Rockets

I think they have gone now.

I do wonder if there is a direct correlation between position of counters and reporting of increases in traffic on the dashboard. A lot of Southwark's counters are close to junctions (I suspect deliberately so to influence the reporting numbers) and many were moved closer to junctions after they were first installed. Other councils have been caught moving strips closer to junctions recently (to ensure the strips sit under slow moving traffic) so this seems to be a fairly standard tactic to manipulate the output. Am I right in thinking there is a map somewhere of the locations of the counters around Dulwich - wasn't it shared here and discussed during the East Dulwich Grove "reduction/disappearing traffic" debate? Does anyone remember/have it/have a link to it?

Rosie Huntington-Whiteley in Dulwich Park at the weekend

Spot on! And the council even admits that Dulwich has higher car ownership, in part, because of the poor transport links in the area (when compared to areas in the north of the borough). Correct me if I am wrong but has any part of our public transport network locally actually got better or been improved since these measures were put in?

It's clear they want to massively reduce the number of private vehicles on the road and that is something we can all embrace but a bit like Hackney and their recent goals of banning through traffic on 75% of their roads (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64408468) - it's far easier said than done and often leads to problems for neighbouring areas. What the pro-closure lobby fail to acknowledge is that private vehicle ownership and usage has been declining in London yet congestion is getting worse - perhaps they should try to work out why. If they ban through traffic on 75% of roads in their borough I wouldn't want to live on the 25% that do allow it - sounds terribly socially unjust for anyone who happens to live on or near the 25%. Hackney's grand plan was being discussed on Radio 5 and the same issues seen in Southwark were being discussed - what happens in areas of the borough that aren't well served by public transport? The problem is these ideological grand schemes don't often work well in practice and I do really worry about the long-term harm these measures that are supposed to do long-term good are actually doing. Remember London is the only city in the top 10 cities in the UK to see an increase in congestion since Covid yet vehicle numbers are down - go figure what might be happening here....the biggest challenge post- Covid is that London is fast ceasing to function properly.

We need somewhere that has a properly functioning cash machine (and one that doesn't charge £2 a withdrawl) - neither Co-op or Post Office were dispensing money at times on Saturday.

So I had a look at Aldred's latest report and a number of things stand out: [list=]The data analysed seems to have been for the period between July 20th and Feb 22 - so the full period of lockdown measures The report acknowledges that Enfield council admitted that the poor recording of vehicles travelling under 10km/h by monitoring strips but they left the data in there - the question is does Enfield use the same strips as every other council and if so, what does that mean for the accuracy of reports from other councils too Linked to the above point the report does state that "parked or very slow moving vehicles may affect the results.....but that.....in most cases count sites are placed away from junctions - now this is interesting as many of the Dulwich count sites are close to junctions - in fact the one on Lordship lane south was moved closer to the junction of Melford Road - it would be very interesting if someone did an FOI to see where monitoring strips were located initially, where they are now and if any were moved. And there is a lot of debate about how the report has been reported on and spun by both UoW and Possible (clever use of avergae, median & mean to create favourable headlines with regard to boundary roads) and there was an unholy argument going on between Peter Walker and another journalist because he took offence to someone suggesting he wasn't totally impartial and was suggesting legal issues as a result:

Ouch!!! ;-) Edited to add - most people can cycle if they chose to. Go back 70 years and many did out of economic necessity. But 70 years ago the distances people travelled for work and play were much, much lower - London was a lot, lot smaller and it had grown north and south along railway lines. And anyway it seems that if the mayor cannot cycle, for a variety of reasons (per the councillors on the meeting), then there is a pretty good chance your assumption that "most" can may be a little off!

