Rockets

And I am wondering where Manatee went from August of last year (their last post) to a few days ago. Has never posted a single thing about anything other than LTNs I thought they had got themselves banned again when they sunk off the forum in August of last year - do manatees hibernate? I do think the schools are massive contributors to the problem but I am not sure tbe council really wants to engage with them and nor do the schools want to engage with the council given most of the councillors seem to be sworn enemies of private schools and want to see then abolished.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > apbremer Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I cannot believe that voters have been so > stupid. > > In DV ward they voted overwhelmingly to rid > > themselves of these wretched LTNs... > > No. The public consultation was not a vote. It > also wasn't restricted to people who live in the > area. Anyone with an opinion and an Internet > connection could participate - just like this > forum, in fact! And just like this forum, the > results of the consultation were not reflective of > the real world. So are consultations pointless exercises then - should they be scrapped?

Rahx3 let me break it down for you. You, and the council, are claiming that, because of the LTNs, traffic is down by 21,000 a day. This was central to the LTN monitoring report was it not? But all traffic everywhere is down by around 15% because people's travel has changed due to lockdown - more home working etc. Traffic patterns have changed because of the pandemic. But the councils monitoring does not take this into account and they just compare pre-pandemic monitoring with post pandemic monitoring and hail the LTNs are a great success because traffic is down on some of the monitored roads. But even without the LTNs traffic would have been lower (by 15% and probably 21000 journeys) because of the post pandemic travel changes. Hurrah, we all say, traffic is down because of the pandemic but this is where it starts to become problematic because that reduction in traffic is no longer evenly distributed because some roads have been closed. So we see some roads that, despite the 15% reduction in traffic overall, are seeing increases in traffic when compared to the pre-pandemic numbers. And then you look at the roads showing a reduction and you realise that they are coming in at levels that if you factor in the 15% would actually be higher than pre-pandemic levels. This is because of the displacement caused by the LTNs forcing more traffic down fewer roads so some roads are not seeing the benefit of the overall decrease in traffic. So, in others words, if the LTNs had been put in and there had been no pandemic most roads would be seeing a significant increase in monitored traffic. I hope that clarifies things for you, any thoughts on the above?

But if I had driven I would have been forced to drive down non-closed streets thus "pooing" my pollution on those streets....do you get the joke now? Anyway any response to my suggestion that your touted 21,000 journey reduction has nothing (or very little) to do with the LTNs or are you just going to continue trying to ignore it....it won't go away you know....?

I don't own an SUV. My watch is telling me I did 25901 steps today so yes that would suggest I walk quite a bit..... BTW those 21,000 car journeys are about 15% aren't they....which just happens to be the estimated reduction in general vehicle traffic post pandemic as people's lives changed due to home working etc is it not....can you really claim those to be because of LTNs? P.S. I think you have missed the point of the original analogy someone made....

I would put a wager on the fact that if you removed the LTNs there would be no more cars. I suspect the 21,000 car reduction is due to changes in car use post-pandemic and nothing to do with LTNs. What % reduction is that 21,000? About 15% per chance?

Megan's needs to push as anyone who has been to their DV branch probably won't go near the place. Has anyone met anyone who has been to the DV one and has anything good to say about it? The Megan's in Chelsea is so good yet the DV one just can't get anything right. Saw the Joe's Juice place all coveted up ready for the refit...not sure at all about that but at least another frontage is being filled I suppose. Bring back the Curry Cabin I say!

Waseley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd like some of what you are on Mr/Mrs R. Can > you imagine a world were the LDs and Torries went > into partnership? It's not going to happen. Wait > a sec it did... But it ain't going to happen > again. > > Perhaps time to move on? You appear to be > grasping a straws and I see no evidence that the > masses voted against Labour on this single issue. Just the joys of life Waze...joys of life. Labour and Lib Dems seem to have done some pacts around the country but yes it was a bit of a daft suggestion from me given the Tory and Lib Dem's last disaster of a pact! It was just interesting looking at the numbers and in areas where Labour is so entrenched someone will have to get clever to get them out.

Anyway, before the poo police try to get this thread closed, anyone know why the traffic was so bad through the village and along Lordship Lane this afternoon. On Lordship Lane it was tailing back to beyond the cinema heading towards the GG roundabout.

