Rockets

Jenx3 - as I said if you don't like it don't engage...no-one is forcing you to! if it bores or angers you that people dare to still talk about the LTNs then don't click on it.....it's not that difficult! You were more than happy to post lots to try to defend the council's measures in the old thread so just because you have grown tired of doing so for something you are clearly a big supporter of (and no doubt directly benefit from) doesn't mean you should be judge and jury on whether others should discuss it or ask questions about it. Anyway, I seem to remember you being a big advocate and defender of the council's data on the miracle East Dulwich Grove Centre evaporation so have you seen any further info from the council on the latest numbers, per my original question? Oh P.S. it was one of the best performing threads in the main section of the forum with over 2,000 posts and 122k views and that was just the LTN Phase 3 thread there had been more threads before that too!

And why might that be do you think? 😉 The answer is actually in the article: Over the last decade, the use of motor vehicles has been increasingly restricted in the financial heart of the U.K. It's a bit like the mind-blowing revelations the council shared with us that on roads closed by LTNs traffic declined significantly....well blow me down...that's a surprise! 😉 The article goes on to say: However, cyclist numbers are at 102% of pre-pandemic levels. A 2% increase on pre-pandemic levels on cyclists in the city - wow, that's worryingly low is it not and goes to validated the reality that the cycling revolution is just not materialising? Especially given all the money spent and disruption to buses caused by the installation of cycling infrastructure in and around the City (over bridges especially).

Earl, from which report are you taking those stats or from where are you taking them? Can you send a link because TFL's latest report doesn't mention 40% - certainly report number 15 which is the latest published report doesn't. It does however say: During the latter months of 2022 some of these patterns are persisting with the more general return to normal activities, albeit in the context of fine weather and other factors affecting the wider transport network. Representative weekday demand as of October 2022 was some 20-25 per cent higher than before the pandemic, with weekend demand still typically around 90 per cent higher. But this was a forward-looking statement because Figure 4.3 on page 100 of that report 15 only reports up to the week of October 4th and the comments I think you have used were forward-looking (and derived from what I have pasted above) and yet the table I shared from Vincent Stops is the latest version of that Figure that has now been updated up to April 23 and shows that the trends reported weren't realised in reality and that overall cycling levels remain around the pre-2019 levels. Nothing from that chart indicates anywhere close to a 40% increase.

Mr Chicken - we have to imagine the data on Underhill because the council refuses to monitor - now why might that be do you think Would you not agree that all likely displacement routes should have been monitored away from the LTNs to have an accurate and complete picture of the impact of the LTNs? Earl - you are absolutely right about everyone competing for limited space but would you not agree that over the last 5 years huge amounts of public land in London have been turned over to active travel to the detriment of other road users like buses, lorries and cars? More road space has been turned over to cycling than any other road user yet the numbers from TFL suggest it hasn't positively impacted cycling numbers - is that concern? How much more needs to be turned over before it does start having a positive impact or do we keep going regardless of the negative impact on Londoners from increased congestion and pollution?

As I said earlier, there are some who have a vested interest in burying the subject and have repeatedly tried, much to the frustration of the previous admin due to the sometimes underhand tactics used, to stop any form of discussion about it on the board. Maybe the most sensible advice, if it bores you to tears, is don't click on it and respond because all you're doing is not helping me answer the question and, ahem, keeping it at the top of the forum 😉 And if the "majority" aren't interested then surely the forums' posting function will run its natural course and any thread will drop very quickly. The old thread survived multiple assassination attempts, was policed very well to keep within old admin guidelines, until very recently before finally being demoted to the lounge (on the basis, which I agree with, that it had become more loungey and not based on new info or facts). Given it had, I believe, the highest number of posts and views for any thread ever on the forum I am not entirely sure how you can claim the subject was only of interest to a few or to the detriment to the EDF - that argument seems totally counter to the supporting stats in front of us!!

