West Dulwich LTN Action Group - needs your support

[first mate]

Just now, Earl Aelfheah said:

This sounds like it's straight out of a dystopian novel. 

Well if you add in the bit that says, 'taking over the new, multimillion pound expanded space considered vital for pedestrians to be able to move around safely:) A lovely free gift for the cafe owners though and, I guess, pedestrians can just walk on the cycleway. 

I wonder if something similar will happen in Melbourne Grove? Will we see recently expanded pavements, deemed essential to ensure the safety of hordes of ambulating commuters, suddenly re-purposed by the local wine bars and cafes.

[march46]

An interesting read, which suggests much of WDAG’s 53 page report is based on inaccurate claims and not borne out of evidence and data. Great to see there is a group of supportive, local residents highlighting the benefits of the LTN.

https://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2025/05/better-streets-west-dulwich-campaign-group-urges-people-to-focus-on-facts-not-fear/

[first mate]

I had a quick look and no revelations, just the same old lines. 

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, march46 said:

An interesting read, which suggests much of WDAG’s 53 page report is based on inaccurate claims and not borne out of evidence and data.

Ha ha, but to be fair @march46 those in support who wrote that article are only pointing to "evidence elsewhere" in reports written by activist researchers and commissioned by those who are trying to prove LTN are a success...you know the usual suspects.

When you're suggesting research works by the likes of Anna Goodman (wasn't it in West Dulwich where she was filmed tearing the poster down) and Rachel Aldred are the "facts" people should look at you're on a sticky wicket.

[malumbu]

2 hours ago, march46 said:

An interesting read, which suggests much of WDAG’s 53 page report is based on inaccurate claims and not borne out of evidence and data. Great to see there is a group of supportive, local residents highlighting the benefits of the LTN.

https://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2025/05/better-streets-west-dulwich-campaign-group-urges-people-to-focus-on-facts-not-fear/

Thanks March.  A nice feed too even though it is on X

 

 

2 hours ago, first mate said:

I had a quick look and no revelations, just the same old lines. 

'same old lines?'

Quite prophetic based on the post that follows. 

Incidentally this excitement about a scheme that is not in East Dulwich, and the indication that protest groups are working together, suggests that many are against ALL LTNs not just individual schemes.  Own up.

Edited May 18 by malumbu

[Kathleen Olander]

On 16/05/2025 at 16:38, Earl Aelfheah said:

Pretty sure they didn't say FOR ALL (and certainly not at the volume your capitalisation suggests).

At some point Rocks, you are going to have to accept that Dulwich now has a nice pedestrian area where the used to be a line of traffic. It's literally been years since the layout was changed. It's actually a nice space, you should go and have a sit there and enjoy the sun.

Very few people use it during the week, and it's not exactly heaving at the weekend, Rockets wouldn't have any problem finding a seat!

[malumbu]

Perhaps a good place for Sue's EDF proposed meet up.  I'll suggest in that thread.

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

Incidentally this excitement about a scheme that is not in East Dulwich, and the indication that protest groups are working together, suggests that many are against ALL LTNs not just individual schemes

Err, no. I think what you'll find is happening is that councils are all treating these processes in the same way to force their plans on constituents. The West Dulwich one is the first "gotcha" moment. And lo and behold the next week the very same Lambeth council is found to have been doing similar things in relation to Brockwell Park.

These are patterns of behaviour demonstrating contempt to the voice of local residents and ultimately these councils are demeaning the office they hold.

Let's be honest, if Reform were behaving in the same way in an area you weren't passionate about  I suspect you would be leading the charge against them.

[Spartacus]

Sounds like you are implying that those who oppose LTNs, on the grounds that they dont really reduce overall traffic across a wider area and may be responsible for increasing pollution on major boundary roads, are Reform Supporters ? 

Careful... 

Still its a change from the usual cry that its all a Tory led plot ... 😅

[Sue]

8 hours ago, malumbu said:

Perhaps a good place for Sue's EDF proposed meet up.  I'll suggest in that thread.

Sorry Mal, the Palmerston is already booked 🤣

[Spartacus]

An interesting coverage of letters from both sides in the guardian 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/may/18/evidence-shows-that-ltns-improve-peoples-lives

[Rockets]

Those letters really show some of the problems.

