LTN Discussion

[Rockets]

But it is about compromise isn't it? If you want to get people out of cars you have to accept that they have to use other forms of transport and the fact there are more school buses is a sign that people are heeding those calls, is it not? Would you rather fewer coaches and more cars? Surely more people using school coaches is a good thing?

You have to be pragmatic and accept that there will be times where you have to accept less than perfect situations, don't use social media to scream for change and then when the change happens scream "but not that type of change" just because it doesn't embrace the type of change you had in mind. Same applies for the need for emergency services to have access to Calton/DV which is why I find it difficult to comprehend why Clean Air Dulwich are lobbying to have it permanently closed again.

In terms of whether I would cycle my children down the road I can't comment because it is not a route I use at that time of the day with my kids so can't comment on how problematic it might be but what I do often is adjust my route to avoid potential problem areas - I take the pragmatic compromise approach which remains an option for anyone who feels it is dangerous.

And let's be honest if you are cycling that part of Townley you are coming from or heading to Lordship Lane which suggests a high degree of cycling confidence.

[ab29]

Campaign Update | 26 Nov

No. 12 saved – but no. 3 still delayed

TfL has decided not to axe the no. 12 bus route, which is good news for Dulwich locals. Other vital bus routes like the no. 3 are still delayed, however, by congestion on boundary roads caused by the LTNs.

No local councillors at public meeting

On 22 November, two days after the deadline for the Dulwich Village - Streets for people - Southwark Council “consultation” on the design of the Dulwich Village junction (both of Southwark’s proposals included the surprise closure of Turney Road), five residents’ associations held a public meeting to discuss local concerns. Topics raised were the damage being done to Village businesses, the displacement of traffic on to boundary roads, and the difficulties faced by vulnerable residents. Although invited, neither local councillors nor Dulwich’s MP attended. The organisers of the public meeting can be contacted via [email protected].

A letter challenging the legality of the “consultation” on the design of the Dulwich Village junction, particularly the closure of Turney Road, has been drafted by a local resident who is also a solicitor. If you live on or near Turney Road and would like to support this with your signature, please contact your residents’ association for further details. The closing date for signatures is 28 November 2022.

Dulwich LTN in The Times

Janice Turner commented on the Dulwich Village LTN in The Times on 16 November. She notes the gigantic concrete planter at the junction and says, “I watch in awe at the money squandered and the self-righteous intransigence towards elderly residents or businesses.”

Debate in the House of Commons

On 12 November, One Dulwich sent an open letter to our local MP Helen Hayes asking her to support Warrington South MP Andy Carter in an adjournment debate about the way the LTN in his local area had been imposed despite strong local opposition.

On 18 November, Helen replied to One Dulwich, saying she had been unable to attend on 14 November owing to a prior commitment. She went on to say that she had been closely monitoring the progress of any low traffic interventions locally and raising the diverse views of her constituents with the Council.

We replied to Helen on 22 November saying that we are asking her to a) represent and champion her constituents’ needs, not just raise their concerns, and b) to do so at a national level, both in parliament and with Richard Holden MP, parliamentary under-secretary of state for roads and transport.

You can read the full text of the adjournment debate here. As you can see, Robert Holden stressed that authorities should listen and make changes to schemes in the light of real-world experience and feedback from local people. He also recognised concerns about poorly designed LTNs leading to increased congestion on boundary roads.

[ab29]

ULEZ is to cover all of London which I'm happy about..

Sadiq Khans said that ""(...) there is still far too much toxic air pollution permanently damaging the health of young Londoners and leading to thousands of early deaths every year, with the greatest number of deaths in the outer London boroughs."

and he also said this: “The latest evidence shows that air pollution is making us sick from cradle to the grave. Londoners are developing life-changing illnesses such as cancer, lung disease, dementia and asthma. And it’s especially dangerous for children.”

Dulwich labour councillours (especially DV LTN obsessed Leemings and Margy) and MP Helen Hayes who were too busy to attend the local meeting: what do you say to this?

How does what Khan says tally up with LTN? Which means pushing more traffic into already dirty and polluted roads like Croxted, EDG, LL, South Circular where many poorer residents live - what do you say? Why were you not at the meeting to say how great LTN is and how it makes the quality of air better for EVERYONE? It doesn't? What a surprise.

