Rockets

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's clear LTNs are not the answer, they were > never the answer - they were a very blunt > instrument experiment that has been an epic > failure and the council and councillors don't have > the guts to admit it - accountability has never > been their strong point! > > They're PART of the answer. There is no one > answer, one silver bullet that solves everything. > Electric vehicles are part of the solution, more > walking and cycling (enabled by things like LTNs, > more cycle lanes etc) is part of it, increases in > cost of motoring (congestion charging, ULEZ, CPZ, > fuel duty, road tolls - any > combination/permutation of that), better public > transport (sort of ignoring the minor pandemic > thing at the moment which has absolutely destroyed > both P/T usage and confidence) and so on. > > They're all PART of the solution but none of them > are THE answer in themselves. But by default you cannot expect LTNs to work in isolation. The council has put all their money on the LTNs (remember they wanted to throw even more in). So you.must then agree that LTNs in isolation will not be effective? Which brings us back to the point that the LTN experiment has failed and it was doomed to failure as the council loaded all their chips onto that one tactic.

No DKHB...do something but not something that makes the problem you are trying to solve worse...surely that's basic commonsense?

DulwichCentral - unlike some I am happy to answer questions that arise from posts I make here. Especially when the are bowled slightly wide and are asking to be knocked for 6. So let's look at the numbers. The number of cyclists observed rose from 417 (in 2018) to 808 (In November this year) - this is the doubling that members of the pro-closure lobby were heralding as significant - but it's only 391 more cycle journeys. Given we were still in lockdown in November I am surprised the figure is this low. I would have expected to see a much more significant jump in cyclists as more people have time to cycle their children to school and are looking for new ways to exercise. So let me ask you a question, Do you think all the disruption, increased congestion and pollution for the likes of Heartblock is worth it for so few bike journeys? And remember those 391 were journeys in a street bookended by three big schools and counting would include those dropping kids off and returning along the same route and each person on a bike is considered a journey. That dilutes the impact even further. Of course more people may be walking but no data was presented on that so we cannot analyse it. Whichever way you cut it it's clear this experiment is not working. If there was no displacement and negative impact on others then you might be able to celebrate it but there is significant negative impact and they far, far outweigh the positives.

DulwichCentral - a survey done in the Calton Ave area by the pro-closure lobby showed that there was only a few hundred extra cycle journeys made. It's not nearly enough to make the impact required on reductions of car use for the net impact of the LTNs to be anything other than massively negative. And letting it "bed in" won't make the slightest bit of difference. The whole experiment is flawed.

Malumbu - your statement about needing to hurt the driver is exactly why this debate has become so polarised and why so many people, whilst acknowledging the urgent need to do something, oppose these measures. It seems an anti-car lobby has been allowed to manipulate and dictate the terms of the measures being put in. Closing some roads in the hope that people change their mode of transport is a short-sighted as it is stupid. It was only ever going to deliver two things - a tiny amount of modal change for the few in the closed areas but a huge amount of negative impact for everyone else. I do wonder whether years down the line both the council and councillors will be held to account for why they did this and failed to monitor the impact - whether people will take the council to court for increasing pollution for some. It's clear LTNs are not the answer, they were never the answer - they were a very blunt instrument experiment that has been an epic failure and the council and councillors don't have the guts to admit it - accountability has never been their strong point!

