Rockets

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don?t think people are going to disagree on this > thread - they just don?t think the particular > configuration of closures in this area are an > acceptable tool to encourage people to drive less, > because of the collateral damage. > > I?m not going to drive less, though, as I don?t > have a licence and don?t drive :) > > > > SE22_2020er Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I've had a brilliant idea to solve the problem. > > > DRIVE LESS!!!! > > > > I think the one thing that everyone agrees on > this > > thread is that there is too much pollution > caused > > by people driving. No-one has said that they > > want to see more cars on the road. Or have I > > missed those posts? > > > > So, what you should be doing fellow posters is > > focussing on the root cause of the problem > which > > is too many people driving and not enough > people > > using public transport and active transport > > (walking and cycling). > > > > Am I the only one who is keeping their fingers > > crossed that we will get the congestion charge > > implemented soon so that people who pollute are > > financially penalised for their pollution? Spot on legal. The LTNs don't take enough cars off the road to prevent increased congestion and pollution on tbe roads not closed. LTNs are a very blunt instrument that do nothing more than to create a reduced car nirvana within them and pollution hell around and outside them. Even if you remove the unnecessary local journeys made by Dulwich residents you probably only get a low single figure % of reduced car use which is not nearly enough to not cause displacement problems elsewhere. Remember the best claimed reduction in car use from an LTN was 11% and I suspect that was not in an area with as complex traffic challenges as Dulwich. Schools go back tomorrow so we are likely to see the first phase of the return of the increased congestion from the LTNs and it will increase again with each phase of lifting. Just saw this....it's as if each council is following the same playbook word for word... https://youtu.be/RMPmPi1aayE

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not really sure why you post the cycle lobby > doesn't want electric vehicles. We need vehicles > and they need to move to zero emission. We just > need less vehicles, rather than simply replace the > internal combustion engine with electric motors. > And when I say 'we' I am talking about society not > cyclists. > > And bemused by the comparison with Bromley. > Whilst I have expressed a view that some on this > thread aren't progressive in their thinking, many > in Bromley are in the dark ages when it comes to > more environmentally friendly transport. And most > have the space in their homes to keep a bike. So > often the choice is: I'll use my car as it is more > convenient, vs I'll use another form of transport > as although it is less convenient it is better for > society, the environment and my health and well > being. I've made the transition to the latter, > irrespective of the hills and the absolutely > dreadful public transport (it's not). Join me. It is clear from all of the above posts that both sides in this debate are a lot closer than most people think - we all want to do something about the climate emergency but disagree on the effectiveness of the measures the council has put in thus far. DC - I would agree that more measures to support cycling are needed on main roads, traffic calming, 24/7 bus lanes etc are all needed. But it has to be part of a broader package of events. What interested me in the Guardian's interactive article was just how little of Southwark has any measures - there is a section in the north and then the tiny section in Dulwich - you cannot operate a programme like this - it's way too isolated and would only ever cause the problems we are seeing across the area. And beyond these closures there seems to have been little else - one wonder how many cycle hangers could have been installed for the cost of all the cameras and street furniture now adoring Dulwich Village in support of these closures. Devs - likewise - we have a problem of speeding drivers and we have to do everything to reduce speeds. All in all there has been a lack of infrastructural support from the council to encourage anything other than a small amount of modal shift on the closed roads. The lack of positive action on things like bike hangers is quite shocking. There are three things that will make positive change happen: infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure and the council has put the cart before the horse with the LTNs. And Otto2 I agree we are seeing more and more children cycling and this is excellent and more of it is to be encouraged but we all have to recognise that life patterns are very different during a pandemic and no-one should be travelling more than a mile or so from their homes so people jump on their bikes or walk. The moment lockdown lifts I believe that changes again as people can venture further afield and will go to visit friends and relatives further from their homes. It was funny recently as I walked up Court Lane and did a very unscientific survey and I reckon some 30% - 40% of the houses there had a 4x4 sitting idle on the drives or on the road (it seems that the Volvo XC range is very popular along that road for some reason) and guaranteed that the moment lockdown lifts those cars start bombing around the country. One of the reasons I have been challenging Malumbu on how they use their car is not to call them out but to make the point that even the most ardent supporter of model shift and LTNs still has reason to own a car and many people who own a car do so because they have to - some just have many more reasons to use it than others. And finally, Malumbu - there are many in the cycle lobby who believe that any car is bad and as someone posted earlier this seems to be reflected by our council. In fact, from the minutes of the Southwark meeting Peter Walker is said to have said this (and this is reflective of much that I have read from others) but perhaps the response from the council is perhaps more surprising: Peter Walker cautioned against a focus on EV, as there is rising evidence is that the emissions are still high from brake dust etc.; the safety problems of cars remain, alongside the predominance of roads given over to cars. The transport policy officer clarified she is not advocating wholescale switching from petro cars to EV , only that EV is a option of last resort. It worries me massively that a transport policy officer would say that EV is an option of last resort - this again adds more weight to the accusation that the council wants to eliminate cars completely which just is not feasible and this is clouding their judgement on measures that can help tackle the problem we all want to influence.

