Rockets

slarti b2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DuncanW Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > So... Dulwich active travel levels are already > super-high, probably couldn't get higher - > they're > > at the maxiimum basically. But also... cycle > journeys had a boom in the first lockdown, and > that has now all but evaporated. > > Might take me a little while to process that. > > Why? Cycling journeys are a very small proportion > of active travel journeys, less than 10% according > to TfL. So a big increase in cycling can lead to > small increase in active travel. And remember 68% of local journeys were already active travel yet only 3% of those were cycling. I know some people don't want to hear this but maybe ploughing huge amounts of money into trying to increase the cycle share of active travel isn't the answer. The obsession with trying to make London the new cycling Amsterdam may well be hugely flawed and a complete white elephant.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Oh and TFL has also published data that cycle > use > > has dropped back across London to almost > > pre-lockdown levels...I imagine quite a few > > bicycles on gumtree soon, not my little two > > wheeled horse though, she travels pre/post > > lockdowns and pandemics, but doesn?t like rain > > 😜 > > Any link to this data? > > And any evidence that making driving easier, > reduces car journeys? There is lot's showing the > opposite. > > I know you've said previously that it's best not > to respond to requests for evidence or to > questions from others, but this is a discussion > forum, so perhaps you'll reconsider? > > Re. walking, if people decide not to make a > journey in their car, many will walk it instead. > LTNs discourage car use, particularly for short > local trips. Rahx3 - this Labour councillor in Hackney has been pointing people to a lot of the data from TFL showing that there was a cycle boom in the first lockdown that has now all but evaporated. It is certainly noticeable around Dulwich how fewer cyclists there are (of course, school holidays will impact that but still we aren't even in winter yet). The figures show that even with good weather this summer cycling numbers have dropped significantly/hugely since the first lockdown. And it seems this trend is being seen nationally too. https://twitter.com/SingleFilePlz/status/1426861705586380804/photo/1 Unfortunately modal shift to cycling seems to have been a temporary blip that was unsustainable but many of people did predict this. The cycling revolution just doesn't appear to be happening - maybe the council and supporters of LTNs will go back to the drawing boards to work out why.

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Even if councillors have spoken to businesses it > doesn't mean that the quality of the exchange is > any use at all. I doubt it was. > > By the way. Be prepared for the great "we are not > going to change anything except for allowing > emergency vehicles through the closed junction" > announcement. It's getting ugly now....

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Much more pressure needs to be put on the schools > - state and private - whose huge number of pupils > means that there are above average road trips in > this 2 or 3 square mile area. Nobody can deny that > traffic is always less dense by at least 10 > percent (I am being conservative) during school > holidays. Why not demand that the schools do more > to effect positive change, such as more perks for > staff and or parents who don't drive there and > back? Crude but effective, even if it means some > will feel "disempowered" or victimised or some > such... Nigello - spot on. But unfortunately such a sensible approach doesn't lead to more funding for cycle projects so the cycle lobby won't get behind it.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You are right to point out that these LTNs were > implemented under the pretence that they would > help social distancing (even though you claim all > the shops were closed anyway) > > That was part of the reason although it was more > relevant to the pavement widening schemes. > > LTNs were put in to prevent or mitigate the risk > of a car-led recovery. The fear being that lots of > people who used to travel on P/T would be afraid > to do so because of crowded conditions and would > instead make the journey by car which would lead > to a vast and unmanageable increase in traffic > everywhere. > > > but now that we are out of the other side there > is no longer any global pandemic justification for > keeping them > > There's still the minor problem of a global > climate catastrophe. You know, that thing caused > by burning fossil fuels. Err, Ex- pavement widening....where exactly did that go in? The council were slow to put any sort of widening in place on Lordship Lane....it took them months to widen the pavement outside Moxons....their focus was solely on cycling and measures to support the cycle lobby....they were caught sleeping at the wheel in terms of helping pedestrians on Lordship Lane..... Also, it was clear that the council, and the councillors, were saying the LTNs were being driven by the need for social distancing....correct me if I am wrong by Cllr McAsh started a thread on the very subject of the Melbourne Grove LTN measures as a social distancing tool during the first lockdown.....and it is increasingly clear that was just a Trojan horse used by the council to get the measures in.

