Earl Aelfheah

My thought in the above btw Rockets is that the latest data shows traffic down at every monitored site except On the section of EDG between Melbourne grove and LL (EDG East). This is the result of cars no longer being able to turn off EDG early onto Melbourne Grove North, passing the entrance of ED Charter. Cars now have to stay on and turn a little later at LL. We could ?solve? this ?problem? by having them drive past the school gates. So that?s a legitimate debate to have. But we?re talking about roughly a 250m stretch of road and there is a clear rationale for why you might want traffic to avoid the school entrance. Otherwise, traffic is down at every other monitored site. You seem to be arguing that we should have more traffic everywhere, equally distributed across all streets. This is frankly bizarre to my mind. But sure, fill your boots arguing for more traffic everwhere on grounds of ?fairness?

As far as that analogy works (which it doesn?t really). It would go more like this: The council?s campaign to reduce dog poo has been successful in changing people?s behaviour to a degree. The amount of poo has gone down everywhere. But I can?t help noticing that some streets still have more poo than others. We could think about targeted interventions to further address the issue on those streets, but I?d rather just encourage more poo everywhere. No, no, it?s fairer. No, it?s nothing to do with my not being keen on picking up after my dog.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But if I had driven I would have been forced to > drive down non-closed streets thus "pooing" my > pollution on those streets....do you get the joke > now? > > Anyway any response to my suggestion that your > touted 21,000 journey reduction has nothing (or > very little) to do with the LTNs or are you just > going to continue trying to ignore it....it won't > go away you know....? So you do accept that traffic is down by 21,100 vehicles a day since the LTNs came in now? You?re just claiming that it?s not related to the LTNs? Because previously you?ve claimed that traffic has massively increased?

Ok, so how many of those 25,000 steps could you have chosen to have driven if you?d wanted to? There?s the massive, obvious hole in your poo analogy.

I mean even you must occasionally leave your SUV at home Rockets, deciding to walk, cycle, or take the bus instead? That?s why your analogy is so obviously dumb. There is a degree of choice. Unlike having a poo.

Yes, I know you don?t believe any of the research, the experience of car reduction schemes around the world, or the traffic counts in Dulwich. But presumably you do understand that not all car journeys are essential.

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.