DulwichCentral

When it comes to 'rigging' personally I would have more faith in Southwark Council (even though not perfect) than One Dulwich / Dulwich Alliance who claim business is down by 75% *due to road closures* - and **ZERO** mention of Covid! Thats just plain ridiculous - especially from a group who are consistently demanding data. Where is their data to back that claim?

@Slartib wrote: ------------------------------------ > The EV sector is expanding rapidly as a result of technological, infrastructure and commercial improvements and the proportion of new car sales is increasing rapidly. In 2020, approx 11% of new car sales were electric vehicles (EVs) and for Apr 2021 ytd sales of EVs are over 13% of new car sales ------------------------------------ Slarti - as a member of One Dulwich who claim to support active travel you may be interested in this article by Christian Brand, Associate Professor in Transport, Energy & Environment, Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford (see link to full article below). 'Globally, only one in 50 new cars were fully electric in 2020, and one in 14 in the UK. Sounds impressive, but even if all new cars were electric now, it would still take 15-20 years to replace the world?s fossil fuel car fleet.' 'The emission savings from replacing all those internal combustion engines with zero-carbon alternatives will not feed in fast enough to make the necessary difference in the time we can spare: the next five years. Tackling the climate and air pollution crises requires curbing all motorised transport, particularly private cars, as quickly as possible. **'Focusing solely on electric vehicles is slowing down the race to zero emissions'** 'One way to reduce transport emissions relatively quickly, and potentially globally, is to swap cars for cycling, e-biking and walking ? active travel, as it?s called? Strikingly, people who cycled on a daily basis had 84% lower carbon emissions from all their daily travel than those who didn?t.' 'the average person who shifted from car to bike for just one day a week cut their carbon footprint by 3.2kg of CO2 ? equivalent to the emissions from driving a car for 10km' 'When we compared the life cycle of each travel mode, taking into account the carbon generated by making the vehicle, fuelling it and disposing of it, we found that emissions from cycling can be more than 30 times lower for each trip than driving a fossil fuel car, and about ten times lower than driving an electric one.' 'So the race is on. Active travel can contribute to tackling the climate emergency earlier than electric vehicles while also providing affordable, reliable, clean, healthy and congestion-busting transportation.' https://theconversation.com/cycling-is-ten-times-more-important-than-electric-cars-for-reaching-net-zero-cities-157163 As to my other points @ExDulwicher has nicely expanded on those - see above.

Hi @PollyGlot Unfortunately sales of new SUVs now outnumber electric vehicle sales at a rate of 37 to 1. See link to article "the trend towards purchasing bigger cars is threatening the UK?s attempts to reduce emissions from the transport sector" https://ukerc.ac.uk/news/suvs-sabotage-green-revolution/ (also reported in The Guardian) I don't expect to change your mind as we all seem to be fairly decided either one way or the other on here, but here's some alternate views on the points you made: > 1. Traffic displacement rather than reduction. The idea behind the measures is that people will opt for active travel if it's safe for them to do so. There's been a significant increase in school children cycling in the area. I see lots more families cycling on the school-run now and it would be a shame if they all went back to using cars - which would just clog up the streets again. > 2. Displaced traffic causing unacceptable increases in pollution. I would support any measures to improve congestion on main roads. Dedicated bus lanes, remove car parking blocking buses, 20 mph speed limits, ULEZ, road pricing, and more protected cycle ways to link up the safe routes. > 3. Impact on local businesses. It's impossible to tell what the impact on businesses has been until we are back to normal after the pandemic. Claims that traffic measures have impacted business more than Covid seems highly unlikely to me. People say businesses on Melbourne grove suffer because there are not enough cars, and those on Lordship lane suffer because there are too many cars. How can both be true? There is plenty of evidence (TfL) to show that people spend more at pedestrianised shopping areas. > 4. Emergency vehicles are being delayed Just everyday regular traffic congestion held up emergency services **8,841** times in 2017 - EVs would cause the same congestion and delays. Permanent cycle lanes around London are wide enough for emergency vehicles. > 5. Increase in crime (as stated by Cressida Dick)because Police cannot gain access because of the barriers. See (4) and Cressida Dick stated that 'on occasion it's harder for our officers to get down streets' and that she was in conversation with TfL to address any difficulties. There are old existing 'LTNs' such as housing estates, cul-de-sacs and bollards to filter roads all over London and cities everywhere. New road layouts take time to adapt to (but less time than 10 years to phase out motor vehicles). You might be interested in this study on crime figures in a low traffic neighbourhood: 'Overall, the introduction of a low traffic neighbourhood was associated with a 10% decrease in total street crime ..and this effect increased with a longer duration since implementation (18% decrease after 3 years). An even larger reduction was observed for violence and sexual offences, the most serious subcategory of crime. The only subcategory of crime that increased significantly was bicycle theft.' https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/ftm8d/ > 6. Increased danger to pedestrians crossing the road. The danger to pedestrians is cars - petrol or EV. SatNavs have been re-routing cars down residential streets for around a decade. A mile driven on a minor road results in 17% more killed or seriously injured pedestrians than a mile driven on an ?A? road because minor roads tend not to have infrastructure like pedestrian crossings, zebra crossings and there are more parked cars so less clear visibility and safe places to cross. https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/opinion/2018/august/are-route-finding-apps-making-streets-more-dangerous/ In a previous post you mention that 'Southwark is clearly spending millions on a problem that receding fast'. Another ten years until petrol cars are phased out is not imho fast enough. Nor will EV's solve problems as outlined above. Southwark have declared a climate emergency and are elected on their policy to reduce motor traffic and increase active travel - same with Sadiq Kahn.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sometimes we want to dig down to details to prove > a fact. That?s fine but there are principles that > underpin decisions about action. > That the Dulwich LTNs benefit those already > wealthy at the expense of those less privileged is > undisputed. How does that fit with Southwark?s > Fairer Futures Initiative? (Ps it doesn?t) 'Principles that underpin decisions to act' Hopefully decisions are based on fact as well as principles? There are houses on EDG with the tone-deaf 'all streets matter' posters who have 3 or 4 cars in their driveway. One has a range rover, a sports car and two less flashy cars. Are these the less privileged you refer to? In fact all the houses I've seen posters in are expensive houses. Are you saying all these wealthy multiple car owners are acting purely on altruistic principles? If so I admire your faith in human nature ;) But anyway what about people who can't afford a car but get around by bike? Do they not count in the Fairer Futures Initiative?

