Rockets

That is a great piece and I think reflects the views of many who believe the LTNs are too blunt an instrument to adequately deal with the complex nuances of the causes of the problem. The pro-closure lobby regularly fails to acknowledge that such nuances and subtleties exist in the discussion and Malumbu, I am afraid, your "drive where you want when you want" missive highlights this perfectly. Malumbu I would be interested in your take on the article.

I am not sure the council/TFL can play that card anymore given the delays caused by increased congestion from the LTNs....;-)

Malumbu - yes I am on the lobby to tackle climate change as well but I want to do it in a way that doesn't make the problem worse and I want to try to deal with it with solutions that are fair to everyone and, perhaps more importantly, that know what problem they are trying to deal with from the outset. Your statement of "reducing car use" illustrates this very aptly. I do, I hasten to add, admire your ability to create an oxymoron paragraph. On the one hand you lust to reduce car use by curbing freedoms yet moan that reduced car use means people are speeding - will you ever be happy? And for the record I hate speeding drivers too! ;-)

I agree OneDulwich is lobbying. As are the council, and Cllrs Leeming and Newens, and the Lordship Lane and Melbourne Grove shopkeepers, and the myriad of EDTSN twitter groups, Mums For Lungs etc etc, and the Melbourne Grove residents groups, and Southwark Cyclists, and the emergency services......everyone is lobbying so not sure why anyone would suggest that use of the term is divisive? The only thing divisive in the truest sense of the word are the LTNs themselves ;-)

Yes that is the point I am making - it's all well and good attacking private cars and painting them (and their owners) as the devil incarnate when, in fact, it is far more nuanced than that. My point from day 1 in this whole debate is that I don't think the council have the foggiest idea what the problem is and without knowing that you can't expect any plan to have a positive impact. You can't find a solution if you don't properly know what the problem is. Referencing a lobby is not divisive - it's what both sides are doing - lobbying to get their point of view heard and actioned upon - and I have used it in relation to both those for and against the closures. So, in that respect, my usage is entirely accurate, appropriate, balanced and correct! ;-)

Ex- your analysis is spot on. I think there is a huge problem with delivery services and I think they are partly, if not mainly (when you lump them together with Ubers etc) responsible for the increase in traffic on side roads that is being used so much by the pro-closure lobby. The TFL data also backs it up with the huge increases in van and private hire vehicle traffic across London. In light of this, and if my assumption is correct, then LTNs will make the issues worse if there is not some sort of macro approach to streamlining logistical services. Most delivery companies use the hub and spoke model so all deliveries come into a central warehouse and then are distributed from there for the "last mile" leg of their journeys to the door. Southwark is hellbent on attacking private car ownership when, in fact, the problem looks like it is being caused by home deliveries and private hire vehicles - no doubt the stimulus for much of this usage is as many use their cars less or those who don't have a car look to get things delivered and get around! How ironic would that be! ;-)

The distribution and delivery of the vaccine is an unfathomable logistical nightmare but it is what the NHS was designed to do and with the help of the army they will get the logistical help they need to FastTrack it - it's not the role of local councils. And whilst I would hate for the government to take any credit for it we are doing a much better job getting the vaccine in arms of those who most need it than pretty much every other country - fascinating piece on Newsnight last night on the struggles France has had after they managed only 500 vaccinations in the first week of their programme. On the subject of the post office I, and I don't say this often, agree with Cllr McaAh that this is, in part, an issue of privatisation but we all know Cllr McAsh loves nothing more than to dig the government at every opportunity! ;-) Which when I read the rest of his note made me think. He references Ella Kissi-Debrah's death and two things came to my mind: 1) is he aware that Ella's mother has been a key voice in the debate on the harm LTN's are causing to those who live on main roads and the social injustice that it causes and 2) what he would be saying if the Tories were running the local council and had forced the LTNs on residents in his area and the findings in the coroner's report on Ella's death had come to light. One suspects he wouldn't be so keen to follow the wait and see/let it bed in/we will share the results with you when we are ready approach his council are taking. Also, I was concerned by his reference to "they're very expensive though" in relation to the much needed pedestrian crossing at the junction of Lordship Lane and EDG. Given the council has spent a small fortune on the various iterations of the LTNs and managed to add filters to the lights in Dulwich Village and install cameras to blockade the village (and I know this is central govt money) one wonders why he feels the need to tell us how expensive a pedestrian crossing is. People have been demanding action at that crossing point for years as it is incredibly dangerous and an accident waiting to happen and to read that they're expensive (which sounds like a pre-cursor to - we don't have the budget) is really galling seeing how much money the council has spent just a few hundred yards further up the road.

