Rockets

And one of the findings from the Dulwich LTN review was that bus services are being impacted on some routes - it's all a very vicious circle.

Unfortunately I suspect the TFL cutting services is another move in the political football games between the Tories and Sadiq over TFL funding - and, as usual, it is the people of London who end up suffering.

Given the better grasp of calculator use by the opposition groups it probably explains why Southwark refuses to release the raw data (despite promises from Cllr Williams that they would do so). I wonder if he has looked at the numbers and realised that the council's review conclusions were a work of fiction. He is obviously concerned the raw data does not stand up to scrutiny. Southwark appear to be trying to bury the data from which they drew their conclusions. If Turney Road is indicative of the council's data analysis skills you can understand why. I do wonder whether the raw data shows an overall increase in traffic throughout the area.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > oimissus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > malumbu - I've seen you frequently ask people for > solutions, and yet every time they do just that, > you criticize them. > > You actually seem to want everyone to stop > criticizing the council and then just shut up. > Which sounds pretty much like what the council > want residents to do as well. > > ----------------------------- > > You've missed my points. Firstly that the default > position of many is to blame everything on > Southwark. > > Secondly that even with the best will in the world > they do not have the powers to compel either the > schools or parents to reduce the school run. > > If anything you should be feeling sorry for local > authorities who have been given the job by central > government to sort out air quality without the > funding or powers. A cop out, the point I have > made during various central government > consultations. Most of government effors is going > on big ticket interventions - Clean Air Zones and > the like working with the big metropolitan areas > where, for example, you have greater control over > public transport, such as Manchester, Birmingham, > and to a lesser extent GLA/TfL (they don't like > Mayor Khan). But little at the borough level. > > I was always disappointed in the lack of publicity > at borough level. But even where this was good, > such as Croydon, still had little impact. > https://lovecleanair.org/what-can-i-do/projects/cl > ean-air-4-croydon-schools/#.YZVJth3Leos > > I've also raised a couple of times where > Southwark's interventions a few years ago led to > more traffic passing a Lewisham primary. But not > one of you, not one of you, showed any empathy. > Which suggests a narrow perspective. > > I could go on about what I have done personally > and collectively to support sustainable travel to > school, but this is not my moral high ground > thread. And I reached out in the past as in the > late noughties I got very obsessed over a planning > matter and a local authority, which took over my > life, so have been in a similar space. Why do they need powers? Surely a dialogue with schools and some brainstorming of ideas would not go a miss? Ideas like the gamification of the school journey would be easy to do, easy to implement and far more effective than the short-sighted self-interest lobby group influenced ideas that are the LTNs. Southwark and our councillors are collectively responsible for the LTNs so they deserve the blame if they fail to deliver. I find one of the most frustrating things is that Southwark will never admit they got something wrong - it's one of the less pleasant traits of the left which is also adopted by our government. I don't think anyone feels sorry for local authorities - especially not after the way our local authority has acted around LTNs - I feel sorry for their constituents who are having to live with the negative impacts of their nonsense ideas. And Malumbu - you are the great question asker and pointer of fingers but very rarely do you ever respond to any questions put to you. Maybe this is why many don't engage in dialogue with you because it's all a little bit one-sided.

If that Turney Road error is as bad as it looks then does anyone have any faith in the council's claim that there has been an area-wide reduction in traffic? When those corrected figures are added into the report it must now be getting close to no reduction in area-wide traffic. On the basis of the multitude of oversights, errors, the lack of raw data being shared by the council then this must be called-in for further scrutiny - it's an utter shambles and it appears they are just trying to bury the actual facts to save face and avoid having to admit the LTN policy has been a disaster.

I hope you make a speedy recovery.

Malumbu - I am being critical of Southwark because they need to be called out for their inaction. Thus far, the council seems to think dealing with the climate emergency means listening to Southwark Cyclists and putting in a load of LTN roadblocks. It has to do more and we should all be challenging them to do so. Things like this would be easy to implemented and a good way to spend the public purse - why should the council not be leading the initiative on things like this? It seems to me that this would be a low cost initiative that has an immediate positive impact. To me it seems like they loaded all of their eggs into the LTN basket and sat back doing nothing else for the last 18 months - a case of poor window-dressing in my eyes.

Cllr McAsh - it is particularly bad just along the road from Mrs Robinson before you get to Melbourne Grove - that is your ward isn't it? I was merely bringing it to your attention as it has been getting progressively worse over the last few weeks and if it rains at any point it will become a significant slip hazard - in places the leaf collection is shin deep. Thanks Nigello for flagging where this type of thing can be reported. According to the leafing schedule it looks like parts of Lordship Lane have already been done, others are due to be done this week or the week of Nov 29th. I have reported it in the hope it can be expedited although I have to say reporting things like missed bin collections seems to disappear into a black hole and nothing done about it. And Cllr McAsh I can attest that Cllr Browning is very responsive but I am now living in the Village Ward and the councillors here are, ahem, less responsive....;-)

Cllr Mcash - is it the council's responsibility for sweeping the pavements? The depth of leaves at the end of Lordship Lane as you head towards Townley Road is getting ludicrous - if it rains the leave mulch will be ankle deep and a significant slip hazard. Is there anything you can do?

