Rockets

Well the thread had meandered off the original subject so understandable new admin lounged it. The pro-LTN lobby really do tie themselves in knots - so many times they have posted things that actually validate the anti-lobby arguments (like Earl's post and the mysterious 40% growth figure and the shocking 2% increase in cycling in the city post pandemic)...so many just parrot off stats and figures that do nothing but undermine their arguments and then go running off for cover by throwing some distraction like Mr Chicken's "lowering the tone" accusation. It's like the kid who is losing the football game and plays the it's my ball I am taking it home.... And Mr Chicken, you have only ever posted in relation to road closures and war on cars - not a single other post that suggests you have anything else to contribute to life in Dulwich. You first posted just when the debate over LTNs was it's highest so something obviously triggered you to join in - you stated you lived near Calton Avenue so we can only presume you are benefitting from the closures and happy to support them. Good for you, I am benefitting from the closures as well (look back on my posts and it's not difficult to work out where I live - we actually might be neighbours) but I am wise enough to realise that my benefit is to the detriment of others and that the closures are not delivering what is promised and I can see through the bravado and chutzpah of the council and it's supporters as they try to tell us what a great success it has been. It you're happy going along with the narrative because it serves you well then good for you. The hypocrisy of some on the pro-LTN/war on cars is beyond belief sometimes: happy to tell others how to live their lives and how they should not be using cars yet happy to keep a car/use a car when it suits them and then moan that the roads are clogged by other car users and then use that as some flimsy validation for their ideology that cars are bad. It's laughable at times - invariably born-again middle-classers happy to ignore the fact that the world they occupy and live in is not the reality of the majority - modern selfishness masked by a massive dose of greenwashing.

It’s clear Royal Mail is broken around here and no-one can do anything about it. It’s that moment of dread when you realise someone is sending you something in the post and you wonder if it might ever arrive. Unfortunately when management and unions go to war it is the customer who suffers the most and what used to be a great service gets run into the ground.

At this rate I will be overjoyed if I am on the Openreach fibre network by 2025! At this rate I am not convinced I will ever be! 😉

Mr Chicken, all people have to do is click is click on the icon above the 81 and can see exactly what you have posted about what subjects, your clear vested interests (I suggest from some of your posts we can guess you are directly benefiting from the closures) and your tone during those discussions. They can judge for themselves but it’s a bit rich you complain that I am somehow lowering the tone given some of your musings in the past - maybe you are a born-again poster? But then again as we have seen time and time again the hypocrisy gene is strong amongst many of the pro-LTN/war on car lobby….

Ha ha...trust me if Malumbu is big enough to give it out (and I have been on the receiving end of plenty from them and taken it all in good spirits - see their last post on the original LTN thread in the lounge they made yesterday) then I am pretty sure they don't mind a little in return! And on the subject of people in glass houses...you don't exactly have an unblemished track record of posting to keep the tone! Very interestingly every single one of your 80 posts on this forum is about the LTNs - you've never posted about anything else - careful that will really annoy Malumbu as they take a real dislike to people that don't talk about anything other than LTNs!!! 😉

Ex - no need to swear, family forum and all that. It’s 10km/h isn’t it where the pneumatic recordings are not reliable - wasn’t that what the manufacturers of them stated in the Enfield council case and said they should not be placed close to junctions - which everyone knows is the tactic used by those wanting to deliberately under report traffic numbers - come on you can admit it, you’re amongst friends here….;-)

Careful Malumbu - you'll get this thread lounged 😉 or you may even get banned by admin for being nasty to people who wear red striped jumpers....!;-)

