DulwichCentral

Rockets - do you have any evidence that 'the council isn't > sharing any data or evidence, and has no intention > of doing so for some time - we all know they are > sitting on data that would answer many of the > questions we have but we keep being told these > measures need time to bed in which is political > speak for "damn they're right but let's hope we > can drag this out so long that they either lose > interest or we can manipulate the data to our > advantage". Or did you just imagine it? Rockets Wrote: > DulwichCentral - unfortunately the council isn't > sharing any data or evidence, and has no intention > of doing so for some time - we all know they are > sitting on data that would answer many of the > questions we have but we keep being told these > measures need time to bed in which is political > speak for "damn they're right but let's hope we > can drag this out so long that they either lose > interest or we can manipulate the data to our > advantage". > > Given you dismissal of the article on lack of > evidence I presume you treat local councillors > tweeting #modalshift images with the same contempt > as they are not built around "evidence"?

The article is completely devoid of evidence and therefore typical of a) an opinion piece and b) the anti LTN argument.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DC divisive to the pro lobby but a necessary eye > opener from those less able to walk or cycle don't > you agree? Not everyone is able to utilise these > "no drive roads" > Do the able-bodied people doing short journeys to local shops by car stop to think - hang on I'll use the car less because I can walk, and like that I'll free up road space for those who have no choice but to drive. Or do they just think sod it - it's quicker and warmer and I can listen to the radio so I'm going by car. In fact I'm also going to buy a bloody great SUV with heated seats so I can also look cool while I drive down the corner shop for a pint of milk. Do they lack empathy too?

Spartacus Wrote: > > It's a matter of perspective and sadly the pro > closure side have little empathy or perspective on > what those less able to walk go through or how it > disadvantages them when a road is closed off that > they would normally use to get to their favourite > shops. > This is so divisive @Spartacus. I recommend a good article by Libby Purves in The Times recently entitled: 'We need to rediscover the art of polite debate' "The key word is ?argue?. It does not include ?cancelling?, ?no-platforming?, showering personal insults on opponents or ***imputing to them imaginary, wicked motives***. It means sharing evidence, ideas and philosophies, listening, possibly changing your mind a bit." NB imputing to them imaginary, wicked motives

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It doesn't actually say residents permits though - > does anyone know if this is what is meant? Could > be permits for say disabled people, emergency > vehicles, people who work in the area, delivery > drivers - all of which would take traffic off the > roads that currently take the displaced traffic? I > thought One Dulwich were asking for timed > closures? They are asking for 'Timed closures to through traffic' which means access for all residents to continue making short car journeys. Seeing as wealth and 'selfishness' gets mentioned a lot here - it's worth noting that some of the wealthiest streets in Dulwich support the One Dulwich idea - to carry on driving around at their convenience while proposing that all through traffic gets pushed onto boundary roads. Lots of these residents own more than one car.

dulwichfolk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Isn?t half the point of these closures (apart from > social distancing and active travel) to prevent > local car journeys...can?t see how a permit system > would prevent those. And that, in a nutshell, is exactly why One Dulwich wants one.

So would you rather those 391 cycle journeys were done in cars? Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So let's look at the numbers. The number of > cyclists observed rose from 417 (in 2018) to 808 > (In November this year) - this is the doubling > that members of the pro-closure lobby were > heralding as significant - but it's only 391 more > cycle journeys.

