Rockets

Chris_1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There was a comment earlier about traffic count on > Croxted Road - and how confusingly it looks down. > We looked at TfL SCOOT data just for the direction > that?s actually impacted by the LTN - eg heading > north towards HH, and at the timings that roughly > coincide with timed closures (data 7-10am) vs > timed closures 8-10am. > > Traffic is up over that period - I don?t have the > stats in front of me but something like 3-5% in > each of Feb/May and up north of 10% in April. > > Obviously fair pushback would be that I?m cherry > picking the worst of it to look at - my comment > would be that this is the problem time so it makes > most sense to look at that. > > I think the data presented in the council report > was all day and both directions - the road is > pretty quiet outside of peak times (outside of > timed closures times too), and there?s no impact > southbound from the LTN. Suspicion is that south > is down a LOT, north is > Flat-to-up depending on whether you look at peak > or all day. > > Congestion is way up, can see that thru the same > scoot data set. > > Would have been helpful if the council had broken > out the data in a few different ways, I try hard > not to be a pessimist but it does appear like at > least for our street a fair picture has not quite > been painted. I think the council is trying to share as little data as possible because they know that once we get more granularity their "it's working" narrative falls apart pretty quickly. It will be interesting to see if they ever share any of the data they have been gathering on roads east of Lordship Lane like Underhill Road - the interesting thing is the monitoring strips were in on Underhill in April yet no data was shared. I had always feared they were trying to keep the review area to west of Lordship Lane because they knew a lot of traffic was heading east of Lordship Lane to navigate around the congestion around the Grove Tavern junction. They were challenged on this numerous times and people were told that the areas east would be included in the review but this seems to have gone no further than sending the plain envelopes containing the info on the review to some households. They have to, and should be compelled to, include those streets in the data analysis.

What's also interesting is that cyclist casualties within the LTNs didn't drop as pronounced as the other categories: Pedestrian casualties dropped from 30 to 3, car driver or passenger from 21 to 6 yet cyclists only from 18 to 17 - anyone have any idea what is going on there? Surely you would expect a similar big drop for cyclists? Also the London mean for cyclist injuries went up - is this just because of the increase in cycling?

Rahx3 - I am not sure they did. Per the question I posed earlier they appear to have limited the survey of boundary roads to within 25 metres of the LTNs - in Dulwich that doesn't take in, Lordship Lane, for example.

Peter Walker, Anna Goodman, Rachel Aldred......surprise surprise - funny how no-one else ever writes about this stuff or publishes this type of research! ;-) I will come back to that later...returning to my conflict of interest question you have never answered Rahx3. But all joking aside, of course, this is a brilliant part of LTNs - that they reduce road accidents reported by police - of course they do - that's pretty obvious they would do that - alto. But I would caution your enthusiasm for it as it doesn't look at boundary roads beyond 25 metres from the closure and that there is no change on those boundary roads. So, the accident I witnessed near the junction of Overhill Road and Lordship Lane that was caused by congestion caused by the LTNs and led to life-changing injuries for a motorcyclist would not have been considered as it was more than 25 metres from the closures - it would be very interesting to understand what that would mean in Dulwich - which roads were considered boundary roads - would it be Court Lane, Woodwarde etc or Lordship Lane, Croxted Road or the A205. Now, I looked at the report and I saw that Anna Goodman and Rachel Aldred have flagged the conflict of interest, and I quote...: Some of these LTNs were funded by the Department for Transport (DfT) via the Active Travel Fund. AG, RA and JF have been awarded DfT funding to evaluate the Active Travel Fund programme as a whole, although this study does not form part of that work. DfT had no input into this article. So, Rachel Aldred is getting DfT funding to evaluate the LTNs - LTNs that she spent many years lobbying for in her role as head of policy for the London Cycling Campaign. Rahx3 - surely that is a conflict of interest?