Cllr McAsh - it was just fascinating hearing about the resources you deploy around an election and I was wondering whether others deployed the same. Your colleague (was it Richard Livingstone?) talking about the reports run to target weak voters was a real eye opener. We had repeated house calls from Labour councillors and activists in the run-up to the election, had one from the Lib Dems and didn't see a Tory. There were Labour activists outside the Dulwich Village polling station very keen to get our polling card numbers so we wouldn't be "targeted" later in the day. There wasn't anyone else from another of the other parties. It is really impressive how you mobilise. I do love the idea of reminding people to vote, a bit like the way men in the 1800s were encouraged to join the navy! ;-) Sorry couldn't resist... P.S. I am thinking of becoming a Labour councillor just for the lunches you have + my goodness that was a Roman feast you were all tucking into!

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The dog poo analogy is quite a good one. So all > the people living on Melbourne Grove can own dogs > and on Calton and Gilkes two or three dogs. They > can the dump their dog poo on my road so their > road is clean. > Yes I see..that's a great idea. The amount of poo > is the same ..but its all on my road. Got it. > Thanks. Love the door poo analagy....don't poo on this street but feel free to poo on those streets around the corner

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sigh - this isn't what happened. We've been > through this before, but you're not interested in > facts - just owning the thread or proving that > your alternate reality is correct. > > The lane has always been there -its a feeder into > the bike box but cars used to cut across it and > now can't - the right filter was nothing to do > with the cycle 'lane' appearance. > > > As for Heartblocks - the traffic was fine 20 years > ago and then Southwark started messing around with > the junction - there really are no words! > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > exdulwicher Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Ha ha....that's the only piece of segregated > > cycle > > > infrastructure they have put in across the > > whole > > > area and it does impede the traffic by > > narrowing > > > the lanes to allow only one car to pass and > > causes > > > a daily tailback in front of Dulwich Hamlets > > > school - thus creating more pollution for the > > > school children. I think you'll agree that's > > > probably not a good thing. > > > > > > Cos there was never, in all of history, ever > a > > > tailback in front of Hamlet before LTNs...? > > > > > > You only need one lane there. Traffic coming > > into > > > DV from Turney can only go left or right and > it > > > has it's own phase, it's effectively a T > > junction > > > for cars now. > > > > > > The advanced green phase for cyclists needs > to > > be > > > a bit longer to shift more riders before the > > > traffic behind starts up and tries to turn > left > > > "across" the flow of riders who can go > straight > > on > > > and in fact it's not difficult to envisage a > > time > > > where you'll need to give a full green phase > to > > > cyclists only at that junction. Same at > Townley > > > crossing over into Greendale. > > > > > > Ex- but the tailbacks are worse since the LTNs > > went in - every day (after the closure times) > the > > traffic crawls to that junction. > > > > Funny isn't it how they put that bike lane in > and > > suddenly had to put a right-turn greenlight in > > because it became so snarled up because they > had > > reduced what was effectively two lanes into > one. > > Typical of so many planners - put something in > > that causes a problem and instead of fixing the > > problem try to move the problem on somewhere > else. I have to take issue with you on this. But putting the pylons in created traffic problems, congestion and more pollution. But no adjustments have been made have they. Why? Surely the pragmatic approach would be to say, this has caused a problem let's try to fix it but it seems when you put anything in to support cycling it becomes untouchable. Today, traffic tailing back all through the village and Lordship Lane today...was there an issue somewhere else?

With hindsight, the Tories and Lib Dems should have made an agreement to have one party not run candidates. Unfortunately they split the no LTN vote. The Tories should have stepped aside and let the Lib Dems have a run at it on their own. Neither of them could mobilise like Labour can - it was fascinating eavesdropping on that Labour councillor war gaming sessions hearing how they would target "weak" Labour voters on the basis of socio-economics, age and race and then send activists to their doors to lobby them to vote if they hadn't already. The other parties seemed to be reliant on the actual candidates getting out and knocking on doors in the run-up to the election. Labour are good at mobilising, other parties aren't.

DulvilleRes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The anti-LTN lobby, as I recall, during the > consultation gave the advice to anyone with > negative feedback about the LTN's to go for the > 'remove them completely' option, as they didn't > like the framing of the questions. The Council > went ahead anyway and put in a number of > significant improvements. > > What has made this whole issue so difficult to > make constructive progress on is it has always > felt overtly politicized. The relentless targeting > of the councilors - sometimes physical in the form > of graffiti near their homes/ the stalker style > pictures of them - the local Conservatives > seemingly campaigning on the LTN's as a single > issue and the opaque 'Vote Them Out' group has > felt at times to me like it has come from another > place than simply finding the best solution to a > local issue. Because the questions were: keep it, make changes (but they didn't say what), remove it. If you don't specify what changes you are going to make you can't expect people to vote for it. Common sense really. That left anyone who was against it one option: remove it. Most respondents said remove it, the council ignored them and carried on regardless.

