Rockets

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.

The "Do Nothing" narrative seems to be doing the rounds at the moment. It follows fast on the heals of the "Small vocal minority", "Petrol head climate change deniers" and "A roads are where all traffic should be sent" nonsense we hear time and time again. Bottom line is the LTNs in Dulwich deliver cleaner air for some and dirtier air for others - I just can't get my head around why normally rational people think this is acceptable.

Malumbu - I think everyone can agree that if people are pulling down signs they don't agree with or vandalising planters they don't agree with then we can safely categorise them as idiots. They are the very definition of them. Or maybe pathetic deluded idiots if they think it is going to have any impact on the long term outcome or somehow make people change their views on the LTNs either way.

Have the idiots been out again, targeting the anti-LTN signs?

I see the latest One Dulwich update says the council has confirmed that all responses to the LTN review will be given equal weighting no matter where they come from. There seems to have been a policy U-turn on this one... Cast your mind back to the CPZ consultation where 68% of Dulwich respondents said no yet they pushed ahead with it on the basis that a few roads voted in favour of it and defaulted to "what those people on those roads wanted". We can probably assume that the last minute canvassing by Labour activists after the review extension did not deliver the desired result so they now need the help of the likes of Southwark Cyclists to get the numbers they need.... https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/have-your-say-and-support-safe-cycling-in-dulwich-and-champion-hill/

Manatee, if you look at what happened within the LTNs then yes it could be considered a success (although I did read, but I am not sure if it is true, that car ownership increased within the LTn boundary there). Outside the boundary it is a different story (the council's data showed a permanent 20%+ increase on traffic on a road 3.1 miles from the LTN after the closures went in (and other boundary roads had increases too). But maybe this gets to the crux of the issue - there are those on the pro- side of the argument who will only focus on the "success" within the LTNs whilst many focus on what happens outside to determine the success or not.

And so is this one...before the Guardian went all pro-LTN propaganda... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/11/how-london-got-rid-of-private-cars-and-grew-more-congested-than-ever

Oh Manatee...really...you went there...wow....she died from pollution..her mother is campaigning because she sees what LTNs do and she wants to stop what happened to her daughter happening to anyone else. And you're wrong on Waltham Forest...increases in traffic congestion beyond the LTNs have been consistent since it started and the impact is a very wide area.

ohthehugemanateeLTN3 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Manatee says, "don't know which one Charlie > Smith > > is" > > > > That's a bit odd. He is a very well known > Labour > > Councillor. Perhaps you do not live locally at > > all? > [...] > > I think I see what is happening here, it is to > > keep attacking people on a personal level but > > accuse them of doing the same in the hope > others > > believe this is what is actually happening. > > 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 > 315; > > Dude, your two messages are on the same page? Do > you really think everyone here is so dim they > won't notice? > > > Alice Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ------ > > Your argument is invalid. No one wants to do > nothing. > > > No one apart from One Dulwich, who given the > choice between doing nothing and suggesting an > alternative went for the former. And you. Until > you come up with an actual practical solution > which is even vaguely possible to implement given > UK politics and power structures, you are > advocating doing nothing. Manatee, your claim that One Dulwich wanted to do nothing is incorrect and probably suggests you haven't been following this particularly closely over the last year or so. Maybe scroll back over this thread and get up to speed on what actually happened - save us all the time trying to explain it all to you! ;-) P.S. still waiting for this data you have seen that shows the LTNs in Dulwich are working. Feel free to share when you're ready.....

dougiefreeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > char1i3 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Longest thread ever on the EDF. > > > > I sold my car five years ago and only cycle or > > walk round the neighbourhood now. If I need to > > drive to the dump or out of town I use a zip > car > > or getaround shared car. > > > > I am happier and richer by not having a car. > > Cycling is quicker. Walking is nice. And now > the > > highway code has been updated to prioritise > > cyclists more. The LTN is great, less traffic > is > > good. > > > > Why can't we all just give up the car? > Amsterdam > > is a great city. We could be like Amsterdam. > > > > > > Charlie > > We could be. > If London wasn?t 7 times the size of Amsterdam? Yes a lot of people forget this/don't realise this. They also often don't realise that the Dutch own more cars per capita than we do in the UK.

Does anyone know why TFL bundles walking and cycling...I saw this and thought it was very interesting..

ohthehugemanateeLTN3 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets, it seems that you not only live in an > echo chamber, but you also don't seem to believe > that anyone who lives differently from you is due > a voice. I don't live in Goose Green, and I'm > uninterested in local party politics. I've also > never had cause to directly engage with > councillors. You don't seem to believe that anyone > who doesn't experience Dulwich in precisely the > same way as you can possibly disagree with you. I > live at the other end of Dulwich, have done for 10 > years and own no car. If you read my posts it's > every bit as clear that I'm a local as your > friends are. > > First mate accused me of being not local because > of this, something you seem happy with but you > seem very upset with the idea that he also might > not be. I suggest you stop acting as an attack dog > supporting other people's personal attacks such > behaviour reflects very poorly on the anti-LTN > cause. On second thoughts, do continue... > > > As for the data, we've both seen it and my > interpretation of it yet again will not convince > you otherwise, given that you seem to consider any > data that doesn't support your arguments as > biased. But I will leave you with this question: > > Traffic has been growing steadily in London for > decades. Congestion charging knocked it back > temporarily but it soon climbed past the pre > charge levels. Where do you think we will be in 10 > years if we do nothing? Come on, do share the data.....what data is it that has convinced you so much....I am genuinely interested? Share it and let's debate it...