E-scooters being talked about on Newsnight tonight following the death of the 17 year old boy in Bromley and the incident in Myatts Fields involving the 3 year old girl who was hit by one on Monday. I didn't realise Copenhagen trialed them and have subsequently banned them from the city.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The map that you have pointed out has as its most > westernmost point, croxted road. Even the most > Dulwich village centric of people couldn't > consider that to be West Dulwich. So my point is > that journeys from Dulwich Village to say west of > croxted road would be considered non local, > similarly with any journeys beyond Forest Hill > Road to the East. > > These figures are based on a 5 year dataset on a > london wide survey - so not Southwark's monitoring > data, rather its using a subset of a much wider > study. > > I don't doubt that of the people who are > responding, over 60% of local journeys within the > area defined on the map are walked, but there are > many more which are slightly longer that could > represent walked / cycled or multi modal trips - > eg its not only the remaining 40% But Northern I am really struggling to see what point you are actually trying to make. The council published a report in 2018 that stated that 68% of internal trips (within the 3 wards considered Dulwich) were made by active travel (of which 65% were by foot and 3% by bike). It doesn't matter where the boundary ends and whether Joe Smoe from Dulwich Village considers Croxted Road the end of Dulwich or the beginning of Dulwich - those are boundaries that the council considered Dulwich and stated that 68% of internal journeys were by active travel. The report also sheds a lot of light on the people of Dulwich's travel habits beyond internal journeys and the high proportion of journeys that go beyond neighbouring boroughs. So there are a number of conclusions we can take: 1. Dulwich was already doing a lot of active travel internal journeys (more so than any other part of Southwark) 2. Dulwich residents own cars because of the poor PTAL scores (especially east/west) and their need to travel beyond neighbouring boroughs 3. When Dulwichites do leave the area they are going beyond neighbouring boroughs (it seems lot of people travel beyond neighbouring boroughs for education and work) 4. Those travelling inbound to Dulwich are often travelling from non-neighbouring boroughs for work, social and education It all adds up to a perplexing situation....why did Southwark think Dulwich was a good place for LTNs or, more to the point, who convinced them Dulwich was a good place for LTNs.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets, again, thats not correct I'm afraid. > > The data used came from the London wide survey > though obviously only uses those responding in > Dulwich: > > It also talks about Dulwich as being the 3 wards > of East Dulwich, College and Village (pre new ward > boundaries) so that 65% figure wouldn't capture > say East Dulwich to Peckham Rye, or Dulwich > Village to West Dulwich. > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Northern - it's not I am afraid, It is Dulwich > > specific data and the report can be found here: > > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Du > > > lwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf > > > > The report is well worth a read as it is > > fascinating and demonstrates what a foolhardy > > approach the LTNs were - when I read it I was > > wondering how on earth could the council > justify > > doing this - the data doesn't back up the > > conclusions they seem to have reached to > > facilitate the implementation of the LTNs > > (although we have to remind ourselves they were > > first installed to aid, ahem, social > distancing). > > > > The report considers a local trip one anywhere > > within Dulwich (across the three wards of > College, > > East Dulwich and Village) so that 68% of local > > journeys done by foot or by bike will include > > trips to the post box, gym, swimming, schools > and > > so the list goes on. And that 68% was > > significantly higher than other parts of the > > borough. > > > > Their definition is below: > > > > > > Trips within Dulwich > > Trips starting and ending in Dulwich have been > > analysed separately. Figure 2.5 shows that > > shopping and leisure trips account for a > > significant part of the total, while > work-related > > internal trips are very limited. > > Figure 2.5: Internal surveyed trips by purpose > > (5-year total surveyed trips) > > Source: LTDS 2010-2015 (internal trips sample > > n=148,105) > > Almost 2/3 of all internal trips surveyed are > > undertaken on foot. It is also worth noting > that > > the cycle mode share is very limited, even for > > short distance trips. Similarly, the share of > bus > > trips is very low. The low attractiveness of > bus > > for short trips could potentially be explained > by > > localised congestion or the benefit perceived > in > > waiting and riding the bus compared to walking. Northern - please look at the map on page 7 of the report - the area covered is quite clearly shown. I really don't see what your point is; journeys from Dulwich Village and West Dulwich would be covered and so would journeys from East Dulwich to Peckham Rye. What point are you trying to make - that you don't think the council's figures are correct or accurate? And there was me thinking that was reserved only for us when we questioned the presentation of the interim LTN data from the council!!!!

