Rockets

One Dulwich people (all 2,000 of them) seem to be located all across Dulwich. I am sure the founders may be located within the LTN area but then again, so are some of the small vocal minority of supporters of the LTNs (see what I did there ;-) ), so an accusation of selfishness could easily be levelled at them too. Yes Calton, Court Lane and DV was always an awful junction but, to be fair, it got a lot worse when the council put their previous "improvement" measures in. Those measures turned a busy junction into a massively congested polluting junction that made it more dangerous than it had ever been for all road users. After those measures went in lots of people told the council that the junction had become more polluted and dangerous but they did nothing about it (even though they admitted it had in their own report on the junction works). Why? You also have to ask why the junction was so busy in the first place? Well, because it is one of the only east/west routes across Dulwich. So by closing it they forced traffic to find other routes and that's where we are today. And people on here have been saying, from day one these plans were mooted, that the measures would merely cause displacement and any modal shift would not be sufficient to positively impact displacement traffic - funny how people on the forum were able to accurately predict what was going to happen but the council couldn't. Again, why?

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What a load of fuss. You get road rage every day > on our roads. I'm not sure why you have raised > this beyond a tut tut, or if you had to raise it > why you needed to link it to LTNs. > > I've had hassle before telling people not to drive > the wrong way down one way streets. Didn't feel > any need to start a thread. "What a load of fuss".....wow, new depths are being plumbed.....someone tried to smash the front window of a cafe behind which a child was sitting. I am glad that in my world I live in that is not considered something that is part of the everyday fabric of life....deserving of no-more attention than a "tut tut". I can't even begin to think how distressing that was for the staff and customers in the cafe, especially the children quite clearly seen in the video.

I very much suspect these two will be "known to police". If this is their response to someone, quite rightly, remonstrating with them about riding their mopeds through the LTN roadblocks then I think we can all predict the type of idiot they are. The way they aggressively remonstrate with the woman, the man by the door and the way they ride their mopeds on the pavement, then try to smash a window, behind which a child is sitting, is just beyond belief. Unfortunately, they probably also know they can do this without fear of ever being caught.

When it comes to the council's analysis of data from the LTNs review the saying: "Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story" comes to mind. It's scary the way they have manipulated the data, and data analysis, to give them the headline they so desire and, whether you are pro- or anti-LTNs everyone should be very concerned that this is the way the council analyses and presents data. If they are doing it with this what else are they doing it with?

That is horrific. I hope everyone is ok and that the police can identify the two in question.

Did get a visit from Cllrs Leeming or Newens yesterday? It appears they were knocking on doors - we had a leaflet put through the door saying they had called. Unfortunately we were out as I would love to have been able to discuss the LTN review "process" with them to get their thoughts.

It will be interesting to see how TFL and Sadiq react to the criticism of the colourful crossing initiative. Whilst I love a splash of colour it has clearly been done with inadequate thought, assessment or proper engagement. https://www.transportforall.org.uk/campaign/colourful-crossings/

I really hope this is not true. Do any traders on Melbourne Grove have any info?

Superb, well done to you all. This is a fantastic project, you should all be incredibly proud.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just musing on the idea that the active travel > benefits may have disproportionately benefited > children at the independent and more affluent > schools (and the air pollution from displaced > traffic disproportionately affected some of the > less affluent ones). Perhaps one of the many > things that should have gone into the analysis of > compliance with the council?s new socioeconomic > duty (something that seems to have been given very > little consideration in the report accompanying > the decision notice). > > I see on Twitter that the LDs have requested the > decision to be called in before Overview and > Scrutiny (stating concerns about adequacy of > consultation). Let?s see if the council approve > that request. A chance for both sides to air their > concerns about process flaws. If it happens I > wonder if the meeting is a public one. Legal, do you have any idea how the Overview and Scrutiny committee works as I see that Margy and Victoria Olisa are both members of it. Do they have to withdraw from the committee if it goes for review due to a conflict of interest?

I see articles like this and never know whether Southwark councillors recoil to see the negative publicity or frame it and pin it on their walls as some sort of validation of the great job they (think) they are doing!

