Rockets

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.

Malumbu - no Rahrahrah didn't talk about entitlement amongst "many" drivers but wrote about drivers per se - thereby tarring all drivers with the same brush - which seems to be part of the pro-closure lobby playbook - all drivers and cars are evil. And then you are, rightly, highlighting that Simon Still does not represent cyclists. So you cannot defend rahrahrah and then in the same breath criticise slarti. It cuts both ways. Your highlighting of ER is a very good case in point that people often, initially, get behind a group or a cause but then the extreme fringes within in it cause people to question whether they want to publicly support that group - which is often a case of a few within the groups tarring everyone else with their brush!

But sorry can someone tell me where these huge lorries are supposed to be going and by which route? I have never seen anything larger than a delivery van (with Co-op or Sainsburys) on it on any of these roads.

I thought the school and local residents were not supportive because 1) the initial plans were badly designed (completely blocking any residents access on the section of Goodrich in front of the school) 2) that they realised the measures would just push additional traffic onto other roads in the area 3) the council expected the school to take responsibility for opening and closing the barrier that they suggested using a version 2 of their plans. Also, where are you saying the 8-axle trucks are going - are you saying they are cutting along Dunstan's to get from Peckham Rye to Lordship Lane or are you saying they are going along Goodrich? The only bigger vehicles I ever see are either the Brakes lorry delivering to Goodrich (and they is very early in the morning before school) or builder's lorries that are delivering steels etc to one of the 3 million loft/kitchen diner conversions currently underway in the area.

Legal - that Eastendenquirer piece is very interesting and, altough I have no idea who is behind it and what their views are, it certainly feels as if you could do a find and replace on Tower Hamlets and replace it with Southwark/East Dulwich - it's an all too familiar story as to how councils are trying to strongarm their plans whilst ignoring the needs of the local residents. I am sure some of the pro-closure lobbyists will say that the writer is some sort of petrolhead but these sections rang very true to me: .....The specific reason for this public rebuke is when a complaint against the discrimination embedded in the Liveable Streets, a 2,000 signature petition, was dismissed at Council on January 20th 2021 the residents were portrayed as being climate change deniers. Seriously. This happened. Because residents complained about Liveable Streets they were all made out to be car enthusiasts intent on filling our streets with their 4?4 Kensington Tractors. Because they questioned the status quo they were all portrayed as cycle haters........... ........This opposition is not about cycle lanes or bikes versus cars. It is about the manner in which Tower Hamlets council, a Labour administration, has tried to force Liveable Streets on communities with little or no regard for the needs of those communities. The ?Liveable Streets? scheme is a fuse that has fizzled and now exploded the frustration of ordinary people who have been ignored for years. It may well be the cause of the demise of the 50-year-old rule of the Labour Party in Tower Hamlets and its replacement with a democratic system where ordinary people represent their communities with honour and duty.

Camp Blue for me - not a fan of dark chocolate.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Rockets thinks it's 'very clever' to interpret > incomplete data to suit an agenda. > > There we have it. Oh deary, deary me.......the straw clutching reached epic levels! ;-) Let's just agree to disagree. Still waiting for any sort of constructive comment or thoughts you have on the way the council tries to make sure all the views of all residents being impacted are taken into account. How do you think they should manage it?

DC - but it certainly is a very clear sign of underlying trends that pro-closure lobbyists actively encourage other like-minded individuals to involve themselves in consultations that they really have no valid reason to input into. So, my point has been made and clearly validated - so thanks for your help in doing that. On the subject of Dulwich has Spoken I actually think that was a very clever move by the Alliance to get to the data on the Commonplace site (wherever it came from ;-)) before the council did. The council have been very clear on numerous occasions that the vehicle to register comments for local residents was the Commonplace website. Now I agree that the Commonplace site is not a sophisticated mechanism to determine local sentiment to the closures as the site is rife for manipulation (from both sides) but the fact that the assessment by DA suggests an overwhelming number of the comments are against the closure is interesting. Pair that with the fact that the council has retrenched and had a bit of a u-turn on their use of Commonplace (as a means of assessing local sentiment) since the publication of the analysis by DA also speak volumes - in fact probably more so than the analysis itself. So job very well done DA! And let's be honest they are only using the tools the council has given them to make their point so you cannot be critical of them doing that. But as we have seen time and time again, any evidence presented is automatically de-positioned and belittled by the pro-closure lobby. Unfortunately, if the council tees it up as part of the measurement process you cannot then be moan when a group of concern local residents takes action to assess the information contained within the tool. The pro-lobby groups are more than capable of doing their own assessment, as is the council, but as yet nothing to counter the data presented has been put forward. Of course, this all started when you de-positioned the 729 people who put their postcode in to a council system to register their opposition to the closures. Do you not actually start to get the feeling that there is a lot of negative sentiment towards these closures across Dulwich? Just out of interest, how do you think the council should assess and determine what Dulwich residents feel about the closures as every tool the council puts forward you seem to be unhappy with (only when it confirms your worst fears, I hasten to add)? Maybe we can find some common ground on your suggested way forward. And thank you for acknowledging the existence of the secret meetings in Dulwich Square - is it true that they take place in a room upstairs in Au Ciel - and is it true that the room is constructed solely from second-hand cargo bikes and recycled bike tyres and that it is festooned with Southwark Cyclists' cycling jerseys each of which carries the logo of a planter and the postcode of past LTN deployment successes? But let's be fair, Au Ciel's food is so good I may have to join the cult just for the purposes of enjoying the heavenly meeting break snacks ;-)

Yes I do mean CAMDEN's transparent online consultation process, which one presumes is in relation to CAMDEN issues for which the CAMDEN council wants to garner feedback from CAMDEN residents to make decisions which impact CAMDEN residents....are you getting the message yet....;-) I am sure you will no doubt claim that Julie Greer and the lobby group that brought it to her attention via Twitter have a deep understanding of those junctions in CAMDEN and are aware of all the local issues in play in CAMDEN and can share their in-depth knowledge. Or is it that they just want to manipulate and destabilize the process by throwing comments into the mix? It certainly looks far more like the latter and seems to be a tactic being employed by the pro-closure lobby. Maybe it's what we have to expect and live with in age of the The Closure Cult ;-)