Abe - I think you would be surprised how many people in the village oppose these measures - the majority don't want them. Here is a link to the One Dulwich survey they did on many of the streets in Dulwich Village: https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/80-of-local-households-do-not-support-closure-of-dulwich-village-junction I know people will accuse this of being leading questions/biased etc but it seems very compelling and they did go door-to-door on each of the streets included in the research and got 800 responses that each person had to put their name and address to.

Northern - it's not I am afraid, It is Dulwich specific data and the report can be found here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Dulwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf The report is well worth a read as it is fascinating and demonstrates what a foolhardy approach the LTNs were - when I read it I was wondering how on earth could the council justify doing this - the data doesn't back up the conclusions they seem to have reached to facilitate the implementation of the LTNs (although we have to remind ourselves they were first installed to aid, ahem, social distancing). The report considers a local trip one anywhere within Dulwich (across the three wards of College, East Dulwich and Village) so that 68% of local journeys done by foot or by bike will include trips to the post box, gym, swimming, schools and so the list goes on. And that 68% was significantly higher than other parts of the borough. Their definition is below: Trips within Dulwich Trips starting and ending in Dulwich have been analysed separately. Figure 2.5 shows that shopping and leisure trips account for a significant part of the total, while work-related internal trips are very limited. Figure 2.5: Internal surveyed trips by purpose (5-year total surveyed trips) Source: LTDS 2010-2015 (internal trips sample n=148,105) Almost 2/3 of all internal trips surveyed are undertaken on foot. It is also worth noting that the cycle mode share is very limited, even for short distance trips. Similarly, the share of bus trips is very low. The low attractiveness of bus for short trips could potentially be explained by localised congestion or the benefit perceived in waiting and riding the bus compared to walking.

Artemis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > northernmonkey - we all know we?re facing a > climate emergency. All those who are ?moaning?, > as you put it, would agree. The climate emergency > has now ended up straight outside lots of doors in > Dulwich in recent months and air quality in many > residential areas is diminishing. By flagging > that, residents are not moaning. They are not > saying ?I want to drive my big polluting car > everywhere?. They are saying ?there?s a climate > emergency and this particular strategy doesn?t > appear to be working in this particular area as I > am now finding it increasingly difficult to cope > with levels of traffic and pollution on my > road/roads I use?. Not that Southwark Council has > chosen to publish pollution data, but I know the > self funded monitors are indicating that this is > the case. > > My view is that it makes no sense to try and sort > out problems of pollution on a borough by borough > basis. It would be like every council in the UK > being given free rein to deal with a virus like > Covid as they saw fit. So Southwark might choose > to go for herd immunity, Lambeth may require > compulsory vaccination, and Lewisham may legislate > for enforced isolation. As a strategy, it would be > possible for each council to say ?look, we?re > doing something to combat the virus!? But if the > road next door is doing something different, the > virus would continue to spread. The same > principle applies to LTNs. Southwark is attached > to the rest of the London whether Southwark > Council likes it or not. However, there appears > to be very limited joined up planning and > collaboration with the rest of London. It makes > no sense to me. > > You say people could cycle. But the numbers of > cycle journeys as a percentage of a all journeys > is tiny. You clearly enjoy cycling and good for > you. But others don?t. Other?s can?t. Even if > numbers increased three-fold, the vast majority of > journeys remain non-cycling and what is being done > to cater for those journeys? Buses are slower. > There are limited alternative public transport > options in Dulwich. Massive amounts of money have > been spent in London in improving cycle ways, but > the numbers of cycle journeys as a whole is still > very small. It baffles me how far Southwark > Council seems to have attached itself to the > cycling lobby rather than recognising that it has > a duty to represent all its constituents. Instead, > why are our councillors not lobbying for better > public transport and a joined up transport/clear > air policy? Why is the Council not asking Helen > Hayes to ask questions in parliament about > investment in green public transport, instead of > this intransigent belief that by making the roads > in Dulwich horrible for many that a sufficiently > significant number of people to make a difference > will get on a bicycle. It?s been a year. Traffic > isn?t diminishing enough to justify the downsides, > in my view. Artemis - absolutely spot on. And when looking at the Dulwich Transport Report from 2018 68% of local journeys in Dulwich were made by foot or bike but only 3% were made by bike and I think this has been seized upon by the cycle lobby (who obviously have a vested-interested in increasing cycle share). It's scary when you look at the amount of airtime the cycle lobby has been given during this process, especially when so little input has been sought from anyone who actually lives in Dulwich. How many meeting notes of council meetings on OHS etc have a list of the usual suspects from the cycle-lobby as the only people giving input - Monk, Walker and Aldred? How come when the emergency services provided feedback on the Peckham Rye LTNs they were ignored but the input from Southwark Cyclists was implemented into the proposals without question? The council is way too close to the cycle lobby and I think it is clouding their judgement. Active travel is not just cycling and I fear that the council is putting so much energy into pushing a cycle agenda that they are merely robbing Peter to pay Paul. I do wonder how many of the school children cycling to JAGs and Hamlets etc that are being heralded as modal shift are just shifting from walking. Remember 68% of local journeys were already active travel in 2018.

