LTN Discussion

[Earl Aelfheah]

25 minutes ago, first mate said:

As I said, LTNs, CPZ, Dulwich Square, One Dulwich, all interlinked, so any could pop up on many of the threads really.

Yes, on any relevant thread. But someone has created an entirely separate one for whoever One Dulwich is, and their ‘updates’ nearly all of which are about the LTN. 🤦‍♂️

Edited January 20 by Earl Aelfheah

[ab29]

5 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Yes, on any relevant thread. But someone has created an entirely separate one for whoever One Dulwich is, and their ‘updates’ nearly all of which are about the LTN. 🤦‍♂️

and?

[Earl Aelfheah]

So if you want to post views on the LTN, is there a reason not to do it in the LTN thread? 

I mean we can continue to create multiple ones of you want, but interested how you think it’s helpful?

It feels a lot like an effort to push out different voices, ironically by those crying ‘censorship’ at the idea that it’s not ideal. 

Edited January 20 by Earl Aelfheah

[ab29]

1 minute ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So if you want to post views on the LTN, is there a reason not to do it in the LTN thread? 

And what about it? So if I post about flowers on a thread about vegetables - what happens? 

You can always talk to Admin if you see anything untoward

and examples please?

[Earl Aelfheah]

The example is the thread for ‘One Dulwich updates’, to rail against LTNs when there is already a thread on LTNs. If you want we can all keep creating different LTN threads in order to try and amplify a particular viewpoint, but I would argue it’s unhelpful.

[ab29]

Why does it bother you?

[first mate]

I guess for the conspiracy theorists on here at least if the One Dulwich updates appear largely on a thread called One Dulwich updates, it means you can hold your noses and ensure you don't click. For others, it means they know where they can read the updates. Some forumites may not be aware of One Dulwich, it might be a welcome surprise.

[Earl Aelfheah]

18 minutes ago, ab29 said:

Why does it bother you?

No worries. We can all start creating multiple threads on the same topic . Glad you support this tactic. 👍

[ab29]

We can create as many threads as we like - it's a free country after all 🙂

[ab29]

Hi @Administrator can you please remind Earl the forum six-years-old what the rules here are? And that it is fine to create new threads if one has something to contribute and not just out of spite?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Oh dear. Is this ‘censorship’ ab29? 🤣

14 hours ago, ab29 said:

Why does it bother you?

🤔

[Jellybeanz]

Very interested to see how the legal challenge to LTNs in south London goes in February... spending a long time on a bus in heavy traffic every morning is so frustrating, when surely everyone must by now agree that LTNs and road closures such as Melbourne Grove and some other side roads in East Dulwich serve no useful purpose, and most definitely do not reduce air pollution aside from on the now quieter closed roads.

Apparently one road off Grove Vale should have been reopened for emergency vehicles but remains closed with a planter etc.

I'd love to see statistics of cycle and pedestrian usage of Melbourne Grove, as I know several businesses  on that road have moved (e.g. Callow locksmiths) or closed (secondhand clothes shop and GMs hair salon along with the Greek restaurant) since the LTN was put in place...

[malumbu]

What bus and what time?  I avoid buses between about 7.50 and 9.30 as this is when many drive to work or drive the kids to school.  This goes back many years well before LTNs.  Main occasional use was the 185 to Victoria and the pinch points were the Harvester junction, Goose Green roundabout, right turn into Denmark Hill, left turn Camberwell Green, the Catholic School on Camberwell New Road before the bus lane, Oval Vauxhall etc.  I used it enough to know the critical times.  Otherwise I expect bus travel is and was always slow in 'rush hour'.

[march46]

1 hour ago, Jellybeanz said:

I'd love to see statistics of cycle and pedestrian usage of Melbourne Grove, as I know several businesses  on that road have moved (e.g. Callow locksmiths) or closed (secondhand clothes shop and GMs hair salon along with the Greek restaurant) since the LTN was put in place...

Don’t believe everything you hear - the Greek restaurant on Melbourne Grove was converted into residential many years before the road was changed and I’m pretty sure the secondhand clothes shop is still there.
 

There’s also what appears to be lots of new thriving businesses - Art K looks like it’s very popular, as well as the new Reformer Pilates studio. The coffee shop, Nido and Drop Dulwich are great  additions too.

[ab29]

On 04/02/2025 at 19:25, Jellybeanz said:

Very interested to see how the legal challenge to LTNs in south London goes in February... spending a long time on a bus in heavy traffic every morning is so frustrating, when surely everyone must by now agree that LTNs and road closures such as Melbourne Grove and some other side roads in East Dulwich serve no useful purpose, and most definitely do not reduce air pollution aside from on the now quieter closed roads.