And the fact Southwark calls out the DfT data showing a drop in cycling is because they know their next tranche of "monitoring" will show a decline in cycling and they are getting their defence in early! Because they fudged the increase numbers by using a dodgy baseline may mean the decrease numbers become way more pronounced. But look, the numbers shown above goes to validate how much of an impact the school cycle run is having on the overall numbers - the main increase is being driven by local children who go to DC, DPL, Jags, Alleyns and Hamlet cycling to school.

Goldilocks - it's not chat. It's fact. Southwark even references the decline in cycling to pre-pandemic levels (which comes from DfT data) in their final Dulwich LTN review report at the point when they talk about the increase they "monitored" in Dulwich during the pandemic. The catalyst for cycling was lockdown and not LTNs and now lockdown is over cycling is down as a result. And I suspect the reason that cycling numbers are down below pre-pandemic levels is because people are not going to their offices as much as they used to.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cllr McAsh, > I hope you had a good summer. > > I am just wondering if you had any thoughts on the > LTN review data that was published by the council > last week? > > The constituents within the review area have, > overwhelmingly (64%), voted for the measures to be > removed yet the council is suggesting amendments > to the current closures that will do nothing to > alleviate the problems the measures have created. > > It is clear, from the council's data published in > the review, that there has not been the > "significant reduction in traffic across the > Dulwich area" as you claimed in your recent > newsletter. The council is claiming a 10% > reduction in traffic across the area but the > monitoring data from roads like Underhill (which > is a key displacement route) has not been > published or included which means that the 10% > figure is likely to reduce to closer to 0% once > that data is included. > > Could you summarise what you believe the benefits > of the scheme to date have been as it is unclear > to me, from reading the report, what they are? The > measures have had more than enough time to bed in, > yet: > > - Pollution has not decreased (in fact it is > likely to have increased) > - Modal shift has not happened (the report admits > that cycling numbers are now decreasing to > pre-Covid levels) > - Displacement roads are more congested > - Bus journey times have increased in many parts > of the area > - Local businesses are being impacted negatively > as is the attractiveness of the area as a shopping > destination > - Emergency service response times have been > impacted by the closures and lives have been put > at risk > > It is clear the council has failed to deliver > against the stated objectives for these measures > so why are you continuing to pursue them and for > whose benefit exactly? It seems the majority of > your constituents are being impacted negatively by > them and don't want them. Cllr McAsh - just popping this to the top of your inbox - you seem to have missed this when you were posting yesterday.

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There was an accelerator on fuel tax introduced > for that purpose by the Major government, and > subsequently increased by Blair. > As you will remember, there were large-scale > protests and it was scrapped. > > I wouldn't say it was the 'most fair' solution. As > with any of these measures, the discomfort is > never evenly spread. It would be effective though. Agree. Means-tested road pricing is the only fair way forward. It also hits the delivery and logistics companies hard forcing them to change bad practices. Look what happened when we had an inadvertent road pricing example initiated by fuel shortages - car usage dropped because people questioned whether they really needed to make that journey in their car/by car.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > sally buying Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > DulwichCentral Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > legalalien Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > In hindsight, perhaps we > > > > should have done before and after counts in > > the > > > > bike sheds at the various schools? > > > > > > Cycle sheds at Charter North Dulwich have > been > > > recently rebuilt about 4 times bigger - and > are > > > now overflowing. > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/CleanAirDulwich/status/1435230 > > > > > > 921565908992 > > > > How many bikes did the sheds hold in the first > > place when they were built? > > > > Without knowing this the above has no meaning. > > > As I said in my original post - the bike sheds > were made about four times bigger than they > originally were. > You could count the bikes in the picture which are > under the storage area and divide by four to get > the original > capacity. Bearing in mind it's now four times > bigger - and overflowing. > > I thought that meaning was pretty clear in my > original post? And this is brilliant - it is great to see more kids cycling to and from school but the council can only claim this as a victory for LTNs if those children were being driven previously. Given the catchment area of Charter North is very small I suspect the majority of that transition to cycling is from walking - which is not what the LTNs were designed for (well, maybe the cycle lobby would disagree but let's not go there!).