On many occasions we asked the local councillors Andy Simmonds and Catherine Rose (the Invisible) to tell us how the labour are planning to improve air quality on Lordship Lane and South Circular - we received no response.

Toilets in Dulwich Park are awful, dirty and there is no hot water to wash hands. It takes for ever to log in to a computer in Dulwich library - but who cares? Surely not Dulwich labour councillors.

Edited November 26, 2022 by ab29

[heartblock]

I think it's best that those people who can only afford housing on the South Circular should have more traffic..it's only right that those in 'nice' neighbourhoods where people can afford expensive houses, with off road parking and nice gardens should have less traffic... look, let's face it those individuals are more likely to suffer health inequality anyway, so it's not going to make that much difference.

Oh look at the lovely square and all the little (white) kiddies on their bikes.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

A letter challenging the legality of the “consultation” on the design of the Dulwich Village junction, particularly the closure of Turney Road, has been drafted by a local resident who is also a solicitor.

Is the "local resident who is also a solicitor" the failed Tory candidate in the recent local elections and who practices a completely different type of law?

[ab29]

Every single resident who lives on Lordship Lane, Croxted Rd, EDG, South Circular, Underhill Rd, Crystal Palace Rd, Melford etc. etc. etc. and so on is affected by an increased traffic, increase in air pollution, increased noise caused by so called low (?) traffic (?) neighborhood (?) courtesy of cycling lobby and Southwark labour councilors.

And Southwark cllrs bulling TfL staff - what about that?

Was trying to find anything in The Guardian but no mention- they stick to pro LTN Peter Walker propaganda and ignore everyone else ( the majority).

https://southwarknews.co.uk/news/transport/tfl-staff-left-upset-and-in-tears-by-abusive-southwark-council-staff-in-meeting-about-dulwich-village-ltn/

 

A letter challenging the legality of the “consultation” on the design of the Dulwich Village junction, particularly the closure of Turney Road, has been drafted by a local resident who is also a solicitor.

Is the "local resident who is also a solicitor" the failed Tory candidate in the recent local elections and who practices a completely different type of law?

Edited November 26, 2022 by ab29

[ab29]

Where is Leemings, Margy, Rose, Simmonds, Khan, Heyes? Where are they? What did they say about the quality of air on LL, Croxted, South Circular, Underhill, Melford etc etc etc and how to make it better? I want to see the plan, a step by step plan and the timeline. Can anyone provide it?

And going back to what I said: when are the toilets in Dulwich park going to be refurbished? When will Dulwich Library have new computers? How can the money be spent on vanity, harmful projects like LTN which benefit privileged citizens mostly and yet there is none to provide hot water in the Dulwich park toilet?

And at the same time, Leemings & Margy are asking for donations so they can have Xmas tree on (temporarily) closed Dulwich Village junction, To say these people have no shame is a gross understatement!

[exdulwicher]

And going back to what I said: when are the toilets in Dulwich park going to be refurbished? When will Dulwich Library have new computers? How can the money be spent on vanity, harmful projects like LTN which benefit privileged citizens mostly and yet there is none to provide hot water in the Dulwich park toilet?

 

Why don't you ask the relevant council department?

You're aware that there are hundreds of different funding streams, grants etc for councils, mostly very tightly ring-fenced, yes?

What the Transport Dept spends (or doesn't spend) on streetlights or LTNs or potholes has no bearing whatever on what is available for libraries or toilets or computers or bin collections.

It's not an either/or thing.

[malumbu]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63729618

London LTNs: Pollution and traffic down in surrounding areas, research shows

Funny how nobody posting on this thread saw this on the local news or posted the link. Ultimately as I have said numerous times, motorists need to change their habits and when they need to use their vehicles do it more smartly - including higher occupancy and smoother driving. The motor vehicle is the main source of roadside pollution. Many most affected by the LTN do not drive, but millions do and most don't or wont change their habits without a large stick. Central government has to do more.

(And I expect for many sending their kids some distance to school and/or driving them, again air pollutun and the impact on others does not come into the equation)

Rocks I expect a long and detailed critique on why the research is flawed.

[Rockets]

Ha ha, I wondered how long it would be before someone said, "look! look!, LTNs are brilliant because this study."