Apparently one road off Grove Vale should have been reopened for emergency vehicles but remains closed with a planter etc.

I'd love to see statistics of cycle and pedestrian usage of Melbourne Grove, as I know several businesses  on that road have moved (e.g. Callow locksmiths) or closed (secondhand clothes shop and GMs hair salon along with the Greek restaurant) since the LTN was put in place...

Will be very interesting to know, especially in the light of the recent reasearch as reportef by The Guardian:

"' Air pollution can be considered an imortant factor  that partly explains the emerging predominance of adenocarcinoma that accounts for 53% to 70% of cases of lung cancer among people who have never smoked worldwide' the study reported"

People living on the roads taking the extra post LTN traffic like Lordship Lane or Croxted Road are not happy 🤔

[malumbu]

The answer is to drive less.  Most drivers couldn't give a fig about air quality and only raise it when they are unhappy about restrictions on motoring.

[ab29]

1 hour ago, ab29 said:

Will be very interesting to know, especially in the light of the recent reasearch as reportef by The Guardian:

"' Air pollution can be considered an imortant factor  that partly explains the emerging predominance of adenocarcinoma that accounts for 53% to 70% of cases of lung cancer among people who have never smoked worldwide' the study reported"

People living on the roads taking the extra post LTN traffic like Lordship Lane or Croxted Road are not happy 🤔

Just to add that I do not drive & I do not own a car ( never have). And yet I am lectured by individuals like malumbu who drives his furniture to France - by car - to his summer house and who does not even live in Southwark

[Sue]

11 hours ago, ab29 said:

Just to add that I do not drive & I do not own a car ( never have). And yet I am lectured by individuals like malumbu who drives his furniture to France - by car - to his summer house and who does not even live in Southwark

What has any of that got to do with a discussion about LTNs?

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 04/02/2025 at 19:25, Jellybeanz said:

Very interested to see how the legal challenge to LTNs in south London goes in February...

Is this the 'West Dulwich action group' action, you're referring to? Or is there some sort of challenge to LTNs in South London generally? Assuming it's the former, as the WD LTN is only a trial, I can't really see that their action has any prospect of success, but I maybe I'm missing something.

On 04/02/2025 at 19:25, Jellybeanz said:

Spending a long time on a bus in heavy traffic every morning is so frustrating

Best thing that could be done to speed up buses down lordship lane would be 24 hour bus lanes (most of the time there are cars parked in them at the moment). Also removing some of the free parking so that buses can pass each other without having to constantly pull over would help.

On 04/02/2025 at 19:25, Jellybeanz said:

surely everyone must by now agree that LTNs and road closures such as Melbourne Grove and some other side roads in East Dulwich serve no useful purpose, and most definitely do not reduce air pollution aside from on the now quieter closed roads.

So they do reduce pollution, just on side roads? The combination of policies introduced by TFL over the last few years (including ULEZ), do appear to be improving air quality in London

On 04/02/2025 at 19:25, Jellybeanz said:

I'd love to see statistics of cycle and pedestrian usage of Melbourne Grove, as I know several businesses  on that road have moved (e.g. Callow locksmiths) or closed

As already pointed out, lot's of new and successful businesses have actually opened on that section of MG.

Edited February 7 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

If the combined policies only appear to improve air quality, that is not a very convincing result. We need to be clear that there is a quantifiable, consistent improvement in air quality.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Annual concentrations of roadside nitrogen dioxide (NO2) almost halved in London between 2016 and 2023. And preliminary figures indicate London’s annual NO2 levels were lowest on record in 2023 – lower even than first year of COVID-19 lockdowns. So it's fairly clear that the mayors policies are having a significant impact on air quality.

[march46]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Best thing that could be done to speed up buses down lordship lane would be 24 hour bus lanes (most of the time there are cars parked in them at the moment). Also removing some of the free parking so that buses can pass each other without having to constantly pull over would help.

100% behind this. It’s a disgrace that so many people’s bus journeys are delayed because of parked cars blocking the bus lane.

[Rockets]

Do you also feel that it is a disgrace that people's bus journeys have been delayed by displaced traffic from LTNs?

[Earl Aelfheah]

I took a look at the road causality and collision data around the Calton Road / village road junction. In the 3 years leading up to the introduction of the filter / LTN, there were 6 collisions. In the 3 years following it's introduction, there was 1.

Edited February 7 by Earl Aelfheah

[Earl Aelfheah]

Claims that the junction is somehow more dangerous now, are not reflected in the number of recorded collisions / casualties (as anyone sensible might reasonably expect).

Edited February 7 by Earl Aelfheah