Rockets

Do the pro-closure lobby realise that Ella Kissi- Debrah's mother is a key voice in the fight to get the LTNs removed? https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18616846.air-quality-voice-rosamund-kissi-debrah-slams-lee-green-ltn/ I see Cllr McAsh obviously didn't and was trying to use it to make a point... https://twitter.com/mcash/status/1339203034509873152?s=19

Malumbu - is that the report you claimed was released yesterday which in fact was published in November. Which part of transport do you work in...carrier pigeon? ;-) Also your claim that London has been congested for decades is somewhat counter-intuitive given the narrative that the pro-closure lobby disseminates that the massive increases have happened over the last few years. Which one is it? With every post you make your message becomes increasingly incoherent. The only ones who are living in a parallel universe are those who refuse to see beyond their own car-free nirvana.....

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets if I may say so you are contradicting > yourself. > > You accept higher attachment to cars during a > pandemic is due to fear of infection on public > transport. > > But then you say: 'reports like this demonstrate > that the impacts of LTNs could actually get a lot > worse when life starts getting back to some sense > of normality.' How come? When life starts getting > back to 'some sense of normality' people will > return to public transport. > > The LTNs will still be there as safe routes for > those who want to cycle or walk - and the RAC > motorists will start considering getting on a bike > or walking again - especially if there are safe > cycle routes for them to do so :) I am afraid I am not: the report says that 49% of drivers are driving less now than they did a year ago (due to the pandemic and home working) but they expect to drive more when the pandemic finally comes to an end. So, if we are seeing the level of congestion being caused by the LTN closures then imagine what it will be like when it's over - and the report states that fear of returning to public transport is the key catalyst for those people returning to their cars. Making the assumption that all of those people will drive or walk is the warped logic that is creating these problems in the first place....

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From the RAC Report on Motoring 2020 published > today -sorry I haven't got a link yet. Sad > reflection on motorist's views as a whole re the > environment. If we can all take a bit more > responsibility we wouldn't be having many of the > discussions on this thread: > > The 2020 Report on Motoring asked motorists what > steps they would be willing to take ? or are > already taking ? to reduce their personal > emissions? footprints. This year, fewer drivers > would be willing to swap their cars for bikes or > e-scooters on short journeys in order to cut their > emissions: only 36% would be happy to do this, or > are already doing this, compared with 39% last > year. > > As we have discussed in section 1.2, the pandemic > has led to a greater feeling of importance > attached to vehicles ? in part due to fears of the > infection risk linked to public transport. > Accordingly, there has been a sharp decline in the > number of motorists who would be willing to give > up using their vehicles altogether for > environmental reasons: only 5% say they would > consider this, compared with 14% last year. Was that the report that was published in November? This one: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/features/report-on-motoring-2020/ Not sure it is "a sad reflection of motorist's views" but more a balanced report on what people are telling the RAC about their car usage in light of the pandemic. It does highlight some worrying trends in terms of view towards public transport (but remember this is a national survey) but I would say that in light of reports like this it is incredibly important that the council takes such things into account - pursuing the LTN policy in light of reports like this demonstrate that the impacts of LTNs could actually get a lot worse when life starts getting back to some sense of normality. The report clearly shows that fewer people are using their cars at the moment but more expect to use their cars more when things return to normal. Interesting quote taken from that report - nice to see that even the RAC is taking a more balanced approach to these issues (despite them being a driver lobby group) and taking input from many and not presenting it as a myopic approach - it would be remiss of me not to say that it would be nice if the pro-LTN lobby groups took a similar approach...;-) "It?s encouraging to see car dependency has fallen this year and that walking has replaced shorter journeys for many people. But in order to lock in this reduction and its benefits as we begin to travel around again, the Government must urgently address the perception of public transport and do more to encourage people out of their cars. To do this, there need to be policy and fiscal measures to improve public transport, alongside actively promoting and incentivising more sustainable forms of transport, particularly in the post-Covid era. Darren Shirley, Chief executive, Campaign for Better Transport

The pro-closure lobby will probably tell us this is because someone was selling Christmas trees somewhere in South London.... Another weekend of congestion along EDG and Lordship Lane.....how can people claim this isn't happening...?

I am not sure the council are monitoring. Seems they are going to rely on modelling.... BTW surprised no-one from the pro-lobby has yet to flag that piece Rachel Aldred wrote about the Waltham Forest LTNs leading to a 6% reduction in car ownership in two years.

