Rockets

Manatee I will pick you up on a couple of things: > You're saying that acting on the results of research represents a conflict of interest. Nor did they arrive > without any form on consultation or implemented > using the Covid pandemic as the "excuse". >Given you seem unaware of what actually happened, I claim you just invented that on the spot because you like the way it sounds.> Trust me - it is you who are unaware of what happened. The measures were all implemented to aid "social distancing". In fact, if you scroll back far enough you will probably find a councillor post claiming just that when the measures were first mooted. >People have been whining about DV and court lane have they not? Gilkes cresent for example provides a parallel route to DV and was closed long ago > Because the council's own numbers suggested 7,000 cars a day used the DV junction - we all flagged our concern when we realised that LTNs don't deliver anything more than single digit % reduction in vehicles and we did the maths and tried to work out where all that traffic was going to travel to. >Also literally not true. One Dulwich is proposing going back to how it was.> Again, if you had been paying attention you would know the history behind that and the fact that one Dulwich and Dulwich Alliance were left with no option as the council did not engage with them or give people any option other than: Change it....but the council did not give any idea what that change would be. Surely, even you would agree that you need to understand what you are voting for? "Change" is a little vague don't you think? And I am not going to go back and forth with you on Spartacus' post - it wasn't my post and, as I said at the time, I didn't agree with them using that analogy. Please stop trying to tar everyone on this forum who doesn't agree with your view on LTNs with the same brush - we have seen that tried before and it is an underhand tactic. If anyone wants to judge for themselves the thread in question starts on page 177.

Ok, here we go..... * Studying traffic for decades, reaching a conclusion and acting on that is biased (if it's not pro car). Academics are never allowed to make use of their knowledge. I presume this is based on our de-positioning of ex-London Cycling Campaign head of policy Rachel Alrdred's "evidence" of success of the LTNs and other various reports on the benefits of LTNs. Do you not think that there is a slight conflict of interest there and that we are right to question the impartialness of the reprots? * Washable chalk pavement drawings are as bad as engine oil in a planter, spraypaint graffiti covering legally binding road signs and other expensive vandalism They are not on the pavement and they are not all chalk. If you wander down Lordship Lane you can see them. The vandalism of the signs in people's gardens just because they don't support the LTNs - you have overlooked that. My message was clear - the idiots on both sides have to stop being idiots. * Lordship lane was a low traffic near pollution free zone before LTNs. Nonsense. That's your interpretation - no-one has ever claimed that. What we are claiming though is that pollution was not as bad as it is now. * ...as was East Dulwich grove See above * Cyclists are to be despised No-one has ever said that. I am a cyclist and don't self-loathe because of it. * Whatever an anti-LTNer's current mood is completely outweighs all data because that's collected by the illuminati lizard men or some other conspirators. It's the pro-LTN supporters who keep talking about conspiracies and us supposedly holding conspiracy theories. What we can say is that the council has made a right pig's ear of the process and this opens them up to criticism and accusations that they are manipulating the process to their advantage. * In fact, no hard data or science counts. Only stories. Preferable angry ones. But not from pro LTN people. Show us some hard data that can't be torn apart. Do you think what the council has shared is hard data - the monitoring sites east of Lordship Lane are missing yet their supporters, and the councillors themselves, are using this to demonstrate that the LTNs are working. * Despite decades of study and observations in practice well known traffic enfineering effects like induced demand and its inverse don't actually exist [en.wikipedia.org]) Please share with us how this is working in Dulwich. * While nudges have a strong track record of failing to ever work, they're going to work this time. Because reasons Not sure what this question is trying to say, it looks like you didn't finish the point. * We ought to go back to the way it was 18 months ago because the massive car growth over the last 40 years which shows no sign of slowing will some how sort itself out if we do nothing No one wants to go back to how it was - we want measures that actually address the problem for everyone - not just make it great for a few but a lot worse for a many more. * More traffic will lead to less pollution No-one has said this. We are concerned about more traffic down fewer roads leading to more pollution on those roads. * Why cut pollution? Just make everyone breathe their fair share. Again, no-one has ever said that. * Whatever we had at the moment before lockdown happened was the peak of fairness and if we ever move a millimetre away from that for any time at all the it's clear we're all rich scum who hate poor people Again, not sure what this question is trying to say. * An LTN which applies to everyone from anywhere going to anywhere is a gated community but a residents permit system which excludes outsiders somehow is not. Lots of non car owning anti-LTNers seem to want residents driving permits. * Quiet, traffic roads with ambulance gates are worse for emergency vehicles than the clogged roads we used to have The DV junction doesn't have an ambulance gate. The increased congestion on the roads outside the LTN area are causing delays to emergency services. * You're not allowed an opinion if you have a car (I don't so I am I guess?) Again, not sure what the point is here. * All old LTN measures are absolutely fine and no one minds them at all. I mean no one stated this, but there are ones dotted about but over very many messages, not a single anti-LTNer has suggested ripping up old road closures to increase traffic. So the message is clear. But the old LTNs to which you refer didn't all arrive at once and close off the major east/west route across Dulwich did they. Nor did they arrive without any form on consultation or implemented using the Covid pandemic as the "excuse". * And my particular top pick because it's so astonishingly offensive that it's actually sickening (why yes I am Jewish) is that the plight of car drivers is just like the Jews in Germany in the 1930s: No-one said this..... Someone made (what I thought and said at the time was) a clumsy, over-to-top analogy about the ideological indoctrination of schoolchildren in 1930s Germany on the back of Southwark council briefing school children on LTNs.