That may well be the case but it is clear people are still interested in the subject (as much as some, like you, would love it to go away for ever). The data from the dashboard is key and I was wondering if the council plans to update it again to show us whether the increases in traffic on some roads seen in the last couple of reports continued? They are certainly still monitoring in some places (although some of the ones on the streets they were monitoring have had them removed which suggests they believe the monitoring job is done). From my wanderings around Dulwich I did notice that there is a definite pattern to how the council places the strips - if they want low numbers from a road (for example Dulwich Village) they put the monitoring strips close to a junction (see the placement close to Turney Road near light opposite the graveyard) but if they want high numbers (Burbage Road) they put the strips mid-street. it's quite pronounced and obvious when you see the positioning and is a real tell-all as to what they want the outcome of the monitoring to be.

Earl - you're wrong - the council data showed that the LTNs led to a decrease in car journeys within the LTNs and that some roads (that were monitored) showed increases in traffic (but we all know the council refused to monitor roads like Underhill which has soaked up a lot of the displacement). In terms of walking I do not believe that the council has done an area-wide survey since their 2018 Traffic Management report that showed 68% of local journeys were being walked (the highest % in the borough of Southwark) - but we can presume that will have likely increased post-lockdown. Cycling data was provided by one of Rachel Aldred's team who did visual analysis of a very limited area (Calton Avenue junction) which showed an increase in cyclists but was criticised for the counting methodology and timings (which appeared to have been timed around school drop-off and pick-ups for biggest impact). I think we can all attest that there are more people cycling in the area than before the pandemic but whether is it enough to compensate for the problems caused by the road closures has yet to be addressed. Interestingly, TFL did release data recently from their 20 cycling monitors around London comparing to the same weeks in 2019 against post-pandemic levels up to April this year and there were very little changes in overall numbers of cyclists.

Yes I know but that's why I am posting here because the Lounge doesn't get the eyeballs this section does and I am interested if anybody knows the answer (and I also know it really annoys those who have relentlessly lobbied the previous and current admins to kill any discussion on LTNs on the forum as it doesn't suit their own personal agendas!! ;-))

Does anyone know if Southwark are planning to update the Streetspace dashboard - it hasn't been updated since September of last year and it would be very interesting to see if the increases in traffic volumes monitored by the council last time round was a trend or an anomaly? https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/traffic-data-analysis

Very interesting that the link shared from TFL's analysis of who owns the cars says, in summary: Londoners are more likely to own a car if they live in outer London, live in an area with poor access to public transport, have a higher income, have a child in the house, and are of Western European nationality. Which pretty much describes the Dulwich area so you have to decide, as a council, do you attack an area to solve a problem that wasn't of the area's making and are born from a number of factors that can neither be fixed quickly or by the people who the own cars. Southwark has made their choice - if you have poor public transport and a child and if you can afford a car that remains the best option for most. And let's be honest cargo bikes, which remain almost exclusively the domain of the upper middle classes with big houses or companies serving the demands of upper middle classes, are never a good example of an active travel alternative! 😉 that's going to make a huge difference!

Where did I say Townley was a school street....I said it's what happens when you conflate school streets with other timed restrictions i.e. when in some areas you mix school streets that operate during school times and with others that do not...hope that clarifies itfor you! 😉

Saw loads of cars heading towards a fine in Dulwich Village yesterday as they drove through the restrictions during the operating hours - oblivious to the fact that the restrictions also apply on bank holidays - an expensive assumption to make and one the council is more than happy to accept!

I did love this line in the Lambeth CPZ which demonstrates the FUD council's sell to people: Although Lambeth is one of the leading boroughs for sustainable travel with almost 80% of trips by residents made by walking, cycling and public transport, and 60% of households being car free, emissions from transport still make up almost a quarter of the total emissions from the borough. The use of the word transport is key here as private cars, which are targeted by the CPZs, make up a small partof emissions from transport with buses, delivery vehicles, lorries and taxis taking the lion's share of blame. Included in Lambeth's categorisation of transport and the 25% is: river, rail, motorcycle, taxis, PHVs, non TFL bus and coach, TFL bus and coach, HGV and LGVs and cars so why they feel the need to reference that is, ahem, anyone's guess ;-)......probably because if they listed what private cars owned by residents contribute people would be like...is this a sledgehammer to crack a nut? Layer on top of that the fact that in other Lambeth documents they say 40% of emissions in our air emanate from outside London and you realise just how futile it is to try to claim that CPZs will contribute significantly to cleaner air - it's clearly absolute nonsense but a convenient untruth that councils peddle as it deflects attention from the bigger contributors like construction and domestic and industrial heating.