I noticed the council had put up some temporary free-standing signs on the approach to the Burbage junction with Gallery Road as the signage on poles is obscured as you approach the roundabout. I think drivers might have a case as there is insufficient signage to warn of the bus gate on Burbage. People are seeing the sign closing Dulwich Village and swinging left with no idea that there is one there too. I was in an Uber recently and the driver was having a proper rant about the council (he put me to shame) and he said that he had had 5 LTN tickets in two weeks and the council had let him off two of them (not in Dulwich) as their own picture (of the infringement occurring) showed that the signage was obscured.

I think if it is under 2.5 metres high it is ok - certainly that's what a lot of the garden office companies claim.

Also, was there anything to prevent those 300 counted cycle journeys from being outbound and return journeys? So, if someone cycled down Calton Avenue, dropped their child at the school and then cycled back is that counted as 1, 2 or 3 journeys?

I am a cyclist - used to cycle to and from Hammersmith everyday from East Dulwich and still cycle a lot - so I am not at all dismissive of cycling, I am just a realist. That "doubling" isn't even close to making the impact the LTNs were supposedly designed for and don't come close to negating the residual impact of the closures on other people. If that much disruption led to only 300 more cycle journeys per day then something is really wrong and even the most ardent pro-closure lobbyist must be able to acknowledge that - there is way too much collateral damage going on for those numbers not to be scrutinised. P.S. Always be suspicious of reports that claim "doubling" and don't mention the granular detail and numbers until much further down the piece....they know the actual numbers are not that compelling.

Rahrahrah, it's an encouraging headline but I have looked at the report and it does throw up some more questions. The number of cyclists observed rose from 417 (in 2018) to 808 (In November this year) - this is the doubling - it's only 391 more cyclists. 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. Also, the control is Red Post Hill - I don't understand why they chose that as the control - I can only presume because Red Post Hill is close to Charter but Calton Ave is wedged between 3 sizeable schools. Finally, given the council stated that 7,000 cars were using the DV junction when the junction was open those 391 new cyclists are not at all encouraging. It suggests that modal shift has not been sufficient enough to have warranted the closure of the junction and the subsequent displacement issues it has created. I am sure you will disagree but I think that report actually highlights a major problem here - that these interventions are not delivering suitable results and I think the question needs to be asked whether the overall impact is positive or negative (when you factor in increased congestion and pollution being caused by displacement).

....that rests the case for the prosecution m'lud.... Redpost many, many people have reported here that there are continuing problems at both ends of Lordship Lane caused by the increased traffic since the LTNs went in. That was the scene at 4.30pm today (it has been like that most days since the LTNs went in) - if you're really that interested look at the meta data in the picture and you will see it was taken at that time today. Meta data editors are readily available on internet. This is not because of a Christmas tree vendor on the A205 it's because there is too much traffic trying to go down Lordship Lane to turn right at the Grove Tavern. Why? Because East/West routes across Dulwich Village are closed by the LTNs. It's really not that difficult to grasp and it was utterly predictable outcome of closing the routes. What are you so afraid of? I think it is reasoned debate - you are trying to stifle any sort of opposition to the closures and any time anyone presents a view other than your own you attack them. Brum brums......classy! ;-)

Slocky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > alice Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > cwjlawrence Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Here?s some good news to cheer you all up on > a > > > cold Monday night! > > > > > > Coming back from my daughter's primary school > > last > > > Friday, I counted 54 unique bicycles between > > > leaving Dulwich Hamlets (not including she or > > I), > > > cycling along Calton Ave and down EDG to > > Melbourne > > > Grove. You?re not misreading that - it was 54 > > > bikes in a 5 minute cycle ride. It was like > > being > > > in Beijing in the 70s! > > > > > > I've never seen anything like this in East > > Dulwich > > > and certainly not in the dark on a foggy day > in > > > winter! 10 years ago, I wouldn't expect to > see > > > anyone cycling and even last year there maybe > > be > > > only 1 or 2 people, and probably MAMILs at > that. > > > > > Contrast this with this scene of this number > of > > > cyclists (of which only 1 or 2 were MAMILS!) > > going > > > to and from school/work. > > > > > > In my son's class at school, there has been a > > real > > > shift in how his classmates get to school > with > > > children now cycling from Clapham who used to > > get > > > driven over in rush-hour traffic. > > > > > > If this is what it?s like in winter, just > > imagine > > > what it?s going to be like come the spring - > an > > > active travel paradise! > > > > > > When you live in the Golden Triangle of Dulwich > - > > all manner of wonderful transformational sights > > can be seen. > > > > But for the rest of us. Nah, > > On Matham Grove there is increased vehicle traffic > cutting through to travel south on LL but also > increased bicycle (and occasional scooter) > traffic, often against the one way direction, many > of whom are parents and kids travelling to the > nursery on the corner. I do hope it is closed to > through vehicle traffic asap not only to encourage > more to travel through by bike but also before > there is a collision of the two, sadly looking > increasingly likely. Matham Grove and the EDG junction with Lordship Lane need to be sorted and quickly. You are right, both are an accident waiting to happen - the EDG and LL junction is a nightmare to try and cross.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets, I see that and I also see empty stretches > of LL, so neither shows a typical situation. It > shows a snapshot, that's all. Every day feels like > a Friday because you maybe want it to because it > reinforces your viewpoint? (You also have a car, > so are, ipso facto, part of the problem even > though you may not want to believe that.) Nigello - you only want to see what you want to see (same applies for me). My pictures are based on what is happening and the nonsense some people are spouting about this being because of the Christmas tree sellers on the A205 is utter hogwash - anyone who bothers to look will have seen those queues have been there since the LTNs went in and well before any Christmas trees were being sold. You revel in images of proof there isn't a problem yet attack those posting images showing there is - you don't work for the council do you? ;-) I am not even going to grace your accusation of me being part of the problem with a response - it is a childish, and frankly, ill-conceived attempt to bait which really goes to show the problem those who dare voice an opinion other than total support for the closures face. Any second now I am sure you'll pull the Daily Mail/Nigel Farage/Jeremy Clarkson* accusation.......it's frankly tiresome and goes to show how fanatical some of the pro-closure cultists have become - incapable of having any reasoned debate or acknowledge that there might be another side of the story without defaulting to attacks. It's doing your cause no favours. *delete as applicable