As always it's the detail that tells the true story and once you scratch beneath the surface you learn that all is not what it seems....you should know this by now Malumbu and should really do more research before posting......

The boundary roads they are using for this study are.....wait for it (and even you will be able to grasp the issue with this).....actually within neighbouring LTNs.......

Malumbu, I will await your detailed response.........

[heartblock]

Aaah yes this piece of research. OK, so some roads inside LTNs (closed to traffic roads) were counted as boundary roads outside of LTNs and the pollution levels measured on these closed rds , was proclaimed as pollution levels on a road such as Lordship Lane or Croxted Road equivalent. The ‘controls’ were the same ‘controls’ the local authority had to write an apology for in an earlier piece of research.

When I have time I’m re-reading the whole article, but it already looks even with poor data points not significant and flawed.

[Rockets]

And if this is indeed the case then it is, yet more, irrefutable evidence that there is a concerted effort by some to mislead the public as to what is actually going on.

[malumbu]

I was simply surprised that you hadn't posted and dissed this earlier. You are slipping rocks.

You know my views on air quality. Surely it would be more profitable to campaign to reduce the number of vehicles rather than repeat and repeat your views on the so called cycling lobby, 'corrupt and incompetent Southwark', 'flawed' research, and the leafy streets.

[malumbu]

BTW surprised that ULEZ and the extension hasn't been raised, with the usual comments about money grabbing Khan, the cycling lobby, persecuting motorists etc. It's good that this will help improve bus services in the outer boroughs. A loud raspberry to the Transport Secretary for suggesting only those without cars use buses. Along the lines of Thatcher that only the poor and unsuccessful use buses. I'm reading to much into this😊

[Spartacus]

I think Mal, that the ULEZ expansion is a good idea but the timing is wrong as people and businesses are struggling financially at the moment.

This is why over 60% of all responses said no or delay it with 80% of those in the outer boroughs saying no.

Khan is not listening to the majority in this and I wouldn't be surprised if there's a legal or other challenge to postpone it.

[heartblock]

No problem with ULEZ expansion, but I have issues with poor research - it’s ridiculous that they selected the LTNs where NO2 fell or didn't change, whilst ignoring the two Highbury LTNs where NO2 went up significantly (up to 35% worse and 42% worse) on boundary roads. Cherry-picked research, would not hold up in a clinical trial and considering this is actually a life or death matter - the standards should be equivalent.

[Penguin68]

Am I alone in wondering how the Mayor can extend the ULEZ boundary to the M25 when the London Assembly boundaries are mainly inside the M25 (with some slight exceptions)?

If the M25 is to be the boundary then there are those living within this boundary who have no options to express a democratic opinion about this, yet can only avoid this tax by moving.

Individuals living outside the M25 can chose not to enter this very much greater London, but those living inside have no choice.

At least those of us living within the North and South Circulars do have a vote for Mayor and Assembly members.

AMENDED to say that some of the paperwork I have now seen does suggest that the boundary is 'roughly' the M25, but looks more like the London Assembly boundary - but I have found no clarification of this. I cannot see how the mayor of London can actually tax parts of the country of which he is not Mayor, but some news reports suggest that is what he is doing.

Edited November 27, 2022 by Penguin68

[Rockets]

I was simply surprised that you hadn't posted and dissed this earlier. You are slipping rocks.

You know my views on air quality. Surely it would be more profitable to campaign to reduce the number of vehicles rather than repeat and repeat your views on the so called cycling lobby, 'corrupt and incompetent Southwark', 'flawed' research, and the leafy streets.

 

Malumbu, I don't need to post anything because someone on the pro-LTN side will always be silly enough to take the bait and publish something lauding the reports without doing any background checking or research as to whether the reports are standing up to any scrutiny, thereby proving multiple points those of us on the anti-side are making.

[exdulwicher]

Am I alone in wondering how the Mayor can extend the ULEZ boundary to the M25 when the London Assembly boundaries are mainly inside the M25 (with some slight exceptions)?

 

It only goes out to the M25 where that's the boundary of the London borough. Map on TfL website shows the new zone, there's a few parts (notably south / southwest of here) where the boundary is a fair way in from the M25.