ohthehugemanateeLTN Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > What an inspiring, if not slightly myopic, > first > > post that is?.welcome to the forum Manatee! > > > What's myopic about it Rockets? > > Is it myopic to read what the anti-LTN people > write and take them at their word? > > Is it myopic to call out holocaust > trivialisation? > > Or is this more of a case of "the data doesn't > count. Don't listen to science! If you cannot see > it is because you are blind"? > > > > ab29 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I live on LL, the traffic has been much, much > much > > worst after the LTNs were introduced, I do not > own > > the car, I walk pretty much everywhere. Unless > > you've lived on one of the main roads long > enough > > to compare the before and after the LTNs you > > really have no idea what you are talking about. > > > The LTNs were introduced during the pandemic, at a > point where traffic was incredibly low. The > traffic would be higher now than just before, and > moreso because people aren't using public > transport as much due to covid. Even if your > observations are accurate, your conclusions that > LTNs are at fault is not necessarily correct. > > But let's say it is, for sake of argument. Go on, > propose something that will reduce car use. Not > something vague, or impossible. Something real and > concrete. It was very myopic - the usual blinkered pro-LTN narrative that many of us have been dissecting and depositioning for a very long time on here. By all means feel free to join the debate but you claim you have been lurking for a while so you will be well aware that many on the anti- side of the debate have provided their own suggestions for solutions and gone to great lengths to answer many of the questions you have posed. Maybe check back in the thread. Out of interest, and in the interests of balance, is there anything from the pro-LTN that you think is absurd?

What an inspiring, if not slightly myopic, first post that is?.welcome to the forum Manatee!

It always makes me marvel how people line-up like lemmings outside Gails in the village for overpriced bakery products and rude service yet around the corner sits Au Ciel which is far better in every respect.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The government before last (or before that) was > supposed to deal with excessive enforcement > charges, aimed at the private clampers. Not sure > if they delivered in that manifesto commitment. > They were also keen on reducing town centre > parking charges, scuppering a wonderful park and > ride scheme in Coventry where electric buses > ferried people into the high street. Not very > joined up thinking from national government. Shame they didn?t look at excessive charges from council sponsored schemes??the one at the village roundabout is one of the very worst examples of poor implementations which the council seems more than happy to tolerate as it is good for the coffers and punishes those pesky drivers they so love to hate?..

Alan, did you get the ticket for going along Dulwich Village or Burbage. If it was the latter you could claim the sign on Burbage is obscured because of its position so forward on the junction.