Manatee...Charlie Smith will probably be round to introduce himself...he will be upset that there is someone who says they are local yet doesn't know who he is....he is very much part of the fabric of Dulwich life and has been for many years in his role as a Goose Green councillor. You suggest that first mate might be trolling from some far away land yet it is clear when you look back at people's posts who are local. That evidence suggests people like first mate are far more entwined in local issues. You arrived with a flurry of pro-LTN rhetoric, got banned (at least twice), don't know who Charlie Smith is and accuse others of potentially being a troll from a faraway land..... Out of interest what data have you seen that, in your view, supports the LTNs in Dulwich?

Obviously we cant comment on the particular implementation and determine what was happening there but my there are so many similarities with some of the frustrations many of us are feeling that appear in one of the articles about one of them (and shows how effective some form of councillor opposition in situ is)... "As locals, why were we not consulted when this was put in? This are our homes, our children breathing fumes from traffic jams. "It feeling to us like it was 'like it or lump it'." Information about the route, and other lanes across the city, was presented to councillors ahead of this week's key meeting. The report included traffic monitoring data, which showed there had been no decrease in average traffic speed on the road. However, residents say this is not the case. Patricia Weller said: "I'm not anti-cycle lanes, only ones which are not thought out and are not working. "We've invited councillors to hear our concerns but we have been told they're busy."

Ok, more evidence...here you go.... July 9th... July 11 - this is the crew I saw on the Sunday and look what Charlie Smith is holding...that would be the Labour paraphernalia to which you refer....freshly printed following the release of the interim report no doubt? Now where is that smoking gun emoji...;-) But hey, it's just a conspiracy theory so you don't have to believe it if you don't want to.

ohthehugemanateeLTN3 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I do chuckle when I continually read the > continued > > de-positioning narrative on this small vocal > > minority of people against LTNs... > > You've been spending far too much time on the > forum, where pro LTN people seem to vanish from > the threads (I've been banned twice already!). Out > in the real world, the majority is in favour. > > > they are such a > > small vocal minority in Dulwich that the > council > > had to extend the review by a week and engage > in > > an urgent panic-led door-to-door canvassing > > Do you have anything approaching evidence, or is > they another anti-LTN conspiracy theory? Actually, > I say "another", it's more like one of the 3 or > four that you keep warming over and rehashing. > > > programme to try and counter said small vocal > > minority......;-) > > Is there something wrong with your eye? You keep > winking weirdly all the time. Either get some eye > drops or see your doctor. Manatee?.. July 9th Council publishes interim monitoring data July 9th Council announces review extended to July 18th July 10th?? On July 11th another group of councillors/activists also mustered outside Saucy to canvass?.they were carrying printouts of the interim report flyer?.how do I know this, because I walked passed them and saw them and have spoken to a number of friends whose doors the councillors knocked on? All of them lifelong Labour supporters who told the councillors exactly what they think of the LTNs??must be the small vocal minority again?. Any other evidence you need?..;-) I am not sure where in Dulwich you live but did they knock on your door per chance?

Brand New - well said, there been a few new arrivals to the forum in recent days.....

Artemis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But surely Rockets? point is that the > ?door-to-door stuff? only happened AFTER the > consultation was meant to have ended? Exactly. Before the consultation was extended no-one (bar the LCC or Southwark Cyclists of course) had heard anything from the council or councillors on LTNs (bar a couple of Zoom calls that you sense they were doing through gritted teeth). The consultation period is extended by a week and then miraculously, during that week and weekend, Dulwich is buzzing with swarms of councillors/Labour activists who are touting the council's interim data as proof the LTNs are working and encouraging residents to respond to the review; we didn't see that many councillors/activists door knocking during the general election. But, of course, this is all just co-incidence, those councillors and activists were just at a loose-end and thought "I know what (comrade) lets go and chat to the good citizens of Dulwich this weekend. We haven't spoken to them for years". "But what (comrade) should we speak to them about?" "I have a great idea (comrade) let's go and chat to them about LTNs, I have this handy data sheet that was sent to me by the LTNs Are Brilliant Bureau". "What a fantastic idea, let's go (comrade); but only this weekend mind as next weekend I have other very important plans and we are only allowed to engage with the good citizens of Dulwich once every two years"..... Or perhaps I am wallowing in yet another conspiracy theory.....;-)

I do chuckle when I continually read the continued de-positioning narrative on this small vocal minority of people against LTNs....they are such a small vocal minority in Dulwich that the council had to extend the review by a week and engage in an urgent panic-led door-to-door canvassing programme to try and counter said small vocal minority......;-) The problem is we have some councils pulling out perfectly good solutions (like the ones in RBKC) and other councils like Southwark digging their heals in around terrible solutions like the one in Dulwich. Somewhere in the middle there is the sweet spot but both aforementioned councils are examples of the very worst practice on both sides.