Earl Aelfheah

That is literally one of the dumbest analogies I?ve ever heard. It assumes every trip in a car is 100% unavoidable. We know that a third of all car journeys in London are under 2k, (less than 20 mins walk, or around 5 minutes on a bike). If you make it more pleasant / safer to walk and cycle, and less convenient to drive, people will change their behaviour. There is so much research which shows this to be true. The data on the Dulwich LTN specifically, shows it?s happened here too, with 21,100 fewer cars on our roads every day (across all monitored sites). If you removed the LTNs that?s how many extra vehicles we?d be putting back on our streets.

Walked past Megan?s tonight. They?ve done a great job with the refurb. Looks really good.

Congrats on the win. Glad to see the voters rewarding a bit of bravery and leadership.

It was more of a rhetorical question to be honest. The Mail really is poisonous.

Two years to go yet, a rapidly deteriorating economic outlook and a Con government out of ideas and mired in sleaze. A Lab/Lib coalition, formed on an agreement to bring forward electoral reform / PR, would be a great outcome imo.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So it looks like the Tories and Lib Dems split > their own vote - perhaps there should have been a > pact between them (like is being seen in other > parts of the country between Labour and the Lib > Dems). Dulwich Village councillors have been re-elected with an increased majority and with 61% turnout. It?s hardly a rejection of their policies is it? Time to move on.

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That doesn't sound like my thing especially... > although more so than the William Hill that was > there previously. This is my feeling on it. Megan's wouldn't be my first choice of replacement, but anything's an improvement on William Hill.

What's the relevance of the "hipster entrepreneurs who run gender-neutral kids' clothing firm" headline exactly? The Mail really is an appalling rag.

The 'anti low traffic' folk touted this as a 'referendum on LTNs' and campaigned hard in Dulwich Village. Labour got twice as many votes as LibDems and Conservatives on a 61% turnout. And now the same people who chose to make it about LTNs, say it's nothing to do with them. You can't have it both ways. Had the vote gone the other way, Rockets etc. would be calling it definitive proof that LTNs are unpopular and have no legitimate mandate. For what it's worth, I don't think anyone can say the results were about just one issue. But they do suggest (at the very least) that people are not as strongly opposed as a vocal minority would have us believe. There is now clear data showing reduced traffic and increased active travel. I really hope that people can focus on making improvements to the local LTN instead of trying to reverse it, as well as making further improvements to local transport and environment.

@rockets - In Dulwich Village the Conservatives and LibDems campaigned specifically on LTNs. The ?anti low traffic? folk touted this as a ?referendum on LTNs?. Labour got double the vote of LibDem and Cons on 61% turnout, and now, predictably they?re saying it wasn?t about that after all. For what it's worth, I?m sure it wasn?t only about one issue, but the result at least suggests that LTNs are not as unpopular as a vocal minority would have us believe. The data is also clear - they?ve succeeded in bringing traffic down and increasing active travel. My hope is that people can now concentrate on making more improvements locally to transport and the environment.

In Dulwich Village ward, turnout was nearly 61 per cent.

Labour win in Dulwich Village, in a contest widely touted by ?One? supporters as a referendum on LTNs. Hopefully we can now focus on making improvements to existing schemes rather than trying to scrap them in favour of more traffic, and look to make further improvements to local transport and environment.

Local voters have elected / re-elected Labour across Dulwich.

@dulwichfolk - that?s simply not true. All the data is on the website. Traffic is down on pre-covid levels. LTNs have reduced traffic, increased active travel and have not (despite claims on this thread), increased pollution. The data is clear. People can complain about the inconvenience to drivers, but it?s no longer sustainable to claim that the LTNs have not objectively succeeded against most of their objectives.

I?m hoping the Tories gets good kicking in local elections personally. I know they?re meant to be about local issues, but in practice they?re likely to be seen as a verdict on Johnson and his cabinet of dunces.

Just a reminder that latest data shows traffic is down at all monitored sites, compared with pre pandemic levels. The only exception is EDG East (between Melbourne Grove South and junction with LL, where traffic has been diverted away from a school entrance and now continues down the road before turning). Cycling and walking are up. Pollution has NOT increased. Despite the continual hyperbole, opinion and misinformation on this thread, the LTN has objectively succeeded in increasing active travel and reducing traffic and car use.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ""PTAL is a measure of accessibility used by TfL > based on distance and frequency of public > transport. The areas with a high level of public > transport accessibility usually score 5, 6a or 6b > on the PTAL scale, whilst areas with very low > levels of public transport accessibility will > score 0, 1a or 1b. > 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". > Southwark Council - Dulwich Area Traffic > Management Study Final Report > April 2018 > London Borough of Southwark 23130501 Most of East Dulwich has a PTAL of 4 (on scale of 0-6). It?s lower in the Village because large parts of it are green space. It could be better, but it?s not terrible and it?s not a good argument (as you often deploy it), for accepting forever greater car use. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/planning-with-webcat/webcat

4 across most of East Dulwich. The Village get's a lower score, because it's low density / full of large green spaces.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rah x3 > Its about a democratic process and the council > engaging with and listening to residents > > But you seem to want to run a "cynical, populist > campaign to make cycling as easy as possible / > increase cycle use." > > Pot and kettle here It's cynical, because the Lib Dems say they support LTNs, just not in local races where they think there may be a vote in opposing them. And i'll point out that those opposing LTNs 'claim' the want to reduce car use and increase active travel, as do the lib dems. Another reason why I see their campaign as entirely cynical.

We need to stop providing huge amounts of free (publicly subsidised) space for car storage. I know any attempts to tackle the problem of car dominance meets with stiff opposition, but we are in a climate emergency and it requires leadership.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It?s such a shame that a school miles away has > that land and busses kids in for about an hour a > week and the rest of the time it?s empty. > Meanwhile charter east have to go past it to head > to the Griffin Sports ground in Dulwich Village. > Feels a missed opportunity to share! Definitely would make sense for Charter ED to share it.

'The will of the people'. About sums it up. Lib Dems running a cynical, populist campaign to make driving as easy as possible / increase car use.

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwich Village is too close to call and a > barometer to see if the LTN measures have been a > success with the electorate or not Whether they've been 'popular', not whether they've been a success

PTAL at ED Station is a 4 as it is for most of ED. Goldilocks is right about the Village - If you paved over all the green spaces, PTAL there would rise, but probably not something anyone wants to see. Agree about the number 40. Don't know why it no longer goes to London Bridge. That said, we can now get the East London Line from Denmark Hill which is an improvement.

Beulah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My wife was subjected to an attempted robbery for > her Brompton bike tonight around 8.20pm on the > path that runs from Dulwich Hamlet stadium to > Green Dale. > A young man - aged in his teens in a hoodie > wearing dark clothing - grabbed her bike and told > her to let go of it. > She thinks he was hiding somewhere along that > section close to the barriers knowing cyclists > have to slow down there. > She refused to give him the bike and started > shouting and screaming for help. > Thankfully someone in Shaw Road backing onto the > pathway heard and shouted something like ?I?ll > call the police?. > That seemed to scare off the attacker, who ran off > and my wife made it home with the bike. > My wife is unharmed but shocked and the bike has > some slight damage. > But obviously it could have been more serious and > I wouldn?t advise putting up a struggle. > > So please keep an eye out. > We?ve reported it to police. > And thank you to the person who intervened. Sorry to hear about this, and thanks for the heads up. I hope you're wife isn't too shaken.