Imagine is you incentivised the school run for kids by encouraging them to walk or cycle - I reckon you would see a 75% decrease in car journeys to school. Probably really cheap to rollout and maintain and something everyone could get behind. I just wish our council would show some lateral thinking about how to address the challenges Dulwich faces.

There are some tremendous examples of proper nudge initiatives at work (like the one HP linked to)..... I really like this one...so simple yet so clever.

It's a complex issue and one that is becoming more complex after the council's policy to sell off a lot of council sites to private property developers over the last 10 years or so (much of it because the running costs had become too high as buildings aged and fell into disrepair). Much of the re-development of Elephant and Castle has come at the cost of council homes so the council has to find new places to build homes to replace those lost.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where did you get that from Rockets? Whilst I > guess it?s not impossible, it would seem unlikely > on a road that is partially restricted From what I understand they didn't compare like with like on Turney and that's why their numbers are wrong and have now been adjusted - I am trying to find out more but I think they mixed up the monitoring results, one from the end with the restrictions and one from the end without the restrictions to achieve the 61% reduction. Apparently some Turney residents have been informed which is why I wondered whether anyone had the correct back-story to this. If this is correct then it may mean there has been no area-wide reduction as the council claims. Traffic was very heavy today along EDG towards the Red Post Hill and DV junction today and also through the village to tbe same junction. Is it just me or does traffic seem to be a lot heavier at weekends?

Does anyone have more info on tbe council admitting to residents on Turney Road that the monitoring data in the LTN review was wrong and instead of that road having a 61% decline it actually saw an 18% increase?

Chris - do you have a copy of the Thurlow Park ward councillors letter (if it is in the public domain)? It would be interesting to see if Labour councillors are fighting each other over these measures - probably reflective of how bad, and self-interested, the measures are.

It looks like the new tree is going in today.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Even if all new cars were electric now it would > still take 15-20 years to replace the world's > fossil fuel fleet. > > All vehicles even electric and hydrogen - produce > non-exhaust emmissions (particles from brake, tyre > and road surface wear known as Particulate Matter > - PM2.5 or PM10) > > These can enter all major organs of the body - not > just the lungs, heart and brain but also the > placenta, affecting the life chances of unborn > children. > > Electric vehicles still cause congestion and road > danger, they do nothing to encourage space or > transport equity and they compound the inactivity > crisis and social isolation in our communities. > > So no - the answer isn't just newer cars - but > fewer cars. > > (credit: www.wearepossible.org) There was an interesting debate on Radio 5 about this this morning featuring a pragmatic transport specialist who spent time debunking some of the myths around the electrification of transport. He said that many who oppose electrification use the brake pad argument but he pointed out that the levels of such things in electric cars are no more than petrol cars and such emissions are a small percentage of overall emissions and the fastest way to address emissions is through a combination of electrification and modal shift. There was also an anvironmentalist who was saying changing the way we live (citing Paris' 15 minute city initiative as an example) and massively reducing car use was the only viable solution. The BBC presenter did challenge the environmentalist on the fact many people live out of cities and the 15 minute city could not apply there. I would like to see the council put more energy into electrification and the infrastructure needed. It seems clear that is a short term win waiting to happen but the council seems reluctant to pursue it because they have been lobbied to believe that eliminating vehicle use, rather than manipulating it's omission output is key. Apparently over the course of its lifetime an electric vehicle (including manufacture which emits far more when manufacturing an electric car) will emit between one quarter and one third of a fossil fuel vehicle. Why are the council so opposed to embracing this?

DC - we all want traffic reduction - it's just some of us want genuine area-wide (and beyond) traffic reduction, not just a reduction in traffic on a few roads at the cost of many other roads. I really struggle to see why many on the pro-LTN side of the argument can't see that what is happening today is not progress nor is it part of an ongoing process. So many councillors have responded to questions from local constituents about increases in traffic on their streets by saying - "well do you want road closures on your road then"? The council's strategy seems to be (like many things like CPZs) to say if we create enough chaos here someone there will be forced to ask us for more. If the on-going process involves making things a lot worse for many more people then surely that can't be right can it? I am sure you might say "well let them bed in" but there is no proof from anywhere that any LTN has delivered anything close to what was sold for them (look at Waltham Forest for example)- what there is though clear evidence that LTNs created displacement, a reduction of traffic within the LTN but significant increases of traffic, congestion and pollution outside of the LTN (which negate the benefits of the reduction inside the LTN), zero reduction in car ownership within LTNs and huge amounts of revenue for councils. And for what? Seemingly a single figure percentage increase in cycle journeys within the LTN - most likely stimulated by people like yourself whose children used to walk along Calton but now cycle instead. Do you really think that that is progress and is going to have any discernible impact on climate change?