Otto2 - there are a lot of posts from me on this thread about just that subject but, in summary (and these are my thoughts for Dulwich): 1) Investment in transport infrastructure (I know this is long-term but PTAL scores are very low in Dulwich). Without public transport infrastructure you cannot expect people to get out of the car. 2) Integrated cycling infrastructure. Bikes and cars have to coexist. Make it easier for people to make modal shift but not by closing roads to through traffic as that doesn't fix anything - it makes things worse. 3) Cycling support infrastructure. Cycling cannot remain the domain of those with space to store bikes. There needs to accelerated investment in giving every household access to bike storage. Without it cycling will remain only accessible to the most wealthy. 4) Proper commitment to EV infrastructure - but I appreciate many in the cycle lobby don't want this (as demonstrated by the minutes of the meeting posted earlier in the thread). But if emissions are the problem we are tacking then tackle them. 5) Means tested road pricing. 6) Do nothing in isolation. Do a proper area-wide approach and include everyone in the debate and give equal weighting to all road users. 7) Don't put measures in place that cause more problems than they solve and divide a community. 8) Be transparent with the plans and put proper monitoring in place to determine what is working and what is not. Do not be afraid to admit that something is not working.

SE22_2020er - I am sorry you feel that way but people feel passionately about this on both sides and I think my tone is no different from anyone else's involved in the debate - wherever they stand in it - and you have to admit I try to inject a bit of brevity every so often to try to lighten the tone. Some of us are just trying to counter some of the arguments being put forth in support of these measures - is that wrong - especially as the council is limiting proper discussion and community engagement on the matter? At the end of the day if you don't like the thread you don't have to engage - that's the beauty of these forums but it's the number one thread in terms of posts and views so some people seem to be interested! ;-)

Well said Trevor.... https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/04/how-low-traffic-schemes-fuel-inequality?__twitter_impression=true

Peter, Welcome to the most entertaining and engaging thread on the forum and we appreciate your input - things get a bit heated on here but we all love each other dearly! ;-) You are being seen, quite rightly, as a mouthpiece for the pro-LTN lobby and, whilst I appreciate that you are catering to the readership of the Guardian, you cannot be surprised that some are suggesting that there could be more balance and scrutiny applied to your reports? For example, do you know who funded the recent Rachel Aldred report? Also looking at your Twitter feed https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1367451540680830976 you are very dismissive of anyone who dares have an opinion that differs from your own - your post earlier today signing up to NextDoor and then the pile on from people like Simon Munk because people are discussing LTNs on there demonstrates why people feel there is an agenda to deposition and belittle anyone who dares question LTNs. I personally believe that the attitude you, the council and your cohorts are taking with the "we're right and you're wrong" attitude is galvanising more and more support against these measures. Combine that with the council's refusal to engage in any proper dialogue and I believe long-term harm is being done to the much needed and urgent debate on climate change and the role that cars and other vehicles play in that. Whilst I appreciate Twitter are personal comments that attitude transmits to your articles (the use of immotive language like: seemingly demolishes the main argument by opponents of such schemes) and I am not sure you can be surprised people deposition your position when you are so willing to deposition and belittle others. As a local resident you are no doubt aware of the problems these measures have created - both in the sense of creating huge displacement issues and dividing the community. You must also be aware that a large number of local residents across Dulwich feel that they are being ignored by the council and forced to live with the negative displacement of these measures as the council panders to a group of lobbyists, many of whom happen to live on some the wealthiest streets in London - if I do say so myself a more traditional Guardian article if I ever saw one. I also do love the deep irony of a journalist claiming: "That's not what I said" in relation to the minutes of the Southwark meeting - I thought that was only ever said to journalists not by them! The minutes are pretty compelling, here are the minutes from that meeting (page 6 is where these issues are discussed) and one excerpt pasted below: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g6464/Printed%20minutes%20Wednesday%2004-Dec-2019%2019.00%20Environment%20Scrutiny%20Commission.pdf?T=1 Peter Walker asked if there was scope for experiments. The transport policy officer that that there was and Southwark is undertaking schemes with 18 months experimental orders, which can be repeated. The cycling campaigners advised that there is a need for conviction and leadership, given the climate emergency and that car owners are not the majority.