Community-wide communication, engagement and dialogue - all of which have been sorely lacking during this whole process. Maybe a community meeting, not on the for or against, but on the how we move forward in a constructive manner to address the concerns on both sides of the argument. Too much of the discussion has been had behind closed doors with vested-interest groups and not enough with the wider community.

Ah Cllr McAsh - we have been expecting you! ;-) Welcome back. Congrats on your victory. Many of us are very much hoping that you, and your fellow victorious councillors across the wards, will commit to uniting the community and working with everyone to try and mend the damage caused by the LTNs and the bad taste the way it was handled left in many people's mouths. Now the hard work really starts!

It is isn't it - we will all argue to death over it! ;-) But so nice to see the tide has changed and Manatee has floated back again - we missed them so much. Anyone taking bets on how long they last this time before they get banned again! ;-) In all seriousness I do really hope the councillors make real efforts to re-unite the community - LTNs drove a wedge between people and the council has to make it a priority to help mend the damage they did with the way they handled the whole process.

Waseley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting how this thread has gone from local > issues - the vocal one being LTNs - to national > ones. With regards to the latter perhaps some of > you will need to accept that LTNs are here to stay > and put their energy into making these and other > interventions to reduce traffic work better. Ha ha....we have, it's the council that has been reluctant to make any tweaks or changes to make them work better for everyone. Remember they had to be forced to open DV up for emergency vehicle access....

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Two years to go yet, a rapidly deteriorating > economic outlook and a Con government out of ideas > and mired in sleaze. A Lab/Lib coalition, formed > on an agreement to bring forward electoral reform > / PR, would be a great outcome imo. To be honest, given where the economy is going I am not sure any party really wants to try and take the reigns to sort the mess out - someone might need to update the note left on the desk to read: this time there really isn't anything left...no really, absolutely nothing at all. Good luck!

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ha ha....that's the only piece of segregated cycle > infrastructure they have put in across the whole > area and it does impede the traffic by narrowing > the lanes to allow only one car to pass and causes > a daily tailback in front of Dulwich Hamlets > school - thus creating more pollution for the > school children. I think you'll agree that's > probably not a good thing. > > Cos there was never, in all of history, ever a > tailback in front of Hamlet before LTNs...? > > You only need one lane there. Traffic coming into > DV from Turney can only go left or right and it > has it's own phase, it's effectively a T junction > for cars now. > > The advanced green phase for cyclists needs to be > a bit longer to shift more riders before the > traffic behind starts up and tries to turn left > "across" the flow of riders who can go straight on > and in fact it's not difficult to envisage a time > where you'll need to give a full green phase to > cyclists only at that junction. Same at Townley > crossing over into Greendale. Ex- but the tailbacks are worse since the LTNs went in - every day (after the closure times) the traffic crawls to that junction. Funny isn't it how they put that bike lane in and suddenly had to put a right-turn greenlight in because it became so snarled up because they had reduced what was effectively two lanes into one. Typical of so many planners - put something in that causes a problem and instead of fixing the problem try to move the problem on somewhere else.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > diable rouge Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > As Tory MP for Wimbledon, Stephen Hammond, said > > this morning, angry Tory voters didn't just > stay > > at home and not vote as many people thought > they > > would, they actually came out and voted against > > the Tory party. > > Or maybe the Tories are just discovering what > Labour discoverer a few years ago: that there > basically aren't any party-loyal voters any more. > The membership of the Tory party is tiny and > (iirc) its average age is in the 60s or possibly > 70s. The rest of the electorate is up for grabs > and every vote needs to be fought for on every > front. Sometimes that means you pull off > unexpected coups - like smashing the "red wall". > And sometimes that means you lose in places that > traditionally would be a shoo-in...if Dulwich > Village (the wealthy, leafy home of 80s > Thatcherite stockbrockerism) doesn't vote Tory - > where will? It's interesting isn't it. In the last general election Labour gained support from traditional middle-class voting areas at the expense of working class areas and the opposite was true for the Tories. It's all going a bit topsy-turvy! For the next GE the winner will be the one who can reconnect best with their core voters.