And therein lies the problem. Too much of the council-led narrative on these measures is based on assumptions, best-guesses, misinformation and wide-sweeping generalisations which are lapped-up and repeated verbatim by the supporters of these interventions (the short-journey one being a prime example as it holds no weight in the very area the council is pushing these measures). Earl, you mention buses - you know that buses are now being delayed due to the additional congestion being caused by LTNs - see the unholy spat between our local councillors and their bullying of TFL officials when TFL dared to publish a document that challenged the council "LTNs don't cause any problems" narrative? Again, it is very easy to be critical of the amount of space dedicated to parking spaces for cars but if you haven't taken the time to determine why that is and the factors that contribute to that then you are only telling half the story and being, perhaps deliberately, blinkered. The council has been very clear that residents in Dulwich are more reliant on cars because of a number of factors: a combination of the fact that PTAL scores in the area are low and there being more families in the area. You can't ignore that and if you don't address those factors then people will always need cars and I suspect the council knows this but then looks on it as a good source of revenue generation (even during a cost of living crisis) as their ideology is that you are well-off if you have access to a car.

Malumbu, is it the also then disingenuous for the council to build their anti-car narrative on the basis that, and I quote, 40% of Southwark residents don't have access to a car?

Earl, the problem here is the council has zero clue what creates the traffic challenges in the area and applies broad, wide-sweeping generalisations to create an anti-car narrative without actually spending any time to determine what is happening. They have done it time after time because, unfortunately, a lot of people lap them up and repeat them without actually determining if they are correct or not. Remember the side-street, supposed, massive increase in miles driven which turned out to be utter rubbish - repeated verbatim by the council and councillors yet and created a narrative that pro-LTN lobbyists ran with? The fact is more Dulwich'ites walk more short journeys (68%) than any other part of the borough so short car journeys are clearly not the issue here - but the council doesn't seem to care and nor do those campaigning for "change" - they hope the mud sticks. If you don't understand what the problem is how on earth can you find a solution to it?

Yes but you do realise that us Dulwict'ites already walk more short journeys (68% from the council's own figures) than any other part of the borough? So not sure the "the problem is short unnecessary car journeys" really hold much weight here but, of course, the council loves to apply the "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" narrative to support many of it's own ideologies!

Please, please do not compare Southwark to Islington - it's chalk and cheese in terms of PTAL scores. In fact, the high PTAL scores in Islington is one of the reasons their car ownership rates (around 30%) are some of the lowest of any local authority not only in London but the country as a whole. Islington became popular due to it connectivity to the centre of London and the gentrification there was built on the fact it was so easy to get into the city. You can very easily get around and in and out of Islington without the need for a car. Take a look at Islington's PTAL score map - the outer reaches of the borough around Finsbury Park (both Victoria and Piccadilly tube line access, Overground and National Rail) have PTAL scores of 6a and 6b - it's probably one of the best connected London boroughs for consistently high PTAL scores. Southwark is very much not with huge swings in PTAL scores from north to south of the borough and yet Southwark treats some, and wants to treat all of it's constituents, as if they have the same transport choices as those in boroughs like Islington. And, despite your claims of Islington charging more, the charge for a regular sized family car there is £235 compared to Southwark now charging £225. I find it incredible that during a cost of living crisis that the council would be so blinkered as to nearly double the CPZ charges - it's utterly tone deaf but exactly what we have grown to expect from Tooley Street.