DulwichGirl82 - the experiment has failed. Completely and utterly. The council knows it, the pro-closure lobby knows it - we all know it. The experiment has forced traffic from one set of roads onto another set of roads, increasing congestion and pollution as a result. For all the harping on about modal shifts in Dulwich Village and for all the pictures of people cycling and walking the overall impact has been a negative one on the broader Dulwich community. The council is well aware of this and is trying to manipulate everything in a desperate attempt to justify the closures. They know that they have to try and hang on for their own credibility. The whole idea was flawed from the beginning, badly planned and poorly executed and will have done untold harm to the long-term goals of reducing pollution. It is a shame as it didn't take a rocket scientist to work out what would happen when you closed those roads (many on here predict exactly what was going to happen). The reason many won't answer your question is because they fail to acknowledge there is a problem as it undermines their whole position. Once you acknowledge that there has been displacement the experiment will have failed.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Utter nonsense rockets and you know it, we > discussed this ages ago > > I saw strips myself on EDG, Grove lane, dulwich > village and LL plus various other roads > > They were replaced once after cutting, not sure > what happened after that, but they were there for > 2 months at least > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Penguin68 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Unless and until Southwark measures pollution > > on > > > the roads it has pushed traffic into, and has > > > sound measures 'before' as well, then we can > > > assume that any figure quoted as to changes > or > > > improvements will be rubbish. So no changes > > here, > > > then. What I will expect to be told is that > the > > > measures have improved conditions for the > roads > > > which have been closed and then told 'job > > done'. > > > > Given the council only put monitoring strips on > > the roads that were closed when they initiated > the > > DV closures it is clear that was their initial > > strategic approach...displacement was not even > > considered.... No Redpoat I am afraid you are wrong on this one. The strips on displacement roads went in a long time after the DV closures. Initially, after the DV closures went in, the council only put monitoring strips in on Court Lane, Calton Avenue and the roads closed. It was those strips that were vandalised. It was only after people started questioning why they were only monitoring the closed roads that they started putting them in elsewhere but that followed a couple of months after the initial DV closures. It's why many people are concerned that they have no benchmark for displacement as the monitoring on those roads started so long after the impact was already being felt. It's one of the reasons that the council is looking to modelling to determine the impact: they have no raw data.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unless and until Southwark measures pollution on > the roads it has pushed traffic into, and has > sound measures 'before' as well, then we can > assume that any figure quoted as to changes or > improvements will be rubbish. So no changes here, > then. What I will expect to be told is that the > measures have improved conditions for the roads > which have been closed and then told 'job done'. Given the council only put monitoring strips on the roads that were closed when they initiated the DV closures it is clear that was their initial strategic approach...displacement was not even considered....

DulwichCentral, let me start by acknowledging that the Calton/Court Lane/DV junction has always been a problem. Why? Because it is the focal point of one of the only east/west routes across Dulwich. Now the fake news element of the OHS numbers was not the numbers themselves but the way the council presented them. Let me explain. Year on year the councils monitoring( actual monitoring not modelling) showed that traffic through the junction was decreasing every year (not enough I hasten to add to resolve the congestion issues there and also contrary to the current narrative that traffic has been increasing on side roads). Now during the roadworks to put in the last improvement works traffic decreased massively as it tried to avoid the queues caused by the roadworks. When the roadworks were removed traffic returned to the levels prior to the roadworks (albeit actually slightly less). The council used the increase after the roadworks to suggest a 47% increase in traffic - which was correct but they used it without the caveat that the roadworks had massively decreased traffic temporarily. They used it as a generic trojan horse to push for more changes suggesting that the 47% increase was consistent I.e. traffic has increased by 47% we have to do more. That was the fake news element and it formed the central tenet for their further OHS consultation. It was either a horrendous mistake or a deliberate manipulation of data to help their strategic initiative. What was interesting as well was that the improvements the council put in did not improve the situation but made it worse. The councils own data showed an increase in both congestion and a moderate increase in pollution. The challenge the DV closure has created is that that traffic is now going somewhere else and doesn't actually solve the bigger problem.