Heartblock - that was, afterall, what they claimed these measures would deliver from the outset.........

DC because we are all here to call out the hypocrisy..... Ah, so you were one of the small number of vocal advocates during the OHS consultations - that makes sense. Are you not even slightly concerned that the measures you so support are causing misery for thousands of Dulwich residents? It seems not. It seems you are only concerned about your world and everyone else can just live with the consequences - that is very sad and, unfortunately, very reflective of the views of many of the pro-LTN lobby. You'll probably then retort that we need more measures - can you answer me this question: in the two years since this started what has the council done beyond throwing in a load of road blocks that have endangered lives and increased traffic congestion and pollution?

DC - there is certainly a weight of evidence that it was the lobbying done by a few vocal local residents and self-interest lobby groups like Southwark Cyclists that influenced the council's decision-making process here (and during OHS) - it's all documented in various council meetings on the matter (from a time when councils and councillors actually held meetings). Now what has happened is that since the measures went in everyone in Dulwich has become aware of them and many have looked into how we got here. The majority don't like the measures (some like you, do like the measures) and those against the measures (which bar those roads benefitting most in the area) are a majority. The problem is that those, like you, who like the measures are now outweighed by those who do not like them and it seems that those few who do support the measures (and are living on car free roads) are, understandably, reluctant to admit there might be problems being caused elsewhere and are taking a deliberately blinkered view. These were the same people telling us...they need time to bed in, evaporation takes months....and yet 15 months on things have got no better and there is no sign that any evaporation has taken place. The more I read your posts the more it does look like NIMBYISM - you're happy that your son doesn't need to walk down a congested road but you seem to care little about those who now have to walk down even more congested roads so you don't have to. Passing the problem to someone else isn't dealing with the problem is it - it's called sweeping it under the carpet? P.S. I am glad you have cited Brandolini's law - do we take it that you do, in fact, believe that the council's data is BS to begin with.....at last, some progress....;-)

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > a) the entire neighbourhood are not against the > filters > > b) not all those who opted to remove the measures > even live in the area > > c) some people don't care that this was the > reality previously because they choose see this as > a 'us' or 'them' dog eat dog imaginary class war > when instead of being divisive they could support > what the council have done and push for more. But DC, the majority of residents who responded to the council's mechanism to determine the views of constituents towards the closures said remove them (68% in fact). Unless you have some other survey that shows a perspective that differs from that I am sure it is safe to say that the majority of residents don't want the measures. You may just have to accept that you are in the minority on this. And I know it was awful that your son had to walk down a congested Calton but that doesn't make it right that someone else has now has to endure that in even higher levels so you can walk down Calton with many fewer cars on it. Surely you can agree that robbing Peter to pay Paul does not solve the underlying issue? To be fair, I know you were trying to make a point but I can't help but sense a bit of NIMBYISM in your message. I think the bottom-line is that there is a have and have not element to all of this - there are those who have to live with pollution because some people are not having to live with it anymore and what annoys a lot of residents across the whole of Dulwich is that many of those not having to live with it anymore refuse to acknowledge that things have got worse for many, many more people so they can live in a car-free nirvana. And the next step on from that is a natural one where people say those living in the most affluent part of what is an affluent area are benefitting most at the expense of those who do not and seem to be turning a blind eye to the problems created for everyone else. That is not a class war that is the very definition of all the negative things associated with class.

DC I do think there is a case to press the council on why they selected DV to the be focal point of these closures. According to their own advice on the use of LTNs it is the worst place to site one so it does beg the question why they thought it was a good place for one. Do you have any ideas?

And let's be honest, the council hasn't been slow to release the data; they have missed their own deadlines for releasing said data. Why is it that they are so keen not to share the raw data and methodology....hmmmm one wonders? To challenge OneDulwich that they are making assertations and speculations that are unsupported by data is blindingly hypocritical when the council steadfastly refuses to deliver the raw data or methodology they have promised to support their own assertations which means the council's own conclusions remain, at best, speculations. We all know why they are afraid to share the raw data - because they know it doesn't back up their report conclusions. If they had confidence in the data they could have released the raw data and methodology at the same time as they published the report. And until such time as they do release both it remains a massive smoking gun - but as we know politicians tend to dig deeper when trying to dig themselves out of a hole and it doesn't take a genius to work out what is really going on here.

When you see if all listed out like that it is really astonishing - so many broken promises and holes in the council's analysis and granularity of the data that they have based their assumptions on.