exdulwicher

This is one of the dangers of consultations done before any interventions. I know that one of the major complaints is that the LTNs and a few other measures have been put in without consultation (this is a complaint repeated nationally, not unique to Dulwich in any way) although the point of the Experimental Traffic Order is that you run the intervention and the consultation simultaneously. You actually get much more valid data and responses because it's based on what is happening, not what the council have painted on a pretty website and told you they'd like to happen. Which brings me to Rockets (very valid) point. You can consult on something, take it away and tweak it a bit, re-consult, obtain your 50+% rating... and then install something slightly different / what you originally wanted to install anyway. It can easily be hidden behind "costs" or "other factors not available at the time the consultation was done", it could just be incompetence or sometimes it's just that the benefits of the proposed scheme have been overstated or the disbenefits understated - it's why I'm far more in favour of Experimental Traffic Orders and trying things out real world, getting proper data and feedback live and then adjusting as necessary because it removes the option for the council to say "it'll all be wonderful, back us to get it done". The major problem here is that people have lost all trust in the council to run consultations so it's reached the point that no matter what the answer is, there'll always be a subset of people who believe it was rigged. And when interventions are being adjusted based on proper data and monitoring, it does allow the negative comments of "they haven't got a clue what they're doing, they're just messing around" etc which you sometimes hear. It does need good engagement to work properly.

So... they work then? Therefore, by that logic, councils should start introducing traffic reduction systems EVERYWHERE? Perhaps by taking one lane away and replacing it with a secure cycle lane, perhaps by putting in a bus lane or implementing a Park & Ride or a toll road or a residents access only road...? What is essentially being said is that LTNs have pushed pollution elsewhere and from comments on here, there appears to be two (rather binary) choices: spread the pollution around a bit or look at the positive outcomes and use them elsewhere to reduce pollution there too. I mean, if there was a ton of rubbish flytipped on EDG, would you argue that it should be split into multiple lots of 50kg and spread around the area a bit or would you argue that we needed better rubbish prevention methods?

You can probably argue it several ways. In some respects it's "multi-modal transport" - car part way, cycle/walk the rest. It might not be the original idea of the LTN, perhaps a sort of unintended consequence but it's still better than driving ALL the way. It's not really any different to driving to North Dulwich, parking on Half Moon Lane and getting the train to London Bridge rather then driving all the way into town. Without seeing where they're coming from, where they're going afterwards (is it simply a "drive child to school, drive home again" or is the parent going on somewhere else - to another school, to a workplace and if so, how? Cycling the remainder of the way, cycling back to their parked vehicle and driving...?) and how widespread a practice it is, it's difficult to come to a definitive conclusion - so far we've got a couple of anecdotes It could be argued that a parent who previously parked in (say) Calton Avenue to drop their child at JAGS or Alleyn's is now parking in (say) Court Lane and cycling through the closed DV junction and up Calton which has pushed the parking problem onto Court Lane rather than Calton / Townley / EDG. If you were especially pro-LTN, you could probably phrase it as a drive through all the dangerous bits until you've got somewhere nice and safe to cycle therefore you need to make the dangerous bits safer - perhaps by extending the LTN. ;-) If you were anti-LTN, you could probably phrase it as a rather disingenuous use of stats showing increases in active travel by virtue of the fact that there is still vehicle usage. Your choice. *edited for spelling

Some of the bigger ones require some training to use them, it's not a piece of kit you can just jump on, chuck a wardrobe in the front and pedal off. It takes a certain amount of experience to know how to load them as well. Currently, if you want something moving by cargo bike and don't have one yourself, you need to contact PedalMe (they do run training sessions as well). Most retailers of cargo bikes run basic courses too - they don't just sell you a bike and chuck you out onto the street with it!