Thanks Legal, I want to take a look for myself as there is a lot of analysis going on that suggests the authors have cleverly used mean and medians to create some of the more pro-LTN headlines and actually the detailed in the report paints not such a rosy picture (especially on boundary roads). Interesting that their data has been taken from councils themselves and that Enfield, where the whole " we can't count anything under 10kmh" debate has thrown the validity of their monitoring numbers into account has been included (I have seen that someone suggests the report acknowledges this and I want to take a look myself. And Malumbu, if you can't work out why your "anyone drive my furniture to France for me" was flagged for it's hypocritical position then I am afraid you are very much part of the problem not the solution! ;-)

Has anyone got a link to the latest Aldred report (full report not press release), I can't seem to find it on either the Possible or UoW website?

Did a wartime bomb land anywhere nearby (are there a couple of more modern houses in the terrace nearby or check one of the websites that tracked where bombs hit the area)? There are lots of houses in the area that moved a bit following raids during the war but haven't moved much since. On your ability to sell the fact it has come up on your report will mean it will come up on the next report so I would try to determine why. Most houses around here have moved at some point, you just need to understand why.

I think there is a problem up towards Dulwich College - I went for a lunchtime stroll through the park and it was nose to tail then heading in the direction from the Grove Tavern to the College.

The council should be monitoring and publishing the numbers on Underhill. A significant increase, as Cllr Browning says, may skew their overall numbers for the "success" of their area-wide LTN programme and everyone should be asking them why Underhill is not considered as part of the LTN monitoring. I suspect they have omitted it very deliberately as they attempt to manipulate the results.

Zerkalo - we all hear what you are saying - most of us posting here are Dulwich residents and embrace the travel choices you do (Dulwich had something like 70% of all local journeys done by active travel before the measures went) and I agree the council has been shockingly absent from providing proper cycle infrastructure - it seems like the LTNs were the only idea and tactic they had to encourage active travel and they have installed them and very little else. I do note, with interest, you cite CPR and Underhill Road, two of the roads worst affected from LTN displacement traffic. Have you noticed that those roads have become worse since the LTNs went in - it makes total sense why it has got busier as cars try to find a way around the congestion caused by the LTNs on Lordship Lane (Underhill was always busy but seems a lot worse now)? One of the local residents approached the councillors after the measures went in and said the traffic had got worse and was told the solution would be "to ask for your own LTN". The council steadfastly refuses to monitor Underhill Road - I am not sure it qualifies in their books as a boundary road as it runs away from the LTN which is why they refuse to monitor (although monitoring strips were in place for a long time but the results were never properly published bar one slide in a very early monitoring report that said something vague). But clearly it is soaking up a lot of the traffic looking for ways around the congestion caused by the LTNs - this is one of the reasons why many of us question the council's monitoring dashboard as the picture is not complete as Underhill (and other roads that are impacted by displacement) are not monitored.

Legal - I think it just makes it easier for people to digest but I agree citing a 47% increase within an LTN and comparing it to (as all the media have done) to a 1% increase on boundary roads means nothing - but it does help generate sympathetic headlines and coverage (especially when you seed it to friendly media first who don't scrutinise and will write a positive headline which then helps skew the overall narrative of the story). For example the BBC and Guardian headlines are actually very misleading: London LTNs: Motor traffic reduced by 47%, study finds - BBC LTNs appear not to push traffic on to boundary roads, London study finds - Guardian If the BBC headline was: London LTNs: Motor traffic reduced by 47% inside LTNs, study finds - that creates very different story. And the Guardian headline gives the impression they don't push traffic onto boundary roads when even Aldred's report shows it does. This is why Aldred et al pull the oldest PR trick in the book and always give research (often as exclusives) to those media who are onside and will write the story as they would write it themselves without question.

DuncanW - Malumbu doesn't have an argument and, repeatedly, goes out of their way to avoid debating the key points and is more than happy to challenge others on their lifestyles and how they use vehicles. When I see them post things such as this: Please accept that less motoring, and where cars are kept smarter motoring, is a necessity .. just days after they have asked if someone can drive a piece of furniture to their French holiday home for them makes me question whether they truly practice what they preach - they happily criticise everyone else but when it suits them they default to doing exactly what they want others to stop doing. And that is not Hyprocrisy Fallacy - it's called doing a Gary Neville!