Reduce on-street parking to remove pinch points / dedicated Bus lanes to prevent cars obstructing buses and cause delays. Protected cycle lanes (ie EDG) on main roads and more infrastructure to enable safe active travel (fear is one of the main reasons many people who could cycle don't). ULEZ. Road-pricing. Higher tax on SUVs. Increase fuel duty. Improve public transport where possible - which takes time and money. Do more not less.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And yet you are happy for others to suffer. This > overzealousness is scary. > > > > DulwichCentral Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ab29 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I don't own a car and have never done so. > Going > > > back to my question Dulwich Central - would > you > > > like the displacement traffic to sit in front > > of > > > your home all day long? It is a simple yes or > > no > > > question. > > > > No. Which is why I support LTNs and any > measures > > to reduce unnecessary car journeys. I am not happy for others to suffer. That is an assumption you have made to support an emotive and illogical argument. I want more measures to reduce car usage.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And, in the fairness of balance, some on here are > obsessed with LTNs being "the solution". > > On a other subject I am very heartened to see so > many of the End 24 hour closure posters going up > in windows throughout Dulwich Village. Maybe the > councillors will now start to understand the level > of opposition even amongst those households within > the area benefitting most from the LTNs. How much > longer can they pretend not to hear from their > constituents? Ah yes the posters up in houses with 3 cars? Yes roads closed to cars must be annoying when you've spent hundreds of thousands on cars.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't own a car and have never done so. Going > back to my question Dulwich Central - would you > like the displacement traffic to sit in front of > your home all day long? It is a simple yes or no > question. No. Which is why I support LTNs and any measures to reduce unnecessary car journeys.

