Earl Aelfheah

Summary graphics attached. 24,000 fewer vehicles across the whole area. 3,400 more cycles a day.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I suspect its because there is unity in > disagreement to the current measures, but as soon > as people specify what they do support then others > will disagree. Exactly this. Which is the real reason that One Dulwich are calling for people to support a 'return to the current state'. The reality is that Low Traffic Neighbourhoods boost cycling and reduce traffic. If you're in favour of that, then you should generally be in favour of LTNs

rjsmall Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is there a link for the full report? At the bottom of this page: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review

It's the first step in East Dulwich's move to rebrand itself as 'South Peckham'

.. What it shows is that traffic is down and active travel is up. Which is exactly what LTNs set out to achieve. The clean air for no one campaign, would put traffic back on to every street and discourage active travel. We need to work to improve traffic on the two streets where there is still a problem (Burbage and EDG). But not to lose the gains we have made.

Attached is the actual summary for those who want to see it.

The data is unreliable! Except where it confirms my opinion, in which case there is no doubt that the same data is reliable!

@Rockets - I stopped discussing Rachel Aldred?s credentials with you, when you refused to even accept a simple fact about how many papers she?s published. All the research on active travel and traffic reduction measures points to the same sorts of solutions. Yet you dismiss it all as biased. TFL?s data has been manipulated. Southwark are suspect. It does feel like an irretrievable case of confirmation bias and a bit of a waste of time debating. To answer your question - yes, I can believe that traffic across the area is generally down and that cycling is up. I know a lot of people who are walking or cycling to local clubs / kids activities etc, when before they would have driven. A lot more families are walking to school. I include myself in this. My behaviour has changed as a result of the LTN schemes. It?s not in anyway surprising to me - It?s what?s happened everywhere restrictions on car use have been put in place. That doesn?t mean that traffic won?t have increased on some streets however. As I have said many times, that needs to be identified through monitoring (not anecdote), and mitigated. But the idea that allowing cars to cut through side roads will ensure ?clean air for all?, is obviously ridiculous. It will only ensure more cars, less active travel and dirty air everywhere.

Turns out that restricting car use does reduce car use and encourage active travel. Like almost every single study shows. Who?d have thunk it? Let?s roll it all back and make driving around locally as easy as possible though. In the name of the environment.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I see "interim" the monitoring data has been > published by the council.....should make some > interesting weekend reading. > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/i > mproving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review > > I think even the most ardent supporter of the LTNs > might even be tempted to question the council's > numbers......Lordship Lane traffic down 22% and > Croxted Road traffic down 14% > apparently........... > > And apparently traffic on internal roads around > the whole of East Dulwich is down 79%.... > > Cycling is up (not surprisingly) but the claim of > an increase of 1,160 cycles per day along > Calton/Dulwich Village probably needs closer > scrutiny as it seems very high. > > What is the council smoking.......? Do you question the fact that cycling is up and traffic is down, or just the degree to which this is true? You appear to have now accepted that removing cars from some areas does encourage cycling (?unsurprisingly?). Progress of sorts

But if you encourage cars everywhere it ensures 'clean air for all' right?

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unfortunately your website also mentions 'queueing > traffic night and day' so its hard to take it as > an objective view at all. > > I agree that there are certain times of day that > traffic is queueing on East Dulwich Grove. On the > section between Lordship Lane and Townley this has > always been the case around 8-8:30 and that > continues. By 8:30/45 most days it is clear. > There are similar peaks in the evening. The rest > of the day speeding is more of an issue than > queueing traffic. > > I have no opinion on the section between Townley > and Red Post Hill as I don't have experience of > walking along there at rush hours. This ^

Looking great. Good job KK

Awful. What a horrible thing to happen.

Closing a handful of side streets to through traffic has led to people losing their sht. They claim that they want to spread pollution to every street as a way of ensuring 'clean air for all' (rather than the reality of that move - clean air for no one). Ask people what they want and they'll say 'fewer cars, less pollution, more active travel'. On the climate, they'll say 'reduce emissions, improve energy efficiency'. But implement anything that causes inconveniences, or requires a change in behaviour ("perhaps stop driving an SUV around the local area, flying abroad for your holidays and cut out meat, for example)... Well we've seen what happens - "Put it all back how it was"! I have been left feeling it's totally pointless. Perhaps our only way out is to invest more research into geoengineering and technological solutions.

It does feel like we're almost inviting new variants. I am worried we're going to end up in a very bad situation. But you're right, it's the messaging above everything that gets me.

How are people feeling about the ?Freedom Day? (as the government seem to be calling it)? Watched this video today which worried me somewhat:

?although do we know if they?ll come to the south of the Borough? Southwark tend to leave us out of these kind of schemes.

They?re being used anyway, so makes sense to regulate them. If we could have a cycle Lane down EDG, linking to the Railton Road LTN, then they would provide a good way to get to Brixton and the tube.

I fear we?re pretty screwed when it comes to climate change and improving the environment. I walked passed a house with a sports car, a huge 4x4 SUV and a vintage car in their drive yesterday. They had a ?Clean Air for All? and a ?say no to road closures? sign displayed unironically.

I really hope they make the pavement widening permanent. That stretch is always busy with shoppers at weekends. No reason the bus stop couldn?t be reopened and the Eder pavement are permanent

@Firstmate. Are you saying that these statement (direct quotes) are true? "No .... she [Professor Rachel Aldred] does not have 25 ?peer reviewed? papers... Also I have never been paid or employed by the organisation paying for the research, unlike Rachel."

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > first mate Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I also do not agree with rah's take on what > > Heartblock has said and > > > doubt very many others will either. > > > > I simply corrected two demonstrably false > > statements. Professor Aldred does have over 25 > > peer reviewed articles and she isn?t ?employed > by > > or paid by people paying for her research?. > > > > I have absolutely no problem with challenging > the > > data, or the conclusions of a particular piece > of > > research, but that is not what those statement > > do. > > > > What are the matters of fact you disagree with > > exactly? > > > So Rahx3 - do you at least acknowledge that > working for a cycle lobby group, and heading their > policy unit, whilst doing paid research (much of > which is funded by the organisation the lobby > group is lobbying) that is designed to prove the > effectiveness of the measures said lobby group is > pushing is a conflict of interest? Honestly, I don?t think there?s much point in having this conversation. I?ve corrected two demonstrably false statements. It?s no good saying someone hasn?t published something they have. It?s no good saying someone is paid by an organisation they are not. If we can?t even accept matters of fact, then there is little point trying to have a sensible conversation about more nuanced issues of interpretation or judgment.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also do not agree with rah's take on what Heartblock has said and > doubt very many others will either. I simply corrected two demonstrably false statements. Professor Aldred does have over 25 peer reviewed articles and she isn?t ?employed by or paid by people paying for her research?. I have absolutely no problem with challenging the data, or the conclusions of a particular piece of research, but that is not what those statement do. What are the matters of fact you disagree with exactly?

I don?t hold anything as ?gospel?. But I do think she?s a serious researcher and I don?t think it?s reasonable to make false statements questioning someone?s output and professionalism and then fail to correct the record when challenged.