Happy New Year all! A few days ago we went for a family walk through Dulwich Village (we are avoiding Dulwich Park as it has become ludicrously busy recently) and wandered along Burbage Road. We saw 4 DPD vans in the space of a couple minutes - one delivering on the westbound side of Burbage as one came along the eastbound side and stopped to make a delivery, as we then hit the junction of Burbage and Turney one appeared from the small road leading to houses off that junction and then another went down Turney (we didn't see this one stop to make a delivery). It further illustrated to me that there is a big problem with logistics companies and how they currently manage deliveries - why on earth were there 4 vans (3 of which we saw actively making deliveries) when one would have sufficed. I do wonder whether the proclaimed increase in traffic is not private car use and people making short journeys but the increasing reliance on home delivery services and their inefficiencies. This was certainly validated by the Traffic in London report that we were discussing before Christmas.

Season's greetings all. Whether you celebrate or not have a good one and here's hoping 2021 is better cumulatively than 2020 - let's be honest the the bar is very low so let's keep our fingers crossed. P.S. did anyone else hear that Santa is concerned by the LTNs as his sleigh might be too wide to get through the planters although I understand he may have commandeered a couple of cargo bikes to help?.....;-)

Richard, You can come southbound along Dulwich Village at any time - the bus gate currently only operates on the northbound section of the road. It is confusing and I would suggest deliberately so. It's bit like Townley - you can drive from the EDG end of Townley at any time as the bus gate operates in the other direction (from LL towards EDG). Here is a list of where all the bus gates are the direction of travel they operate (but no, the council has not provided anything to help people work out what is allowed or not!!! ;-)) ......to introduce timed bus gates in which only buses, local buses, taxis and pedal cycles are permitted to enter and proceed during the period from Monday to Friday between the hours of 8 am ? 10 am and 3 pm ? 6 pm, in the following locations all of which will be ANPR camera enforced: (i) BURBAGE ROAD (northernmost bus gate), the north-westbound lane of Burbage Road at the north-western kerb-line of Turney Road, (ii) BURBAGE ROAD (southernmost bus gate), the westbound lane of Burbage Road at the north-western kerb-line of Gallery Road, (iii) DULWICH VILLAGE, the northbound lane of Dulwich Village at the common boundary of Nos. 116 and 118 Dulwich Village, (iv) TOWNLEY ROAD, the north-westbound lane of Townley Road at the common boundary of Nos. 52 and 53 Townley Road, and (v) TURNEY ROAD, the north-eastbound lane of Turney Road at a point 10 metres north-east of the north-eastern kerb-line of Burbage Road as measured from the north-eastern side of Turney Road;

DKHB - the temporary restriction access ahead signs have been added by the council recently - I think because their signs were confusing people. The signs to which Cora refers do say No Through Route and state the hours and days that the No Through Route applies and they have been put up on the roads approaching the closed roads - this is why people are getting confused because they are indicating that there is a closure ahead but don't say where or how far away and given they a red signs some people are wondering whether they apply from the threshold of the sign or somewhere else. Cora, as long as you don't cross the threshold of the bus gates during the hours of operation you will be fine. College Road is fine - just don't drive into Dulwich Village or Burbage at the roundabout during the hours of operation as that is where those bus gates are located. The signs are very confusing - especially for anyone from outside the area who may not be aware of the location of the closures.

DKHB - I think Cora is referring to the red signs that have been put up all around Dulwich close to roads that have been closed - there is one in each direction on Lordship Lane near the Court Lane junction and then one at the entrance of Eynella and more on the DV side of Dulwich as you approach the roundabout along College and Gallery.

Still long lines running up Bassano Street at lunchtime. In fact most of Lordship Lane is a long line for various shops. Glad to see many are still trying to support their local traders - they need all the help they can get right now.

Redpost - that's if the intention is to displace elsewhere - the stated aim of these measures is to reduce traffic so by default if what you are advocating happens then it cannot be deemed to be a success.