My experience of LL northbound has been that every Saturday it is nose-to-tail to the GG roundabout. Driving habits are definitely changing and the rush-hour is no longer predictable. For example, this is a picture I took at 4.30pm today - nose-to-tail to Grove Tavern along Lordship southbound from the Library. Every day feels like a Friday now where the rush-hour starts earlier as people try to get ahead of the traffic.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Article on electric vehicles, greening our roads > https://www.transporttimes.co.uk/news.php/Greening > -the-EV-Transition-586/?utm_source=Transport+Times > &utm_campaign=0a64e958c8-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_10_30 > _11_03_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c0cafa3 > f39-0a64e958c8-250793593 > > "This will include understanding how we rebalance > road space between cars, buses, cycling and > walking. It means not locking-in car dependence by > assuming we just replace ICEs with (more) EVs. We > should be reducing our carbon footprint by > shifting to much more intensive use of a smaller > fleet of vehicles and other e-micromobility > solutions." > > It's a transport academic, but I am sure that many > of you know better. Malumbu - that article poses more questions than it answers (EVs for example not providing whole-life carbon benefits until beyond 2030) and it is clear that whilst we need to decrease our reliance on ICE vehicles there isn't a simple and straight-forward solution. Electric infrastructure is a huge issue and a major challenge to try to overcome to encourage more EV usage (our council is struggling to put bike racks on streets yet alone providing electric charge points for every household). We all also have to be careful that we don't fall into the Dulwich Village Cycle Mentality which is so prevalent amongst those benefiting from the closures - the - "well I have room to store a bike/charge my Tesla, surely everyone else can" mindset. And to that end this line from that article is so telling.... There are real risks that the less well-off car-dependent groups and the 25% of households who do not own cars will be disadvantaged.

Unfortunately, the presumption of connectivity is something all organisations do now - the more they shift online the fewer people they need to employ to answer the phones. On the whole I have also found councillors responsive and supportive when needed - they can just be, ahem, a little selective about some of the things they chose not to respond to.

But Ex- even when transport is working few people use it in Dulwich because there isn't enough of it and it doesn't go to the places people need it to. You cannot expect wholesale modal shifts in areas without good PTAL scores - it's exactly why Southwarks own advice on closures said exactly that: it needs to go into areas with good PTAL scores and low car ownership levels - neither of which come close to applying in Dulwich. Ex- is there any proof that the bedding in period is anything but people finding other routes to circumvent the closures? If you look at the Waltham Forest closure there are many other routes available to people to go around the block of closures and the council's own data shows that those roads did experience a permanent increase in traffic. I am starting to wonder whether traffic evaporation is very much a real thing but not in the sense that the pro-closure protagonists use it but in the sense that it evaporates from one street to rain on another one nearby and that Dulwich doesn't have the street layout or geography to allow the absorption and this is why we are seeing the north/south routes struggling as people try to get around the east/west closures.

I think we also have to ground some of the discussions going on locally with the fact that the Guys and St Thomas' Trust are insisting on investing ?50,000 in proper monitoring in the 3 Southwark LTNs they are sponsoring so they can properly assess displacement. If a charity is doing this to gather actual data you have to ask why the council is relying on modelling - one can only suspect the charity doesn't believe modelling gives an accurate picture of what is happening (good or bad).