A recent FOI to Lambeth Council revealed that their waiting list for bike storage is 11,500 people! I can only assume that other councils must be similar, especially councils with high % of people in flats. Part of the problem is the endless rounds of consultation, the fact that installing a cycle hanger often takes away one car parking space which causes no end of anguish. I (and others on here) have mentioned it previously though, LTNs are PART OF the solution, not the sole solution. To work, you need to be facilitating the modal shift and part of that is secure cycle storage and, outside LTNs, proper cycle lanes. The cycle storage options need to be urgently progressed - that goes for both home storage and options for locking bikes up at shops, workplaces, schools and so on. I used to keep two bikes in my study/bedroom in halls of residence. One year, I was on the third floor - no lifts. Appreciate obviously that it would be unworkable for someone of limited mobility or for a heavy e-bike or cargo bike but there are usually SOME options. That Tern that Karim has (nice pics by the way!) has a vertical storage option built into it, you just tip it onto its rear wheel and it sort of self-stands. It also has a built in lockable kickstand for security when parked. Can see it on their website: https://www.ternbicycles.com/uk/bikes/472/gsd

Well the LTN's are a central Government idea - they proposed and funded it all. The problem is that they haven't really followed it up with much. Vague stuff about "getting the economy going again" but otherwise they've left the councils to largely carry the can for it. Not much (yet) about getting people back to rail and bus, nothing further on avoiding a car-led recovery as people steer clear of crowded public transport for a while, no standardised guidance on how to progress the schemes... They slipped out a quiet press release about Walking to School: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/multimillion-pound-investment-to-inspire-children-to-walk-to-school Again, that has to be a national policy, it's not something that Southwark can do on their own. Plus it does nothing to promote active travel, it's simply a way of getting people to swap their petrol/diesel SUV for a hybrid SUV. Doesn't address parking or congestion, doesn't help those who don't have a car, doesn't help those who can't afford / don't want a new car. EV use is already being incentivised anyway - the widening of the ULEZ zone will help with that, car manufacturers have stepped up with lots of new models and the sale of ICE* cars will be phased out by 2030 as well but that still leaves plenty of ICE cars on the roads for the next 15 years or so. You have to do something to reduce traffic otherwise it'll simply be a slow drift from an ICE traffic jam to a mix of ICE/EV and then to full EV. But it'll still be a traffic jam. *Internal Combustion Engine

Options include: emergency services haven't asked for it / recommended it to date insufficient funding for the ANPR equipment and installation at the moment there's some kind of review / consultation that needs to present its findings before they commit to anything it's on the to-do list but not yet got a work date they have more permanent plans for "The Square" which means that ANPR installation now would be a waste of time You can probably find out from the council or from LAS / LFB if emergency services have provided any feedback, recommendations, advice etc on that particular location.

Schools are obliged to produce travel plans although what is on the public facing part of their website is never the full thing - eg Alleyns: https://www.alleyns.org.uk/senior-school/aboutalleyns/find-us There's some nice words in there about public & active transport although how much of that translates to real word action, I'm not sure. Schools need to urgently add in secure cycle storage options and open up their sports centres for changing/showering if required. Other incentives like a free breakfast if you cycle in can also be considered - several employers do this now as well or options like an extra day's holiday on completion of a certain number of cycle commutes.

ULEZ makes it more expensive to drive thus disincentivising it (and/or it incentivises use of EV which, while they don't solve congestion or parking, they are at least less polluting). 20mph limits smooth traffic flow, makes it easier to turn into main roads from side roads and so on. That is of course assuming that its adhered to which we know it isn't! Adding cycle lanes doesn't reduce capacity. If you're talking about moving PEOPLE rather than cars, a single cycle lane can shift 5x the number of people in the same amount of time compared to a neighbouring traffic lane. When Kensington & Chelsea put in their pop-up lane, journey times by car actually decreased due to smoother flow (and cycle traffic increased dramatically). Then they ripped it out again following a few high-profile complaints and journey times got worse again and cycle traffic all but disappeared. Besides, having made it more difficult / expensive to drive, you have to incentivise the modal shift and cycle lanes (and bus lanes) are part of that. Most people aren't going to ride a bike when they have to mix it with traffic (in the same way that you wouldn't walk if there wasn't a pavement). Put in a safe space, help the shift. The Telegraph report that got quoted on here stated 159 times where paramedics had reported delay due to LTNs over the 8 months since they first started going in. London Ambulance Service gets about 6000 calls a day so over 8 months that's about 1.44 million calls. 159 occasions is about 0.01% of calls. London Fire Brigade keep comprehensive records on their response times: https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/london-fire-brigade-mobilisation-records In 2017 (pre pandemic, pre LTNs), they recorded 148043 responses of which: 2561 delayed due to wrong / incomplete address (1.7%) 8841 delayed due to traffic / roadworks (6%) 2182 delayed due to traffic calming measures (1.5%) Various other delays (like engine breakdowns etc) and obviously a large number that weren't held up and got there within the target response time. In 2020, they recorded 150378 responses of which: 2003 delayed due to wrong / incomplete address (1.3%) 5452 delayed due to traffic (obviously far less traffic around during the lockdowns) (3.6%) 2145 delayed due to traffic calming measures. (1.4%) So basically no change at all due to LTNs (since "traffic calming" can also include things like speed humps, width restrictions and so on). LAS and LFB have both stated on the record that they generally have no problems with LTNs and they're consulted as part of the process anyway. Occasionally, changes such as ANPR gates or lockable bollards (instead of planters) are installed on their recommendation. But it always gets a response to post a random out-of-context picture of an ambulance or fire engine next to a planter and claim that LIVES WERE IN DANGER!!! Rather ignoring the LIVES IN DANGER due to congestion, hoax calls, wrong address and so on.

