Rockets

Admin, thanks for the clarification - I don’t (and I suspect many others won’t either) agree with it but it’s your forum and you determine the rules - I always felt the forum, by its very design, was self-policing as those items that people posted on got bumped up but those that didn’t dropped. We know there has been pressure exerted on previous admins by those who have a vested interest to see the LTN debate disappear forever and those admins policed it by not allowing multiple threads discussing LTN issues which seemed to work and kept a single thread for those wishing to discuss on the main forum - those that didn’t care or got annoyed by it could ignore it. The beauty of the forum is that it is not confined solely to East Dulwich so your explanation about why the Turney Road discussion was allowed is a little concerning - do not take what is great about this forum - that it reaches far beyond the borders of East Dulwich - away from it. It’s never solely been about items specific to East Dulwich only - on any subject. In fact, some of your most loyal posters don’t actually live in East Dulwich, Dulwich or Southwark! We all love the forum and were so pleased when it was rescued, some of us like LTNs, some us hate LTNs and the voices posting (on both sides of the debate) are reflective of the views of people in the wider community so it is important that the forum continues to be the voice for it - whatever position people take (within reason of course!). I am sure everyone will respect your rules and if the LTN discussion has to be confined to the Lounge then so be it - some people will be happy about that, some will be annoyed by that - you can’t keep everyone happy all the time! Keep up the good work! P.S. if Malumbu isn’t prepared to self-police their awful mental health posts may be you could for them - pretty sure that must contravene a forum rule.

It’s not AI that threatens human-kind it’s Lime bikes…. https://twitter.com/ediz1975/status/1668199471606386688?t=x1kGSttSePWnAzFsUBmfEg&s=19

The back wheel clicking means the bike has been taken without payment - my son told me how you do it (Bic the way they jack it is linked to the rocking backwards and forwards to lock it) as all the kids know the trick and it is a badge of honour to have a clicking back wheel as it shows you have "stolen it" and aren't paying to use it.

But then, by the same measure, does it suit some people with a political agenda to try and bury the issue/lounge the issue on the forum to ensure people aren't holding the those who implemented these measures accountable? Should we all just ignore the fact that the council was proposing to spend £1.8m of our money on closing a junction that didn't need closing? How much money did they waste on a project that was laughed out of the funding debate? Have they ever clearly explained why they even pursued this folly, who was responsible for it - it seemed to come out of the blue, a surprise to everyone and no-one seemed to know why closing Turney was ever even tabled? Earl, you don't have a response do you - you rarely ever do - you say, this interpretation is wrong but then never actually provide any analysis to back it up which leads me to believe you don't actually have an argument? And defaulting to no-one has done peer-reviewed analysis to support the anti-LTN position is probably because no passionately anti-LTN position researcher has been paid £1.5m by the very people implementing the measures on the streets to prove they aren't working! 😉 Just take a look for yourself at the below and make your own mind up (remember Near the LTNs are within 200m of the LTNs, control area is over 200m from the LTNs) - let's be honest the control area is more than close enough to be considered part of the LTN disruption area: Table 2.Average daily driving time, pre- and post-LTN implementation: main analysis Inside the LTNs Near the LTNs Control area No. cars and vans in analysis, pre/post 1700 / 2025 1352 / 1658 5523 / 6598 Mean daily km (SE), pre 20.3 (0.3) 20.3 (0.4) 20.4 (0.2) Mean daily km (SE), post 19.6 (0.3) 20.7 (0.4) 21.0 (0.2) Change in km (SE), post minus pre -0.7 (0.5) 0.3 (0.5) 0.6 (0.3) Difference-in-differences change in km (95% CI), relative to the control area -1.3 (-2.4, -0.3) -0.3 (-1.4, 0.9) p-value for difference-in-differences effect p=0.01 p=0.64