SE22_2020er Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I really don?t like the personal nature that this > tread takes - Raebern is more than allowed to have > his/her views as are all of you, but everyone who > has written today, please re-read what you?ve > written and consider whether your posts are well > balanced and likely to result in a positive > discussion or whether you just want to live in > your own echo chamber. It?s absolutely fine for > other people to have different views than you. > > Personally, I think that rockets, heartblock et > al. are completely misguided and cannot see the > bigger picture - and I do wonder why you chaps > spend your time as keyboard warriors rather than > getting out there with signs to ask people to turn > off their engines whilst they queue along EDG. Oh > and my view is that the queues along EDG have not > changed over the last 5 years and this is coming > from someone who cycles along the road twice a > day. > > Why are you people not angry at the car drivers > making unnecessary car journeys and actually > producing the pollution rather than a labour > council trying finally to unwind the relentless > invasion of our communities by cars over the last > 30years. Thank the lord that we?ve got the ULEZ > and probably the congestion charge coming in > soon. > > I am very supportive of the LTNs and my perception > is seeing the significant switch to cycling that I > have seen. I am thrilled that I have sold my car > and made the commitment to either cycling, using a > car club or public transport when I need to > travel. This is because of the LTNs that I have > done this. > > Anyway, I?m going to leave you chaps to your echo > chamber so you can continue in the same vein > making the same point ad infinitum, only pausing > to shout down people with views that are different > to yours. But in the meantime, before I flounce > off - can I please ask you to write to your > councillors and MPs to ask them to support the > removal of the parking on EDG and replace it with > a segregated cycle lane (assuming you can find the > time between your endless posts!) Well said. Some here and on Twitter are obsessed with LTNs as 'The Enemy'. The Croxted group, the Grove reopen group, and of course One Dulwich incessantly attack LTNs with ZERO mention of unnecessary car journeys. No mention of queues of single occupancy cars. No mention of SUV sales cancelling out the benefit of EV sales. No mention of reduced capacity on public transport. No mention Covid damaging businesses. No mention that normalised traffic congestion held up London Fire Brigade 8,841 times in 2017. No mention that the Ambulance delays reported in the anti-LTN Telegraph represent 0.01% of calls. (LAS get 6,000 calls per day. Across 8 months that?s approximately 1,440,000 calls. 159 occasions represents 0.01% of calls) No mention of 'legacy LTNs', bollards, cul-de-sacs that have been in place for decades or new estates built as LTNs. And no mention of urgently reducing emissions or climate change. In their rhetoric congestion is all caused by LTNs. So it seems reasonable to suspect that in some cases it is those who are actually making the unnecessary car journeys who are anti LTN; precisely the people who are most resistant to behaviour change and feel entitled to drive wherever they want whenever they want, and their demonising Southwark Council is a distraction.

In my > view, you'd be a fool to completely trust > reporting from any media outlet. Which was kind of my point ;)

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting; although must admit I trust The > Guardian less after their biased and one sided > reporting on LTNs > No much better to trust The Telegraph, The Times and the Daily Mail and their biased and one-sided reporting on LTNs instead.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am more of a carrot than a stick person so I > would say make other modes of transport more > attractive and convenient in tandem with making > car journeys less convenient and you might be onto > something. What you describe here @rockets sounds remarkably like an LTN :) Like others have said; the safe routes are the carrot for my family - not just Dulwich safe routes, there are more than 400 modal filters across London now. With more, and more protected cycle paths, it all links up. But going back to the original question (which got drowned out by descriptions of posh people causing tsunamis of traffic) assuming we all agree in reducing car usage and emissions urgently because we agree that climate change is real, and we agree that active travel is a factor in this and good for our health - how can this be achieved by meeting the following criteria:? 1. urgently 2. equitably 3. without causing inconvenience? 4. succeed in behaviour change 5. cheaply (as we know councils / TfL do not have huge budgets right now*) IMO - urgently needs to be cheaply so trams and tubes unfortunately don't fit in that they will take years - equitably is more time consuming but less so than building new public transport infrastructure - main roads need addressing but they are designed to take more traffic so in accordance with (1) this is the first step. Addressing main road congestion would be more productive than being 'anti-LTN' - hopefully we can all agree point (3) simply can't be met in order to achieve (4) @slarti I had a quick look at One Dulwich's proposal and they want timed restrictions with resident permits as far as I can gather. This would cause the same displacement of through traffic onto boundary roads - but allow a select few to get away with zero behaviour change. That doesn't sound very equitable. And they want to remove modal filters which would remove the safe routes for those switching to active travel. So I can't see how their alternative meets the criteria above. Assuming this is the criteria we all agree on? *Some might say the council are now loaded thanks to the fines they've raked in - so why not push the council to use that money for more measures on main roads?

@Rockets said 'Let me replay your idea back to you: imagine if the council had engaged with the community properly and tried to implement area-wide measures that both addressed the challenge of car-use but also ensured a fair and equitable outcome for everyone.' So how can this 'fair and equitable' outcome be achieved without causing inconvenience and at the same time urgently pushing behaviour change? I say urgently because I'm assuming you are not a climate denier @Rockets? I just listened to a very interesting podcast about cognitive dissonance. Best analogy I've heard: it's the uncomfortable feeling a smoker would have in knowing smoking is harmful and foolish but wanting to carry on doing it. So the smoker will go to great lengths to justify smoking (it keeps me thin, I'm stressed etc etc). Clearly it's very difficult to change people's minds, as this thread illustrates ad infinitum. But if we all agree in reducing car usage and emissions urgently and that active travel is good for our health - how can it be done urgently, equitably, without causing inconvenience / pushing behaviour change? It seems to me One Dulwich Alliance spend far too much time attacking Southwark Council rather than actually suggesting any constructive solutions. I have no idea what they actually want - do you?

