heartblock

Nope never said that...said I have no problem banning cars - never said in which context. Peer reviewed mmmhhh what national or international peer reviewed publication have they appeared in? Anyway - car ownership does not equal levels of traffic in an area. So why the research uses this as proof that the traffic is reduced one can only guess. So LTNs don't work - they do not tackle 'casual car use' (what is that anyway?) there is no evidence they do. Car ownership is not a measure of traffic levels.

What is consistently ignored in quoting the Southwark Council report, is the bias in questions so that nobody could choose that they wanted less traffic but over the consultation period were exposed to more traffic and more pollution so wanted LTNs removed. What is consistently ignored is Labour Councillors encouraging non-Southwark residents and cycling lobby groups to respond to the consultation. What is consistently ignored is that despite a very poorly worded consultation, incorrectly calculated published data, biased leaflets with incorrect information that LTNs have been proven to reduce traffic, over 4000 people responded to the consultation for LTNs negatively compared to only 800 positives.

Why have LTNs if there is no evidence that they reduce traffic, pollution and increase active travel. Is it just doing stuff because we believe it? How quaint.

Well I believe in evidence based medicine, so if I apply the same rigour to unicorns 🦄 or proof that LTNs reduce traffic and pollution/increase active travel and do not negatively impact people with reduced mobility - I cannot believe in either premise.

Why indeed....something we often discuss in medical ethics.

If you have poor mobility and live in Southwark and depend on buses and other PT it appears that you are not that important to this Council. Cyclists though..Yea!

Not content with the Council keeping LTNs, that increase traffic and pollution on residential roads, with no evidence of any significant longterm rise in active travel or reduction in traffic overall due to these LTNs - the advocates for the minority of 800 responders also want the advocates of the 4000+ who want them to be removed to agree that LTNs are 'great' and reduce traffic and pollution, so much so that there is dubious information about PTAL being high for Dulwich and research that proves traffic reduction flung around, when PTAL is poor and no such evidence exists. I don't get it? You still have your beloved closed roads, so no need to try and prove that they 'work', when they don't. We know it...you know it.

There is no evidence that LTNs reduce car use (traffic on the road) and pollution There is a difference between how much traffic goes down a road i.e. - an increase in traffic on East Dulwich Grove of at least 36% and on the junction 200% after an LTN and car ownership of local residents - which is not the same thing...at all. For example - if a study 'finds' that less people who live on ED Grove now have a car - so ownership has gone down- it doesn't mean that traffic on the road has decreased (Southwark's measurement shows it increased). The studies certain individuals cling to are based on active travel increases (cycling has now gone back down across the country to pre-emergency temporary road closures) and car ownership - no study shows a drop in traffic across an area and a drop in pollution...none.

No evidence whatsoever that LTNs reduce car use...none. PTAL for DV and ED one of the worse in London. Next?

Central Oxford put a public transport network in and cars were not 'banned' per se. Rye Lane closure just diverts traffic to another part of Southwark.

Southeastern is a good fit to expand TFL - so would be great!

So much better and some good design features.

I don't have any issue with banning cars - if there is a decent public service and no closed roads - the problem is that LTNs DO NOT reduce car use...or pollution..Jeez...stop spinning this unicorn defence of LTNs!

Well I'm a socialist and I think LTNs are a disaster for Dulwich and ED. I think that the Labour Party have ignored the 'serfs' like me and continue to do so unfortunately, but that is a Lounge thread, that I'm happy to indulge in! But back to LTNs and local democracy. I imagine that many in roads impacted negatively by the LTNs - whether due to ability to travel due to mobility, the slowness of buses or pollution increases, will find it very hard to put a cross against Labour. Road pricing is interesting - I think the petrol issue highlights that many people are vital workers, it was interesting on R4 that the last petrol crisis - even though NHS staff were allowed to get petrol to get to work, many had to stay at home to look after children as classes closed, because teachers (who were not considered vital workers), couldn't get to work. So with road pricing, do we allow certain vital professions a free pass and who is vital. When I was on call 24hr shift for an emergency team, I used to ride a motorbike or drive in - nice and quick at 3:00am in the morning and very little traffic, but if called in on a Saturday afternoon...I was grateful that I was on a motorbike rather than the car (well the patient was probably even more gateful). So that is a clear-cut example ... and now thinking about HGV drivers..taechers...hospital cleaners.. Excellent and 24hr public transport would be the alternative for most people who are not on an urgent call or transporting heavy goods.