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fair point. > Though I think it?s true to say congestion at that > junction predates the recently introduced LTNs. It's a lot worse since the LTNs went in but, according to our councillors, that's what the A roads were designed to do - soak up the traffic and pollution others don't want.

DuncanW - really, come on. Those estates are not LTNs - that's a narrative many of the pro-lobby have tried to sell but no-one is buying it. If you heard the testimony from Luciana, the lady who joined the Dulwich Hill ward virtual meeting some months ago from the Lordship Lane estate, and heard the hugely negative impact the congestion caused by the LTNs outside her flat was having on her and her family I would hope you would take a different view. Even some of the councillors on the call looked shocked when she recounted her son's health problems and how bad the congestion was due to the displacement from the LTNs. And you're right, next May seems to be the only opportunity for those who think these measures are unfair to have their voices (finally) heard by the council. It will be interesting to see what happens but if they do loose some seats it won't be the only time in recent history that Labour has lost seats on the basis of them failing to listen to the people who vote for them and ploughing their own, misguided, furrow.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All the research on LTNs suggest they lead to > fewer cars, increases in active travel and > reduction in road injuries. It?s crazy how it is > all biased. The lack of any counter evidence is > startling. It just shows how far the conspiracy > goes. > > Surely there must be at least one brave academic > who isn?t willing to falsify research or > manipulate data to hide the truth... Which is > *checks notes* that encouraging cars onto more > roads reduces car use and encourages active > travel. But Rahx3 did you notice that there has been no reduction in cycle injuries within the LTNs in Allred?s report - I am (not) surprised that Peter Walker failed to pick up on that? There is something weird in the data as you would expect that with a reduction in vehicles within the LTNs that would lead to a reduction in cycle injuries within them too(as it has with all other injuries) - unless, of course, vehicles aren?t causing the injuries.

Or "only speak evil" if you are hiding behind anonymous twitter accounts (a la Councillor Leo Pollack!) https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/council-housing-boss-resigns-after-running-anonymous-twitter-account-that-harangued-residents/ It seems that politicians are all the same - scream out against sleaze yet happy to indulge in some when it suits their own agenda. I wonder if Cllr Pollack got the ?5,000 pay-off from the council that Cllr Williams promised him - that council meeting with the Lib Dem councillors tearing the councillors to shreds over that was something really quite fascinating to watch and exactly why this council desperately needs some opposition to hold them to account.

Chris_1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There was a comment earlier about traffic count on > Croxted Road - and how confusingly it looks down. > We looked at TfL SCOOT data just for the direction > that?s actually impacted by the LTN - eg heading > north towards HH, and at the timings that roughly > coincide with timed closures (data 7-10am) vs > timed closures 8-10am. > > Traffic is up over that period - I don?t have the > stats in front of me but something like 3-5% in > each of Feb/May and up north of 10% in April. > > Obviously fair pushback would be that I?m cherry > picking the worst of it to look at - my comment > would be that this is the problem time so it makes > most sense to look at that. > > I think the data presented in the council report > was all day and both directions - the road is > pretty quiet outside of peak times (outside of > timed closures times too), and there?s no impact > southbound from the LTN. Suspicion is that south > is down a LOT, north is > Flat-to-up depending on whether you look at peak > or all day. > > Congestion is way up, can see that thru the same > scoot data set. > > Would have been helpful if the council had broken > out the data in a few different ways, I try hard > not to be a pessimist but it does appear like at > least for our street a fair picture has not quite > been painted. I think the council is trying to share as little data as possible because they know that once we get more granularity their "it's working" narrative falls apart pretty quickly. It will be interesting to see if they ever share any of the data they have been gathering on roads east of Lordship Lane like Underhill Road - the interesting thing is the monitoring strips were in on Underhill in April yet no data was shared. I had always feared they were trying to keep the review area to west of Lordship Lane because they knew a lot of traffic was heading east of Lordship Lane to navigate around the congestion around the Grove Tavern junction. They were challenged on this numerous times and people were told that the areas east would be included in the review but this seems to have gone no further than sending the plain envelopes containing the info on the review to some households. They have to, and should be compelled to, include those streets in the data analysis.