It is increasingly delusional to also suggest that cycling is the solution to London's congestion problems. The big issue is, of course, that the council has wedded themselves to the cycling solves all issues narrative and has so jumped on the boat that they have wasted huge amounts of tax payers money into schemes that totally failed to deliver.... ... but they keep telling us to wait for them to bed in when all the data shows cycling (despite the money put into it) is at its lowest for a long time in London.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > >Good public transport is the answer and waiting > longer for the miracle of evaporation is like > wishing for unicorns. > > The 37 and P4 will never be good as long as so > many cars are in their way. Reducing the number of > private cars and vans is a precondition for > improving public transport. There will never be an > effortless shift for drivers from their private > cars to public transport Oh my......

Duncan - not sure anyone has said it but beyond the LTNs what else has the council done in the last 18 months? I think they managed to install a couple of cycle hangars....that's it...nothing else. Neighbouring councils have put Southwark to shame with some of the segregated cycle lanes that have been put in in Bromley and Croydon.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nope it's everyone looking at their lives and > making this more sustainable, including cutting > down unnecessary journeys, purchases, deliveries > etc. Relying on the commercialisation of electric > vehicles, or rocketing into near space, is putting > your head in the sand. Sadly our world doesn't > work like this. But it looks like Dulwich residents were already making the right decisions in terms of active travel - so why punish them by implementing measures that are impacting them negatively? It makes absolutely no sense. We hear about nudge theory initiatives but Dulwich didn't need a nudge - we didn't need a stick we needed a carrot - more cycling infrastructure and storage, better transport links - all of which the authorities have resolutely failed to deliver on. LTNs were a flawed, blinkered and ludicrous idea that were destined to fail and were probably implemented as the council had zero other ideas and had been lobbied hard by groups like LCC convincing them that they were going to be the magic bullet.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Those against: Journeys are longer because of LTNS > - people who drive less than a mile now have to > drive further. > Those for: Why are they driving less than a mile? > Those against: Because they are disabled. > Those for: What about mobility scooters? Is a > single occupancy car the best way to do a short > journey in climate emergency? > Those against: Not ALL drivers are disabled - some > are working parents or key workers getting to > work. > Those for: Well *some* of those people are > abled-bodied and could walk / cycle / use public > transport. They are more likely to switch to > sustainable transport if the safe routes are there > for them to do so. > Those against: ??? Those against: But 68% of local journeys were already done as active travel Those for: Not enough of that active travel was cycling.

I think the council misjudged the sentiment amongst those living within the LTNs. They probably thought they would be supportive of the measures but a large number of people I know and have spoken to within the LTNs are concerned about the impact the closures are having on those living outside of them.

Rahx3 - do you have anything to support the notion that LTNs reduce the number of cars? I am not aware of any substantive data that shows that - didn't the Waltham Forest LTN actually see an increase in car ownership within the LTN? Yes, LTNs reduce traffic within the LTNs but they do not reduce traffic outside of the LTNs - in fact, due to increased congestion they could well be increasing pollution as a whole. It is interesting we have seen no pollution data from the council in July as they promised. Moving the pollution from one part of Dulwich to another part of Dulwich is not the solution. ULEZ is a great initiative and will have a far more positive impact than closing a few roads and forcing traffic onto fewer roads and thus increasing congestion. Also, you say that ULEZ will lead to reduction in some car ownership - it will but don't lose focus on what the ULEZ is aiming to do - it's not just cars it's all vehicles as many of the problems are high polluting commercial vehicles.

Ex- what you and the rest of the pro-LTN lobby fail to acknowledge, perhaps deliberately, and the point many of us have been making since the outset of this disastrous programme, is that there isn't an LTN that has delivered anything more than minimal permanent modal shift. And so those people who have to make car journeys get forced down fewer roads thereby increasing congestion and pollution for those who have to live, work or be educated on them. The "any modal shift is worth it" narrative is so blinkered and self-centered that it becomes laughable. So does the...it takes time to bed in nonsense we hear all the time....how long are people supposed to give them to actually deliver on what was promised..5, 10, 15 years - I thought by then it's too late? I just came back from London in a cab and the drivers father lives just off the Essex Road in Islington and he said his dad was having to live with awful levels of increased pollution so others in the area could live with less. Yet another council forcing the same issues on groups of people who live outside the LTNs. I just don't understand how these measures ever saw the light of day - they were flawed from the beginning and instigated by supposed experts who we should now be asking if they are fit for the job. If us mere mortals could work out what was going to happen why the hell couldn't they? The council, and others, have wasted 18 months doggedly pursuing a flawed policy that is failing to deliver on its objectives (no matter how much the council and supporters try to position it and dress it up). In years to come I suspect people will look back on this and write papers on..."the great LTN scandal - it did the opposite of what was intended - what the hell were the council and the lobbyists thinking?"