So you have:

• Lambeth Living Streets saying: LTN's are brilliant, just look at all the evidence from Rachel Aldred and Anna Goodman that says so
• Joan Twelves, ex-Lambeth council leader and chair of Kennington Park estate RA: they've made our lives awful and created displacement
• Graham Clews from Lewes: everyone who opposes LTNs are culture war petrol heads and we must not let the High Court stand in the way of progress
• Richard Aldwinkle, One Dulwich: hurrah to Joseph, the community is being ignored as council's push measures that are socially unjust due to displacement.

 

So there we are then.....pretty much a full-house in the game of LTN trope bingo from both sides! 😉 

 

Edited Monday at 13:20 by Rockets

[Penguin68]

18 minutes ago, Rockets said:

everyone who opposes LTNs are culture war petrol heads and we must not let the High Court stand in the way of progress

Close to 80% of UK households own at least one car - LTNs discriminate as much against all electric cars as they do 'petrol' (not forgetting diesel) cars. The idea that the vast majority of households, all of which are impacted by LTNs in one way or another and may object to that are by definition leader in a Culture War is frankly absurd. [If you add in those households who are dependent on the use of privately owned vehicles to provide services, allow visitors  etc, even where that household is not car owning itself you probably get close to 100% of households (of those near LTNs) who may be adversely impacted - not to mention those living or using streets which have had increased traffic as a result of LTNs]. It is a very Trumpian response to suggest that people who disagree with you are morally bad. - But I may as well since it's the custom in these debates!

[march46]

3 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Close to 80% of UK households own at least one car

This simply isn’t true for Southwark where over 60% of households do not own a car and 70% of respondents to the council’s Streets for People consultation say they want to see less traffic in Southwark. 

Edited Monday at 13:32 by march46

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 18/05/2025 at 13:19, Spartacus said:

those who oppose LTNs, on the grounds that they dont really reduce overall traffic across a wider area and may be responsible for increasing pollution on major boundary roads

No evidence of this at all. In fact the data shows that traffic did reduce across the wider area post LTN implementation and air quality has improved (although this is only a correlation).

[Penguin68]

20 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

and air quality has improved (although this is only a correlation).

As this happened co-terminally with the introduction first of the ultra low emissions zone to the South Circular and then the M25 I think there were other factors in play (as there were the Covid restrictions at the start of the Dulwich LTN)

33 minutes ago, march46 said:

60% of households do not own a car

But remember that car ownership in Southwark is influenced by the fact that in the Old Borough of Southwark there are a plethora buses, tubes and trains to choose from, and very flat topology to cycle on (and things are closer together to the north of the borough) - in the old Borough of Camberwell however, there are no tubes, fewer trains and fewer buses and many fewer (and less frequent) East West travel opportunities - so LTNs in the south of the borough are more likely to have as a population more people with cars, of simple necessity.

Oh, and the comment I was responding to was not Southwark specific anyway.

[malumbu]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Those letters really show some of the problems.

So you have:

• Lambeth Living Streets saying: LTN's are brilliant, just look at all the evidence from Rachel Aldred and Anna Goodman that says so
• Joan Twelves, ex-Lambeth council leader and chair of Kennington Park estate RA: they've made our lives awful and created displacement
• Graham Clews from Lewes: everyone who opposes LTNs are culture war petrol heads and we must not let the High Court stand in the way of progress
• Richard Aldwinkle, One Dulwich: hurrah to Joseph, the community is being ignored as council's push measures that are socially unjust due to displacement.

 

So there we are then.....pretty much a full-house in the game of LTN trope bingo from both sides! 😉 

 

You are hardly middle ground yourself.

 

8 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

As this happened co-terminally with the introduction first of the ultra low emissions zone to the South Circular and then the M25 I think there were other factors in play (as there were the Covid restrictions at the start of the Dulwich LTN)

But remember that car ownership in Southwark is influenced by the fact that in the Old Borough of Southwark there are a plethora buses, tubes and trains to choose from, and very flat topology to cycle on (and things are closer together to the north of the borough) - in the old Borough of Camberwell however, there are no tubes, fewer trains and fewer buses and many fewer (and less frequent) East West travel opportunities - so LTNs in the south of the borough are more likely to have as a population more people with cars, of simple necessity.

Oh, and the comment I was responding to was not Southwark specific anyway.