Fascinating data included in the latest Travel in London report: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-13.pdf. I have been concerned for some time that the council had not done proper analysis of the traffic types and have been too quick to throw in roadblocks when they don't know what is causing the issues. The report is fascinating and really challenges some of the narratives around traffic in and cross London and goes a long way to validate many who think that vehicle journeys need to be analysed better to determine type before initiating measures. For example: Between 2010 and 2018 there has been a net increase in traffic of 0.5% - not good of course but you need to look into the supporting data (but it's not the doomsday many of the pro-closure lobbyists have been touting on social media in terms of traffic increases in recent years). Car volumes have (comparing 2001/2018/19) declined 38.3% crossing the central London cordon, declined 14.9% crossing the inner cordon and increased 2.8% crossing the boundary cordon. But, van traffic is up 9.7% crossing the inner cordon and up 29% crossing the boundary cordon. HGV traffic is down 35.2% in central London, down 10.1% in the inner cordon and down 2.9% on the boundary cordon. Licensed taxis are down 13% from their peak in 2013/2014. Licensed private hire vehicles are up 100% from 2008/2009 and account for 29% of daily miles volume in central London, 19% in inner London and 8% in the boundary area. That's huge. This data goes a long way to show that the problem in London is the increasing dependency of many on home deliveries and people using PHVs to get around the city - neither of which get resolved by the current LTN measures. It is a huge report and the data within it is fascinating and gives a very clear picture on what is actually happening in terms of transportation in the city - it also shows the positive increases in cycling and walking over the years.

There we go..right on cue...at least it's not the Xmas tree sellers this time! ;-) Anyone fancy a game of LTN congestion excuse bingo? ;-)

LEDphobic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Our lives in Underhill Road have become blighted > by excess traffic as drivers try to escape the > lights at the junction between the south circular > and lordship lane following the closure of Court > Lane. We have lived here for many years and have > never experienced anything like this. We are not > young and unfortunately my partner has significant > disabilities, we don?t own a car and so we can?t > be accused of being in the pro-cars lobby, and we > physically cannot get on a bike, but we used to at > least feel safe walking on our streets - it is now > just a cacophony of noise, honking horns, > aggressive drivers and pollution from early in the > morning until late into the evening. So although > I understand why people are pleased at being able > to enjoy their bike rides and traffic free roads, > it has come at a huge price for others. We are not > all young and able bodied and the displacement of > traffic onto our road is so much more than an > inconvenience. This whole exercise is proving to > be divisive, inequitable and discriminatory. > Everyone wants the same outcome; fewer cars, a > cleaner environment and a safer place to live and > work, but it cannot be achieved in this manner > which is socially unjust. LED this is the new reality. Those supporting the closures will no doubt tell you it's because of Christmas tree sellers somewhere on the A205 or will say that it was always like this or that you are being selective with your photos. Then they, and the council, will tell you it will take time to bed in and we need to give it time. What you won't ever hear is anyone in the council asking you for your opinion or see anyone from the council actually going and looking for themselves or trying to measure the displacement impact. The experiment has failed and responsibility for what is happening across Dulwich lies at the feet of those responsible for sanctioning it and stedfastedly refusing to do proper analysis of the impact. This is a way too high a price to pay for those extra 391 cycle journeys, which when you look at the way the analysis was done is probably only about 50 or so families.

Ex- I am no expert so maybe I turn that question back on you as our resident expert. Is that type of increase sufficient to say this has been a success, and do note that most people are still working from home at the moment so it would be interesting to see whether this limited modal shift would be sustained when the pressures of getting to work return? My personal feeling is that the increase is not sufficient to justify the negative impact on the many more people across Dulwich. Can I also get your opinion on whether these LTNs are implemented in isolation? You quote Loughborough Junction as an example of them not working but the Dulwich closures seem very similar to that: isolated, knee-jerk councillor vanity projects that the council steadfastedly refuses to admit are not working until they are forced to remove them because the emergency services tell them they are risking lives by the congestion they are causing on the surrounding streets. Has anyone not learned from Lambeth's mistakes? You also say they work in combination of other things but what other things have the council implemented to support them? We still have some of the worst PTAL scores in London - would that not be fundamental to assisting them? Just out of interest when did you last visit Dulwich and what are your views on the congestion being seen on roads like EDG and Lordship Lane? Here is some content from someone on twitter on the traffic on EDG today...is this acceptable and justified for those 391 cycle journeys? I drove along the Chelsea Embankment today and along a huge length of it they have put protected cycle lanes in each direction - allowing cycling and driving to co-exist. Such measures will have a far more positive impact on modal shift than closing a bunch of roads in the failed LTN experiment we are are living through in Dulwich.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So would you rather those 391 cycle journeys were > done in cars? > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > So let's look at the numbers. The number of > > cyclists observed rose from 417 (in 2018) to > 808 > > (In November this year) - this is the doubling > > that members of the pro-closure lobby were > > heralding as significant - but it's only 391 > more > > cycle journeys. Wholly predictable response: no I didn't say that, nor would I prefer that (also very unlikely they would equate to 391 car journeys) as I said that the increases aren't nearly enough to justify the negative impact. Which I then asked you if you felt that increase was worth it on the basis of the negative impact felt by many more people. What's your response to that?