Penguin - you make some very valid points - part of the issue as well is that people are getting bigger (taller) and so cars are too. Compare the original mini to the modern mini. Also, as you rightly point out bigger cars are favoured by people with families - car seats and their attachments are about as wide as the original mini!! But the reaction on here when someone admits they use a 4WD or SUV (P.S. there are plenty of 4WD that aren't SUVs) is so depressingly predictable...... But, the fact remains, that calling people out or referring to people having a Chelsea Tractor doesn't seem to have done anything to diminish their appeal. In the US I am not surprised SUVs are killing more people because a Ford F150 or Cadillac Escalade are beyond ludicrously and unnecessarily big and if one of those hits you you don't stand a chance because of the height of the engine grill. They make Range Rovers look small. Bottom line is that we need to do as much as possible to protect all road users and reduce the amount of accidents and injuries. I sadly read that another cyclist died in London yesterday after an accident with a lorry - every death or injury is one too many.

Didn't we get a wave of, ahem, opinionated newcomers to the forum this time last year who expressed their views on the Dawson's Hill evening frivolities? This is becoming something of an annual event - it must indeed be something to do with the time of year.....at least these ones seem to be able to string a sentence together, something last year's influx seemed to struggle with!

Unfortunately there seems to have been a plethora of people registering for the forum in the last couple of weeks who seem to be here just to antagonise and be unpleasant. Strangely, a lot of them seem to have animal based names!

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think Southwark is withholding data 'for > East Dulwich Grove' given it hasn't released any > further data at all. > > I wasn't clear at the meetings I went to that an > exact date was given for the pollution data, but > it would be helpful to see it along with the > further traffic volume data that was discussed. Does anyone know why all the data wasn't released at the same time? There have been, for example, monitoring strips on Underhill Road for a very long time now.

Manatee - you are sharing data that doesn't back-up your claims, in fact it validates my points not yours..... You claim that car ownership has gone up in Southwark (which it has year on year) but you will probably not have noticed the caveat put into the dataset: Significant changes in the number of vehicles from year to year can often occur when companies with a large number of vehicles change their registered address. Look at the figures - the overall trend in Southwark is down not up over the last 10 years and down significantly from the peak in 2004. And one final question - how do LTNs solve the problem caused by delivery vans and PHVs exactly or what further action do you suggest to combat that problem? P.S. I am afraid it wasn't me that reported you and no, I won't indulge you in your attempt to get the thread lounged! ;-)

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hadn't seen all of this..... > > Pretty polarised, but I am in the Pilton camp > (village next to Glastonbury) where most endure > the festival seeing the bigger benefits. Although > they are bribed with free day tickets, perhaps the > Gala should have done similar. > > Same can be said about the nuisance of those > letting of fireworks in the early hours at every > opportunity (well at least we didn't have this for > Euro 2020..) and the occasional house party. > Annoying but you quickly forget and move on. Malumbu, good point on Glastonbury - I am hoping Gala take the same approach and embrace it as the family Eavis sdo who pretty much carpet bomb anyone in Somerset (never mind just Pilton) with the opportunity for a ticket!

Ex- can you explain to me, as I know you work on the game-keepers' side of the fence to us on this ;-), how the council can, in their interim survey, have a lead headline stat that traffic is "down 79% on internal roads in East Dulwich" yet they have no data east of Lordship Lane to back that up and on the final page of the report state that: Additional traffic surveys are being carried out in the area east of Lordship Lane (Underhill Road, Barry Road, and Wood Vale). Additionally, can you explain, from an industry professional's perspective, how the council can claim a 26% decrease in traffic on Lordship lane yet data later in their pack shows bus journey times are taking longer than they used to along it (especially southbound, where, since the measures went in it has been consistently higher than the pro-Covid base)? What's even more interesting is that from the council's data (and even to my untrained eye) it is clear that the catalyst for the slowing of buses along Lordship Lane was the closures - there are very pronounced steps up following the closures and, without lockdown impact, the trend curve towards delays would have likely been much more pronounced. This is why people are really scrutinising the council's numbers in minutia and take the headlines at face-value - far too many times the council headlines are seemingly trying to distort the reality of the situation.