Malumbu, I am very well thanks, thanks for your concern but I am so sorry I am seemingly living rent free in your head! ;-) My posts are varied, but I do love to highlight the hypocrisy and nonsense spouted by the pro-LTN lobby. Here's the difference between my posts and yours, I tend to post on matters related to Dulwich whilst you tend to post on a wide variety of things not much of which is actually related to Dulwich....although I am trying to rationalise how someone who is so anti-car like yourself can, without the slightest hint of irony or hypocrisy, post asking for someone to drive a door and a piece of furniture all the way to your holiday home in France in exchange for a free stay in it.....surely easier, and better for the environment, if you just bought the furniture you need for your holiday home in France there? P.S. I hate to break it to you but having a holiday home in France that you actively encourage people to fly or drive to isn't good for your green or environmental credentials.....just saying....people in glass houses and all that.... BTW do you still own your old car you told us about a while ago?

Here here..... BTW I saw someone trying to push a delivery cargo bike up Sydenham Hill a few days ago....if there ever was a visual metaphor for the problems people face that was it! (For the record I do live in Dulwich, within an LTN, I am a cyclist and own a car) - perhaps we can all put our cards on the table....;-)

47% reduction of traffic within LTNs (that's the key here) probably explains why congestion is up by 5% in London and why it is now the most congested city in the world......Aldred just provided the missing link! ;-) In all seriousness has Aldred and her team ever said anything even slightly negative about LTNs in any of their "research"? I presume this is the output from the £1.5m Aldred and the UoW was awarded to prove LTNs are working: https://www.westminster.ac.uk/news/university-of-westminster-to-lead-major-ps15m-new-study-on-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-in-london I am sorry but any research from Aldred that gets regurgitated, sorry I meant published, by the Guardian's political correspondent Peter Walker has to be taken with a massive pinch of salt........ Also, is anyone surprised the 47% figure isn't higher? Most LTNs cut off supposed through routes (Court Lane, Calton, Melbourne Grove, Fentiman etc) so I would have expected the reduction in traffic to be significantly more - perhaps the "rat-run" narrative didn't exist as much as the pro-LTNers would have liked to have believed.

Leaves this here with no comment...... https://www.westminster.ac.uk/about-us/our-people/directory/aldred-rachel

Malumbu - I do accept that less motoring is a necessity but when I see statements like this: And most of us are able bodied and most of us don't need a car just in case we needed to be rushed to hospital. ....it shows just how far folks on your side of the debate need to educate themselves about why people own and use cars and how far you need to change before there can be some proper, effective and pragmatic solutions to the problem to be implemented, Your comment is blinkered and viewed from your perspective only - which is exactly what we have come to expect from the pro-cycle lobby and why the solutions being implemented are impacting the health, wealth and well-being of our city. P.S. Has your household now gone car free?

What I am suggesting is that the Mayor's office and local authorities have over-indexed on trying to promote cycling as the cure-all to all of London's vehicle-use woes and they have neglected other modes of transport as a result - that they let the pro-cycling lobby over-influence the policies and "remedies" that they rolled out. They got seduced by the ludicrous idea that London could be like Amsterdam, Berlin or Copenhagen without properly understanding how London is or operates. The massive investment in cycling infrastructure, and this goes back to before Covid, has not delivered the numbers of cyclists required to compensate for the reduction in road space for other vehicles and this is what has led to the 5% increase in congestion in London compared to pre-Covid - the only UK city in the top 10 to register an increase in congestion levels. And the reason for the failure to deliver is glaringly obvious which is London is a huge city with a working population that is spread far and wide and travel more than a couple of miles to their place of work - many of those that need to get to the centre of London do so via trains, tubes and buses that go in and out of London. London has always had great in and out transport links but very little that goes across - it's why the Elizabeth line was so welcome. No-one on the pro-LTN lobby ever stops to think why people own and use cars - likely the second biggest financial outlay a person might make. They just say - well if I don't need a car why do they? I suspect often the loudest voices come from those who live in big houses, can afford to own and store a cargo bike (we know people who bought temperature controlled sheds for said cargo bikes that cost as much as the bikes themselves) and use said bikes to drop the children to school and head to Gail's for coffee. But the rest of London isn't like the wonderful Dulwich and so they care not for any of the challenges for most people to embrace cycling. Don't get me wrong every journey that is done on a bike or on foot (and remember Dulwich had some of the highest % of walked local journeys of the whole borough prior to these interventions - up around 70% if I remember rightly) rather than a car is a good thing but don't for one moment think that London will ever become a 15-minute city and realise that these interventions are having a negative impact on everyone.