LTN BooHoo...no it is you that needs to read up...you are correct, a low PTAL score does not justify any car ownership but it is, by far, one of the contributing factors and is one of the major ones in Dulwich. As a reminder here is what Southwark's own Transport Report 2018 stated: 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. And then the report goes on to say later when talking about journeys out of the borough: The modal split of inbound (see Figure 2.3) and outbound (see Figure 2.4) trips shows a prevalence of car/private vehicle, accounting for half of the total number of surveyed trips. Trips starting in nonneighbouring boroughs are more likely to be undertaken by public transport, with rail as the preferred mode. On the other hand, the lower E-W public transport connectivity is reflected in higher numbers of people travelling from/to neighbouring boroughs by car. BTW you openly admit you are an outsider - do we take it from that that you are not a Dulwich resident? Looking at your posting history you joined in April this year and have posted exclusively on posts related to LTNs and nothing else - not a single comment or contribution to anything outside of LTNs. I had presumed, maybe wrongly, that you are a Dulwich resident.

LTN BooHoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BellendenBear Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Do you think that ED parents drive their kids > to > > Kingsdale? I don?t think that?s the case. My 12 > > year old daughter goes there and all her > friends > > cycle or use public transport. Her primary > school > > friends ended up at 6 or 7 different secondary > > schools and the ones at state schools all walk, > > cycle or use public transport. > > > > The LTNs, while not being perfect, make it > safer > > for many kids to cycle to lots of schools. I > have > > been walking and cycling through Greendale to > drop > > kids at primary school for the past 8 years and > > the number of secondary school kids and > families > > with primary school kids cycling to school has > > increased massively since the LTNs on Champion > > Hill and in Dulwich Village were introduced. I > > don?t live in or next to an LTN, but the > benefits > > of them are felt more widely than for a few > > wealthy people in Dulwich village. Some people > > seem to use the idea of the LTNs only > benefitting > > a privileged few as a worthy narrative for > their > > cause rather than being honest that they don?t > > want to make changes to their behaviour. > > You are spot on and I hope you let your local > councillors know your thoughts. > > There is a climate emergency and we all have to > change our behaviour. Wealthy people own cars and > tend to drive them because they can afford to. > Once they leave their neighbourhood their driving > through and polluting the poor areas they say they > care about. I don?t get it. Most people in > Southwark don?t own cars. As an outsider the local > campaign appears somewhat hypocritical. Hopefully > attitudes will change with time. But LTNBooHoo most people in Dulwich do own cars - in fact car ownership in Dulwich is some of the highest in the borough. Why? Because people in Dulwich don't have the same sort of access to transport infrastructure that those people who live in other parts of the borough do - in fact our PTAL scores are some of the lowest in the borough (and that, along with things like age and family size contribute massively to car ownership). There are reasons why people own cars. And there are reasons why the council's own advice was to only put LTNs in areas that have high PTAL scores and don't have high car ownership - putting them in Dulwich went completely contrary to their own advice. This is why it is backfiring because Dulwich was the worst place to put LTNs in - it was destined to fail from the get go - displacement was always going to be a huge issue.

Nigello - yes it's called chasing the displacement tsunami - traffic doesn't evaporate it moves to another street. So unless you ringfence and close the whole of Dulwich with LTNs someone will always have to live with the displacement - it's the major Achilles heal of all of these measures and one few on the pro-LTN side will acknowledge. There isn't an LTN programme anywhere that has delivered more than an overall 10% reduction in car use (most are low single figure % decreases) - in fact often modal shift is from within active travel groups (walking to cycling etc) and whilst 10% is significant it is not enough to prevent displacement issues elsewhere.