Nope - this one - the one that polled a lot more street within the LTN area: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ee5b2552f1141316ee2efc9/t/60eb234fdb8bb141baed2fdd/1626022736278/Report+on+the+results+of+RA+surveys+July+2021+FINAL+V4.pdf Ex- this is the monster Southwark council and their councillors have created with the shambles that is the LTN programme - they have divided a community. This is what happens when you fail to engage properly with the people you are supposed to represent - they go off and do their own research!

Heartblock - I think it puts councillors in a very difficult position if the over-whelming number of local people who respond say one thing and they do the opposite on the basis of the views of people from outside of Dulwich. Granted people who use Dulwich, be that to walk in the park, visit the shops, drive through it or cycle through it on their way up Sydenham Hill should be allowed a voice but it cannot be allowed to over-ride the views of those people who live in Dulwich and are having to live with the good and bad of the LTNs. I have a hunch that the local results within the review are not what the council want or need to justify retaining the measures - hence their mobilisation after the extension of the review by the councillors and their door-knocking exercise. I think they have massively under-estimated the weight of feeling against the measures within the area. I think back to the One Dulwich research that said 80% of those polled within the Dulwich area (many of the streets being the streets most benefitting from the closures) were opposed to the measures and whilst the pro-lobby will say there were leading questions, bias etc that is bad news for the council if it is anything close to that in terms of actual responses to the review. And a lot of people seem to have been mobilised to respond, such is the level of anger and frustration towards the council at the way the council have handled this.

Ex- but the point everyone seems to be missing is that us Dulwich'ites have already been embracing active travel (without the need for any intervention) and the intervention the council chose is a very blunt stick that unfairly punishes those in the area who have already embraced active travel. LTNs are an even blunter stick when you consider they have been put in in isolation - there is no joined-up thinking between councillors yet alone councils. So we have a random smattering of LTNs designed to reduce overall traffic numbers that merely reduce traffic numbers for some and increase it for others, allow active travel in one area but make it less likely to happen further up the road. No one is suggesting that removing LTNs solves the problem and you may choose to deliberately misinterpret the Clean Air for All mantra but the bottom-line remains that LTNs benefit some but impact more negatively. The council has wasted so much time, effort and energy on their LTN folly that they have failed to deliver anything tangible. I see new segregated bike lanes in Bromley and all over other parts of London - which, in my opinion, are a much more effective way of managing the challenges and encouraging active travel than LTNs. The point on PHVs and vans is that LTNs do nothing to resolve that issue - a delivery driver still has to make a delivery whether they can drive there directly or around the LTNs and if, as the data suggests, that a large % of the traffic is now delivery vans and PHVs then LTNs will create more problems than they solve by increasing journey times and congestion. That's just common sense. We can agree on this though - we do need solutions that address air and noise pollution, road danger and congestion but I am afraid LTNs aren't sophisticated enough to deliver (nor it seems, the people responsible for putting them in).

Manatee - if you've come on here to debate things then debate things but keep it civil - you are now becoming rude. Perhaps you're aiming to get banned for a third time - you might want to rethink your approach to ensure forum longevity?! This has all been debated and plenty of alternative solutions have been proposed - just because you arrived late to the debate doesn't mean we have to rehash it for your benefit. We will just have to agree to disagree on all your points but perhaps, just perhaps, the council pulled the wrong lever and should redress it. LTNs are not the solution to the challenges we all face, never have been never will be - as I showed you to rebuff your claim that Waltham Forest has been a success - it has been a success inside the LTNs not outside. The same pattern is repeated at every LTN - reductions inside, increases outside (even the interim council data shows this trend and it is missing data from the roads most likely to be soaking up the displacement). So unless you're planning on making the whole of London a massive LTN then there will always be winners and losers and that is not at all equitable. And therein lies the problems with LTNs they are a very blunt and ineffective instrument to try and tackle pollution and actually create more problems than they solve. Private car ownership has declined in London and whilst you claim it's about getting cars off the roads it actually isn't - it is more about getting vans and PHVs off the roads as they are the problem and throwing roadblocks in doesn't deter those vehicles. Not sure if you read the Guardian article I linked to but it is worth a read to help understand what the problem is and where it is coming from.

Malumbu - why did Dulwich require the stick approach - we were already doing very well (68% of all local journeys) without it? It seems to be punishing the people who were already bought into it by creating higher levels of pollution in areas outside the LTN.