What's also interesting is that cyclist casualties within the LTNs didn't drop as pronounced as the other categories: Pedestrian casualties dropped from 30 to 3, car driver or passenger from 21 to 6 yet cyclists only from 18 to 17 - anyone have any idea what is going on there? Surely you would expect a similar big drop for cyclists? Also the London mean for cyclist injuries went up - is this just because of the increase in cycling?

Rahx3 - I am not sure they did. Per the question I posed earlier they appear to have limited the survey of boundary roads to within 25 metres of the LTNs - in Dulwich that doesn't take in, Lordship Lane, for example.

Peter Walker, Anna Goodman, Rachel Aldred......surprise surprise - funny how no-one else ever writes about this stuff or publishes this type of research! ;-) I will come back to that later...returning to my conflict of interest question you have never answered Rahx3. But all joking aside, of course, this is a brilliant part of LTNs - that they reduce road accidents reported by police - of course they do - that's pretty obvious they would do that - alto. But I would caution your enthusiasm for it as it doesn't look at boundary roads beyond 25 metres from the closure and that there is no change on those boundary roads. So, the accident I witnessed near the junction of Overhill Road and Lordship Lane that was caused by congestion caused by the LTNs and led to life-changing injuries for a motorcyclist would not have been considered as it was more than 25 metres from the closures - it would be very interesting to understand what that would mean in Dulwich - which roads were considered boundary roads - would it be Court Lane, Woodwarde etc or Lordship Lane, Croxted Road or the A205. Now, I looked at the report and I saw that Anna Goodman and Rachel Aldred have flagged the conflict of interest, and I quote...: Some of these LTNs were funded by the Department for Transport (DfT) via the Active Travel Fund. AG, RA and JF have been awarded DfT funding to evaluate the Active Travel Fund programme as a whole, although this study does not form part of that work. DfT had no input into this article. So, Rachel Aldred is getting DfT funding to evaluate the LTNs - LTNs that she spent many years lobbying for in her role as head of policy for the London Cycling Campaign. Rahx3 - surely that is a conflict of interest?

