loudest should dictate how policy is developed > and > > implemented. Now that would be undemocratic! > I > > expect a retort that this is exactly what the > > militant cyclists are doing, in an unholy > alliance > > with the militant Dulwich villagers living in > > their leafy/gated communities. > > > > It reminds me of the coalition government, big > > society, and proposals that government policy > > could actively involve citizens through the > cloud. > > I don't think that ever saw the light of day. > > No - it?s coming across as questioning the point > of a consultation when the wishes of the majority > who responded (as everyone was entitled to do) > have not had their views reflected in future > plans. Not the same thing. If the majority > wanted the roads to remain closed, I would have > been disappointed, but would have accepted the > result. Because that?s my view of how a > democratic society should work. It?s not, as we > have established, a referendum, but I?m still > struggling with the effort and expense of going > through a consultation where the wishes of the > respondents and the Council?s plans are so > divergent. And you can absolutely guarantee that if the results of the consultation had said keep them as is the council would now be telling us that the people have spoken and how happy they are their is overwhelming support for their measures....but unfortunately despite their best efforts to manipulate and skew the results in their favour 68% said they wanted the measures removed. I love how they constantly omit to reference the 68% in any of their literature they are putting out instead referencing how there is support for the strategic objectives of the measures. It's an age old tactic to try to convince the casual observer that may have voted against the measures that the fight is over, that there is overwhelming support for the measures...almost a please move along there is nothing to see here anymore. I do also love how now they are talking about the success of Southwark-wide measures trying to mask the failure of the Dulwich measures by burying them in the wider borough initiatives. Cllr Williams started it on his radio interview and the latest propaganda document delivered through our doors continues the trend.

So Jen, again, what is the point of a consultation? By your argument it is a pointless exercise that serves no purpose whatsoever. It is clear that a consultation is a tool to gauge the constituents' sentiment towards something and then use that to make decisions and influence the decision making process. In that light you can see why the majority of residents are so upset by the council ignoring their input. The whole process has been a fraud....

Fron day one it has been nothing more than a tick-box "democratic" exercise.

And your point is what exactly? The comments were recorded? The council hasn't acted on any of them have they? Honestly this narrative of "you should have clicked the something else option" is so tiresome and non-sensical. If everyone had done that I guarantee the council would now be saying....we listened and now we are doing something else (despite that something else being exactly that the council had been planning for!)