Earl, perhaps you care to enlighten me on how it is a total misrepresentation of the research? Here are the findings from the report: Table 2.Average daily driving time, pre- and post-LTN implementation: main analysis Inside the LTNs Near the LTNs Control area No. cars and vans in analysis, pre/post 1700 / 2025 1352 / 1658 5523 / 6598 Mean daily km (SE), pre 20.3 (0.3) 20.3 (0.4) 20.4 (0.2) Mean daily km (SE), post 19.6 (0.3) 20.7 (0.4) 21.0 (0.2) Change in km (SE), post minus pre -0.7 (0.5) 0.3 (0.5) 0.6 (0.3) Difference-in-differences change in km (95% CI), relative to the control area -1.3 (-2.4, -0.3) -0.3 (-1.4, 0.9) p-value for difference-in-differences effect p=0.01 p=0.64 The research suggests that INSIDE the LTNs there was a 4% drop in the number of mean daily kms - does it not (maths was never my strong-point)? Hurrah! A reduction. After three years (can we agree that there is no chance not to suggest these haven't bedded-in now) is that enough? I remember way back when all this started a lot of the pro-LTN lobby would point to studies from The Netherlands etc suggesting that 11% reductions were seen with LTNs and I said at the time that that was not nearly enough. Is 4% enough to make a difference given the congestion problems this causes outside of LTNs? And look what happened near the LTNs - miles increased. Weren't we promised by the pro-LTN lobby and councillors that LTNs reduced traffic for everyone? Look I have been very clear from the beginning that LTNs will reduce driving within LTNs (of course they do) it is their impact outside of them that is the important factor that determines whether they can be considered a success. If you want to claim success as an incremental (rounding error) reduction go ahead, have a party. And whilst Ms Aldred laces her summaries with "could" and "decreases would be greater" the alternative headline could be that: LTNs decrease vehicle miles within an LTN but increase them outside. Also this note in the findings section is fascinating - are people in Lambeth keeping their cars - weren't we promised a reduction in car ownership in LTNs too? However, the similarity between the LTN and control areas suggests that the Lambeth LTNs have not seen a notable drop in car/van ownership. This contrasts with the 6% decrease in car/van ownership after two years observed in the longer-established LTNs in Waltham Forest (Goodman, Urban, and Aldred 2020). I am sure admin will probably lounge this thread (under duress from the lounge police no doubt) but maybe it is time to re-instate the LTN thread to the main forum as these developments are still a talking point locally and Turney Road etc is all part of the LTN and OHS programme and these findings from our neighbouring borough are important for people to assess the impact and decide for themselves given the council seems to have dropped any form of their own monitoring, and ultimately if the forum doesn't want to talk about it forum nature will run it's course and it will drop to the bottom very quickly.

Certainly from the OHS study years ago they had monitored Turney and the results are here: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/our-healthy-streets-dulwich-phase-3/#:~:text=In response to concerns from,such as walking and cycling. But since the DV closure I am not sure they have done any monitoring - since the DV closure went in the amount of traffic using Turney has declined as the cross area routes have been closed - basing that on nothing more scientific than spending a lot of time around that area and seeing heavy traffic focussed now on the northbound section of DV (especially at weekends). Certainly there have been strips in place for a while now around the Turney junction but I can't help but think that was retrospective after they announced their grand plan to close Turney and, as far as I am aware, none of that monitoring data has been published. It does make you wonder if the numbers they were getting could not be spun to close Turney - certainly not at a £1.8m cost to the tax-payer. I do wonder whether the cult of LTNs is starting to unravel and with Aldred's recent research in Lambeth whether authorities are now wising up to the fact that LTNs do very little to have a positive impact on vehicular traffic as those small, single figure % decreases within the LTNs are doing little to offset the increases outside of the LTNs and you can't turn the whole of London into a single LTN. Also very interesting, and telling, is the number of cars vs vans in the Aldred survey suggesting the private car is no longer the biggest problem but vans and delivery vehicles. Very interesting that Peter Walker didn't run this in the Guardian as an "exclusive" like all of the other Aldred reports published previously! 😉 P.S. Mr Chicken - I haven't stooped to Malumbu's levels though have I - they crossed a line but a line that they, and others, like you, seem more than happy to cross (and validate)? Encouraging someone to seek Cognitive Behavioural Therapy is a low-blow and something no educated, considerate, adult should be posting - it's a childish, passive-aggressive, ill-thought post that demonstrates a total lack of awareness and is offensive to anyone who may have a mental health issue - and the fact it is still unedited speaks volumes. P.P.S I am a cyclist - we've probably shared the same cycle lane! I am just one, of many, who feel the more cultish elements of the cycling community are giving us all a bad name.

….which isn’t get it’s normal “exclusive” treatment from the likes of Peter Walker….can anyone guess why….? The research is very interesting as it was conducted in Lambeth around their 4 LTNs, which interestingly are all in the northern half of the borough and close to tubes and have good transport links. Below are the pre-adjusted figures for Inside the LTNs, Near the LTNs (within 200 metres) and Control area (beyond 200m). Table 2.Average daily driving time, pre- and post-LTN implementation: main analysis Inside the LTNs Near the LTNs Control area No. cars and vans in analysis, pre/post 1700 / 2025 1352 / 1658 5523 / 6598 Mean daily km (SE), pre 20.3 (0.3) 20.3 (0.4) 20.4 (0.2) Mean daily km (SE), post 19.6 (0.3) 20.7 (0.4) 21.0 (0.2) Change in km (SE), post minus pre -0.7 (0.5) 0.3 (0.5) 0.6 (0.3) Difference-in-differences change in km (95% CI), relative to the control area -1.3 (-2.4, -0.3) -0.3 (-1.4, 0.9) p-value for difference-in-differences effect p=0.01 p=0.64 So it seems all those headlines we saw from the usual pro-LTN suspects about LTNs not leading to a rise in traffic outside the LTNs may have been incorrect. I do hope Ms Alfred’s ATA will do the same research in Dulwich as I think the numbers would be quite revealing as our LTNs are much further south and further away from tubes and gold transport links when compared to Lambeth’s? Could this be the why Sadiq is beginning to distance himself from LTNs (ahead of next May’s mayoral election) as the truth is starting to creep out? Telling that none of the usual suspects tried to spin this story in support of LTNs. (Admin note - this post isn't directly related to ED so moved to the LTN Discussion topic)

Sad to see that Sainsbury’s staff at The Plough have had to start wearing audio and video recording devices on their uniforms.