Well the article is written by Peter Walker because he's the journo for The Guardian that deals with issues like that. However it is reported on lots of sites: https://cyclingindustry.news/bikeisbest-research-found-at-least-25000-modal-filters/ There was, a while ago now, a Twitter feed of historic LTNs (like the ones in the picture used in the report I've just linked to). Some you'd barely notice as they now have mature trees there indicating how long they've been in place. Others are more basic - perhaps a bollard or a built-out kerb allowing egress but preventing ingress to anything except bikes. Overhill Road junction with LL is basically a modal filter as is the next one along, Melford Road although that uses solely signage without bollards. Milo Road (between Beauval Road and Lordship Lane) is another local example, again that has been in place for decades.

Because it works well. That junction, especially around the block that used to be the petrol station, was always solid with traffic and, because the junction is so close to the Carlton / Court Lane / DV junction, it exacerbated the problem. One queue of cars trying to turn in/out of GC with other queuing traffic at DV. Add in parked cars and a school bus trying to get through, it was routinely absolutely jammed around there. It was put in sometime in the late 80's, maybe early 90's I think. The speed humps in Court Lane went in at roughly the same time. However I was just a kid at the time so I can't remember an exact date. Council archives might have it somewhere I suppose. As to "how did it stay", that's the whole point of Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders. Try it out, adjust if required and if it has the desired effect (or to put it in traffic terms, if the benefits outweigh the disbenefits*), put a permanent TRO in on the amendments. *Yes, disbenefits is a word. The Guardian did an article about historic LTNs the other day, there are thousands that were either retro-fitted (like Gilkes) decades ago or that were designed in more or less from the start (like housing estates) - the idea is nothing new. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/16/critics-of-uk-low-traffic-schemes-told-that-25000-filters-already-existed

It's a reasonably commonly discussed topic on here, there's another thread here which has some useful links in it (as well as links to older threads): /forum/read.php?5,2130678,2130695#msg-2130695 Note that Asgard at the moment have about a 3-4 month wait on delivery of many their products. The problem with security is that you reach a point where you spend so long locking and unlocking the bike that it becomes a total pain! There are plenty of decent indoor storage options that'll keep the bike at least mostly out of the way: https://www.cyclist.co.uk/buying-guides/4550/best-bicycle-storage-smart-solutions-for-your-bike There are other options for making a bike considerably less attractive to thieves like painting it with Hammerite or otherwise making it look very undesirable but you have to accept that you've wiped out 95% of the resale value in one fell swoop doing that!

