Earl Aelfheah

So just to recap. The same people who were last week saying the LTN pushed more cars past the school, are now demanding that the LTN is removed so that more cars can be pushed past the school? Oh, and they say all the vehicle counts are fake, then pull a 48% figure out of the air? It?s absurdist nonsense. At this point one has to conclude that there are some people on here who are more interested in trying to prove themselves right, than doing what?s right.

Read this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias Then look at all the published research examining the effects of LTNs and the data gathered by vehicle counts. Once you?ve done this, ask yourself honestly, what is the thrust of 99% plus of that evidence? Don?t go straight to looking for any bits that you think might be flawed. Consider what the overwhelming direction of that significant body of evidence is first. You can then look at where there may be issues with discrete bits of data, but don?t go straight there without first seeing where it sits in the full context of all the available evidence. If you?re still convinced that LTNs (and like the poster above, congestion charge and the ULEZ) actually increase traffic and reduce active travel? well good luck to you and your conspiracy theories.

For those who are interested in what's actually happening, rather than desperately looking for anything that might be spun to support a prior belief. Here is a summary of what's been achieved:

Look at the data, it's pretty clear. There are fewer cars driving along EDG. Yes, at one end some vehicles are turning off a little later. It used to be that they would cut through past the school. As everyone here has said, they were desperately worried about traffic by the school and health centre on EDG (at least up to the point that the data shows the LTN reduces it). I think most people, if they were honest, would agree that it's better traffic is turning 200 metres further down the road in this instance. At the southern end there is almost no change, and traffic is actually falling month on month at an accelerating rate. Across the length of the road, traffic is down more than 20%. Again, this is an example of a few people searching as hard as possible for a reason to object; To the point that they're now arguing for an increase in the number of cars driving along EDG, passing the school (both on EDG and past the entrance on Melbourne Grove) and passing the health care centre. Things they were claiming to be of deep concern just last week. It's absurd. Would you really prefer traffic to rise across the entire areas, including along the central section of EDG rather than have some cars turn 200 metres later to avoid a school? Traffic down. The number of people walking and cycling up. And you would reverse it all just to feel that you've 'won'... what exactly, I don't know. Fewer kids walking to school? More traffic across the whole area? *slow handclap*

How would scrapping a scheme that has reduced traffic, result in 'less traffic for everyone'? It wouldn't, clearly. With regards the coupe of hundred metres of road between Melbourne Grove and LL, there is a choice. You can either divert some of the traffic past the school, or not. I think the current prioritisation is preferable. Not least because if you make it easier to cut through from Grove Vale to EDG, you actually increase the total amount of traffic across both streets. To just refuse to make a choice and to say 'less traffic for everyone/ milky bars are on me', isn't a serious response.

Just to put all this in context, EDG South is a 350m stretch of road. Traffic there is up 4% on pre-scheme levels, but currently dropping (it's fallen 6% in the last month). EDG East is a 260m stretch, where there there has been an increase in traffic as a result of cars and HGVs being directed away from a school. As I explained above, I think it's absolutely right that cars should drive a couple of hundred metres further down the road before turning, rather than being directed past the school. Not so far up this thread, you were arguing that LTNS increased traffic outside Charter. Now you seem to be calling for them to be removed so that traffic on EDG East can be moved towards it. Everywhere else, including the main section of EDG between Townley Road and Melbourne Grove has seen a decrease in traffic. Across the whole area, traffic is down and walking and cycling are up.

I would rather that cars didn't cut pass the entrance to East Dulwich Charter on Melbourne Grove. It's instructive that you were arguing against the LTN on the grounds that it supposedly increased traffic outside the school, but now argue that cars should be encouraged to pass the school rather than drive an extra couple of minutes to avoid it. It's clearly better to have less traffic and more people walking and cycling. It's clearly better to have cars avoid driving passed the entrance to a school and yes, if that means a 2 or 3 minute diversion further along the road in order to avoid it, I do think that's preferable. You didn't answer my question about whether the number of kids walking and cycling to school would increase or decrease if the LTN was removed, but up to you.

The number of cars travelling along EDG is down (by more than 20%). There is a counter at the junction of EDG and Lordship Lane however, that's shown and increase ('EDG East'). If you look at the turning patterns it will be clear why this is. Cars that would have previously turned off before Lordship Lane, cutting down Melbourne Grove (passed the school), now don't. And vice versa. So originally, there would have been fewer cars on the East section than in the central section. Now there are fewer cars generally, but more staying on between MG and Lordship Lane. There is a school on Melbourne Grove and Derwent and Elsie are small, residential roads. Personally, I think it's right that traffic should have to drive round. It's a really small diversion and overall traffic has decreased significantly. There has been a massive increase in the number of kids walking and cycling too, along Melbourne Grove and via Calton Avenue. Anyone who is familiar with ED Charter cannot have failed to see this. Now, I've answered your question and you still haven't answered mine: Do you think the number of kids walking and cycling to school would increase or decrease if all local restrictions on cars and all the quiet routes are removed?