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From 2009 onwards, motoring on minor roads in > London almost doubled from 5.5bn vehicle miles to > nearly 9.5bn in 2019. Traffic on main roads > remained relatively stable in the same period. > Navigation apps such as Waze have caused huge > displacement on to side streets. Where?s the > outrage over this, significant ?displacement?. I don't think there is outrage over it because those stats, which are touted exclusively by the pro-LTN groups, don't stack up. Look at what you said. You're saying that traffic on sideroads has almost doubled yet traffic on main roads remained stable. So, the only conclusion there is that there must have been an almost doubling of the number of vehicles because those extra journeys on side roads have to come from somewhere and if levels are stable on main roads then you can't claim these are people rat-running. Car ownership in London is declining. Van ownership and PHV ownership is rocketing on the back home deliveries and private hire vehicles and those two things are not deterred by LTNs - the journeys still happen. It's clear that's where the increase on side roads is coming from and the main catalyst is not apps such as Waze as you claim.

Legal - I completely agree. The council's approach should have been a targeted roll-out of the school streets programme (and they needed to get the private schools on board but I know the relationship between them and the council has been strained due to some council member's ideological views on private schools) allied with a programme of segregated bike lanes and building the infrastructure to support modal shift (more bike storage for those who don't have anywhere to store their bikes, more places to secure bikes on Lordship Labe etc etc etc). Instead they put all their energy and money into the flawed LTN programme that has utterly failed, divided a community (well divided suggests a 50/50 split so maybe I should rephrase that as turn the majority of the community against the measures) and made the very problems they were trying to solve even worse.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So we should allocate as much space as possible to > cars, across as broad an area as possible. No > attempt to create quieter routes. > > The huge growth of traffic on minor roads over the > last few years caused by navigation apps must > continue. With luck we can ensure every road is > equally congested as that?s ?fairer? for > everyone. > > People who have no option but to walk and cycle > because they don?t own a car should get one (even > if they can?t afford one), and stop ?virtue > signalling?. > > All the research suggest that making driving > easier increases the amount of driving. Literally > all of it. But until it?s definitive we?ll pick > holes in individual studies or data sets, and > ignore the emerging picture across a growing body > of evidence. Yup, let?s go with the view that > making driving as convenient as possible (and > walking and cycling less pleasant and / or safe) > will reduce car use. There?s no evidence at all > for that but, it?s obvious isn?t it? Rahx3 - I am not sure that is virtue-signalling. Virtue signalling would be, I don't know, cycling towards the Court Lane/DV junction, seeing a group of elderly people protesting against the closures and taking umbrage that a couple of their bags were blocking a small part of the junction and then coming on here and moaning about how dangerous it was. P.S. did you see the complete blockage of the same junction during the recent Margy Party in the Square? I am presuming not because you didn't come on here and moan about it dangerously blocking your cycle route.....;-)

If that is the council strategy then we are done for - 50 kids a generation in the Dulwich area - it's going to take 10 lifetimes! ;-) All joking aside we were sold the myth that LTNs create traffic evaporation. They don't. The council can't prove that the LTNs have delivered any traffic evaporation at all so, instead they herald an "increase" in cycling. That increase in cycling was in play before the LTNs went in and the catalyst for it was the lockdown (and of course cycling levels have now declined to below pre-pandemic levels invariably because we are not in lockdown anymore, life is returning to normal yet people aren't cycling into their offices or places of work as much as they used to because of the shift to working from home on a permanent basis). Now the council desperately clings to that cycling up stat to validate their continued persistence with the flawed LTN strategy. A large percentage of that "growth" is derived from pupils cycling from Dulwich to the plethora of schools in the immediate area and only if those journeys used to be made by car (and I am not convinced many of them were) can it be considered a win for the LTNs.