Yes if you're an inconsiderate owner. Probably one of the same owners who hangs their poo bags from a tree, dismisses the behaviour as the dog jumps all over someone as "oh he's just being friendly" and who's idea of "taking the dog out" is to kick it out the back door for 10 minutes. No if you have a modicum of common sense, consideration for others and a desire to train and bond with the dog. Sadly, I don't think you buying an anti-barking thing will do much, it's really something that the owners have to address. If they're not willing to do so, worth talking to other neighbours to see if they're as badly affected, keeping a log of the dates/times/frequency of barking and complaining to the council. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/noise-and-antisocial-behaviour/how-to-report-a-noise-problem

Did you see this story from Leicester? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-57077470 Apparently, an eco wooden shed with a living roof in a front garden is not part of the Victorian heritage. Which prompted a lot of comments about the satellite dishes and parked cars everywhere... Link here about asking for Cycle Hangers / Storage from Southwark: https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/cycle-parking-guide/

It's not (entirely) up to the council - there's a bit of a mess at the moment of types of charger, the companies that supply the electricity to them, the companies that make, install and maintain them and the expected usage (I admit the latter one is a catch-22 because usage is only going to happen if there is a charger there to use and also demand is only ever going to go up!). Also issues around if it's intended to be domestic (ie for a few households to use between them), some sort of random on-street thing (so driving to the shops etc) hope to find an available charger when you get there or something on the major road network (motorway service stations). The first can be an overnight trickle charge thing, the latter two usually need to be fast chargers. Unfortunately it's a messy picture at the moment, there's no clear national strategy. And local authorities are the ones left looking like idiots if they order 20 Type X chargers in Location Y and they get no use because they're the wrong type in the wrong locations.

Come on, NHS plus IT?! Ambulance satnavs are inbuilt and generally get updated once per year when the ambulance has it's full service. They can't download stuff online / via 4G. Quite a few paramedics use their own phones as a backup. The thing with LAS is that they're routinely operating "out of area", a crew may go from (say) Kings College Hospital to an incident reasonably locally but then the casualty needs to go to a specialist centre elsewhere. Or they might be en route back from a call and get retasked so they're not going from a fixed point to a local incident. LFB is the opposite, they go from a fixed point to an incident (usually local unless it's major and requires engines from all over) and then they return to "their" base for restocking the engine. Waze and Google also have community feedback options, you can click on a map and tell them that the road is closed, there's been an accident or whatever. One of the removed LTNs in Wandsworth, the residents simply kept reporting incidents/road closure on Waze! , unlike LFB who get called out from a fixed station to an incident (generally locally unless it's major and needs engines from all over)

Whereabouts are you? Try zap-map.com, it's a nationwide site of EV charging points and it's got a community aspect to it so people can report broken chargers. Or if you post up your rough location, maybe people on here can tell you about ones locally.

To flip that around, what are the options? From reading this, it seems to be a very binary picture - "In my opinion, LTNs aren't working, therefore rip them all out". It's an either / or. There's been no specific options given (other than vague "holistic solutions that benefit everyone" phrases) to address it. How do you fix the existing problem that there is too much traffic, especially too many short journeys? Waiting 25 years until the queue of traffic is electric vehicles is also not an option by the way. And in case anyone has missed it in previous posts, I'll state it again: LTNs are not perfect. BUT - they are a key tool in the armoury of traffic reduction measures when used properly. That means with proper monitoring, consultation, adjustment and a certain amount of community buy-in, tied in with complementary measures such as increased/better cycle storage facilities, bus lanes that are properly managed with timed restrictions, work done with schools to encourage and enable safe walking and cycling (that can also include things like specific drop-off zones). Ripping them out is just going to return the streets to the gridlock that was seen previously. It'll remove at a stroke all the safe® cycling / walking options that have been created forcing people back into cars, it'll increase overall pollution and it'll go directly back to the "I'll just jump in the car" mentality that has become the default over the last 30 years or so of transport policy / government planning. Surely the correct campaign here is "this part of this particular LTN is not working as advertised, let's look to address it on a road-by-road level" ?? Bits of it won't be perfect first time out but you can't judge that in the space of a few months, especially a few months where we've had lockdowns, complete changes in working patterns, massively altered traffic patterns and so on. I'm not suggesting there's going to be one answer that will magically fix everything but I can categorically state that one answer that will NOT fix anything is "rip them all out". Some of what is being proposed by various posters on here about road charging, higher fuel tax, trams etc is Government policy and completely out of the control of local councillors. Some of it however (parking restrictions, alterations to LTNs, cycle lanes) IS within their control and should be used alongside LTNs as part of the solution. One of my greatest fears when driving is actually other drivists. I've had way more near misses with drivists than cyclists. How would you address that? In terms of car lanes, slower drivists can frustrate those on a speed mission. Fixed that for you. ;-)