E-scooters being talked about on Newsnight tonight following the death of the 17 year old boy in Bromley and the incident in Myatts Fields involving the 3 year old girl who was hit by one on Monday. I didn't realise Copenhagen trialed them and have subsequently banned them from the city.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The map that you have pointed out has as its most > westernmost point, croxted road. Even the most > Dulwich village centric of people couldn't > consider that to be West Dulwich. So my point is > that journeys from Dulwich Village to say west of > croxted road would be considered non local, > similarly with any journeys beyond Forest Hill > Road to the East. > > These figures are based on a 5 year dataset on a > london wide survey - so not Southwark's monitoring > data, rather its using a subset of a much wider > study. > > I don't doubt that of the people who are > responding, over 60% of local journeys within the > area defined on the map are walked, but there are > many more which are slightly longer that could > represent walked / cycled or multi modal trips - > eg its not only the remaining 40% But Northern I am really struggling to see what point you are actually trying to make. The council published a report in 2018 that stated that 68% of internal trips (within the 3 wards considered Dulwich) were made by active travel (of which 65% were by foot and 3% by bike). It doesn't matter where the boundary ends and whether Joe Smoe from Dulwich Village considers Croxted Road the end of Dulwich or the beginning of Dulwich - those are boundaries that the council considered Dulwich and stated that 68% of internal journeys were by active travel. The report also sheds a lot of light on the people of Dulwich's travel habits beyond internal journeys and the high proportion of journeys that go beyond neighbouring boroughs. So there are a number of conclusions we can take: 1. Dulwich was already doing a lot of active travel internal journeys (more so than any other part of Southwark) 2. Dulwich residents own cars because of the poor PTAL scores (especially east/west) and their need to travel beyond neighbouring boroughs 3. When Dulwichites do leave the area they are going beyond neighbouring boroughs (it seems lot of people travel beyond neighbouring boroughs for education and work) 4. Those travelling inbound to Dulwich are often travelling from non-neighbouring boroughs for work, social and education It all adds up to a perplexing situation....why did Southwark think Dulwich was a good place for LTNs or, more to the point, who convinced them Dulwich was a good place for LTNs.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets, again, thats not correct I'm afraid. > > The data used came from the London wide survey > though obviously only uses those responding in > Dulwich: > > It also talks about Dulwich as being the 3 wards > of East Dulwich, College and Village (pre new ward > boundaries) so that 65% figure wouldn't capture > say East Dulwich to Peckham Rye, or Dulwich > Village to West Dulwich. > > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Northern - it's not I am afraid, It is Dulwich > > specific data and the report can be found here: > > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Du > > > lwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf > > > > The report is well worth a read as it is > > fascinating and demonstrates what a foolhardy > > approach the LTNs were - when I read it I was > > wondering how on earth could the council > justify > > doing this - the data doesn't back up the > > conclusions they seem to have reached to > > facilitate the implementation of the LTNs > > (although we have to remind ourselves they were > > first installed to aid, ahem, social > distancing). > > > > The report considers a local trip one anywhere > > within Dulwich (across the three wards of > College, > > East Dulwich and Village) so that 68% of local > > journeys done by foot or by bike will include > > trips to the post box, gym, swimming, schools > and > > so the list goes on. And that 68% was > > significantly higher than other parts of the > > borough. > > > > Their definition is below: > > > > > > Trips within Dulwich > > Trips starting and ending in Dulwich have been > > analysed separately. Figure 2.5 shows that > > shopping and leisure trips account for a > > significant part of the total, while > work-related > > internal trips are very limited. > > Figure 2.5: Internal surveyed trips by purpose > > (5-year total surveyed trips) > > Source: LTDS 2010-2015 (internal trips sample > > n=148,105) > > Almost 2/3 of all internal trips surveyed are > > undertaken on foot. It is also worth noting > that > > the cycle mode share is very limited, even for > > short distance trips. Similarly, the share of > bus > > trips is very low. The low attractiveness of > bus > > for short trips could potentially be explained > by > > localised congestion or the benefit perceived > in > > waiting and riding the bus compared to walking. Northern - please look at the map on page 7 of the report - the area covered is quite clearly shown. I really don't see what your point is; journeys from Dulwich Village and West Dulwich would be covered and so would journeys from East Dulwich to Peckham Rye. What point are you trying to make - that you don't think the council's figures are correct or accurate? And there was me thinking that was reserved only for us when we questioned the presentation of the interim LTN data from the council!!!!

Abe - I think you would be surprised how many people in the village oppose these measures - the majority don't want them. Here is a link to the One Dulwich survey they did on many of the streets in Dulwich Village: https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/80-of-local-households-do-not-support-closure-of-dulwich-village-junction I know people will accuse this of being leading questions/biased etc but it seems very compelling and they did go door-to-door on each of the streets included in the research and got 800 responses that each person had to put their name and address to.

Northern - it's not I am afraid, It is Dulwich specific data and the report can be found here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/6887/Dulwich-TMS-SDG-Full-Report-Final-April-2018-.pdf The report is well worth a read as it is fascinating and demonstrates what a foolhardy approach the LTNs were - when I read it I was wondering how on earth could the council justify doing this - the data doesn't back up the conclusions they seem to have reached to facilitate the implementation of the LTNs (although we have to remind ourselves they were first installed to aid, ahem, social distancing). The report considers a local trip one anywhere within Dulwich (across the three wards of College, East Dulwich and Village) so that 68% of local journeys done by foot or by bike will include trips to the post box, gym, swimming, schools and so the list goes on. And that 68% was significantly higher than other parts of the borough. Their definition is below: Trips within Dulwich Trips starting and ending in Dulwich have been analysed separately. Figure 2.5 shows that shopping and leisure trips account for a significant part of the total, while work-related internal trips are very limited. Figure 2.5: Internal surveyed trips by purpose (5-year total surveyed trips) Source: LTDS 2010-2015 (internal trips sample n=148,105) Almost 2/3 of all internal trips surveyed are undertaken on foot. It is also worth noting that the cycle mode share is very limited, even for short distance trips. Similarly, the share of bus trips is very low. The low attractiveness of bus for short trips could potentially be explained by localised congestion or the benefit perceived in waiting and riding the bus compared to walking.

