LTN Discussion

[Rockets]

And Snowy thinks a 4x carbon footprint is funny....well that speaks volumes doesn't it....? They laugh when the council does things that do more to harm the environment...amazingly hypocritical but not at all surprising. It does make you wonder about some on the pro-side doesn't it.....

[Forest Hill Climber]

On 10/10/2024 at 11:13, Earl Aelfheah said:

Why ask? Do you really care what the data says? On one hand you quote it (where you think you can spin it to support your prejudice) and on the other you rubbish it as unreliable (exactly as OneDulwich does repeatedly). You do the same with all research on LTNs, on the impact of the ULEZ, with cycling data from Tfl etc... 

You've openly admitted that you only consider information relevant where it conforms to your predetermined view.

But, so as not to be accused of avoiding the question: One claim that the data collected by Southwark Council shows that "...the Dulwich LTNs have not reduced traffic but simply displaced it." This is not what the data shows.

Yes, there has been different impacts across different streets, including some displacement, but the data shows an overall reduction in traffic. To say that it hasn't reduced traffic (at least based on the data they're quoting) is untrue.

 

Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere, but please can you tell me how this is measured - the 'overall reduction' in traffic? How wide is the potential grid that is measured for possible displaced traffic?

Let me put it another way  -  if someone used to drive through Dulwich to get to the South Circular and onwards to Catford and the M2, but  they now use Old Kent Road, New Cross and Blackheath route, will the data count them as 'displaced' traffic?

Edited November 12, 2024 by Forest Hill Climber

[Rockets]

The short answer is that the council don't monitor displacement. In their world traffic "evaporates". Now, they did do some monitoring and claimed that traffic was "reduced across the whole" but that monitoring was massively flawed because it did no monitoring on displacement routes such as Underhill Road, Crystal Palace Road, Barry Road or the A205. Remember, the council originally only monitored on the streets within the LTN which shows their motivation for doing robust monitoring of displaced traffic - they really didn't want to have to and were forced to.

 

Bottom-line is LTNs do nothing to remove traffic from roads - they only move it from one road to another - it passes the problem to someone else.

 

13 hours ago, Forest Hill Climber said:

Let me put it another way  -  if someone used to drive through Dulwich to get to the South Circular and onwards to Catford and the M2, but  they now use Old Kent Road, New Cross and Blackheath route, will the data count them as 'displaced' traffic?

No it won't but this will be considered a win for the council as it stops the traffic going through Dulwich. 

[Forest Hill Climber]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

The short answer is that the council don't monitor displacement. In their world traffic "evaporates". Now, they did do some monitoring and claimed that traffic was "reduced across the whole" but that monitoring was massively flawed because it did no monitoring on displacement routes such as Underhill Road, Crystal Palace Road, Barry Road or the A205. Remember, the council originally only monitored on the streets within the LTN which shows their motivation for doing robust monitoring of displaced traffic - they really didn't want to have to and were forced to.

 

Bottom-line is LTNs do nothing to remove traffic from roads - they only move it from one road to another - it passes the problem to someone else.

 

No it won't but this will be considered a win for the council as it stops the traffic going through Dulwich. 

OK so if traffic is displaced into nearby Borough of Lewisham, then it is measured by Southwark as traffic reduction. Very clever. Southwark has become expert at dumping traffic into Lewisham - especially around Forest Hill.

[Nigello]

On 26/10/2024 at 07:45, first mate said:

Spot on. We need councillors who are interested in serving the area rather than using their role to earn brownie points with their party at national level. The partisan nature of local politics is a problem.

Quite apart from the above, the street blocking planters local to me are now beginning to look a complete mess and really shabby.

Indeed they are. It’s like those glazed info boards that stood, shattered and tagged for years at Elephant and other parts of Southwark, with no attempt to repair or remove them. A “good” idea is “actioned”, backs are patted, and then the actioners forget all about it and move on to spend money elsewhere.  

[first mate]

The ones I see are never used as seating, have weeds sprouting at all angles and look like something a child would knock up from old, rotting pallet wood. It really is not a great look and in such contrast to lovely Dulwich Square, with its (Shhh, India-sourced) sandstone paving.

Edited November 13, 2024 by first mate

[march46]

Presume you’re referring to the temporary planters near East Dulwich station, which I agree are looking tatty. The good news is East Dulwich is getting public realm improvements too, surely you didn’t miss the consultation? https://services.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/street-improvements/east-dulwich-streets-for-people
 

Edited November 14, 2024 by march46
Add link

[first mate]

Your presumption is incorrect.