Yes Abe they have - the DV ones went in towards the end of June - BUT the council hasn't been monitoring. I think everyone, on both side of the argument, should be very concerned that the council wants to rely on modelling rather than actual data. If I was on the pro-closure side I would want to be able to see, definitively, that these closures are having the desired effect. Maybe some of the pro-closure folks on here could comment and support this? I think the council realised after the first DV "improvement" works that if you spend all that money to try and reduce congestion and pollution and your own detailed monitoring shows an actual increase in pollution then you are creating a very public rod for your own back! I think they know the LTNs are causing an increase in pollution but are doing everything in their power to bury it.

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks @rahrahrah and @Dulwichgirl82 - your posts > underline what I thought - for the vast majority > of people on this thread, there's far more that > we're aligned on than not. I can't help thinking > it helps the extremes on either side (and/or > Southwark Council) to keep us all sniping at each > other as if the only solution was to reverse the > closures entirely or keep them entirely. > > So here's my starter for 10 - we keep the closures > in place for six months but with a proper > monitoring and assessment process that looks at > the overall impact on our area and a firm > commitment to consider outcomes for all roads > fairly at the end of it. Do you think those > strongly in favour of the closures would buy into > that? If so, I'd much rather push for that than > the immediate reversal of the closures, but the > only way to get the Council to commit to that is > for the majority of the pro and anti groups to get > behind that sort of idea. I think most people could get behind an approach that provides fair and granular data so an objective decision could be made on whether they are effective or not. The council should have been doing this from day 1 but remember they initially only put monitoring strips on the closed roads in the DV closures and were doing nothing to monitor traffic on the displacement roads. Many of us were, rightly, suspicious of why they were doing this. If we all agreed on the monitoring approach there would have to be transparency from the council as to where they are monitoring. They put some in on the southern part of Lordship Lane some months after the DV closures went in - I am not sure if they are still in or not - but not sure where else they have gone. For example, have they been monitoring Underhill Road for example?

Dulwichgirl82 I agree. In fact, I think there is far more justification for the Melbourne Grove closures as that would qualify as a rat run. By far the biggest impact on the wider area has been the closures of the DV junction (and now beyond DV). The blocking of east/west routes has created a displacement tsunami that is impacting many thousands of people - from those who choose to shop on Lordship Lane, to those who live on Lordship Lane and along any one of the routes being used by traffic to avoid the congestion caused by it. If I was a Melbourne Grove closure supporter I would be very worried that the council's mismanagement and blind stubbornness as they try to save face politically may result in everything having to be torn out and that benefits no-one.

All, This is interesting.....the Dulwich Village LTN discussion has been cancelled. The message below is very interesting - it looks like this was supposed to be a private meeting that someone accidentally posted as public? Given the fact the DV closures went in well ahead of the ED ones it's perhaps telling that the council are still not engaging with the public on these closures. A Message from Southwark Community Engagement Team: Apologies to all who have signed up for this meeting. This had been set up on Eventbrite as a 'private' link and the meeting has not been publicised by us. However it appears that it has unintentionally been made visible to residents. The meeting is not taking place on 15th December, and will be scheduled for a later date. Please look out for wide publicity on this in the near future. In the first instance, all subscribers at https://dulwichvillagestreetspace.commonplace.is/ will be notified of the meeting. Apologies again for all confusion.

Legal - I agree. Much is about the echo-chamber you live in. I have yet to meet anyone who supports the closures but we live in a part of Dulwich negatively impacted by them, so all the people I speak to are living with the fallout and so are very much against them. I just wish the council would give equal weighting to the views of everyone. The recent ED LTN meetings were so skewed towards the pro-closure lobby that it was a bit embarrassing. The opening slides showing only pictures of people cycling on empty streets and regurgitating many of the pictures supplied by the pro-closure lobby and not showing any of the images sent to the council from those on roads impacted by the displacement was funny, was it not such an obvious fudge. The council is terrified of a level playing field as I believe they know those impacted negatively far outweigh those impacted positively.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ...as they say the first step to recovery is > admitting there is a > > problem....it's more than many of the > pro-closure > > lobby can bring themselves to admit! > > It is precisely the people who support making > space for walking and cycling who are taking the > first step to recovery. But it's making things worse....how long do we have to wait before these people realise this is not the solution? The big issue remains that the most supportive voices come from those who are within the area directly benefitting from the closures. As long as their street is quiet they don't care about anyone else's and the council doesn't dare do proper monitoring because they know what it will show: it's making things worse.