Could it be Rahx3 that a lot of public space is dedicated to cars because, despite all those stats you quote, people choose to own cars? And perhaps that is because they need cars - that their lives don't revolve around a 2km circle and that cycling just doesn't work for them and their family as a viable option for all their travel needs? A car is often the second biggest expense in people's lives yet they continue to want to own and use them - do those behind the war on cars ever take time to consider why? Just because they chose to cycle doesn't mean that everyone else can or will but policies are implemented on the blind assumption that everyone can. Look at Will Norman, he cycles a lot but his boss Sadiq Khan gets transported around in an armour-plated Range Rover - why because Will can but Sadiq can't. In Southwark there are parts of the borough that have low car ownership and parts that have high car ownership - you can't implement policies that presume car ownership is low across the whole borough when the council cites poor public transport, large family size etc as the major reasons why some parts of the borough (like ours) have high car ownership. In the real world, I am afraid, a one-size fits all solution doesn't exist - despite what the pro-cycling/pro-LTN lobby would like everyone to believe.

Ex- some interesting points but..... - I don't think you can lay the blame of the congestion down to people driving before and after the charge comes into effect (and I do chuckle where there is always some excuse that the pro-lobby throw out anytime the stats show their interventions may not be doing what they want it to ;-)) because London is congested all day everyday now - and particularly around the usual rush hour/school drop times and I suspect many people are leaving earlier/later to avoid the chaos (rather than to avoid the charge per se). Interesting you quote the average traffic speeds of 10 - 12 mph since the 30s - did you notice that London now is at 10mph and that is the slowest (by some margin) on the rest of the UK cities in the top 10. Also, why do you think all other UK cities have seen a marked decrease in congestion levels yet London is the only one to record an increase since pre-Covid? Table 1: 10 Most Congested Urban Areas in the U.K - see attachment And I agree that people need a nudge but at what point do we have to say...hang on folks this isn't working and it actually having an adverse impact on the health and wealth of our city? It's been well over two years for a lot of these interventions and it is clear they are not delivering and I think one of the biggest problems in central London is that bus lane infrastructure has been impacted by the provision of desire of provide cycle lanes - look at many of the bridges over the Thames now where buses now have to share a lane with cars. At what point do people need to start questioning whether the investment in cycling infrastructure has been worth it and whether it is having an overall positive or negative impact on London? The recent ONS census showed that in 2011 4.3% of Londoners over the age of 16 commuted to work on a bike and in 2021 that had risen slightly to 5.1% and nowhere near the 1000% increases being promised/lauded during lockdown by pro-LTN advocates. You can't just keep following a policy that is not delivering on the goals it set out and you can't keep going on forever promising the change will come because the negative impact of congestion is being felt by everyone.

Yes aren't there a couple of roads within the LTNs where car ownership is 3 per household? I saw non-Dulwich threads about other LTNs having the similar trends of very high car ownership within LTNs but maybe that is more a reflection of the areas that councils decide to locate LTNs (pandering to the very people who need to change driving habits). What is probably more interesting is to see whether since LTNs went in whether there has been any decline in car ownership within the LTNS - which was something the council promised. My hunch is that there hasn't been any.