[ab29]

One Dulwich

Campaign Update | 24 Nov Dulwich LTN cameras continue to rake in millions As reported by Southwark News, Southwark Council is on course to raise up to £3.3 million in fines in 2024 from the Dulwich Village LTN, bringing the total raised since traffic cameras were introduced in January 2021 to between £13 million and £26 million (depending on how quickly fines were paid).  A recent FOI shows that in just the first eight months of this year, nearly 17,000 PCNs were issued. The camera on Dulwich Village generated the most – just over 7,000 fines, or an average of 41 cars each weekday – followed by the Townley Road camera with just over 5,000 fines, or an average of 29 cars each weekday. Very few drivers deliberately incur fines. We have told Southwark Council on numerous occasions that their signage is difficult to read, badly positioned and often obscured but they refuse to do anything about it. Why? How safe is the new £2 million junction redesign? Concerns continue to be raised about the Dulwich Village junction redesign. The railings outside the Infants and Junior schools have not been reinstated. Design safety features have not been implemented, even though road humps to slow cyclists and contrasting colours between pavement and cycle path (particularly important for the visually impaired) were recommended in Southwark’s March 2024 Decision Report. In addition, nothing has been done to ensure that cyclists stop at pedestrian green man crossings.  If – as Southwark has repeatedly stated – the safety of children and pedestrians are their priority, the design has clearly failed.  London buses are slowing down A new report from London TravelWatch, the capital’s independent transport watchdog, says that bus journey times have increased in every borough over the past decade, even though the number of cars has dropped by 5% in the same time period. An analysis of the report’s figures by The Times found that the biggest falls in bus speeds are in boroughs that have introduced LTNs since 2020.  TfL recognises the need to increase the number of journeys made by bus in order to reach the Mayor’s Transport Strategy target, which is that 80% of all trips in London should be made by foot, by cycle or using public transport by 2041. (Current figures estimate that walking accounts for 22% of all trips, cycling 4.5%, and public transport 31%.) Since the Dulwich LTNs went in, Southwark’s own figures show that traffic has increased on roads like East Dulwich Grove that carry the buses on which we all depend, and a TfL reportcited the Dulwich Village LTN as the root cause of delays to local bus routes.  Why are London councils like Southwark putting in traffic schemes that make bus travel less efficient? Thank you for your support, The One Dulwich Team

[Bicknell]

not sure pedesterian safety ever what it was about

[Rockets]

The problem is these interventions are designed with input from the cycle-lobby so, of course, pedestrian safety is never a priority - if pedestrian safety was a factor then things like floating bus-stops would never, ever be allowed. Too many in the active travel community have become blinkered by cycling and the over-stated role they say it will have in helping climate change - most of the leaders in the active travel community come from the cycle lobby so this can come as no surprise.

P.S. I do love the things that Snowy finds funny - really paints them in a bad light (cue Snowy laughing at this too! ;-))

[snowy]

Calm down Lynn!

[Rockets]

Snowy speaks everyone - hara!!! It's a miracle - they found their voice. A bit like hearing Teller speak!

[ab29]

maybe @snowy the Jester can tell us what he finds so amusing in the One Dulwich post?

[Rockets]

They must be happy that the new £2m junction is not safe for pedestrians, that London buses are slowing down and the Dulwich LTN cameras are raking it in for the council. They do find the oddest things funny - what a bizarre sense of humour they have.

[snowy]

anyway, keep posting laughably iill informed, inaccurate and ill conceived posts and I will keep laughing at them. 

[ab29]

13 minutes ago, snowy said:

anyway, keep posting laughably iill informed, inaccurate and ill conceived posts and I will keep laughing at them. 

Details please the Jester: which ones of the posted informatiin is:

1 Laughably ill informed - why? numbers? evidence? who posted it? when?

2 Inaccurate  -why? numbers? evidence? who posted it? when?

3 Inaccurate and Ill Conceived - why? numbers? evidence? who posted it? when?

4 "and I will keep laughing at them" -  have fun 🙂

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2024 by ab29

[Rockets]

Only ill-informed, inaccurate and ill conceived posts in their mind apparently.....and then they laugh....

I suspect they only laugh when they don't have a credible counter argument...

[first mate]

On 25/11/2024 at 15:39, Rockets said:

The problem is these interventions are designed with input from the cycle-lobby so, of course, pedestrian safety is never a priority - if pedestrian safety was a factor then things like floating bus-stops would never, ever be allowed. Too many in the active travel community have become blinkered by cycling and the over-stated role they say it will have in helping climate change - most of the leaders in the active travel community come from the cycle lobby so this can come as no surprise.

P.S. I do love the things that Snowy finds funny - really paints them in a bad light (cue Snowy laughing at this too! ;-))

I think they are far more invested in arguing whether an accident can ever be an accident if it involves a car.

Yes, I think Snowy may hold some sort of forum record for laughing emoji responses.

[Rockets]

On 25/11/2024 at 19:46, Rockets said:

I suspect they only laugh when they don't have a credible counter argument...

Yup I am looking at you Snowy....;-)

[snowy]

Ah you two are sweet.

[first mate]

✨