 

At least those of us living within the North and South Circulars do have a vote for Mayor and Assembly members.

 

That'd be the mayor that was democratically elected based on the ULEZ expansion being a key part of his manifesto, yes?

[malumbu]

Readers will decide whether I set the trap for you Rocks but your post did tickle me. I forgot to add the further view that you often repeat is that any research in support of LTNs is by researchers with an agenda.

I don't recognise all this pro-LTN and pro-cyclist lobby you keep on about. I've never actively campaigned for LTNs and it is decades since I was on any cycling protests (I was probably campaigning to release Nelson Mandella, stop the Poll Tax and anti-Gulf War 1 around that time.

I'm definitely in support of active travel, and reducing emissions/reliance on cars, but do this through my MP, rather than lie down in the road. The gigs in the 80s and 90s when campaigners took over roads and held parties sounded fun, but not heard of those for years and not gluing myself to any Whitehall buildings.

I should really stop posting on this site, others articulate my views much better, but I expect something ludicrous will come up that I feel the need to challenge.

[first mate]

Before you go Mal, can you explain what the 'trap' was and why you set it?

All Rockets seems to have done is post a response undermining something you posted earlier?

[Dancingtiptoe]

A letter challenging the legality of the “consultation” on the design of the Dulwich Village junction, particularly the closure of Turney Road, has been drafted by a local resident who is also a solicitor.

Is the "local resident who is also a solicitor" the failed Tory candidate in the recent local elections and who practices a completely different type of law?

 

I personally know the individual who has written the objection letter, and can guarantee they are not the failed Tory candidate.

[Rockets]

Readers will decide whether I set the trap for you Rocks but your post did tickle me. I forgot to add the further view that you often repeat is that any research in support of LTNs is by researchers with an agenda.

I don't recognise all this pro-LTN and pro-cyclist lobby you keep on about. I've never actively campaigned for LTNs and it is decades since I was on any cycling protests (I was probably campaigning to release Nelson Mandella, stop the Poll Tax and anti-Gulf War 1 around that time.

I'm definitely in support of active travel, and reducing emissions/reliance on cars, but do this through my MP, rather than lie down in the road. The gigs in the 80s and 90s when campaigners took over roads and held parties sounded fun, but not heard of those for years and not gluing myself to any Whitehall buildings.

I should really stop posting on this site, others articulate my views much better, but I expect something ludicrous will come up that I feel the need to challenge.

 

Malumbu, not sure how you think you set the trap for me….you fell into the trap of posting research without actually looking at it or exploring the narrative around it…not for the first time I hasten to add… and I just responded with a thread on the reasons why the results probably need to be questioned and analysed more deeply.;-) it is a bit odd that the boundary roads assessed are actually within other LTNs don’t you think?

The problem with much research on LTNs is their findings are often skewed towards a pro -LTN agenda (see most Aldred output). Do we know who funded the Imperial research BTW?

Malumbu, please don’t go - we love you here (except for the times you get rude to other users!)

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Currently their two strategic goals seem to be:

1) Prevent emergency vehicle access through the Calton/DV junction by closing it to all vehicles again

2) Prevent school buses from dropping and picking up children at Alleyn's/JAGS etc.

 

The Tweets don't say that at all. You've made a leap of logic so big you could probably commute to the City on it...

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Am I alone in wondering how the Mayor can extend the ULEZ boundary to the M25 when the London Assembly boundaries are mainly inside the M25 (with some slight exceptions)?

If the M25 is to be the boundary then there are those living within this boundary who have no options to express a democratic opinion about this, yet can only avoid this tax by moving.

Individuals living outside the M25 can chose not to enter this very much greater London, but those living inside have no choice.

At least those of us living within the North and South Circulars do have a vote for Mayor and Assembly members.

AMENDED to say that some of the paperwork I have now seen does suggest that the boundary is 'roughly' the M25, but looks more like the London Assembly boundary - but I have found no clarification of this. I cannot see how the mayor of London can actually tax parts of the country of which he is not Mayor, but some news reports suggest that is what he is doing.

 

Come off the high horse, ignore the Khan-related conspiracy memes, and read less crappy media. There's an extremely detailed map and tons of background information here (just Googling "tfl ulez extension" worked for me): https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ulez-expansion-2023