Ex- to be fair, remove the vandalism part (which we all agree is pointless, childish and beyond reproach and switch the Daily Mail for the Guardian on your comment below and you put that hat on many of the pro-closure lobby too! ;-) The vandalism of planters, the cutting of traffic count cables, the mis-use of data (and related to that the shouting down of any data that they don't like by claiming it's old, biased, flawed, produced by a cycling group, written by a cyclist...) and the creation of "echo chamber" debating spaces (primarily Facebook where it's easy for anyone to set up a group and then post inflammatory content, banning anyone who disagrees), the willingness to jump on any article by the Daily Mail, the use of hyperbole and opinion over factual debate and even the occasional violent threats against councillors can all be pointed solely at the anti-LTN lobby. Interesting info coming out from some of the research being done on who is behind a lot of the pro-closure twitter feeds in the area....Jill Simpson is one busy bee....whomever they actually are..... I think it is clear the council is refusing to debate the issue. Two meetings (that they felt forced to have due to the pressure on them) that presented such one-sided information (the council's summary of the closures was some sort of joke wasn't it?) does not constitute proper debate or engagement with the broader community. They set up then cancelled the DV public meeting because they accidentally posted details in error. No date has been set for that meeting. I do personally think that the number of people against the closures outweighs those in support because more people are living with the negative impact than the positive. 3000 people have signed the anti-lTN Dulwich e-petition. 1500 people have signed up to support One Dulwich, many hundreds of whom have lodged objections to the DV closures via the council process. The Streetspace "consultation" websites have been inundated with people lodging their objections. So yes, I do think the council are trying to avoid any public debate as they can't keep relying on mustering a few residents from Melbourne Grove to dominate the council meetings as they did on the first ED LTN online meeting...by the second one the anti-lovvy had got wise to the rip-off those residents had had on the process of being heard. Nothing I see suggests a fair and balanced approach to the discussion thus far.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nonsense, wealth is a limitation but you still > have some choice. I chose to work in London. I > chose to live in SE London. I could have lived in > the Medway Towns where price of accommodation is > cheaper and put up with an 1 1/2 commute. I could > have stayed in the NW where cost of living is much > cheaper. Wow...just wow....

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets with all due respect - you are using very > emotive language again - exaggerating? Hyperbole? > > This doesn't help productive rational debate. > > Nobody is saying 'everything is awesome'. > People recognise that there will be some > displacement until it beds in and that this is a > trial. Councillors know this. > Why aren't you calling to push them to do more on > main roads? > Making driving less convenient is one thing they > have to do. > > What *is* awesome is twice as many people are > cycling through Dulwich. > > I know people who live on the very nice roads near > Eyenella, Beauval etc who are fit and healthy but > complain they now have to drive round the s > circular to get to West Dulwich. They could walk > in 10 minutes or cycle in 5. > > > > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > There are many pro-closure lobbyists who claim > > there are no negatives associated with these > > closures that everything is awesome because of > > them. We even have councillors claiming on > public > > meetings that traffic on the displacement roads > is > > no heavier than it has ever been. Now that's > > disingenuous. > > > > I also, hasten to add, that it was the same > > councillor who said LTNs were designed to > channel > > traffic off side streets onto main roads. > > > > The pro-closure camp and council clearly dont > want > > a rational debate about the pros and cons. I would argue that the pro-closure lobbyists don't want debate...they encourage us to "let it bed in" "give it time", yada yada yada. I am more than happy to debate it now but the council is refusing to do so...we have to "let it bed in", even though there is no sign, after 6 months of anything getting any better. Some might say they are using this to "ride out the storm" but of course they also say the objectors are a small vocal minority....what might they be scared of one wonders.....

There are many pro-closure lobbyists who claim there are no negatives associated with these closures that everything is awesome because of them. We even have councillors claiming on public meetings that traffic on the displacement roads is no heavier than it has ever been. Now that's disingenuous. I also, hasten to add, that it was the same councillor who said LTNs were designed to channel traffic off side streets onto main roads. The pro-closure camp and council clearly dont want a rational debate about the pros and cons.

