Earl Aelfheah

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m not opposed to LTNs ?on principle? but I have > not seen any published evidence that they reduce > car use or pollution in this area and the fuzzy > data, although flawed and with dubious use of > statistical methodology- shows that traffic on my > road, outside my flat has risen by over 20% ... as > observed. The only fundamentalists here are the > individuals that cling onto the failed LTNs in > this area, in the hope those impacted by more > pollution just go away and shut-up, so people on > quiet closed roads, can enjoy the rise in house > prices and freedom from the rif-raf. > Next move will be gated communities USA style. Failed how? They've reduce car use across the wider area, to the benefit of the vast majority of people locally. They've increased active travel, particularly the number of children walking and cycling to school. You reject the data, deny the existence of peer reviewed research on LTNs generally, and talk about gated communities? It's absolutely clear that there is no evidence that you would accept that does not fit your pre-existing view.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyone who actually lives in the area, especially > on the roads impacted by the LTN can see an > increase in traffic with their own eyes. > > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Oh look.....20% more traffic on East Dulwich > > Grove.... well obviously I wasn?t making it up! > > > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/i > > > > mproving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/tra > > > ffic-data-analysis > > > > Oh and also I was correct in this too ?No data > > collected for East Dulwich Grove Central prior > to > > September 2021? I regularly cross East Dulwich Grove at the junction of Melbourne Grove and traffic appears noticeably down to me. But others will disagree. Which is why it's better to look at actual vehicle counts than perception.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yep, I don?t need ?data? to recognise traffic > increase in my road due to LTN spillage. Now a > more dangerous road with frantic drivers and > speeders noticeably worse than before. Don?t need > to look at no binomial distribution. And this is the problem. There isn't any data which would convince those who are opposed to LTNs on principle. It's become an article of faith for some. Interseting that there is both more congestion and higher speeds btw. How's that work?

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Direct from the latest StreetSpace Southwark > Council. The dashboard contains data from 9 sites, where they've collected traffic data continuously from January 2021 to January 2022. It doesn't contain data from ED central prior to September 21. But if you look through the website you'll see that there is data which was collected in 2019. There is a full explanation of the methodology, including the location of data monitoring. See here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/77419/FAQ-and-data-collection-methodology_Dulwich-Streetspace_Sept-2021.pdf

Shouting and screaming at councillors about attempts to reduce car use and people raising awareness of imminent climate breakdown *slow handclap*

'Brexit itself doesn't really do anything'. OK

Wow, there are some weird questions on that test. Which British actors recently won an oscar? Is this relevant to living here?

Waseley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You could level the same criticism at any scheme > that restricts motorists (money generator) - CPZs, > general parking, speed controls, access controls. > Some in society consider there should be no > controls on drivers. Most fortunately don't > agree. There is as ever a discussion on > incentives Vs penalties and where revenue goes. Yep. It seems likely cars are highly subsidised in reality. Motorists pay around ?38bn a year to the treasury's coffers, around ?10bn less than the estimated cost to society (in terms of health, space and infrastructure). So much of the true cost is 'externalised'.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rah x 3 with the same old..maybe people oppose > LTNs because they want less pollution and traffic > on their roads rather than the requirement to > drive on any road....if you want less cars, go > talk to the people who own multiple vehicles on > Gilkes and Calton. > I'm happy for all private cars to be banned in the > whole of Southwark! Not sure the second home - > Range Rover owning - gated road living types would > agree.. Trust me, the vast majority of Range Rover owners in Dulwich are against any restrictions on driving. I?m not sure who you think makes up most of the ?One? membership, but have a walk about and look in the driveways of those displaying ?One? placards and posters. If you support more radical restrictions on private car use, I suspect you?re aligning with the wrong people.