Hi @LTN BooHoo - alternatively in today's Guardian 'Opponents of LTNs claim they delay emergency services but look at the facts' https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2021/apr/23/opponents-of-ltns-claim-they-delay-emergency-services-but-look-at-the-facts 'There is, however, a fairly important point here: advocates of LTNs don?t tend to claim they are all without any fault, or at least as far as I?ve seen. In contrast, a fairly sizeable proportion of the opponents, or at least the shoutier elements who pile into debates on social media and local message boards, argue that LTNs necessarily slow up all traffic, and thus imperil lives due to delayed fire and ambulance crews. This isn?t the case. No studies find it is the case. No emergency services say it is the case. There is no credible evidence of a systemic, routine problem. That is perhaps the one certainty in a debate which is considerably more complex and nuanced than the headlines would have you believe.' - or the local message boards for that matter @Slarti is that ambulance pictured in One Dulwich's latest flyer genuinely blocked - it seems to have just pulled in and stopped for some unknown reason? Or is this just another example of One Dulwich disingenuousness?

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Council has been positioning the forthcoming > survey as gaining the view of local residents. If > they wish to include views from those outside the > area who may be affected, whether people cycling > to work, patients attending Kings for appointments > or bus users held up by congetsion on EDG then > fine. But Southwark should clearly separate > response from inside and outside the consultation > area and should ask teh basis on which people are > responding, as they did with the commonplace map. > > > People living outside the area are much less > likely to know the downside or impacts of propose > solution. What we need to avoid is the situation > whith the phase 3 OHS consultation where Southwark > Cyclists, local chapter of the LCC, publicised the > survey on their web site and actively coached > their respondents in how to answer while ignoring > the knock-on effects of the proposals on the > displacement roads. > > What is still strange, though not surprising, is > that C'llr Leeming prefers to encourage people > outside the area to take part rather than his > constituents. Bit like One Dulwich then - encouraging their supporters to sign up from as far as SE4 and SE26.

Electric cars are not the magic bullet: - SUVs and extra traffic cancelling out electric car gains in Britain https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/26/suvs-and-extra-traffic-cancelling-out-electric-car-gains-in-britain?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other - Cycling is ten times more important that electric cars for reaching net zero cities https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/pollution/cycling-is-ten-times-more-important-than-electric-cars-for-reaching-net-zero-cities-76185 - China will dominate rare earth supply for decades https://www.eetimes.com/china-will-dominate-rare-earth-supply-for-decades/

"To be able to give any consideration to your argument, we need to be able to view the source where it is claimed above data from Prof Aldred?s research has been re-analysed and different conclusions reached. But nothing has been forthcoming." "It was then asserted by someone here that raw data from Aldred's published study (different from the above) had been analysed by other experts to different conclusions - but - there have been no links etc offered to date thus far." @nxjen & @Otto2 in the absence of a response it looks like Metallica is volunteering for the job :) Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think we should use " " when talking about > University of Westminster. Ranked 126/131. I > reckon even I could get a Chair there.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Has the piece of work that Aldred et al grabbed > recent headlines in The Guardian had the peer > review completed yet? > > It's pretty clear to me that Aldred et al have a > very cosy relationship with the pro-closure lobby > groups and other vested-interest groups like LCC- > the materials legal uncovered are pretty > compelling in that regard. I'm not sure if they've been peer reviewed yet Rockets - but surely you'd agree the research they have done is a little more reliable than Alice's *opinion*? I've not had time to look at what legal has 'uncovered' yet but as Otto says there is nothing corrupt about activists, or proponents of a theory, researching that particular theory so long as they follow the correct research parameters. Or would you say only the research from the 'Anti LTN lobby group' is valid when it comes to research on LTN's?