Raeburn Wrote: -------------------------------------------- Raeburn, are you reading the same article....read it through...see the para where she says: Ms Kissi-Debrah, who lives in Hither Green, an area experiencing a spike in traffic, said the scheme is ?insane? and an example of ?environmental racism?. I have pasted the full article below so everyone can read and come to their own conclusions.....she is saying what many of us on here believe is happening...that LTNs create nirvana for a few and hell for everyone else. That's not being disingenuous, it's being concerned about everyone You are the one who edited her quite to suit your means: ?We?re not against low traffic neighbourhoods, what we?re against is areas where the traffic isn?t as bad pushing their traffic onto this side,? she said. Air quality voice Rosamund Kissi-Debrah slams Lee Green LTN By Grainne Cuffe A leading environmental campaigner whose daughter?s death may have been linked to air pollution said the surge in traffic by her home following a new LTN is ?like a slap in the face?. Rosamund Kissi-Debrah?s daughter Ella died in 2013 when she was just nine years old after suffering three years of seizures from severe asthma attacks. The mum-of-three successfully campaigned for a new inquest into her death ? the High Court granted one last year after new evidence came to light. It is due to be held later this year. The Lee Green LTN (low traffic neighbourhood), which was implemented at the end of June, aims to reduce rat-running, improve air quality, and encourage greener modes of transport. It was already planned under Lewisham Council?s healthy neighbourhood programme, but is now covered by emergency transport measures in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. The scheme involves 13 modal filters, physical and camera-enforced barriers that cut off roads to through-traffic. It has created much more space for cycling and walking, but left some streets safer than others as traffic is displaced to neighbouring areas. The changes have had many different reactions, positive and negative, while the majority of people are supportive of improving air quality and creating safer streets. See more: Lee Green LTN needed to tackle air pollution, say backers Some residents outside the LTN have seen a significant increase in traffic in their streets since June, and whether it will decrease remains to be seen ? the scheme has not been fully rolled out, with cameras yet to be installed. Ms Kissi-Debrah, who lives in Hither Green, an area experiencing a spike in traffic, said the scheme is ?insane? and an example of ?environmental racism?. ?I find it unacceptable to push traffic from the other side of Hither Green to add to the traffic on the South Circular. ?The South Circular is never going to move so people on this side are always going to have the traffic from [it]. ?Hither Green Lane (HGL) has now turned into a replica of the South Circular, and that?s putting it mildly. ?Whatever they have to do to stop Hither Green Lane being gridlocked, they have to do it,? she said. Residents in HGL, as well as other streets, have been reporting heavy traffic as early as 1.30pm that continues into the evening. ?What I?m most annoyed about is councillors? patronising responses, as if people on this side are stupid. For example ?you need to give it time?. I need to give it time? ?Not only did they not consult us when they closed off roads, where did they think the traffic was going to go?? she said. Ms Kissi-Debrah said ?what is unforgivable? is that we are in the midst of a pandemic. ?The numbers from the BAME community on this side are more than on the other side. The other side is more affluent. ?It?s environmental racism,? she said. The term refers to racial discrimination in environmental policy making, where some groups are affected more negatively than others. ?I don?t blame people for wanting quieter roads, but they need to understand that they do not have the South Circular in the midst of their neighbourhood. ?People live on these main roads, and it?s the poorer people who live on them. ?Gloating that your children can now go out and play or cycle does not help things. ?Does that mean my children do not deserve to do that? These are questions people need to ask themselves. ?It is as if now that the traffic is not in their neighbourhood, they are not concerned where the traffic was. ?Because when I campaign, I don?t just campaign for my children, I campaign for all children. But some are more equal than others it appears,? she said. The hope for reducing the traffic build up is that drivers will get frustrated and choose another route. But people are concerned it will not have eased by the time school starts up again. ?By September this will be a disaster zone. I see this as a slap in the face from the local council after all my hard work of campaigning over the last six years. ?I am always going to see this as a matter of life and death. ?I also wouldn?t be happier if they pushed traffic from the South Circular elsewhere because it?s other people?s children who that will affect [?] their children mean as much to them as mine mean to me. ?We?re not against low traffic neighbourhoods, what we?re against is areas where the traffic isn?t as bad pushing their traffic onto this side,? she said. If Ella was still alive, she would soon be opening her GCSE results. ?The timing, you couldn?t even make this up, [along with] the response from those that implemented it and are now trying to defend it. ?You have to think about Ultra-Low Emission Zones (ULEZ) to reduce the traffic ? I don?t see all the car schemes that have been put in place. ?You can?t just block off roads and give no other alternatives,? she said. We are monitoring this area for changes in air quality and we do expect with a reduction in overall traffic that there will be further improvements in air quality for all, Cllr Sophie McGeevor, cabinet member for environment and transport, said that a car-based recovery in the wake of the pandemic ?would be a disaster?. ?I have huge respect for Rosamund as an air quality campaigner, and her feelings and opinions are highly valued by myself and the council as an organisation. ?We share the same aims, to reduce traffic and improve air quality. ?Everyone has been clear that a car-based recovery to Covid-19 in London would be a disaster, leading to increased congestion and declining air quality. ?With 60 per cent of all car journeys being less than 2.5 miles in London there is a huge opportunity to reduce the number of car journeys on all of our roads. ?The measures we have put in place during Covid-19 are there to support people who want to or have no other option to walk or cycle, and are intended to support traffic reduction on all roads including in Hither Green. ?Air quality has significantly improved in Lewisham and on the south circular in recent years and we expect it to improve even further when the Ultra-Low Emission Zone is extended. ?We are monitoring this area for changes in air quality and we do expect with a reduction in overall traffic that there will be further improvements in air quality for all,? Cllr McGeevor said.