@Dulwichgirl - I have answered your questions so I'd be grateful if you don't accuse me of not answering your questions. ** FIRST you asked me this:- Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Dulwich central: to echo another question you > haven?t answered when was court lane a grid locked > rat run?! ** To which I answered this: Court lane had double the average amount of traffic for a residential street in Southwark, at times the same amount as lordship lane (an ?A? road). This was up until 8pm, so not just school traffic. All leading into the 5-arm junction with calton avenue, also at saturation point and gridlocked, and dulwich village - at near saturation. This is all in the evidence pack on the council website (google OHS evidence pack). Some here will say that's fake (which is a bit Trump like imo). I know someone who moved out it was so bad. People in the shops and cafe at the village junction told me they saw near accidents all the time - with thousands of pedestrians / schoolchildren using the dangerous crossings. This is to get to state schools as well as private - so a mix of people. The council said that the junction could not cope with what we now know to be a massive increase in traffic on residential roads due to Satnavs. I think there have been 3 consultations in 6 years. 2019 was a year long consultation with lots of public meetings. I hope this is helpful because I think some people have come into this LTN debate without knowing why certain roads were filtered - and some just forget how bad it was. Not that I?m saying that?s yousmiling smiley but since you ask what court lane was like, it was very bad. Also, I'm 100% sure that the people who support the closure of court lane would also support measures on all the main roads. If there was more unity and everyone pulled together to push the council for more (not less) then I think that would be more productive. **To which you then answered this (sigh):- But that?s not really answering my question, what would you say to those now living with the pollution from those roads. To those whose children?s lung are now exposed to worse quality air, possibly health complications. Saying people would ?support measures for main roads? while directing their traffic to other roads really isnt enough. And frankly what are you suggesting, closing lordship lane and east dulwich grove? **To which I answered this:- In answer to your other question and following on from what others have discussed here, I would support protected cycle lanes on main roads, reduced parking and 24/7 bus lanes (the parked cars on LLane block the buses and then cause congestion as the buses have to pull out) and road pricing and ULEZ ASAP. I think it would be more productive to push the council for those things urgently. I don't think opening up residential roads to 'spread out' the traffic is a step in the right direction because it will just go back to how it was, I think it's better to move forwards not backwards if we genuinely want to reduce traffic overall (which I do) - I think its really important to push the council for *more* not less, because what has been proven is that by filtering residential roads people are more likely to switch to cycling or walking - which is an important part of reducing traffic overall. **Now (see below) you've asked me the same question again (see above) and accuse me of not answering your question. Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwich central I don?t think you can accuse > others of ignoring posts when you didn?t answer my > question of what you would say to those who cannot > use these closed streets, who instead now need to > use the roads which have taken their traffic such > as lordship lane east dulwich grove? My children > now breathe in far more pollution since the > introduction of the LTNs as do those going to the > schools and nurseries on edg, those who play in > the playground Near East dulwich road and many > more. Can you really expect people who now > experience more pollution to support this scheme? > > > As an aside as mrs D points out, how many cycled > before on this or a different route or who walked > and now cycled? We don?t have pre data for car > traffic which is the main aim, so perhaps in order > to do a genuine comparison the LTNs should be > removed and data gathered then a genuine > consultation with accurate data can look at the > best way to help everyone. **Now a new question! You ask 'how many cycled before on this' - the answer is half as many as do now as the study shows - cycling has doubled. As for data on cars (another new question) I think thats generally monitored by TfL on main roads and the council have done studies (see above) which people against LTNs will say are fake - I guess that's up to you to decide for yourself by looking at the data.

@Rockets I think there were around 800 cyclists counted in half a day. So clearly not all Calton Ave residents unless you are claiming the population of Calton Ave has drastically increased? :) So can the myth that its only the residents on the closed road that benefit be put to rest please? I believe the count was only half a day - so if everyone is returning in the evening those journeys could be doubled. But lets say a modest estimate 1200 in the whole day, even factoring out children independently cycling, thats a hell of a lot of cars. Now do you see the impact? You will now no doubt shift the goal post / post a very long diatribe to block this comment / or just ignore it - let's see...;) Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DulwichCentral - a survey done in the Calton Ave > area by the pro-closure lobby showed that there > was only a few hundred extra cycle journeys made. > It's not nearly enough to make the impact required > on reductions of car use for the net impact of the > LTNs to be anything other than massively negative. > And letting it "bed in" won't make the slightest > bit of difference. The whole experiment is flawed.

Yet again @Rockets you and others here *refuse* to acknowledge that LTNs provide *through-routes* for people travelling from one area to another. You continue to perpetuate the myth that the only people using the safe routes are those who live on the LTN streets. Do you think they just cycle and scoot up and down their own road all day?? :) A large part of the anti LTN narrative you push here depends entirely on this myth. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- It > was only ever going to deliver two things - a tiny > amount of modal change for the few in the closed > areas but a huge amount of negative impact for > everyone else. >

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But that?s not really answering my question. Dulwich central: to echo another question you > haven?t answered when was court lane a grid locked > rat run?! I think I did - at least the one you said I hadn't yet answered. In answer to your other question and following on from what others have discussed here, I would support protected cycle lanes on main roads, reduced parking and 24/7 bus lanes (the parked cars on LLane block the buses and then cause congestion as the buses have to pull out) and road pricing and ULEZ ASAP. I think it would be more productive to push the council for those things urgently. I don't think opening up residential roads to 'spread out' the traffic is a step in the right direction because it will just go back to how it was, I think it's better to move forwards not backwards if we genuinely want to reduce traffic overall (which I do) - I think its really important to push the council for *more* not less, because what has been proven is that by filtering residential roads people are more likely to switch to cycling or walking - which is an important part of reducing traffic overall.