Has anyone seen that amazing fox on Court Lane that hangs around the entrance of Dulwich Park on occasions? The most beautiful creature you will see - someone is obviously taking good care of it as it is not at all timid and has the most luscious coat.

Ex- I wasn't calling for Aldred's research to be peer-reviewed + Snowy insinuated that I didn't understand peer-review and I merely pointed out that Aldred's report is Under Peer Review thus depositioning Snowy's suggestion that my argument was not credible because Aldred has had work peer-reviewed previously. I think it is clear where the Dulwich Alliance funding came from (anti LTN supporters) what's less clear is where the funding for Aldred's report came from - anyone hazzard a guess where.....? And the bottom line is the Guardian isn't dressing up DA's research and presenting it as fact. They would look at it and say this isn't balanced, which is fair enough. Shame they don't apply the same measure to pro-closure research don't you think? 🤔 Anyway, judge for yourself how impartial Aldred might be...she served as London Cycling Campaign Policy forum lead from 2012 to 2018 and helped develop their policy on LTNs......

Alice - I agree - the LTNs have failed, they have divided a community and made life for some better by making life for far more worse - that's not at all equitable. Whether they are removed or not remains to be seen as the council is trying their utmost to cling on to them and the longer the review is delayed the more it looks like they are trying to come up with some sort of positive to help justify them. I am still amazed that they haven't listened to the emergency services and put removable barriers in at the DV/Calton Avenue junction - they have elsewhere so why not there I wonder? Snowy - I do know what peer review means - I also know what Under Peer Review means which this research is (it's plastered all over it). Also, does it say anywhere in the 42 pages of the report who paid for it?

It is going to be interesting to see how this develops because whilst they show ED as having a CPZ (and I did laugh at how the council focusses on income already being accounted - cher-ching! ;-) ) of course it is only a limited area of parts of ED so hopefully there can be a sensible debate on where these are/if these are needed - of course there's no commuter parking (or in many parts parking problems) to help "justify" these measures! Or maybe we will see a another raft of council led interventions to extend double yellows etc to create parking pressure!

You forgot to mention Professor Alred, the pro-LTN closure lobbyist, London Cycling Campaign funded environmental campaigner - I am sure you will agree it's an important point when reviewing her research. ;-) And I am not expecting anyone to believe me, far from it - it's for everyone to make their own mind's up. But, of course, I am not having my thoughts on this published in the Guardian and there is good reason for that because I am not impartial - Rachel Aldred is having her work published in the Guardian and of course (see above) she is not impartial. But that doesn't seem to matter to Peter Walker, the Guardian or the pro-LTN lobby. I really love it when a few of us scratch beneath the surface of these stories and highlight the inevitable ifs, buts and maybes that are used to create the pro-LTN headlines. It is what the pro-closure lobby and council absolutely hate - a little bit of scrutiny!

Malumbu - should we just take whatever is posted by The Guardian and Rachel Aldred as the truth and not challenge some of the findings....come on, really....just because you don't like what we say doesn't mean we should not be providing the scrutiny....to be fair to everyone here if no-one provided any scrutiny the council would be doing what they want when they want and getting away with it - consider what we are doing as a public service to ensure some balance?! ;-) P.S. you still haven't answered how you use your car?

Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The reason is in the study (it is worth a read in > full): > > "Our analysis addressed the following research > questions: > > 1.With respect to key dimensions of equity (e.g. > ethnicity, deprivation), how equitably are LTNs > distributed across London? > 2.Are there salient differences between LTNs and > immediately adjacent areas? > 3.Are any relationships (or lack thereof) observed > for London as a whole also presentwithin > individual districts? > > We include the second research question because > boundary roads and/or adjacent areas might > experience at least short-term traffic > displacement after introducing a new LTN. In > addition, while LTNs can benefit people living in > adjacent areas through increased opportunities to > make local trips by foot or by bicycle, the > magnitude of this benefit is expected to be even > greater for residents living inside an LTN, who > also enjoy the benefits of reduced motor traffic > in the street that they live on. As such, > differences in demographic characteristics > between LTN areas and adjacent areas might > indicate an equity issue, even without any > sustained disbenefit to adjacent areas." "short-term traffic displacement" - did they also run the model if the displacement is not short-term and is actually permanent.....no, I didn't think so! ;-) So they are making assumptions based on their own bias.....what a surprise! ;-) The problem with this type of "academic" research is that it is flawed from the outset because the academics go into it with an agenda and from all the commentary provided by Peter Walker et al it is clear the goal was only ever to counter The Times' article.