Ex- you're saying equitable solutions for all don't exist - so is that an admission that someone will always have to lose out - that for some residents to have quiet streets and cleaner air then someone else has to have busier streets and more polluted air? And I remind you that no-one wanted to vote for having the LTNs returned to their original state (no-one is saying that return everything to normal and come up with a schools programme and all is fixed) - the council gave people nothing in the way of an alternative option to put their weight behind. If you're living on a street with increased pollution you don't want to "kick the can down the road" indefinitely whilst the council comes up with and installs their Plan B amendments. And to your point on data from traffic journeys I remind you that 68% of local journeys in Dulwich were already being conducted on foot or bike so just who are the people doing these short journeys in the area? This goes to very clearly demonstrate my point - the council don't know if the vehicles in Dulwich are doing short journeys or long journeys - they are just guessing they are (probably because some lobbyist told them they are! ;-)).

Jason Statham in and about the village quite a lot at the moment.

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Demand for school places reduces catchment area > size normally - not the other way round > > Some older children may travel further for schools > - but how many 13-15 yr old kids are being dropped > off by mummy in the mornings?? Most would rather > crawl over nails to get there, surely?? > > Schools alongside councils have done a lot to try > to counter traffic issues - most visibly, the > school street closures that many primary schools > now have, but also via education and persuasion, > walking buses, active school travel days, > bikeability courses, improvements to cycle > infrastructure, greater enforcement of infractions > - sure they could do more still, but are you > seriously saying you're not aware of any of this > stuff Not entirely correct for Dulwich - the demographics skew it. Think back to 10 - 15 years ago Dulwich (particularly East Dulwich) was referred to as Nappy Valley as young couples were moving in their droves to the area to start families on the basis of the good primary schools and (cheaper) housing stock. Now many of those children are older and will no doubt be going to secondary schools further afield due to the relative lack of secondary schools. I have no idea how many 13-15 year olds are being dropped off by mummy (or daddy - tsk, tsk Northern) but the point is nor does the council as they have no idea who and what is causing the traffic in the area as they have never done the proper research to find out.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why would state schools possibly need a council > subsidised bus service? > > The way places are allocated is based on distance > from the school. Admittedly there are some people > who get the first child into a school, then move > away and continue to take their child to that > school and subsequent siblings but getting to a > position where that isn't socially acceptable > isn't going to be a quick thing. Otherwise the > distances are very small - less than 1km in most > cases. > > Whilst the distances at secondary are further, the > main issues really appear to be around primary > schools so I'm not clear how a bus service would > help. Some schools have set up walking busses > (Goose Green did one pre covid) and they're a good > idea. More could be done on that perhaps for the > indi schools with a walking bus from north Dulwich > train station picking up from key trains. Why? Because the catchment areas for state schools are growing all the time due to the pressure on school places - secondary especially and that adds to the traffic. You need to stop looking at this from the microcosm of the primary school at the end of the street - Dulwich is a crossroads for a lot of areas and that is why we have traffic problems - a lot of people moved here 10 - 15 years ago for the plethora of good primary schools and are now having to get their older children to secondary schools outside of the immediate area. This is highlighting the folly of the LTNs - before being able to effectively manage the situation the council first needed to understand what the problem is and where it was coming from. They didn't. They just threw in measures on the premise of "we need less cars, let's close roads". Could you share with me any details of these years of working with schools the council has done to counter the traffic issues?

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I already did that but in your enthusiasm to jump > in you seem to have missed it. > > So there has been years of 'working with the > schools' and nothing has changed. Yet again you > have reverted to 'my problem is that the measures > are too simplistic' - so again, what measures > would actually achieve the goals without > inconveniencing anyone local or causing any > detours at all? Northern - firstly, can you detail what this "working with schools" for years has actually entailed? Secondly, in terms of measures temporary school street closures are a far more balanced and equitable means of reducing the impact of the school run - that mean residents and locals don't get impacted by displacement issues 24/7. It is interesting that throughout all of the LTN process the council did not consult with schools. Nowhere on any of their consultation documents did they list schools being part of the small group of parties they consulted with. I also remember that Goodrich told the council that the measures they were trying to force upon them outside the school would not work - that doesn't sound like a particularly collaborative or consultative approach. I am also sure that council subsidised school bus services would also go a long way to prevent the school run. Granted, that would not work with private schools as there is no way council money should be used to subsidise that but there are plenty of other ways for the council to leverage and affect change with private schools (although given the contemptuous way in which some of our councillors view private schools I can't imagine the conversations would be particularly fruitful).