@Dulwichgirl sorry if I missed you asking me about Court Lane but sometimes things get lost in the thread. Maybe as your children go to school on EDG (JAGS or ED charter?) you have never saw dulwich village at its worst? Court lane had double the average amount of traffic for a residential street in Southwark, at times the same amount as lordship lane (an ?A? road). This was up until 8pm, so not just school traffic. All leading into the 5-arm junction with calton avenue, also at saturation point and gridlocked, and dulwich village - at near saturation. This is all in the evidence pack on the council website (google OHS evidence pack). Some here will say that's fake (which is a bit Trump like imo). I know someone who moved out it was so bad. People in the shops and cafe at the village junction told me they saw near accidents all the time - with thousands of pedestrians / schoolchildren using the dangerous crossings. This is to get to state schools as well as private - so a mix of people. The council said that the junction could not cope with what we now know to be a massive increase in traffic on residential roads due to Satnavs. I think there have been 3 consultations in 6 years. 2019 was a year long consultation with lots of public meetings. I hope this is helpful because I think some people have come into this LTN debate without knowing why certain roads were filtered - and some just forget how bad it was. Not that I?m saying that?s you:) but since you ask what court lane was like, it was very bad. Also, I'm 100% sure that the people who support the closure of court lane would also support measures on all the main roads. If there was more unity and everyone pulled together to push the council for more (not less) then I think that would be more productive. Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwich central: to echo another question you > haven?t answered when was court lane a grid locked > rat run?!

@Rockets Saying the council is 'refusing to debate' is imo exaggerating (and therefore inflammatory?) because it's not true - they have had several public meetings lately, and have a number of feedback processes which have been posted here. By saying 'what might they be scared of one wonders...' are you suggesting something underhand is going on? You seem to suggest that people who oppose the measures are a much larger group than the council think. But what evidence do you have of that? Of course everyone here is entitled to their opinion, but rational debate relies on fact, not speculation.

Rockets with all due respect - you are using very emotive language again - exaggerating? Hyperbole? This doesn't help productive rational debate. Nobody is saying 'everything is awesome'. People recognise that there will be some displacement until it beds in and that this is a trial. Councillors know this. Why aren't you calling to push them to do more on main roads? Making driving less convenient is one thing they have to do. What *is* awesome is twice as many people are cycling through Dulwich. I know people who live on the very nice roads near Eyenella, Beauval etc who are fit and healthy but complain they now have to drive round the s circular to get to West Dulwich. They could walk in 10 minutes or cycle in 5. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are many pro-closure lobbyists who claim > there are no negatives associated with these > closures that everything is awesome because of > them. We even have councillors claiming on public > meetings that traffic on the displacement roads is > no heavier than it has ever been. Now that's > disingenuous. > > I also, hasten to add, that it was the same > councillor who said LTNs were designed to channel > traffic off side streets onto main roads. > > The pro-closure camp and council clearly dont want > a rational debate about the pros and cons.

Is there anybody here in the Dulwich debate who supports the LTN who doesn't ALSO want further measures on main roads? I doubt it. There is a mantra being repeated over and over here. As Rockets puts it, some kind of 'Nirvana' has been created for the 'lucky (selfish) few' who live on the filtered streets. A) those streets were initially chosen to be filtered because they were gridlocked rat-runs (not because 'wealthy selfish people' live on them) B) the people benefiting are not just the residents of those streets because: C) most importantly these streets are now ROUTES used by people who don't live on those streets. People who want to get from one end of Dulwich to the other using clean transport - they link up then with other ROUTES like Railton LTN, Ferndale LTN etc etc and other cycleways on main roads. To keep implying that the residents on the filtered streets are the *only ones* who benefit is simply not true. To keep suggesting that these people are selfish / uncaring / anti-social/ wealthy / socially unjust (and even racist) sadly does nothing but stir up unnecessary division. Yes, these people are no doubt relieved their horrible streets are better - and probably fully support more being done because they know how horrible it is to live on a gridlocked road. If there was more unity to push the council for more (instead of creating division) that would be so much more productive for ALL imho :)