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's clear LTNs are not the answer, they were > never the answer - they were a very blunt > instrument experiment that has been an epic > failure and the council and councillors don't have > the guts to admit it - accountability has never > been their strong point! > > They're PART of the answer. There is no one > answer, one silver bullet that solves everything. > Electric vehicles are part of the solution, more > walking and cycling (enabled by things like LTNs, > more cycle lanes etc) is part of it, increases in > cost of motoring (congestion charging, ULEZ, CPZ, > fuel duty, road tolls - any > combination/permutation of that), better public > transport (sort of ignoring the minor pandemic > thing at the moment which has absolutely destroyed > both P/T usage and confidence) and so on. > > They're all PART of the solution but none of them > are THE answer in themselves. But by default you cannot expect LTNs to work in isolation. The council has put all their money on the LTNs (remember they wanted to throw even more in). So you.must then agree that LTNs in isolation will not be effective? Which brings us back to the point that the LTN experiment has failed and it was doomed to failure as the council loaded all their chips onto that one tactic.

No DKHB...do something but not something that makes the problem you are trying to solve worse...surely that's basic commonsense?

DulwichCentral - unlike some I am happy to answer questions that arise from posts I make here. Especially when the are bowled slightly wide and are asking to be knocked for 6. So let's look at the numbers. The number of cyclists observed rose from 417 (in 2018) to 808 (In November this year) - this is the doubling that members of the pro-closure lobby were heralding as significant - but it's only 391 more cycle journeys. Given we were still in lockdown in November I am surprised the figure is this low. I would have expected to see a much more significant jump in cyclists as more people have time to cycle their children to school and are looking for new ways to exercise. So let me ask you a question, Do you think all the disruption, increased congestion and pollution for the likes of Heartblock is worth it for so few bike journeys? And remember those 391 were journeys in a street bookended by three big schools and counting would include those dropping kids off and returning along the same route and each person on a bike is considered a journey. That dilutes the impact even further. Of course more people may be walking but no data was presented on that so we cannot analyse it. Whichever way you cut it it's clear this experiment is not working. If there was no displacement and negative impact on others then you might be able to celebrate it but there is significant negative impact and they far, far outweigh the positives.

DulwichCentral - a survey done in the Calton Ave area by the pro-closure lobby showed that there was only a few hundred extra cycle journeys made. It's not nearly enough to make the impact required on reductions of car use for the net impact of the LTNs to be anything other than massively negative. And letting it "bed in" won't make the slightest bit of difference. The whole experiment is flawed.

Malumbu - your statement about needing to hurt the driver is exactly why this debate has become so polarised and why so many people, whilst acknowledging the urgent need to do something, oppose these measures. It seems an anti-car lobby has been allowed to manipulate and dictate the terms of the measures being put in. Closing some roads in the hope that people change their mode of transport is a short-sighted as it is stupid. It was only ever going to deliver two things - a tiny amount of modal change for the few in the closed areas but a huge amount of negative impact for everyone else. I do wonder whether years down the line both the council and councillors will be held to account for why they did this and failed to monitor the impact - whether people will take the council to court for increasing pollution for some. It's clear LTNs are not the answer, they were never the answer - they were a very blunt instrument experiment that has been an epic failure and the council and councillors don't have the guts to admit it - accountability has never been their strong point!

DulwichGirl82 - the experiment has failed. Completely and utterly. The council knows it, the pro-closure lobby knows it - we all know it. The experiment has forced traffic from one set of roads onto another set of roads, increasing congestion and pollution as a result. For all the harping on about modal shifts in Dulwich Village and for all the pictures of people cycling and walking the overall impact has been a negative one on the broader Dulwich community. The council is well aware of this and is trying to manipulate everything in a desperate attempt to justify the closures. They know that they have to try and hang on for their own credibility. The whole idea was flawed from the beginning, badly planned and poorly executed and will have done untold harm to the long-term goals of reducing pollution. It is a shame as it didn't take a rocket scientist to work out what would happen when you closed those roads (many on here predict exactly what was going to happen). The reason many won't answer your question is because they fail to acknowledge there is a problem as it undermines their whole position. Once you acknowledge that there has been displacement the experiment will have failed.