You have to work with schools to determine where the problem is coming from, what/who is causing it and how to fix it. Both state and private are contributors to the problem so the council should have been working with them all to try to determine how to fix it and they needed to consider everything from school street closures to subsidised school buses. My problem with the LTNs is that they were a solution the council put in when they had no idea what the problem was - it's the classic sledge-hammer to crack a nut - it was way too simplistic - too many cars, block the streets. And, for the record, graffiti is criminal damage (regardless of what it is put up with, some of it is not in chalk BTW). But, more importantly you are overlooking that going into someone's garden and defacing and destroying things (anti-LTN signs) is both criminal damage and actually quite threatening - it has been happening repeatedly. I would probably stop trying to flog this dead horse if I was you.....because I really don't know what point you are trying to make....just agree with me that the idiots have to stop on both sides (which was my initial point) rather than trying to prove some holier than thou point that that your idiots aren't as bad as our idiots....;-).

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How much do you think it cost to remove some chalk > 'love LTNs' Rockets? Because Lambeth think its > cost in the region of 50k of council funds. I > haven't seen a similar report from Southwark in > terms of the constant replanting of planters and > removing the incessant flyposting of stickers that > happened repeatedly for a period of weeks but it > won't be insignificant. > > I don't agree with damaging posters that > individuals put up on private property - i saw two > video clips of this late at night but it doesn't > thankfully seem to have been a constant campaign. > Agree there are idiots on both sides but equating > some chalk with filling planters and a road with > oil is falling into the false equivalence > territory. > > As is always the case, once the independent > schools break up then the traffic drops > dramatically, guess both no school run and also > associated staffing and other traffic, but > simplifying the issue to 'stopping the schools' > goes too far. Aside from anything else how would > it be done within available powers? The schools > have been running active travel training / have > policies etc but without some actual deterrents to > driving it seems that little will change. Northern - the council has found the powers to close off roads, has found the resources to put up planters and new street furniture, been able to install ANPR cameras at junctions and add new traffic lights and phasing to junctions....surely they could have applied some of that to working on reducing school traffic. It's not a throwaway assumption to suggest that if school traffic is a major cause of the problem then many of those causing it are not Dulwich residents yet it is Dulwich residents who are having to absorb the displacement of these measures. And please, stop the our vandals and idiots aren't as bad as your vandals and idiots nonsense - it's as if you are trying to condone their behaviour . All vandals and idiots need to stop whichever side of the debate they fall on - I was hoping there would be a consensus of opinion towards that but seemingly not - but this is very much a pattern.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So hearts drawn with chalk (probably by a child) > are equivalent to pouring buckets of engine oil > over planters? > You surpass yourself in hyperbole Rockets :)))))) You?re being selective again DC??what about the vandalism of the signs in people?s gardens???hmmmmm? You do love your hyperbole accusations don?t you, quite an obsession??