1) PTAL is not wholly relevant in Dulwich because there simply aren't the E-W links you so desperately want. PTAL is low because the area has vast expanses of green space which block direct E-W access and - because PTAL is based on 100m grid squares which I covered a few pages back - you end up with loads of grid squares in the middle of places like Dulwich, Brockwell & Belair Parks, Alleyn's / JAGS / DC playing fields etc where fairly obviously, you're never going to be near a bus or train. Your E-W links are the South Circular, the DV junction/Turney Road which you can't get a bus down anyway and EDG/Half Moon Lane. Honourable mentions to Herne Hill / Denmark Hill which is NE/SW. You could put as many buses in as you want but they can still only go along S.Circ and EDG/Half Moon Lane. 2) and 3) - absolutely agree - in many cases the only way to get people cycling is to have proper safe segregated cycling infrastructure (not a painted lane down half a pavement) and proper secure bike storage/lock ups accessible at both home and destination (whether that be work or shops or school or whatever). Disagree about bikes and cars having to coexist though. That's been the main stumbling block in cycling advocacy for decades and the reason cycling has stubbornly stuck at 1% or so of modal share. Most people are not going to cycle if there are buses and cars thundering past them or they're having to negotiate major junctions. But if you put a safe segregated lane in, modal share jumps. That's been seen worldwide. Take the lane out (like Kensington & Chelsea did with their "flagship" pop-=up lane) and modal share crashes back through the floor. 4) is also vital but to be honest that's slightly less to do with councils. There's a bit of a battle going on with EV charging at the moment as car manufacturers, electricity suppliers, changepoint manufacturers etc are all fighting for a piece of the pie, trying to implement their own solutions and it risks becoming a very messy picture. It really needs a national policy, not individual councils agreeing to put in 5 of these chargers here and a supermarket agreeing to have 2 of those chargers there. Piecemeal EV charging will be like piecemeal cycle lanes. 5) Agree - so do many experts, there was a good piece in Transport Times on the subject the other week but that needs to be a national policy too. 6) That's sort of where lots of LTNs come in to be honest - as was the case with the standalone Loughborough Junction, that solved nothing but if you have a reasonable network of LTNs complementing each other then that's part of the area-wide solution. And "giving equal weighting to all road users" - no. We're in this situation because the only mode of transport catered for in the last 20 years has been cars. You want to balance it out, you need to drop the "consideration for all users" and concentrate on EQUITY which is absolutely not the same as equality. 7) Yes but as I mentioned back on page 151, that's the point of the LTN and the Experimental Traffic Order. Experiment, monitor, modify, resolve. LTNs are easier and cheaper than doing a massive road rebuild, can be "undone" or modified quickly and easily and pretty much anything you do is going to cause division somewhere - in some respects that actually means it's working well if car drivers are complaining it's more difficult to drive, that's part of the point! 8) Oh God, very much this - as I mentioned a page ago, I think that's where the council have fallen down more than the actual schemes themselves. Although, that said, there's no need for them to be telling residents data on every single car or traffic jam or breaking down pollution by individual postcode because it just doesn't work like that. It also takes a while to collate the data so sometimes "silence" while info is gathered and written up is mistaken for inaction. Again, that's down to communication though.