Malumbu - I do use buses but I also walk a lot in London because 1) I love walking and 2) it can often be quicker than sitting in a bus in traffic caused by the carnage devoting so much to cycling has caused (particularly over bridges). I take trains and tubes in the main but you'll often find me walking from London Bridge to Soho/West End along the banks of the Thames or the same journey from Victoria past Buckingham Palace. I don't use buses locally because I walk or cycle everywhere - I am a fully paid-up member of the 68% walking local journeys brigade. For the record I don't have a second home in France or anywhere else for that matter (sorry couldn't resist ;-)) CPZs do affect me because Southwark plans to roll them out across the whole borough and I think the unwarranted near 100% increase in the cost of a CPZ is totally unfair and incredibly blinkered of a council that is supposedly concerned about a cost of living crisis. How much are they planning to charge in your borough for the CPZ and why are people up in arms? Maybe they see what's happening in Southwark and think hang on, this has nothing to do with commuter parking or the environment but as way for the council to fleece us during a cost of living crisis.

Earl, I am sorry but where are you getting the 40% cycling growth figure from? When you first mentioned it you said: levels of cycling remain 40 per cent higher than levels before the pandemic. Now you seem to be saying that the 40% growth was pre-pandemic - which again is not backed-up by the facts from the very report you claim to cite as it states that growth in cycling from 2015 to 2019 was muted. Can you explain what this 40% figure is and relates to and where you got it from? So since the pandemic started and since the mayor spent hundreds of millions on digging roads to put in cycle lanes there has only been only a 2% increase in the numbers of cyclists in the City - you should be very worried by that as it clearly shows the cycling revolution is a bit of a flat tyre. Commuting numbers into London during 2022 were estimated to have returned to around 65%- 70% of the pre-pandemic levels so in that context a 2% increase is very, very low don't you think?

So a day was booked for Openreach to do the final part of the install after months and months of delays. "Will they definitely be able to do it?" I said to the person on the phone booking it in. "Yes, they are one of our engineers who is specially trained to do the work", they replied The engineer arrived. Took one look and said: "I am not able to do this work as I am not trained to do it!" And so the saga of no-fibre continues! The engineer did say that this comedy of errors happens at almost every property he visits in the area.

Jenx3 - as I said if you don't like it don't engage...no-one is forcing you to! if it bores or angers you that people dare to still talk about the LTNs then don't click on it.....it's not that difficult! You were more than happy to post lots to try to defend the council's measures in the old thread so just because you have grown tired of doing so for something you are clearly a big supporter of (and no doubt directly benefit from) doesn't mean you should be judge and jury on whether others should discuss it or ask questions about it. Anyway, I seem to remember you being a big advocate and defender of the council's data on the miracle East Dulwich Grove Centre evaporation so have you seen any further info from the council on the latest numbers, per my original question? Oh P.S. it was one of the best performing threads in the main section of the forum with over 2,000 posts and 122k views and that was just the LTN Phase 3 thread there had been more threads before that too!

And why might that be do you think? 😉 The answer is actually in the article: Over the last decade, the use of motor vehicles has been increasingly restricted in the financial heart of the U.K. It's a bit like the mind-blowing revelations the council shared with us that on roads closed by LTNs traffic declined significantly....well blow me down...that's a surprise! 😉 The article goes on to say: However, cyclist numbers are at 102% of pre-pandemic levels. A 2% increase on pre-pandemic levels on cyclists in the city - wow, that's worryingly low is it not and goes to validated the reality that the cycling revolution is just not materialising? Especially given all the money spent and disruption to buses caused by the installation of cycling infrastructure in and around the City (over bridges especially).

Earl, from which report are you taking those stats or from where are you taking them? Can you send a link because TFL's latest report doesn't mention 40% - certainly report number 15 which is the latest published report doesn't. It does however say: During the latter months of 2022 some of these patterns are persisting with the more general return to normal activities, albeit in the context of fine weather and other factors affecting the wider transport network. Representative weekday demand as of October 2022 was some 20-25 per cent higher than before the pandemic, with weekend demand still typically around 90 per cent higher. But this was a forward-looking statement because Figure 4.3 on page 100 of that report 15 only reports up to the week of October 4th and the comments I think you have used were forward-looking (and derived from what I have pasted above) and yet the table I shared from Vincent Stops is the latest version of that Figure that has now been updated up to April 23 and shows that the trends reported weren't realised in reality and that overall cycling levels remain around the pre-2019 levels. Nothing from that chart indicates anywhere close to a 40% increase.