Do the pro-closure lobby realise that Ella Kissi- Debrah's mother is a key voice in the fight to get the LTNs removed? https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18616846.air-quality-voice-rosamund-kissi-debrah-slams-lee-green-ltn/ I see Cllr McAsh obviously didn't and was trying to use it to make a point... https://twitter.com/mcash/status/1339203034509873152?s=19

Malumbu - is that the report you claimed was released yesterday which in fact was published in November. Which part of transport do you work in...carrier pigeon? ;-) Also your claim that London has been congested for decades is somewhat counter-intuitive given the narrative that the pro-closure lobby disseminates that the massive increases have happened over the last few years. Which one is it? With every post you make your message becomes increasingly incoherent. The only ones who are living in a parallel universe are those who refuse to see beyond their own car-free nirvana.....

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets if I may say so you are contradicting > yourself. > > You accept higher attachment to cars during a > pandemic is due to fear of infection on public > transport. > > But then you say: 'reports like this demonstrate > that the impacts of LTNs could actually get a lot > worse when life starts getting back to some sense > of normality.' How come? When life starts getting > back to 'some sense of normality' people will > return to public transport. > > The LTNs will still be there as safe routes for > those who want to cycle or walk - and the RAC > motorists will start considering getting on a bike > or walking again - especially if there are safe > cycle routes for them to do so :) I am afraid I am not: the report says that 49% of drivers are driving less now than they did a year ago (due to the pandemic and home working) but they expect to drive more when the pandemic finally comes to an end. So, if we are seeing the level of congestion being caused by the LTN closures then imagine what it will be like when it's over - and the report states that fear of returning to public transport is the key catalyst for those people returning to their cars. Making the assumption that all of those people will drive or walk is the warped logic that is creating these problems in the first place....

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From the RAC Report on Motoring 2020 published > today -sorry I haven't got a link yet. Sad > reflection on motorist's views as a whole re the > environment. If we can all take a bit more > responsibility we wouldn't be having many of the > discussions on this thread: > > The 2020 Report on Motoring asked motorists what > steps they would be willing to take ? or are > already taking ? to reduce their personal > emissions? footprints. This year, fewer drivers > would be willing to swap their cars for bikes or > e-scooters on short journeys in order to cut their > emissions: only 36% would be happy to do this, or > are already doing this, compared with 39% last > year. > > As we have discussed in section 1.2, the pandemic > has led to a greater feeling of importance > attached to vehicles ? in part due to fears of the > infection risk linked to public transport. > Accordingly, there has been a sharp decline in the > number of motorists who would be willing to give > up using their vehicles altogether for > environmental reasons: only 5% say they would > consider this, compared with 14% last year. Was that the report that was published in November? This one: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/features/report-on-motoring-2020/ Not sure it is "a sad reflection of motorist's views" but more a balanced report on what people are telling the RAC about their car usage in light of the pandemic. It does highlight some worrying trends in terms of view towards public transport (but remember this is a national survey) but I would say that in light of reports like this it is incredibly important that the council takes such things into account - pursuing the LTN policy in light of reports like this demonstrate that the impacts of LTNs could actually get a lot worse when life starts getting back to some sense of normality. The report clearly shows that fewer people are using their cars at the moment but more expect to use their cars more when things return to normal. Interesting quote taken from that report - nice to see that even the RAC is taking a more balanced approach to these issues (despite them being a driver lobby group) and taking input from many and not presenting it as a myopic approach - it would be remiss of me not to say that it would be nice if the pro-LTN lobby groups took a similar approach...;-) "It?s encouraging to see car dependency has fallen this year and that walking has replaced shorter journeys for many people. But in order to lock in this reduction and its benefits as we begin to travel around again, the Government must urgently address the perception of public transport and do more to encourage people out of their cars. To do this, there need to be policy and fiscal measures to improve public transport, alongside actively promoting and incentivising more sustainable forms of transport, particularly in the post-Covid era. Darren Shirley, Chief executive, Campaign for Better Transport