I find it incredible that you reach the conclusion that the LTNs have not reduced traffic or increased active travel despite all evidence to the contrary. But fair enough, I guess it's just an article of faith. And the huge increase in the numbers of kids walking and cycling to school? I mean you can actually see it with your own eyes if you won't accept data. Do you think that would continue if one were to remove all the quiet routes and invite more cars to drive through the area?

Tell me you genuinely think that removing LTNs won?t increase traffic and reduce the number of people walking and cycling in the area.

It?s pretty clear that there are no data that would satisfy those determined to believe LTNs somehow increase traffic and reduce active travel (against all evidence). It?s become about proving a preconceived idea / objection, and nothing else. It?s embarrassing to watch individuals picking through data looking for anything that they think might bolster their prior beliefs whilst completely ignoring the big picture (wood for the trees?). Very reminiscent of how climate deniers operate - you don?t have to prove your argument, just sow enough doubt to have people question the existing evidence. It?s almost a perfect example of confirmation bias. If you tell me you genuinely think that removing LTNs won?t increase traffic and reduce the number of people walking and cycling in the area, I would be surprised.

@rockerts - you avoided answering the question I put to you and I think it probably tells me the answer. At this point I think you know what would happen to the number of kids walking and cycling to school were the LTNs removed. It would drop significantly.

Honestly, do you think the number of kids walking and cycling to school would increase or decrease if you remove all restrictions on cars locally and all the quiet routes? I mean the data is clear what would happen, but what do you think? What?s your gut tell you?

@Rockets - the data is getting clearer and clearer. I know you?re invested in your position, but I can?t believe that you honestly think that removing the LTNs wouldn't increase traffic and reduce active travel.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > geh Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > LTN?s definitely altering my transport habits. > I > > now never get the 37 to Brixton to then get the > > tube, too congested, too painful, too slow. > > > > What I have done is to make a conscious > decision > > to only purchase pre 40 year old vehicles that > are > > classed as classics and exempt from Ulez and > > Congestion charge. > > > > Someone once said for every action, there is an > > equal and opposite reaction! > > Against the ULEZ and congestion charge too. I love the way that this poster seems to suggest that the congestion charge, the ULEZ and low traffic neighbourhoods force them to drive more and to buy more polluting vehicles. I mean that?s some mental gymnastics there. ?I don?t want to pollute, but what choice do I have??

geh Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LTN?s definitely altering my transport habits. I > now never get the 37 to Brixton to then get the > tube, too congested, too painful, too slow. > > What I have done is to make a conscious decision > to only purchase pre 40 year old vehicles that are > classed as classics and exempt from Ulez and > Congestion charge. > > Someone once said for every action, there is an > equal and opposite reaction! Against the ULEZ and congestion charge too.

.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let?s check in on this bonkers Brexit bonanza > > https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-trade-r > evolution > > It?s almost impossible to read without cringing. > > > To think this is how leavers see themselves when > the reset of the world are all too aware of how > exposed they are > > Still. 10, 20, 50 years from now, I?m sure the > descendants of Rees-Mogg, Mordaunt and co will > have proven Cat right and me wrong. And there > won?t have been any casualties to speak of along > the way. Some yes. Goes without saying. But not > many in the scheme of things I can't read all the way down that speech, it's unbearable. These people really do need to get over their fantasy 'nation standing alone' WWII complex.

People scouring the data for anything that backs up their view, whilst completely ignoring the big picture. It's an example of confirmation bias in the extreme. The facts are that traffic is down. Active travel is up. Not just inside the LTNs but across the wider area.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The latest data is really encouraging. What?s even > more clear is that in the section of east dulwich > grove where there is charter east dulwich / > children walking to school, traffic has actually > fallen 20 % year on year. This really is excellent > and shows how much difference the measures have > made. Yep - not to mention the number of kids walking and cycling to school along Melbourne Grove and Calton Avenue. It's a really positive change.

Active travel (cycling and walking) up. Bus times generally down. Traffic down. Pretty successful by any objective measure.

That?s not what they?ve done btw Heartblock. Take a look at the link above

Sorry cross posted

The latest monitoring data https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/77420/Infographic-report_Dulwich-Streetspace_Sept-2021.pdf

The latest data shows a further fall in traffic. Across all count sites traffic has decreased by 12% compared to before the scheme. Of course, it will make no difference to those opposed, but encouraging for anyone interested in the reality of what?s happening.