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's dreadful everywhere. Pull up a Google Maps of > London with the traffic layer enabled, everything > is red. Not quite sure why yet unless everyone has > taken this opportunity to go out for some Brexit > stockpiling and before London moves into Tier 3 at > midnight on Tuesday night/Wednesday morning. > > Desperate last rush. Oh No it isn't! its the Christmas tree in Dulwich square ;););)

Rockets if I may say so you are contradicting yourself. You accept higher attachment to cars during a pandemic is due to fear of infection on public transport. But then you say: 'reports like this demonstrate that the impacts of LTNs could actually get a lot worse when life starts getting back to some sense of normality.' How come? When life starts getting back to 'some sense of normality' people will return to public transport. The LTNs will still be there as safe routes for those who want to cycle or walk - and the RAC motorists will start considering getting on a bike or walking again - especially if there are safe cycle routes for them to do so :)

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Eh? > It's quite clear what Malumbu is saying isn't it? It seems lots of people are blaming small road closures for everything. While ignoring the fact that car journeys have gone up in general all over London (as reported in the Times -even with people working from home because they nip down the shops in the car). They accuse pro-closure groups of being 'myopic' and selfish. I think its the other way round. Anti-closure people choose to ignore the big picture. If the government and councils hadn't correctly predicted a massive increase in car use - because people not using public transport - and urgently put in a few piddly safe routes, then *every* road would be gridlocked. That's obvious isn't it? So I'm sorry but resenting some emergency cycle routes for people who want to drive less seems selfish and myopic to me.

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Other end from what? > > They show goose green end, I walked from there to > the post office. Traffic the whole way. > > > Traffic backed up beyond the picture house, > > 12.30 > > > on Friday. > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong - but those pictures > show > > the other end of Lordship Lane? Oh right. Just thought it would show traffic up to picture house as you said in your post

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Traffic backed up beyond the picture house, 12.30 > on Friday. Correct me if I'm wrong - but those pictures show the other end of Lordship Lane?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- - "well I have room to store a > bike/charge my Tesla, surely everyone else can" > mindset. > To equate storing / charging a Tesla with storing a bike is pushing it isn't it?

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LTNs have been shown (as in the case of > Wandsworth) to drive up pollution not down > If you're referring to the article in The Telegraph the final paragraph says: A spokesman for the Department of Transport said: "As the report itself makes clear, it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions from this limited data, and therefore it is misleading to imply that the Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in Wandsworth led to a worsening in air quality in the area." and also: 'Unusual patterns of travel during the Covid pandemic, as well as the limited period of monitoring and even changes in environmental conditions could have contributed to the stark difference in readings, the report authors note, urging the data to be viewed with "heavy caveats".' It was a sampling window of 4 weeks during a newly implemented LTN and then after the LTN was taken out. I don't think anyone who supports LTNs expects instant results - some displacement is inevitable to begin with - maybe the LTN in the article wasn't given enough time and they measured the worst bit when most impact was felt?

The traffic on Melbourne Grove was terrible - consistently congested and dangerous. It was also terrible on Calton Avenue, Court Lane, Townley road and Dulwich village. People seem to forget. I go to Lordship Lane every day and it seems pretty much the same ever - as for East Dulwich Grove there have been regular tailbacks on the red post hill to townley road bit for years. And as exdulwicher said 'traffic everywhere (not just Dulwich, not just London and certainly not just in areas with LTNs) has jumped in the last week by up to 70% in some areas' - that seems pretty obvious since lockdown has eased and people not using public transport. So why is it so bad to carve out a bit of space for people to walk and cycle safely? Especially on school routes. If people are genuinely thinking of 'the many' they'd look at the big picture and see that LTNs are the only way to reclaim a bit of space back from cars and get people walking and cycling instead. With cycling people start at a local level then gain confidence to cycle further - which is why cycle paths on main roads are important too. PS re Farage - no surprise there, he's never been keen on facts :)

geh Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > traffic on lordship lane this afternoon - terrible Traffic all over London this afternoon - terrible

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- ...as they say the first step to recovery is admitting there is a > problem....it's more than many of the pro-closure > lobby can bring themselves to admit! It is precisely the people who support making space for walking and cycling who are taking the first step to recovery.