Mr Chicken - we have to imagine the data on Underhill because the council refuses to monitor - now why might that be do you think Would you not agree that all likely displacement routes should have been monitored away from the LTNs to have an accurate and complete picture of the impact of the LTNs? Earl - you are absolutely right about everyone competing for limited space but would you not agree that over the last 5 years huge amounts of public land in London have been turned over to active travel to the detriment of other road users like buses, lorries and cars? More road space has been turned over to cycling than any other road user yet the numbers from TFL suggest it hasn't positively impacted cycling numbers - is that concern? How much more needs to be turned over before it does start having a positive impact or do we keep going regardless of the negative impact on Londoners from increased congestion and pollution?

As I said earlier, there are some who have a vested interest in burying the subject and have repeatedly tried, much to the frustration of the previous admin due to the sometimes underhand tactics used, to stop any form of discussion about it on the board. Maybe the most sensible advice, if it bores you to tears, is don't click on it and respond because all you're doing is not helping me answer the question and, ahem, keeping it at the top of the forum 😉 And if the "majority" aren't interested then surely the forums' posting function will run its natural course and any thread will drop very quickly. The old thread survived multiple assassination attempts, was policed very well to keep within old admin guidelines, until very recently before finally being demoted to the lounge (on the basis, which I agree with, that it had become more loungey and not based on new info or facts). Given it had, I believe, the highest number of posts and views for any thread ever on the forum I am not entirely sure how you can claim the subject was only of interest to a few or to the detriment to the EDF - that argument seems totally counter to the supporting stats in front of us!!

That may well be the case but it is clear people are still interested in the subject (as much as some, like you, would love it to go away for ever). The data from the dashboard is key and I was wondering if the council plans to update it again to show us whether the increases in traffic on some roads seen in the last couple of reports continued? They are certainly still monitoring in some places (although some of the ones on the streets they were monitoring have had them removed which suggests they believe the monitoring job is done). From my wanderings around Dulwich I did notice that there is a definite pattern to how the council places the strips - if they want low numbers from a road (for example Dulwich Village) they put the monitoring strips close to a junction (see the placement close to Turney Road near light opposite the graveyard) but if they want high numbers (Burbage Road) they put the strips mid-street. it's quite pronounced and obvious when you see the positioning and is a real tell-all as to what they want the outcome of the monitoring to be.

Earl - you're wrong - the council data showed that the LTNs led to a decrease in car journeys within the LTNs and that some roads (that were monitored) showed increases in traffic (but we all know the council refused to monitor roads like Underhill which has soaked up a lot of the displacement). In terms of walking I do not believe that the council has done an area-wide survey since their 2018 Traffic Management report that showed 68% of local journeys were being walked (the highest % in the borough of Southwark) - but we can presume that will have likely increased post-lockdown. Cycling data was provided by one of Rachel Aldred's team who did visual analysis of a very limited area (Calton Avenue junction) which showed an increase in cyclists but was criticised for the counting methodology and timings (which appeared to have been timed around school drop-off and pick-ups for biggest impact). I think we can all attest that there are more people cycling in the area than before the pandemic but whether is it enough to compensate for the problems caused by the road closures has yet to be addressed. Interestingly, TFL did release data recently from their 20 cycling monitors around London comparing to the same weeks in 2019 against post-pandemic levels up to April this year and there were very little changes in overall numbers of cyclists.