Yes and no. Most housing developments in the last 30 years or so have been on the basic principles of LTNs: things like cul-de-sacs with half a dozen houses down each one, one way in and out via a central roundabout or similar. You can see it on any A-Z or city map, there'll be loads of examples to varying degrees. It works there because it's designed in from the start. To "undesign" a street that people have been used to driving down for years takes a bit more doing but LTNs are a simple, cheap and easy way of testing things out. Put them in using an Experimental Traffic Order, monitor, modify, resolve. That process takes a few months and it needs quality engagement (which is primarily where the trust has broken down here, it's been far better done elsewhere). I don't think anyone has ever said that they're perfect. Most aren't (at least not at first), they take time to bed in, they take time for the major issues to show up in a consistent manner (far too many people are very quick to blame any traffic jam on a nearby LTN rather than actually examining the causes and any "hidden" issues like a broken down bus blocking a road a mile away for example). Most people will accept that they will need some alterations - that might be filtering an additional street, it might be replacing a planter with an ANPR gate, it might be moving a planter from X to Y or it might be removing it altogether. The point is, it's on an Experimental Order so lets experiment! It's far quicker and cheaper than digging up a junction, remodelling the entire thing and only then realising that it's caused an issue over there. It's easier to drive change, engage with people, gather the data etc while it's in place than it is to consult, modify, consult etc then do a big expensive permanent change. Ultimately, the ONLY solution that benefits everyone is driving less. How you get people to drive less is a combination of making it more expensive (not very equal), making it more difficult (affects everyone to some degree) and/or making the alternatives more attractive (benefits everyone, even those who still need to drive). The 2nd and 3rd go hand in hand because as mentioned above, if you make it more difficult to drive you automatically create better conditions for other options like walking and cycling. Sadly @Rockets, the "making it more difficult to drive" IS the halfway house that you're after...

It's not being charged more - or at least if it's done right it's not. The report is talking about replacing one source of tax revenue (VED and fuel duty) with another source (road user charging). At some point it'll have to happen with the shift to EV - they already pay ?0 VED and they obviously use no fuel so it's a massive black hole in finances. It won't happen overnight but it'll be a gradual decline in tax revenue over the next 20 years as petrol and diesel is phased out. It's not necessarily about "driving" or "use of the roads", more just a general taxation issue. Currently, roads are paid for out of general taxes; there's no ring-fencing of VED or fuel duty to be specifically spent on the roads. All taxes just go into the central pot for Boris to redecorate his flat and distribute to all his mates. But if you're going to lose ?30bn of annual revenue, you need to find another source for it.

OP: have a look at this thread which specifically mentions that road along with a description of the suspect: /forum/read.php?5,2200997 Worth seeing if Oddbox will do specified delivery times and ensuring they always deliver to a person rather than just leaving them outside.

They should be for ALL cyclists. Chris Boardman had a good quote about the desired standard: https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/campaigning/article/20180123-campaigning-news-Made-to-move--Chris-Boardman-presents-walking-and-cycling-report-to-MPs-0 And yes, I'd be absolutely happy for mobility scooters to use them too - which goes back to the standards thing of ensuring they're fit for purpose. I'd be fine with e-scooters too but I know that'll probably be less well received! More info about the Swytch thing that @snowy mentioned here: https://www.swytchbike.com/p/universal-ebike-conversion-kit/ There's a review of it here with some pictures and video: https://www.cyclist.co.uk/reviews/6026/swytch-universal-ebike-conversion-kit-review

No, where did I suggest that this was specific to Dulwich? If you define "disability" as "Blue Badge Holder" then you're missing out on a LOT of people who have disabilities in one form or another (visible or not) who do not meet the criteria which I linked to above for getting a BB. And to turn the argument the other way around, simply looking at an area and saying "there are x Blue Badge holders, that is the number of disabled people who live in that area" is simplistic and wrong.

Depends on how you define disability. This has been mentioned before on here - it definitely cropped up in the thread on parking charges being introduced to Southwark Parks (inc. Dulwich Park) and there were examples on there of people saying they were disabled (or had a form of disability etc) yet not being eligible for a Blue Badge. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/blue-badge-can-i-get-one/can-i-get-a-blue-badge It's a big problem in defining travel as well because "disability" is usually used as politically-correct shorthand for "this person needs a wheelchair to get around" which is patently incorrect, can actually be quite offensive and doesn't begin to examine the wide range of social mobility problems that can occur. Transport For All published a report on it a couple of months back https://www.transportforall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Pave-The-Way-full-report.pdf Again, if you want transparency (and to be fair, they state this in the report), it's based on 84 participants although they do note some of the limitations (like not being able to visit community hubs etc due to lockdown) and acknowledge that anyone without access to the internet was de facto unable to participate in their research. They also mention (page 14) that it's very difficult to formally categorise "impairment" and they back it up with a graph showing that half the people who participated were not Blue Badge holders. It's an interesting read to fill some of the gaps around understanding of disability, especially in terms of everyday travel.