The buzz (no pun intended if is was their transformer) on the Lane this morning was that it was some sort of fire.

The fact that Malumbu has posted more since their appalling post and yet sees no reason to amend or delete it speaks volumes. Mr Chicken your “yeah but….” defence speaks volumes too……..

I think it is rising across the whole Dulwich area - a lot of people are getting phones stolen and a few shops on Lordship Lane have been the victims of aggravated burglaries during business hours recently. Unfortunately areas like Dulwich will always be rich, and profitable, hunting grounds for thieves.

I wonder how much this whole project is costing and where the funding is coming from. Has this area flooded badly before?

Does anyone know if a bike is "jacked" i.e. taken without paying - the rear wheel clicks if the next user uses is legally does it stop clicking? The reason I ask is I see, and hear, more bikes making the clicking noise than those that don't and are we to presume that any rider on a clicking bike has "jacked" it?

Earl - pedestrians aren't part of the council's grand plan - Southwark's rules are that you can only get streetspace/infrastructure dedicated to you if you are a bike! 😉 Pedestrians have long since been forgotten when it comes to active travel......

Is it not reputedly built on the site from where Boudicca launched her attack on Londinium?

Malumbu - I think you are stepping over the mark now. Making suggestions about how someone can manage their mental health. Honestly, get over yourself or do everyone a favour and lounge yourself again - I am afraid your contributions are adding no value here. i think you should remove both the posts you made this evening about mental health - it’s not necessary, is incredibly passive aggressive and you should not stoop to those levels.

I believe so yes - I only heard about it from a friend who has a child at the school - they have always had a problem but apparently it has got particularly bad. It seems bikes are the chosen mode of transport for muggers nowadays; they can cover a large area, approach people quickly and quietly, maintain the element of surprise, strike and then make a quick escape with little chance of being caught.

Yeah, turn your back for 20 years and those blighters appear overnight! 😉

Can anyone work out which trees these are as the area susceptible to flooding seems to be the area near the Totem Pole near East Dulwich Road but the proposals seem to suggest work all down the side of the park along Forest Hill Road? Maybe this is what the Gala money is being put towards....;-)

Is it just me or does it look like someone has been tidying them up as there don't seem to be as many around as there was a week or so ago? Although whomever placed 8-10 of them on the pavement in front of the bus stop outside the Post Office on Lordship Lane when the e-cycle parking bay opposite had space really needs to give it more thought.....

BBC giving this some attention in relation to Brockwell Park events (from around 3 minutes 50 in this clip https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001mqk7/bbc-london-late-news-06062023) and here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c038l8n6ydpo It does seem that residents are being cast aside in the quest for revenue and I suspect the model/scale seen in Brockwell Park is, aspirationally where Southwark probably want to get to for Peckham Rye. The Brockwell Park disruption is on a different scale to Peckham Rye or Dulwich Park and is definitely something that should be avoided - let's hope the council take heed! It would be interesting to know just how much money gets put back into Brockwell Park following those events as I seem to remember, and I might be wrong, that very little, if any, money goes back to Peckham Rye following Gala - didn't the Friends of Peckham Rye kick up a stink about it?

Unfortunately there has been a spate of muggings of Charter North kids in the vicinity of the school as the kids leave for the day.

The way Pub in the Park is positioned the noise tends to travel away from Dulwich up towards Sydenham Hill so it impacts fewer homes. But as Ex- says good luck to anyone happy enough to pay those prices to get in for a 4-hour afternoon or evening session and then get fleeced for "artisan" food and drink. I don't know anyone who has been who is willing to repeat the experience and it's very reflective of the way Dulwich is changing (and not necessarily for the better). If you want to listen to the music head to the Sainsbury's at the Plough, grab a bottle of something and some nibbles and plonk yourselves in the park near the cafe and save yourself a fortune!

I am still laughing heartily after reading this tweet from Peter Walker.....somewhat hypocritical from someone who has been dining out for years on non-peer reviewed LTN and active travel reports written by people who have a vested-interest......glass houses and all that....

DKHB if you had bothered to read the letter from Southwark you would see that the max limit would be 499 people....so quiet an exclusive rave then! 😉 It seems the council are trying to cover a lot of bases with their application as it covers trade stalls etc. Interested to know who they have distributed this to as we live near there and have not had it.