Earl Aelfheah

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.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe now the HTNs are a permanent feature, all > the closed roads should have no street parking > (with a few disabled parking places and some > customer parking spaces where there are > businesses) and have bike lockers installed, bike > lanes and widened pavements to accommodate the > enormous modal shift. > I am sure that all the pro-HTN people on here will > be happy for this to happen on Elsie, Derwent, > Melbourne, Gilkes, Calton and Court. Sounds wonderful.

I thought the lights were great, but unfortunately it?s too crowded. They?ve massively oversold tickets to the detriment of the experience. Silly queues - at least when we went.

jamesmcash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Data > I have to disagree that there is not a lot of data > published, or that it is just "headline > summaries". The link above (this one: > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryH > ome.aspx?IId=50027352&Opt=0) includes 22 > documents, most of which include lots of data. As > far as I can see, most of the forms of data > requested in the posts above are already > available. > > I'll draw out two examples. Appendix C3 has > traffic counts at 23 locations, broken down by > vehicle type and time of day, and at between 5 and > 8 points in time. Appendix C5 has average bus > times every week for over 2 years, in both > directions, on 8 roads. From this you can get a > very good idea for how traffic has changed in the > area in terms of both vehicle counts and > congestion (for which bus times is a good proxy). > > The vast majority of this is not adjusted > whatsoever - it clearly states the month where it > was collected so does not need to be adjusted to > take into consideration season factors. The > exception is the "baseline data" which for obvious > reasons could not be collected specifically for > this project. So instead the council had to use > data it already had, which were not all from the > same month. Hence the adjustments. > > This was all done by an independent analyst. > > None of this is to say that there aren't pieces of > information that some would like to have but which > are not available. But it is to put these requests > in the context of the large amount of information > that is already published. And providing this > information comes at some cost. When the council > publishes data it needs to go through rigorous > checks first. As mentioned above, sometimes these > do not catch errors but the more data there are > the more likely that these errors will come > through. So requesting more data means more time > spent on it by council officers and external > parties. > > Best wishes, > James It?s no good sharing data in how effective LTNs have been. How does that bolster my objection at being mildly inconvenienced. Can?t the council create some new ?evidence? that show how shaving a minute or two off a short drive somehow aligns with the interests of a marginalised group, or a concern for the environment? It would make it a lot easier to justify my taking the Range Rover to pick up a flat white. I don?t understand why the council won?t put my feelings on this first?

Are the anti LTN folks, now moaning about bike lanes too? It's weird how they deeply 'support active travel', but oppose any measures that increase active travel isn't it?

yep, they're speed limiting electric scooters to 10 mph. Not limiting SUVs though - as they like as they pose far less danger to others.

One of it's biggest selling points was the pool table, but they seemed to get rid, perhaps because of COVID? Does anyone know if it's coming back at some point?

Really sorry to hear about this incident. I hope you make a speedy recovery.