Earl Aelfheah

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We need more public transport.It is simple. > instead of TfL fiddling about on roads for > cyclists now that they have done their worst could > they please turn their attention to area-linking > buses and to car sharing journeys, more school > buses and get the trains back to normal. We need better public transport, more car sharing, and more safe space for walking and cycling.

@heartblock - thanks for providing some Twitter links. But the screenshot which has been posted isn't Tfl data (unless I'm missing something?) and doesn't seem to relate to London. When I go to the web address that is given as the source, I can't find it. Any chance you can point to the Tfl data you referred to?

Making it more difficult to trade with our neighbours is so obviously a bad idea economically. Making it more difficult for people to travel, live and work in other countries is so obviously a bad idea culturally. It's such a sad, insular little project.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "LTNs discourage car use" - how? by making it less convenient to drive.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh and TFL has also published data that cycle use > has dropped back across London to almost > pre-lockdown levels...I imagine quite a few > bicycles on gumtree soon, not my little two > wheeled horse though, she travels pre/post > lockdowns and pandemics, but doesn?t like rain > 😜 Any link to this data? And any evidence that making driving easier, reduces car journeys? There is lot's showing the opposite. I know you've said previously that it's best not to respond to requests for evidence or to questions from others, but this is a discussion forum, so perhaps you'll reconsider? Re. walking, if people decide not to make a journey in their car, many will walk it instead. LTNs discourage car use, particularly for short local trips.

@oimissus - You're right that it's the interim report from April. There will be an updated version with more recent data published as I understand it. Whilst it's possible it will show something different, it seems unlikely that making driving around the local area more difficult, would increase the number of people using their cars. Similarly with cycling - more people tend to use their bikes, when there are quite streets they can choose. I know it's anecdotal, but you can see a lot more kids cycling through the LTNs, where they're not having to mix with so many cars, vans and lorries. All the research on this (and common sense) suggests that making car journeys more convenient, increases car use rather than reduces it and vice versa.

The LTNs have reduced car usage and increased active travel. But it's not perfect. So rather than improve it, we should scrap the whole thing and negotiate a new (unspecified) deal with the exact same benefits. Oh and this better scheme which will be agreed with everyone, will reduce car use without make driving more difficult.

The data shows: The volume of motor traffic counted on internal streets had decreased by -31% around Dulwich Village, and -79% in East Dulwich. The volume of motor traffic counted on external streets had decreased by -11% around Dulwich Village and ?3% around Champion Hill, but increased by +2% around East Dulwich. The volume of cycles on internal streets had increased by +103% around Dulwich Village, and +29% in East Dulwich and +19% on Champion Hill. The volume of cycles on external streets had also increased by between +43% to +70%. The overall volume of motor traffic recorded across all streets has decreased by -16% Data from Vivacity Sensors shows increases in the number of cycles counted of +126%, +48% +86%, +69% and +292% on Calton Avenue, Townley Road, Burbage Road, Melbourne Grove and Champion Hill respectively.

I feel sorry for Wetherspoons staff, but as far as Tim Martin personally - there is an undeniable poetic justice if true.

See reports on Twitter (so probably not actually true, but still...), that Wetherspoons is running out of staff and beer due to Brexit.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and don't we have more barriers on inward goods > still to come later this year and start of next? Yep, it's barely started. We're going to see some serious inflation, followed by increases in interest rates. That's when the mortgaged of Surrey will finally sit up and take notice. The problem is, how much of it will be put down to COVID, or 'EU intransigence'? My guess is, quite a lot. This government and it's client journalists are pretty good at deflection and brexit voters will go to almost any length to void admitting to themselves that they may have made a mistake.

Lol

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But regardless of only using the car twice a > month, aren?t you still going to have to pay a fee > for every day your car (if non-ULEZ compliant) is > parked in/enters the ULEZ zone ? That was my understanding.

I?m getting rid of mine at the moment. Been using it less and less and it?s become safer to cycle locally with the kids since the LTNs were introduced. Hoping they won?t be reversed, but thinking they probably will. Either way, I can?t justify keeping a car when I use it so infrequently and of course there are the environmental considerations. Understand it?s difficult if you have elderly parents or family who rely on you and aren?t nearby.

It's best not to reply to requests for evidence or respond to questions. Just make unsubstantiated assertions, contradictory statements and call people names. This isn?t a discussion forum.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Aside from those with mobility issues, who has > said they want it to be easier to drive to the > shops? It was suggested that because the restrictions are making it more difficult to drive to Dulwich Village the shops are suffering and businesses are failing. Just read up the thread a little.

It?s unreasonable to ask someone to clarify their position on a public discussion forum. Got it.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So Dulwich has a PTAL of 1 - Very Poor, so why > LTNs were introduced..is a mystery to me...well > actually not a mystery as we know the real reasons > LTNs went in, but anyway this score is based on. > > ? Walking time from the point-of interest to the > public transport access points; > ? The reliability of the service modes available; > ? The number of services available within the > catchment; and > ? The level of service at the public transport > access points - i.e. average waiting time. > And Dulwich scores the lowest possible on PTAL. So are you suggesting that car use in this area should not be discouraged until such time as we see significant improvements to public transport? Because at the moment people are claiming they want fewer cars and more active travel, but that they also want it to be easier to drive to the shops and that cycling isn?t going to help with congestion. Abe is clear that in his opinion people will oppose any restrictions on car use. What?s your view on this? Do you think there should be attempts to restrict or reduce car use?

Tell me Heartblock - Do you believe that any changes which make it more difficult to drive around locally, or that restrict car access or use, will not be strongly opposed?

But to be clear, Abe is saying he does not want any restrictions on car use. Which is fine. I respect that honesty. Let?s not pretend that if the LTNs are scrapped, it will leave the door open for the speedy development of some as yet undefined alternative for reducing car use and increasing active travel which will garner the support of the majority of ?One Dulwich? folk. As Abe points out, any attempt to restrict or reduce cars will be ?strongly opposed?. I agree, which is why I would rather work to make the current scheme better, instead of returning everything to the previous, congested state - a manifesto for zero change not just now but into the foreseeable future.

So, no changes to roads? No restrictions on car use? Well at least it?s honest.

Does anyone believe that any changes which make it more difficult to drive around locally, or restricts car access or use, will not be strongly opposed?. Honestly?

So do we want it to be easier to drive around the local area / to the local shops, or more difficult? Do we want to restrict the use of cars and encourage active travel (which means inconveniencing car users), or remove barriers to driving? It would be good to understand first principles. Because people will line up against something quite easily, but it?s more difficult to get agreement on any concrete change proposal which requires trade offs and where there will be winners and losers.

Got it

There was exactly the right amount of traffic before the LTN. Just enough for businesses in the Village and on Lordship Lane to flourish? which is what we want. But also we don?t want to just return things to how they were, that?s a mischaracterisation. But less traffic (which we want) does impact business, which is bad. So does more traffic by the way. It needs to be easy for people to drive to the shops, which we don?t want to encourage of course. But we?re not against change.