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When your mother lives in the road that will > benefit and local volunteers are used for the > count. What do we think will happen? Negating the of validity of experts (fed up with experts?) when one doesn't like what they're saying is a dangerous thing in the 'post truth' world. How can 'post-truth' even be accepted as a thing?? As if anyone can say whatever they want on Twitter and they're just as much of an 'expert' as someone who has a PhD in the subject? If academic research has been done following the correct process and parameters and the results have been peer-reviewed anyone is free to challenge it - *using equally thorough process and parameters* and also getting the counter argument peer-reviewed. If a medical scientist is pro-vaccines and their work proves vaccines are effective would you trash their research because you're an anti-vaxxer? If Rachel Aldred and colleagues were confronted with overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that their work on LTNs is incorrect then I'm sure they would accept it not as a matter of *opinion* - but as a matter of fact. Aldred's career and academic reputation would depend on it.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Conrad Poulson, Chief Executive Officer at Huq > Industries, said: 'The research suggests that the > timing of LTNs and similar measures may be doing > more harm than good, as there has been an increase > in traffic congestion in London to the point that > it's worse now than before the pandemic.'Traffic > isn't simply evaporating because there are fewer > places for it to go. That's why it's more > important than ever for councils to fully evaluate > traffic flows and driver behaviours in order to > introduce initiatives that succeed in reducing car > usage.' > Top five London boroughs facing increased > congestion since January 2020 > > The top five boroughs for increased road delays in > the capital are currently: > > 1) Lambeth - 34.7 per cent > > 2) Wandsworth - 33.9 per cent > > 3) Islington - 33.6 per cent > > 4) Southwark - 33.3 per cent > > 5) Hackney - 32.2 per cent > link > https://huq.io/indicators/congestion-on-londons-a- > roads-30-up-since-pandemic/ What Conrad Poulson also said - and what the report was based on - is that the reduction in use of public transport is key: ?Many people now favour their car over using public transport for their essential journeys, as it provides peace of mind in a secure, single-occupant environment. If certain roads are closed to vehicles, it simply means people are finding alternative routes and causing greater congestion,? said Huq Industries chief executive Conrad Poulson.' The report also says: 'Those regions that have seen an increase are generally densely populated areas that have traditionally relied heavily on public transport." Avoiding public transport is clearly a major factor in any transport issue during a pandemic. Surely whichever side of the debate can agree on that. So lets wait and see.. as restrictions ease and people return to public transport.

Trevor Moore Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As to ?Richard or whomever's 'packed out > meetings', not sure if they mean Phase 2 or Phase > 3, but for Phase 3 they would have been the ones > at which no minutes were taken, questioners were > randomly selected/ignored by a councillor who did > nothing to stop shouty 'pro' hecklers; and there > were pointless 'Pin a Post-It!' breakout rooms > where sharpest elbows and loudest voices > prevailed. No record/report back was made for > public consumption. Transparent? > > There seems to be a glossing over of how Phase 2 > OHSD morphed into Phase 3 OHSD (no results of the > latter published). The important point about the > Phase 2 report was that it said 'You' told us you > wanted radical action. That led to the 24/7 > closure proposal. > > Well, it turns out that 'You' comprised all of 122 > people in the Phase 2 consultation in favour (the > Council itself said those responses were all that > could be relied upon) > https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/who-closed-dulwich- > village-junction). Out of 11,000+ in Dulwich Ward > alone. So someone failed to explain what the > Council and its advisory group (made up of > lobbyists) had in mind. Just to take Court Lane, > with around 200 houses on it, only 5 people > responded. And many of the dots on the Phase 2 map > are from well outside the area. Speaks for > itself. > > We can only hope for a properly run, democratic > process going forwards, with independent scrutiny. So you admit there were meetings and a consultation process. Good. Thats a start. I attended all the meetings Trevor - and the only heckling I witnessed was from people shouting out 'we'll be kettled!!'. Since that is clearly not true - because every residence is accessible by car - One Dulwich have attempted to escalate their complaints in a number of different ways ever since - each one lacking in evidence. And many of the One Dulwich 'dots' are outside the area too - so how do you explain that?

@slatib: "Completely agree with you about this fixation on turning the lower end of Calton Avenue into a square, it was never mentioned as an objective on the OHS consultations but seems to have been an objective all along." What's this then? https://images.app.goo.gl/PeaSwUvXh3r6Mwp9A There's lots of pics on the OHS website of packed out meetings too - maybe you and Trevor can spot yourselves there ;)

So in One Dulwich's latest "news" flash, from the group who *claim* to support active travel, they attempt to malign every single established group who has ever campaigned for healthy streets locally and London-wide. As ever: disingenuous, devious, desperate and deceitful.

Otto I agree - what I see is loads more kids cycling to school, even really tiny children, and people cycling through the area - a real mix of people all ages shapes and sizes. It's the same in central London. On the Mall the other day I saw a group all with toddlers on their bikes singing and the toddlers were laughing. Every bike lane was full of people on bikes - bike traffic jams at the lights! It's great :)

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Tramsformational but the price and time is too > much. It?s not going to happen. Agree. That cllr Rada Burgess came across as the epitome of champagne socialist to me. All virtue signalling grandiose ideas but she must know there is no money for trams. What can they *actually* urgently do in a climate emergency with no money?