Rockets

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

DC - oh my and so it continues "show me your solutions" - how many times do we have to return to this - maybe someone should pin a new thread on the forum saying - these are our ideas so there can be no confusion!!! ;-) Anyway I promised I would come back to you on the issue of Underhill and I looked at the data again (thanks for calling me out on it as it's actually a lot worse than I remembered). In the 4 page Data Collection report Underhill is not mentioned once: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101513/Appendix%20C%204%20-%20Dulwich%20Streetspace%20data%20collection%20timings.pdf In the 105 pages of monitoring data Underhill is not mentioned once: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101512/Appendix%20C%203%20-%20Dulwich%20Streetspace%20traffic%20flow%20analysis.pdf In the 67 page main report Underhill gets mentioned once on Page 34 https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101511/Appendix%20C%202%20-%20Dulwich%20Streetspace%20main%20report.pdf And on page 34 the slide says (under the title of Further Count Sites): "A check has also been performed on streets east of Lordship Lane between Dulwich and Peckham. The changes in total numbers of motor vehicles on Barry Road and Underhill Road from data recorded prior to implementation, and pre-COVID with data collected in June 2021 is shown in the table below." They determined that Underhill saw a 3% increase and Barry Road an 11% decrease (that 11% decrease figure is significant in the overall scheme of things). A bit odd don't you think that the same level of detail is not provided for Barry Road or Underhill Road as all of the other roads and maybe you can have a guess as to how the council defines a "check"? Surely they should define what that is? Let me explain to you why the council did that - because they were not monitoring Underhill from the outset which is ludicrous when it was one of the main displacement routes - don't you think? They didn't want to monitor it as they knew that's where the traffic was going. So, perhaps, you can agree that the claim of just a 3% increase in traffic on Underhill may not be entirely accurate. There are plenty of people on here who witnessed first hand what happened to Underhill and traffic increased by more than 3% on that route and I believe if a true reflection of the increase was included in the overall monitoring report there would be no area-wide decrease in traffic - thereby damning the LTNs as a complete failure. Please do take the time to respond as I would be interested in whether this changes your perspective at all and whether you think a single figure of 3% increase could really be an accurate figure for Underhill given the lack of supporting data shared by the council on that road? It is a bit odd don't you think that there is lots of detail to support other roads yet none to support Underhill? Do you have any idea how the council determined the 3% figure?

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No not really, not getting into this game. You > well know that I believe that we need hard > measures, others are better placed to work out > what is best. They've been restricting access to > many roads ever since I've lived in London, and it > has affected my behaviour as it will others. > > And on Climate Change, just putting the blame on > corporations wont sort stuff out, personal > responsibility just as important. Although agree > with the sentiments about the PM. Hope all active > on this site sign the petition - see the thread > /forum/read.php? > 5,2242072 Of course not.....you only want to challenge but aren't happy to be challenged and when you are you recoil and refuse to engage or respond - you've done it consistently since the outset of this discussion....typical of so many on the pro-LTN side...it's because you don't have a rational argument to counter the questions asked of you - it's all so one-sided - a bit like the LTNs - our way or the highway.

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!