You are coming across as an apologist for those that consider they have to drive, when there are often good alternatives

Well this debate is really moving on.  Ultimately road closures and restrictions are one means of discouraging driving.  In many cases communities will never have a majority in favour due to self interest.  Yet if I check all my feeder roads onto The South Circ, Lordship Lane and Forest Hill Road, the majority have some sort of restrictions.  So why are you not campaigning for roads such as St Aidans Road to have access to Forest Hill Road, or Wood Vale to turn right onto the South Circ rather than go round the houses?  That is because these are now established restrictions and were not badged as LTNs.

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

As this happened co-terminally with the introduction first of the ultra low emissions zone to the South Circular and then the M25 I think there were other factors in play

Yes, exactly why I stated that it was only a correlation, the point being however, that pollution did not increase on surrounding roads. It fell. So when people claim that pollution rose, they are wrong.

When they claim that traffic didn’t fall across the wider area, they are wrong.

Wrong on matters of fact, not opinion.

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Those letters really show some of the problems.

So you have:

• Lambeth Living Streets saying: LTN's are brilliant, just look at all the evidence from Rachel Aldred and Anna Goodman that says so
• Joan Twelves, ex-Lambeth council leader and chair of Kennington Park estate RA: they've made our lives awful and created displacement
• Graham Clews from Lewes: everyone who opposes LTNs are culture war petrol heads and we must not let the High Court stand in the way of progress
• Richard Aldwinkle, One Dulwich: hurrah to Joseph, the community is being ignored as council's push measures that are socially unjust due to displacement.

 

So there we are then.....pretty much a full-house in the game of LTN trope bingo from both sides! 😉 

 

So some opinions and anecdote, versus peer reviewed, data based research?

Edited Monday at 15:20 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

17 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

When they claim that traffic didn’t fall across the wider area, they are wrong. On matters of fact, not opinion.

Some would say it was the council's opinion that traffic fell across the wider area - you know, as well as everyone else does, that if you aren't monitoring all of the displacement routes across the area then you cannot make any definitive claims. The council weren't (Underhill) and that is the only fact that matters.

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Some would say it was the council's opinion that traffic fell across the wider area - you know, as well as everyone else does, that if you aren't monitoring all of the displacement routes across the area then you cannot make any definitive claims. The council weren't (Underhill) and that is the only fact that matters.

So where do you draw the line. You think they have to monitor every road, no matter how far away? every road in the postcode, in the borough, in London? They monitored a good number of roads in and around the LTN and showed a fall in traffic overall, across the wider area. To claim it showed the opposite is simply untrue. 

Edited Monday at 15:27 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

Just imagine if we lived in Oxford 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/oxfords-ltn-farce/

[Earl Aelfheah]

7 minutes ago, Rockets said:

that is the only fact that matters.

It's interesting that you think 'the only fact that matters' is that you can name a road which wasn't monitored; ignoring all the ones that were, and dismissing all available data.

[malumbu]

2 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So where do you draw the line. You think they have to monitor every road, no matter how far away? every road in the postcode, in the borough, in London? They monitored a good number of roads in and around the LTN and showed a fall in traffic overall, across the wider area. To claim it showed the opposite is simply untrue. 

Sadly I expect that would be the answer from many.  

On the ULEZ extension (Greater London, not within the M25, that was the earlier LEZ that applies to larger vehicles) Mayor Khan should be congratulated for extending this; those living in close proximity of major roads including and  outside of the North and South Circs should be particularly grateful.  Yet middle England rebelled caring more about their right to drive than health.  And a lot of the reason we are where we are now; Sunak's and Starmer's pro driver policies are in response to this.  I'd have told the small majority of Tory voters in Uxbridge where to go. 

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah we've done this conversation to death so not point repeating it but if you are not monitoring Underhill, which became a major displacement route post-LTNs, you have no idea whether there is an area-wide reduction in traffic. I think the rational from the council was that Underhill wasn't in the immediate vicinity of the LTNs so would not be a displacement route...which is, of course, utter tosh. 

[malumbu]

5 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Just imagine if we lived in Oxford 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/oxfords-ltn-farce/

It's lovely.  Got a lot of time for the area, lived there and there abouts in the past.  The car reduction policies in the 80s were wonderful. keep it up.

The stuff on buses is the usual tosh.  There are plenty of buses to Cowley.  I used them all the time as a youngster when going into town for beers.  Sadly those outside of central Oxford have an aversion to them because they are seen as poor people's transport.  Back to the apologists for motorists, oh we would use public transport but......  And some absolutely wonderful cycle routes.

The park and ride is another wonder to behold.