I think it is further proof of how far Labour has become removed from it's base. It is more interested in party politics than it is individual constituents or doing the right thing. It's really quite sad how far it has been wrenched from what it used to stand for - what is happening here is exactly what happened at national level to the party - lost touch with it's constituents and forged forward with plans that disenfranchised the electorate.

Yes I realise that it isn't about reduction in traffic but I am trying to determine why they are excluding boundary roads in a study trying to determine whether they are equitable - if you look at the Dulwich LTNs by excluding boundary roads you are precluding less valuable houses and council housing from being included. Also the research concludes that across London the measures are not benefitting wealthier areas more but that doesn't mean the Dulwich ones are fair - just look at how much bigger some of the other LTN areas are. Would be very interesting to apply the same model and analysis on Dulwich alone.

So are they saying that any road within 500 metres would have seen a reduction in traffic? But they say they also removed boundary roads that continue to carry substantial through traffic and excluding buildings facing onto those boundary roads....why did they do that? So can we conclude then that Lordship Lane would be considered a boundary road and that it and the Lordship Lane estate were excluded from the study as it faced onto the boundary road? If so, this report is massively flawed. Funny how we can ponder these questions yet the Guardian can't!

Also that research talks about people living in "or near" an LTN, seemingly combining the two - it seems to be suggesting that if you live near one you get the benefit of it which is obviously flawed - Court Lane and Lordship Lane (one is in and one is near but the experiences are very, very different). More Aldred propaganda published without any sort of scrutiny by the Guardian and Peter Walker.....

I did chuckle to myself as I walked up Court Lane today and noted that every other car on drives along it seems to be a 4x4 - the Volvo XC range seems to be very popular! Providing quieter, less polluted streets for those driving the most polluting vehicles does seem a little strange....

Malumbu - but when do you use your car? I am genuinely interested because it is obvious you still feel the need to have access to one and retain one so what type of journeys do you need it for?

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Glad you are enjoying your cycle along Court Lane > Rocks. > > Here's an interesting article about decarbonising > road transport, including technology and behaviour > change. It doesn't discuss local measures as the > main focus is on electrifying road transport. I'm > not sure how 'poor public transport' is a > 'measurable fact'. Surely it is all relative - we > have better public transport than many of the > metropolitan areas and worse, say, than Budapest. > To radically improve public transport you either > need a communist government or a good war when you > can rebuild your transport infrastructure. Not > sure if I agree with either. > > https://www.transporttimes.co.uk/news.php/Why-Do-S > ome-Environmentalists-Oppose-Decarbonisation-of-Ve > hicles-616/?utm_source=Transport+Times&utm_campaig > n=93ec0d0636-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_10_30_11_03_COPY_ > 01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c0cafa3f39-93ec0d06 > 36-250793593 > > As for catalysts to ditch the car, where there is > a will there is a way. I've probably explained > about how my perspective has changed - I'd marvel > at those with young families that would not have a > car, so don't accept that this is a must. On basic > economics if you are down to say around 5000 miles > a year, then it is costing you ?2000 - ?3000 a > year. That's a lot of Ubers, Zip cars and public > transport. Perhaps the ULEZ will lead to a step > change when many round here face the decision of > whether to replace the car - from casual looks > down the street well over half the parked vehicles > are not compliant. > > Unsure if ULEZ is more or less divisive than LTNs. > Another poster called for enforcement of 20mph > zones, something I agree with but I can imagine > the howls of protest. It is a measurable fact via PTALs and here is an excerpt from Southwark's Dulwich Area Traffic Management Report. Open the link below, scroll to page 10 and it's there in black and white for you! ;-) https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Dulwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf The report says: PTAL is a measure of accessibility used by TfL based on distance and frequency of public transport. The areas with a high level of public transport accessibility usually score 5, 6a or 6b on the PTAL scale, whilst areas with very low levels of public transport accessibility will score 0, 1a or 1b. The Dulwich area has a low level of public transport accessibility. Areas around the main stations only reach a PTAL 3 and The Village a PTAL 2 whilst the main commercial area around East Dulwich has a PTAL 3. Other parts of Dulwich, particularly those where schools are located have a level 2 of accessibility translating into a higher use of car and coach for pupils outside of Dulwich. This is confirmed also by more general DfT accessibility statistics which show that, in general the area has a lower public transport accessibility level than the remainder of Southwark whilst by car it tends to be on par with the other parts of the borough or somewhat higher for hospitals, particularly due to the proximity of Dulwich Community Hospital. Pretty conclusive don't you think - and that's from Southwark themselves? It also goes on to say that Dulwich has an aging population and a larger percentage of people over the age of 65 and that that has to be taken into consideration. You do still have your car then? Out of interest how are you using it? It is very interesting that both you and Rahx3 seem to still have cars - I am genuinely interested to understand how you use them and what you use them for?