Artemis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > northernmonkey - we all know we?re facing a > climate emergency. All those who are ?moaning?, > as you put it, would agree. The climate emergency > has now ended up straight outside lots of doors in > Dulwich in recent months and air quality in many > residential areas is diminishing. By flagging > that, residents are not moaning. They are not > saying ?I want to drive my big polluting car > everywhere?. They are saying ?there?s a climate > emergency and this particular strategy doesn?t > appear to be working in this particular area as I > am now finding it increasingly difficult to cope > with levels of traffic and pollution on my > road/roads I use?. Not that Southwark Council has > chosen to publish pollution data, but I know the > self funded monitors are indicating that this is > the case. > > My view is that it makes no sense to try and sort > out problems of pollution on a borough by borough > basis. It would be like every council in the UK > being given free rein to deal with a virus like > Covid as they saw fit. So Southwark might choose > to go for herd immunity, Lambeth may require > compulsory vaccination, and Lewisham may legislate > for enforced isolation. As a strategy, it would be > possible for each council to say ?look, we?re > doing something to combat the virus!? But if the > road next door is doing something different, the > virus would continue to spread. The same > principle applies to LTNs. Southwark is attached > to the rest of the London whether Southwark > Council likes it or not. However, there appears > to be very limited joined up planning and > collaboration with the rest of London. It makes > no sense to me. > > You say people could cycle. But the numbers of > cycle journeys as a percentage of a all journeys > is tiny. You clearly enjoy cycling and good for > you. But others don?t. Other?s can?t. Even if > numbers increased three-fold, the vast majority of > journeys remain non-cycling and what is being done > to cater for those journeys? Buses are slower. > There are limited alternative public transport > options in Dulwich. Massive amounts of money have > been spent in London in improving cycle ways, but > the numbers of cycle journeys as a whole is still > very small. It baffles me how far Southwark > Council seems to have attached itself to the > cycling lobby rather than recognising that it has > a duty to represent all its constituents. Instead, > why are our councillors not lobbying for better > public transport and a joined up transport/clear > air policy? Why is the Council not asking Helen > Hayes to ask questions in parliament about > investment in green public transport, instead of > this intransigent belief that by making the roads > in Dulwich horrible for many that a sufficiently > significant number of people to make a difference > will get on a bicycle. It?s been a year. Traffic > isn?t diminishing enough to justify the downsides, > in my view. Artemis - absolutely spot on. And when looking at the Dulwich Transport Report from 2018 68% of local journeys in Dulwich were made by foot or bike but only 3% were made by bike and I think this has been seized upon by the cycle lobby (who obviously have a vested-interested in increasing cycle share). It's scary when you look at the amount of airtime the cycle lobby has been given during this process, especially when so little input has been sought from anyone who actually lives in Dulwich. How many meeting notes of council meetings on OHS etc have a list of the usual suspects from the cycle-lobby as the only people giving input - Monk, Walker and Aldred? How come when the emergency services provided feedback on the Peckham Rye LTNs they were ignored but the input from Southwark Cyclists was implemented into the proposals without question? The council is way too close to the cycle lobby and I think it is clouding their judgement. Active travel is not just cycling and I fear that the council is putting so much energy into pushing a cycle agenda that they are merely robbing Peter to pay Paul. I do wonder how many of the school children cycling to JAGs and Hamlets etc that are being heralded as modal shift are just shifting from walking. Remember 68% of local journeys were already active travel in 2018.