I see many of the same people claiming to oppose LTNs because somehow more cars means less pollution (?!), are also railing against the ULEZ 🤷‍♂️

sweetgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Goodness me! > Open your 👀 > Nothing more than a revenue generator as > previously stated! > Cars being forced to idle in traffic making it a > longer journey, I guess that?s ok is it? > The whole thing is a shambles but will continue as > it?s making the councils money! > The rich, wealthy (call them what you like) will > all be taking a hit soon! > So far I read a article where dulwich ltn?s have > raised over 5million! > > Sad to see that people are working like dogs just > to pay bills & keep tree huggers happy! ULEZ

You want to see more high polluting vehicles in London? What is this?

kissthisguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Although the Ivy would be nice, wouldn't it be > great to see a non-chain restaurant in Dulwich > Village? Creative menus are to be found in Peckham > eg the Kudu places, Levan, Forza Wine. Shame ED's > Terroirs closed and the orig Palmerston is no > more. Is it that only chains can afford the rents? Rising rents definitely an issue in terms of new independents. That said we do have a number still on the Lane.

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wonder what the residents think of the Wine > Retailer/Wine Bar proposed for the old chemists ? > They're applying for a license to drink on the > premises from 09:00 to 22:30, 7 days a week. > > https://app.southwark.gov.uk/licensing/LicPremises > AppliedDetails.asp?systemkey=877119 There's already a couple of restaurants on this stretch and a big pub a stones through away, so would be strange to object.

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The stated aim of the scheme has always to reduce > harmful emissions caused by 'more polluting cars'. > The scheme has been successful so far; more so > than anticipated. It really is as simple as that. Exactly. And regardless, I can't see how anyone would think a reduction in the most polluting vehicle is a bad outcome.

Their appeal to populism & nationalism, their capture of elite support though government favours to the wealthy (VIP lanes), limits on public protest and extension of executive power (proroguing parliament), attacks on legal professionals ('activist lawyers') and now on the independent media through threats against the BBC and privatisation of Channel 4... it's all pretty worrying imo.

Personally, I am hoping that Johnson's government will get a firm message from the voters that there time is coming to an end.

Waseley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So you are not bothered about their other > policies? The Tories introduced the initiative. > Labour implemented it. LDs would like to support > such initiatives but have lost any USP and still > suffering from their time in the coalition. The zeal should not surprise you. Just look at this forum. It's been completely taken over by people obsessed with their 'right' to cut down any side street they like in their cars - They've even managed to convince themselves that having cars dominate every part of Dulwich will somehow increase active travel and reduce traffic (regardless of all data to the contrary).

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Today TfL finally admitted that the expanded ULEZ > didn't make as much as expected > > BBC News - London's expanded ULEZ raised less > revenue than expected, says TfL > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60520 > 700 Doesn't this suggest that it's been more successful than expected in reducing the number of high polluting vehicles travelling in the zone?

Today is the last day to comment on initial plans for future boundary changes: https://www.bcereviews.org.uk/

If we could get a segregated bike Lane on EDG / Half Moon Lane, it would be much easier for people to connect to Henre Hill and onwards via the Railton LTN to Brixton tube with grab and go electric bike.

BTW - Lime (electric hire bikes), have again extended their operating area so people can now hop on one for Herne Hill Station from ED to connect with the Thames link.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well done Rahx3 for reposting exactly what I > posted before - as you can see the ED Grove > Central ATC has 4 counts on the 6th, 13th, 20th > and 27th Sept 2021 and none in the period from > 2016 up until those counts. As I said a new ATC > from 2021, so the pre-LTN data is modelled. It has a count in 2019. It also has counts for East and West and turning data. So it has accurate data for that section both before and after the implementation of the LTN. I suggest that anyone interested in the data simply looks for themselves.

All raw traffic data files are available for download via Southwark maps. Select ?Southwark Highways? as the map configuration and then select ?traffic counts?. https://geo.southwark.gov.uk/connect/analyst/mobile/#/main This tells you where, when and how data was collected: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/77419/FAQ-and-data-collection-methodology_Dulwich-Streetspace_Sept-2021.pdf

It?s interesting how many people claim to be in favour of reducing car use, reducing pollution and increasing walking and cycling yet oppose every effort to actually achieve these things.