Yes it is - the threshold is beyond Calton as you head towards the lights. I noticed recently that they have painted Bus Gate on the road - I don't think that has been there that long has it? I wonder if that is in relation to the Tribunals upholding the appeal and this is the council trying to fix the issue. Surely if one is upheld on the basis of incorrect or vague signage and then the council takes remedial action then a precedent has been set and all of the fines should be refunded for that junction? Lots of residents have been telling the council that the signage was not clear enough and it was confusing yet it seems only the threat of tribunals cutting off their cash cow is the catalyst for action!

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The data was from June 2021 - before everyone was > back in office and the raw data on numbers has not > been released. There really is very little > validated proof that LTNs have delivered on > reducing pollution, car-use, traffic and increases > in active travel outside of the year on year slow > increase in cycling. > If it did work and traffic, pollution and active > travel did increase as proven by validated and > significant data showing positive change, with no > confounding variable such as a PANDEMIC and > LOCKDOWN, I would be the first to support. > > But they do not - traffic and pollution increased > on ED Grove and Croxted, LL - slower buses and > pollution levels increased. > > It isn't a difficult concept to understand, unless > one's fundamental beliefs are a block to looking > at actual evidence. Or one just has a gated road, > an increase in house price and doesn't actually > care about pollution at all. And what is confusing me about the data is that on the interim report the council said that traffic was down across Southwark by 12% and that across the whole Dulwich area it was down 16% but by the time of the final report that reduction in traffic had raised to 10%. So does that mean traffic is actually up in Dulwich compared to the rest of Southwark?

Rahx3 - don't go there - we really don't need another thread of people tearing the council's "count" methodology apart. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, made the point. You might believe the stats/propaganda the council puts out to justify their LTNs - there are many more who don't. It's interesting to see above that Rachel Aldred is now saying that LTNs are being removed without sufficient monitoring on the impact on walking and cycling. Firstly the claim is wonderfully hypocritical and galling given the woefully inadequate (probably deliberately so) monitoring that was done before and after the LTNs went in to assess the impact on displacement from the LTNs and the collateral damage that was being done. I do agree with her though that there needs to be an assessment on the impact on walking and cycling - in terms of how much of the increase in cycling has been from walking or other active travel modes. The "growth" figures touted by the council on the increase in cycling in Dulwich is being driven, in the main, by the private school triangle around Dulwich Village - the majority of those cyclists are kids from DC, Dulwich Prep, JAGs, Alleyns and Dulwich Hamlet (I know that is a state school before someone choses to correct me) and are coming from Dulwich and I would hasten to guess that they were not being driven prior to the LTNs going in (or if they were it was a tiny percentage). Of course, any active travel journeys are good and it is great to see kids cycling to school but it is not good if they aren't replacing car journeys - which the LTNs are supposed to target. So maybe the council or TFL can commission Rachel Aldred to do some more research to determine how much of the claimed growth to active travel is actually from journeys that were previously done in a car.

DC - I suspect everyone on this forum can relate to that - we have all made those changes - it's why 68% of local journeys in Dulwich were already active travel in 2018 and I suspect the % was even higher before the pandemic and higher again post pandemic. We are all doing our bit yet the council decides to deploy measures that create big increases in traffic and pollution for those who are already doing what they can to embrace active travel. The LTN stick being wielded by the council is hitting those who have already embraced active travel the hardest and that is not right. And for what end? The results from the council's flawed and distorted review are hardly a ringing endorsement for the effectiveness of LTNs (and the council has obviously worked hard to try to create some sort of upside to the LTNs). LTNs remain a very blunt and ineffective instrument in the fight against climate change and none of them have come close to delivering what the council(s) promised they would deliver. They know they aren't working, we know they aren't working, even the LCC know they aren't working. Which makes you wonder why they can't admit defeat.

Mops - I am afraid there isn't any clear direction from the council stating what the rules are - at least I am not aware of a single site that makes it clear what can and cannot happen. They are relying on the signage they have put up all around the area to "alert" drivers (but this has been criticised as unclear by many residents and also a fine tribunal who overturned some fines on the basis of confusing/unclear signage). SO it will depend where you are coming from and at what time, but there are no restrictions on Eynella for either driving or parking (although the council did state they wanted to try and put some in).