LTN BooHoo...no it is you that needs to read up...you are correct, a low PTAL score does not justify any car ownership but it is, by far, one of the contributing factors and is one of the major ones in Dulwich. As a reminder here is what Southwark's own Transport Report 2018 stated: 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. And then the report goes on to say later when talking about journeys out of the borough: The modal split of inbound (see Figure 2.3) and outbound (see Figure 2.4) trips shows a prevalence of car/private vehicle, accounting for half of the total number of surveyed trips. Trips starting in nonneighbouring boroughs are more likely to be undertaken by public transport, with rail as the preferred mode. On the other hand, the lower E-W public transport connectivity is reflected in higher numbers of people travelling from/to neighbouring boroughs by car. BTW you openly admit you are an outsider - do we take it from that that you are not a Dulwich resident? Looking at your posting history you joined in April this year and have posted exclusively on posts related to LTNs and nothing else - not a single comment or contribution to anything outside of LTNs. I had presumed, maybe wrongly, that you are a Dulwich resident.

LTN BooHoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BellendenBear Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Do you think that ED parents drive their kids > to > > Kingsdale? I don?t think that?s the case. My 12 > > year old daughter goes there and all her > friends > > cycle or use public transport. Her primary > school > > friends ended up at 6 or 7 different secondary > > schools and the ones at state schools all walk, > > cycle or use public transport. > > > > The LTNs, while not being perfect, make it > safer > > for many kids to cycle to lots of schools. I > have > > been walking and cycling through Greendale to > drop > > kids at primary school for the past 8 years and > > the number of secondary school kids and > families > > with primary school kids cycling to school has > > increased massively since the LTNs on Champion > > Hill and in Dulwich Village were introduced. I > > don?t live in or next to an LTN, but the > benefits > > of them are felt more widely than for a few > > wealthy people in Dulwich village. Some people > > seem to use the idea of the LTNs only > benefitting > > a privileged few as a worthy narrative for > their > > cause rather than being honest that they don?t > > want to make changes to their behaviour. > > You are spot on and I hope you let your local > councillors know your thoughts. > > There is a climate emergency and we all have to > change our behaviour. Wealthy people own cars and > tend to drive them because they can afford to. > Once they leave their neighbourhood their driving > through and polluting the poor areas they say they > care about. I don?t get it. Most people in > Southwark don?t own cars. As an outsider the local > campaign appears somewhat hypocritical. Hopefully > attitudes will change with time. But LTNBooHoo most people in Dulwich do own cars - in fact car ownership in Dulwich is some of the highest in the borough. Why? Because people in Dulwich don't have the same sort of access to transport infrastructure that those people who live in other parts of the borough do - in fact our PTAL scores are some of the lowest in the borough (and that, along with things like age and family size contribute massively to car ownership). There are reasons why people own cars. And there are reasons why the council's own advice was to only put LTNs in areas that have high PTAL scores and don't have high car ownership - putting them in Dulwich went completely contrary to their own advice. This is why it is backfiring because Dulwich was the worst place to put LTNs in - it was destined to fail from the get go - displacement was always going to be a huge issue.

Nigello - yes it's called chasing the displacement tsunami - traffic doesn't evaporate it moves to another street. So unless you ringfence and close the whole of Dulwich with LTNs someone will always have to live with the displacement - it's the major Achilles heal of all of these measures and one few on the pro-LTN side will acknowledge. There isn't an LTN programme anywhere that has delivered more than an overall 10% reduction in car use (most are low single figure % decreases) - in fact often modal shift is from within active travel groups (walking to cycling etc) and whilst 10% is significant it is not enough to prevent displacement issues elsewhere.

Ex- you're saying equitable solutions for all don't exist - so is that an admission that someone will always have to lose out - that for some residents to have quiet streets and cleaner air then someone else has to have busier streets and more polluted air? And I remind you that no-one wanted to vote for having the LTNs returned to their original state (no-one is saying that return everything to normal and come up with a schools programme and all is fixed) - the council gave people nothing in the way of an alternative option to put their weight behind. If you're living on a street with increased pollution you don't want to "kick the can down the road" indefinitely whilst the council comes up with and installs their Plan B amendments. And to your point on data from traffic journeys I remind you that 68% of local journeys in Dulwich were already being conducted on foot or bike so just who are the people doing these short journeys in the area? This goes to very clearly demonstrate my point - the council don't know if the vehicles in Dulwich are doing short journeys or long journeys - they are just guessing they are (probably because some lobbyist told them they are! ;-)).