The pro-closure lobby will probably tell us this is because someone was selling Christmas trees somewhere in South London.... Another weekend of congestion along EDG and Lordship Lane.....how can people claim this isn't happening...?

I am not sure the council are monitoring. Seems they are going to rely on modelling.... BTW surprised no-one from the pro-lobby has yet to flag that piece Rachel Aldred wrote about the Waltham Forest LTNs leading to a 6% reduction in car ownership in two years.

I noticed the council had put up some temporary free-standing signs on the approach to the Burbage junction with Gallery Road as the signage on poles is obscured as you approach the roundabout. I think drivers might have a case as there is insufficient signage to warn of the bus gate on Burbage. People are seeing the sign closing Dulwich Village and swinging left with no idea that there is one there too. I was in an Uber recently and the driver was having a proper rant about the council (he put me to shame) and he said that he had had 5 LTN tickets in two weeks and the council had let him off two of them (not in Dulwich) as their own picture (of the infringement occurring) showed that the signage was obscured.

I think if it is under 2.5 metres high it is ok - certainly that's what a lot of the garden office companies claim.

Also, was there anything to prevent those 300 counted cycle journeys from being outbound and return journeys? So, if someone cycled down Calton Avenue, dropped their child at the school and then cycled back is that counted as 1, 2 or 3 journeys?

I am a cyclist - used to cycle to and from Hammersmith everyday from East Dulwich and still cycle a lot - so I am not at all dismissive of cycling, I am just a realist. That "doubling" isn't even close to making the impact the LTNs were supposedly designed for and don't come close to negating the residual impact of the closures on other people. If that much disruption led to only 300 more cycle journeys per day then something is really wrong and even the most ardent pro-closure lobbyist must be able to acknowledge that - there is way too much collateral damage going on for those numbers not to be scrutinised. P.S. Always be suspicious of reports that claim "doubling" and don't mention the granular detail and numbers until much further down the piece....they know the actual numbers are not that compelling.

Rahrahrah, it's an encouraging headline but I have looked at the report and it does throw up some more questions. The number of cyclists observed rose from 417 (in 2018) to 808 (In November this year) - this is the doubling - it's only 391 more cyclists. Given we were still in lockdown in November I am surprised the figure is this low. I would have expected to see a much more significant jump in cyclists as more people have time to cycle their children to school and are looking for new ways to exercise. Also, the control is Red Post Hill - I don't understand why they chose that as the control - I can only presume because Red Post Hill is close to Charter but Calton Ave is wedged between 3 sizeable schools. Finally, given the council stated that 7,000 cars were using the DV junction when the junction was open those 391 new cyclists are not at all encouraging. It suggests that modal shift has not been sufficient enough to have warranted the closure of the junction and the subsequent displacement issues it has created. I am sure you will disagree but I think that report actually highlights a major problem here - that these interventions are not delivering suitable results and I think the question needs to be asked whether the overall impact is positive or negative (when you factor in increased congestion and pollution being caused by displacement).