Ha ha....that's the only piece of segregated cycle infrastructure they have put in across the whole area and it does impede the traffic by narrowing the lanes to allow only one car to pass and causes a daily tailback in front of Dulwich Hamlets school - thus creating more pollution for the school children. I think you'll agree that's probably not a good thing. Another classic example of how the "solution" actually becomes the "problem" and how the council seems incapable of addressing the issue despite the bleedingly obvious that it is making things worse. Yes traffic has dropped - traffic is about 15% lower since the pandemic and that has nothing to do with the LTNs - although the council's monitoring report has benefitted massively from the 15% pandemic decrease!

Ex- I agree that they need to be used in combination but Southwark haven't done that - they have used LTNs to create a set of streets with less cars at the expense of others who get more cars. They promised fewer cars for all and that, clearly, hasn't been delivered. When the data supporting that came out showing that displacement was occurring the council told us that "main roads are built for more traffic". Your list is telling by what Southwark haven't done in Dulwich - no segregated cycle infrastructure, a failure to deliver sufficient cycle parking storage, no sign of any delivery hubs and so the list goes on. Given we have them for another 4 years I do hope Labour councillors apply a little more grey matter, engage more broadly with all members of the community and finally come up with something that benefits everyone rather than just a few.

Redpost - not necessarily and what you see from the council's data is that for evaporation to take place on some roads there has to be absorption on others. Traffic doesn't just disappear - it goes a different way. That's always been the Achilles heal of every LTN - remember Waltham Forest and that scary stat that a road 3.1 miles away from the LTN saw a permanent increase in traffic after the LTNs went in.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > Looking at the results thus far I think Labour has > a problem nationally - they should have cleaned-up > in these elections... > > This has to be seen in the context that at the > last local elections in 2018, Labour did very > well, but then went on nationally a year later to > perform terribly at the GE, so you can't just > compare the 2018 and 2022 results in isolation and > say Labour should've done much better, they were > never going make huge gains in the number of > seats. A better way is to look at Labour's share > of the vote and how that would transpose if it > were a GE, I'm sure some pollsters will be number > crunching that info as we speak. > > The Tories are probably hurting from losing some > key London seats but probably think they got away > with one as they should have taken a hammering... > > The Tories losing Wandsworth and Westminster will > be causing a lot more pain than just 'hurting'. > These were Tory flagship councils, not just in > London, but also nationally. Even when Blair won a > landslide in '97 and subsequent elections, the > Tories controlled these councils. > > As Tory MP for Wimbledon, Stephen Hammond, said > this morning, angry Tory voters didn't just stay > at home and not vote as many people thought they > would, they actually came out and voted against > the Tory party. That will send alarm bells ringing > in CCHQ and Tory MP's sitting uncomfortably in > marginal seats... Yes and the way you are suggesting people look at the popular vote is the way Labour are trying to spin this as a victory but they know what we are seeing today is not good enough to win at a GE - on Radio 5 the presenter said "but you wouldn't have won" and the Labour campaign leader said "but we have turned the corner" which is grasping for something that actually isn't there. As you point out Labour did really well in 2018 and then fell flat on their faces at the GE - if the Tories get rid of Boris and bring in someone more palatable will Labour be able to rely on the protest vote? Look at what is happening in regions that Labour needs to be winning now - they are losing seats which looks like a protest vote against them. Labour will not be looking at London for the bellweather to their GE chances but the rest of the country because that's where they lost the last election because they lost touch with their core and nothing we have seen thus far suggests that they are re-engaging with it - and that is worrying for everyone. The BBC sums the challenge for Labour up very well: Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper welcomes what she calls "strong Labour results" so far and says they are down to the party rebuilding its support. She says: "We do see this as a turning point for Labour because particularly since the 2019 election we've had a real rebuilding of support right across the country in different areas." She also claims if Labour's vote share were to be replicated in the next general election it would win dozens of constituencies back from the Conservatives. But analysis from polling expert Prof Sir John Curtice suggests, based on these results being repeated whenever Boris Johnson pulls the electoral trigger, Labour would not grab enough seats for a Westminster majority. In fact it would not even topple the Tories as the largest party in the Commons. As counting continues, Labour is currently at a net loss of councils outside London, although we have only passed the halfway mark in England and none have been declared at all in Wales or Scotland.