Pug wash, this is the important point. Encouraging cycling and walking is always a good idea, but not at the detriment of efficient public transport, which is where the street changes have got it so wrong. The whole scheme is very ableist and impacts those with poor or less mobility. I also know of three NHS workers who depend on the bus route to make their train connections and the closure combined with the lack of a bus has impacted their journey as essential workers.

Oh I love aircon...it?s a guilty pleasure, but yes..better than 30 cars with only one passenger.

Excellent, yes ... some of the newer red buses are great, reminiscent of the buses I remember as a child. Air con is not very ?green? but maybe on an electric bus is ok? Good ventilation is vital though. I really like a split wide pavement, half for cycling and half for walking, much safer for cyclists to be off the road. The Calton, Court, Townley junction could be designed so a wider pavement is shared and a small local bus route links ED and Village, with maybe a one-way car route for Townley and Court? A side note on junctions and related to LTNs The ED Grove-Townley junction is the worst junction...redesigned badly by a former planner of the Council, it caused an uplift in traffic on ED Grove when implemented and then exacerbated by LTNs...supported by the very same designer of that terrible junction

MCMC - post of the day! Although tabards funnier than vests. Thankfully I rarely drive, but I walk past these signs and even at my slow speed I'm on top of them before I understand the 'rules'

So - in a way, I think the LTNs don't work argument is pretty much won in terms of 1. They do not reduce car use 2. They do not reduce pollution 3. They do not increase cycling 4. They increase traffic and pollution on so called 'boundary' roads which are in fact highly populated residential roads 5. They only have the support of 800 responders and over 4000 responders want then moved or changed. What is clear is the majority of responders do agree that something should be done to reduce private car dependence, traffic in general and help people make healthy active travel choices. So to turn this long thread into something positive - if the LTNs were removed (hooray!) what ideas do people have to try to achieve a cleaner and greener ED and Dulwich? Can I start with 1. Council and community funded local public transport buses - like the big yellow bus in Brighton. Next....

Mounting a pavement is not a 'good temporary' solution...honestly, no idea. I can hear my paramedic students laughing right now...partly in horror and partly in disbelief. I really hope this is not a comment from a Councillor or a Council Official.

I believe their are some e-mails with LAS asking Southwark why the meetings were not happening and why the changes have not been made...FOI requests?

Even LTN cycling poster boy for Southwark - Guardian's Peter Walker admits that "Motor traffic on the roads in many places has returned to pre-pandemic levels, and there are concerns that in some areas it could rise further as people shun public transport because of concerns about coronavirus" Which means traffic fell due to the pandemic -lock down and NOT LTNs and "This is seen as particularly an issue for cycling: the number of bike trips rose notably during lockdown, but there is concern that many new or returning cyclists could stop now" Which means cycling increased when people were off school and working from home during the lockdown - NOT due to LTNs.

It's not 'true' that LTNs reduce pollution, reduce traffic or increase cycling, but people keep posting this stuff on this thread.

Wow - only 800 people wanted to keep them...it's not a vote of confidence is it!

I do find it strange that Socialists support LTNs that benefit the wealthy and negatively impact poorer communities and support building on green spaces in the poorer estates. That does baffle me. Not sure I would go for hypocritical (although looking at the majority that want LTNs removed in the consultation, I can see why you could get to that conclusion) - I think more deluded in following what was a Tory policy - probably implemented so that real changes that actually reduce pollution could be ignored and dismissed because 'yea!' we have LTNs instead.