Malumbu, as the council stated in their own report car ownership is high in Dulwich due to a number of factors, the most important of which is that the public transport in the area is poor - that is a measurable fact. A close second is the large number of families with children. Do you still own a car or are you now car-less? If you do still have a car could you tell us what you use it for and what would the catalyst be for you to go car-less? As I cycled along Court Lane today I did wonder whether anyone within the LTN area has actually jettisoned their car on the basis of the closures.

Malumbu - regardless of how you think how good public transport is the official measure says it is poor in Dulwich - do you know what PTAL scores are? Ex- could you explain it to Malumbu please as I think it is not in fact me who has the closed mind...;-) P.S. I do believe a reduction in traffic is a good/urgently needed thing...I just don't think LTNs are sophisticated enough to deliver it and actually cause much more harm than good.

Heartblock what I find most upsetting and confusing is that you ae being told by a Labour councillor that your daily experience needs to be validated by holistic monitoring and modelling. It's also very worrying that if there has been a decrease on some roads but that has led to an increase on others roads that they will be weighed up against one another. So it sounds as if, for example, the council can prove a reduction in the village then the increased traffic on EDG may be considered by them as collateral damage. It is really shocking that the Labour party is treating people like this - I remember a time when they would be rallying behind constituents in your position.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As Soon as you use emotive terms like "botched > schemes" you lose the moral high ground and make > it difficult to have any sort of debate. I do my > best to avoid inflammatory language, although do > struggle at times as many when I try to point out > on the need to reduce traffic and emissions post > often just gets shot down. A starting point would > be to agree that there needs to be measures to > encourage people to drive less, and an increase in > active transport. I expect that most posting on > here do not drive 600 metres to the local shop to > pick up a pint of milk, but there will be some on > our roads who do. Or drive from Zone 6 to zone 2 > or 3 just to cheaper public transport (eg parking > on the roads near Honor Oak Park) > > As many drivers will not reduce car use > voluntarily then you need carrots and sticks. The > 'botched' approach of closing roads does not seem > to be favoured by those most vocal on these > threads so what are your alternatives? Please > don't repeat yourselves about public transport, > it's not perfect but pretty good. The ULEZ is > another drastic measure, but it's coming anyway. Malumbu - your comment that public transport is "pretty good" is completely wrong. Southwark's own Transport Report, published in 2018, said that Dulwich had some of the lowest PTAL scores for the whole borough and that public transport was poor. It was one of the reasons they cited for the high car ownership in the area (one of the highest in the borough). This is the same council that recommended that LTNs should only go into areas with high PTAL scores and low car ownership. So it begs the question whose bright idea it was to go against their own recommendations and put measures in place with poor transport links and high car ownership. It was obvious what was going to happen when the mneasures went in. I think the council has botched this because the measures aren't resolving the big issue - it's making it worse and creating more pollution and having a negative impact of the lives of many people outside the LTN. To Devs' point traffic is already starting to creep up and it won't be long before we start seeing the long lines of queuing traffic at both ends of Lordship Lane and the displacement routes bearing the brunt. And Malumbu these are not people driving 600 yards to get a pint of milk - they are trying to get through and across the borough and unless you tackle the route cause of through traffic it doesn't go away by throwing in some roadblocks - it just goes another way and for all the heralding modal shift based on a few cyclists along Calton Avenue it doesn't get away from the fact that the scheme appears to be failing miserably, dividing the community and creating an increased risk to health for more than it is benefitting. I could understand the Tories doing it but to see this being propagated by a Labour council is beyond shocking.

I do wonder if people see a large lorry and automatically presume it is taking a shortcut when in fact it is making a delivery that cannot be done in a smaller vehicle. Conway lorries are a good example, I have seen them being used to deliver materials for the plethora of pavement replacement works that have been going on across East Dulwich over the last few years. I very much suspect HGV drivers don't take shortcuts down side-streets as they know how easily they can get stuck - if they meet something coming the other way they have a problem.