Earl, they are asking for another £100 a year for a CPZ permit - how can that be justified during a cost of living crisis - have their costs to run the CPZ gone up so much that they have to pass on that huge increase? Nope, I doubt it. So it's clear it is a financial war on car owners - a stealth tax. One wonders how much they really want to charge people and where the price increases will stop. Southwark will always remind people that 40% of Southwark households do not have access to a car (as if owning a car is something people should be ashamed of) but I suspect many of those 60% who do have access to one are living in the southern parts of the borough with the lowest PTAL scores and often with the longest journeys for work and play. I can't help but think that Tooley Street's view is distorted because their HQ sits within the northern part of the borough, huge swathes of which are blessed with PTAL scores of 6b. The council should be spending time trying to improve PTAL scores before hitting car owners with yet more costs - but public transport is getting worse the further south you go in the borough. Interestingly enough negative impact on PTAL scores was used by the council in their lobbying of TFL to not cut bus routes that travelled across the borough when TFL had their funding crisis.

Here is what the report actually says: The Dulwich area has a low level of public transport accessibility. Areas around the main stations only reach a PTAL 3 and The Village a PTAL 2 whilst the main commercial area around East Dulwich has a PTAL 3. Other parts of Dulwich, particularly those where schools are located have a level 2 of accessibility translating into a higher use of car and coach for pupils outside of Dulwich. This is confirmed also by more general DfT accessibility statistics which show that, in general the area has a lower public transport accessibility level than the remainder of Southwark whilst by car it tends to be on par with the other parts of the borough or somewhat higher for hospitals, particularly due to the proximity of Dulwich Community Hospital. The council's intention is to roll the CPZs across the whole of the borough - surely given the low PTAL scores across the Dulwich area surely it is unfair of the council to target car users in the area the same as they are in the north of the borough? So much of the transport make-up of the area is determined by public transport accessibility and it is not good in the Dulwich area - people own cars because they have to as the other options are severely lacking, and as Penguin points out - public transport is getting worse not better and I suspect if the council ran the report again the PTAL scores would be even lower.

Earl, with all due respect I refer you to the councils own traffic management report from April 2018.....have a read, it's quite enlightening....especially in relation to PTALs (P.S. anti-car and pro-LTN lobbyists hate this report and hate the fact it exists as it demonstrates a pragmatic approach from the council before the madness set in!) https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Dulwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjHnMeK2df-AhUEbsAKHfhHDakQFnoECBkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2TVoXhGyqSCzaMl7HGk3TT

It's what happens when you conflate school streets with other timed restrictions - it causes confusion and confusion is profitable for the council! 😉 It is utterly ludicrous that these restrictions apply on bank holidays.

Could it be, per chance, that there is lots of space for parking cars because, well, people have a need cars in this area? Let's not lose sight of the fact that Dulwich still has "poor" PTAL scores and public transport is getting worse not better and is one of the main reasons cited by the council for the higher car ownership levels in the south of the borough. And the measures put in by the council to help create the need for CPZs (extending double-yellows etc years ago) is the sole, and single, biggest contributor to increasing parking congestion in the area - at a time when, don't forget, private car ownership is decreasing. This is just another blatant attack on car drivers by the council because the council's narrative is that anyone who can afford a car must be some super-rich, million-pound bonus receiving fat-cat and deserves to pay more for the right to own a car or words to that effect! ;-). It's amazing how quickly they forget their mantra about the evils of the cost of living crisis and are happy to add to the misery if it supports their own ideology. As I said before hypocrites and just the tip of the iceberg and one-day those who support the council in these actions will see through the blah blah blah....the adage never let the truth get in the way of a good story comes to mind!

I presume your bin has already been collected by the council after the subscription expired? I would just ask a neighbour, the weekly collections ensure it will be emptied soon.

Wow, how on earth can the council justify that increase? Honestly, this comes as no surprise, the council continues its war on car owners with stealth tax upon stealth tax. And remember, their plan is for borough-wide CPZs as a matter of course. Amazing how they offer soundbite after soundbite about the cost of living crisis yet turn a blind eye to it when it comes to their own grand plans and ideology....utter hypocrites... But, some were smart enough to realise what the grand plan was when they floated the "commuters from Kent" blah blah blah to justify the first CPZ in the area. They did it again with the "socially distanced LTNs"! They are just bare-faced liars and should not be trusted...but with their majority they can pretty much do as they please.