Yes I know but that's why I am posting here because the Lounge doesn't get the eyeballs this section does and I am interested if anybody knows the answer (and I also know it really annoys those who have relentlessly lobbied the previous and current admins to kill any discussion on LTNs on the forum as it doesn't suit their own personal agendas!! ;-))

Does anyone know if Southwark are planning to update the Streetspace dashboard - it hasn't been updated since September of last year and it would be very interesting to see if the increases in traffic volumes monitored by the council last time round was a trend or an anomaly? https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/traffic-data-analysis

Very interesting that the link shared from TFL's analysis of who owns the cars says, in summary: Londoners are more likely to own a car if they live in outer London, live in an area with poor access to public transport, have a higher income, have a child in the house, and are of Western European nationality. Which pretty much describes the Dulwich area so you have to decide, as a council, do you attack an area to solve a problem that wasn't of the area's making and are born from a number of factors that can neither be fixed quickly or by the people who the own cars. Southwark has made their choice - if you have poor public transport and a child and if you can afford a car that remains the best option for most. And let's be honest cargo bikes, which remain almost exclusively the domain of the upper middle classes with big houses or companies serving the demands of upper middle classes, are never a good example of an active travel alternative! 😉 that's going to make a huge difference!

Where did I say Townley was a school street....I said it's what happens when you conflate school streets with other timed restrictions i.e. when in some areas you mix school streets that operate during school times and with others that do not...hope that clarifies itfor you! 😉

Saw loads of cars heading towards a fine in Dulwich Village yesterday as they drove through the restrictions during the operating hours - oblivious to the fact that the restrictions also apply on bank holidays - an expensive assumption to make and one the council is more than happy to accept!

I did love this line in the Lambeth CPZ which demonstrates the FUD council's sell to people: Although Lambeth is one of the leading boroughs for sustainable travel with almost 80% of trips by residents made by walking, cycling and public transport, and 60% of households being car free, emissions from transport still make up almost a quarter of the total emissions from the borough. The use of the word transport is key here as private cars, which are targeted by the CPZs, make up a small partof emissions from transport with buses, delivery vehicles, lorries and taxis taking the lion's share of blame. Included in Lambeth's categorisation of transport and the 25% is: river, rail, motorcycle, taxis, PHVs, non TFL bus and coach, TFL bus and coach, HGV and LGVs and cars so why they feel the need to reference that is, ahem, anyone's guess ;-)......probably because if they listed what private cars owned by residents contribute people would be like...is this a sledgehammer to crack a nut? Layer on top of that the fact that in other Lambeth documents they say 40% of emissions in our air emanate from outside London and you realise just how futile it is to try to claim that CPZs will contribute significantly to cleaner air - it's clearly absolute nonsense but a convenient untruth that councils peddle as it deflects attention from the bigger contributors like construction and domestic and industrial heating.

And therein lies the problem. Too much of the council-led narrative on these measures is based on assumptions, best-guesses, misinformation and wide-sweeping generalisations which are lapped-up and repeated verbatim by the supporters of these interventions (the short-journey one being a prime example as it holds no weight in the very area the council is pushing these measures). Earl, you mention buses - you know that buses are now being delayed due to the additional congestion being caused by LTNs - see the unholy spat between our local councillors and their bullying of TFL officials when TFL dared to publish a document that challenged the council "LTNs don't cause any problems" narrative? Again, it is very easy to be critical of the amount of space dedicated to parking spaces for cars but if you haven't taken the time to determine why that is and the factors that contribute to that then you are only telling half the story and being, perhaps deliberately, blinkered. The council has been very clear that residents in Dulwich are more reliant on cars because of a number of factors: a combination of the fact that PTAL scores in the area are low and there being more families in the area. You can't ignore that and if you don't address those factors then people will always need cars and I suspect the council knows this but then looks on it as a good source of revenue generation (even during a cost of living crisis) as their ideology is that you are well-off if you have access to a car.

Malumbu, is it the also then disingenuous for the council to build their anti-car narrative on the basis that, and I quote, 40% of Southwark residents don't have access to a car?