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Still...they should be on Melbourne not ED Grove. > > Even when Melbourne wasn't filtered, you wouldn't > have got a coach down there. The buses (back in > the days when the 37 went along it) could barely > make it round the bend. Certainly now it is > filtered at the ED station end, if you put a coach > in there it wouldn't be able to turn around - > putting three coaches down there is not an > option. > > Second the comment about reporting them. Email to > the coach firm with the school and Southwark > environment copied in as it's both noise and air > pollution. You're right, complaining to the > drivers is usually a waste of time. > > > I see that Lambeth gated communities are now going > to have CCTV and policing spent on them to keep > the unwashed away from the peaceful q?white areas > > Maybe if the anti-LTN'ers would like to stop > pouring engine oil into planters, spray painting > signs and vandalising cameras, that money could be > spent elsewhere?! > https://brixtonblog.com/2021/07/council-to-act-aga > inst-ltn-vandals/ > > Pouring engine oil over plants is just despicable. > Honestly, one (heavily anonymised) photo of a > Clean Air for All poster next to a massive SUV, > the forum goes into meltdown. Repeated vandalism > costing tens of thousands to fix and your > complaint is that the council are spending money > on trying to prevent it?! Not that people are > committing criminal damage and (rather ironically) > polluting the very streets they seem so keen on > "protecting"? I think your ire is aimed at the > wrong people... Also I would suggest reporting the coach company to the school - they are the ones who pay for their service so the company will probably listen to the school if their contract is at risk because of their behaviour. I completely agree that damaging anything is utterly abhorrent and such a feeble and weak attempt at protest. But Ex- the lunatic fringe of the pro-lobby has been at it just as much as the lunatic fringe of the anti-lobby - the repeated vandalism of the signs people have put into their gardens and "Love LTN" graffiti all over East Dulwich. So you can't pin this just on the anti-lobby - there are complete idiots on both sides. On the subject of the school issue in the area it was interesting how things have gradually got quieter and quieter on the local roads as more and more children have been forced to self-isolate in the latter days of term over the last couple of weeks. I really think the council should have made a concerted effort to work with the schools to help resolve the Dulwich traffic issues before throwing in the roadblocks - it's clear that the coaches are a continuing issue and so are parents doing the school run. Maybe, if the LTNs have to be removed, they will return to addressing the school issue.

Meanwhile on twitter.....: "Don't pay any attention to their incomplete data, instead pay attention to our incomplete data"!

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But @Rockets, this is what has been asked for! > Right from the moment the first planter was put > in, the modus operandi of all these One... groups > is the same. Demand data of all types. Interim > data, initial data, monitoring data, pollution > data. > > (it's quite ironic that the more militant minded > of the anti-folk then go round cutting traffic > count cables specifically to disrupt the data > gathering but we'll skip over that for now...) > > When data is given, especially interim data, it'll > be rubbished as incomplete, inaccurate, biased, > faked and the demands to see the raw data (like > WTF are they going to do with the download from a > traffic count machine...?!). When the final report > is produced, it'll be claimed that it's the follow > on from an incomplete initial report. Repeat ad > infinitum. > > Every piece of data that is produced is fought > over to the nth degree, questioning it's veracity > - wrong location, wrong time of day/week/month... > If it came from Location X, they'll demand it from > Location Y. When the data is positive (it usually > is, the basic principles are all the same), the > claim is then made that they don't need data to > see what's happening on their own street. Muddy > the waters, obfuscate, produce your own "survey" > which shows the opposite, claim the council are > manipulating things. > > You literally cannot win. Nothing will ever be > good enough, every bit of data produced will be > discarded with a request for ever more esoteric > and specific monitoring. > > > DC not conspiracy theories - just pointing out how > the council is manipulating the process to their > advantage. > > Sweeping generalisation but councils are usually > not competent enough to do conspiracy theories or > manipulation. ;-) > One of the amusing things about conspiracy > theories is that they almost always imply or > require a massive amount of cover up from > thousands of people. > > Face it, Matt Hancock couldn't even have a quiet > shag in his own office without it becoming public > knowledge; the idea that there is some kind of > mass secret collusion of council officials, > external contractors, DfT, transport experts and > so on to hide the truth, manipulate data and so on > is far-fetched in the extreme! > > > it was interesting that One Dulwich shared the > research they did from going door to door on the > roads within the closure area and 80% of the > people they spoke to wanted them removed. > > Damn, I must have been out, that would have been > an interesting conversation... ;-) > And obviously not at all biased, no leading > questions at all. > > Give us complete data, give us data that measures impact on ALL displacement routes. This is not complete data. It refers to Dulwich area-wide reductions in traffic but that's not true is it? Why? Because huge parts of the data is missing. It doesn't measure anything east of Lordship Lane - only a fool would think this is an accurate reflection of the impact of the LTNs. Without the full picture this report is completely irrelevant yet it is being positioned as proof it's working. I remind you Labour councillors are knocking on people's doors telling them its working on the basis of this incomplete data. That's wrong on so many levels but reflective of the underhand and, frankly, immoral tactics being used by people who are utterly convinced their way is the only way and are on some sort of righteous crusade.

Well done Chener. Sometimes it is the smallest things that speak the loudest.