Earl Aelfheah

You have someone insisting that a six-year-old traffic filter is the cause of rush-hour congestion, claiming it has increased traffic, pollution, crime, and road danger. When asked for evidence, they provide none and simply double down. You present data showing that traffic, crime, pollution, and collisions have not risen and have, in fact, generally decreased. They dismiss it as untrue. You ask again for the evidence behind their claims, and they deflect. You share peer-reviewed research, and they respond by attacking the academics involved. You ask them to produce research supporting their own position. They offer nothing and change the subject. In the end, you’re left with someone repeating unevidenced claims and insisting something must be true simply because they believe it is. What’s the point?

Traffic decreased, as modelling predicted. So did pollution. There is still heavy congestion on some of those roads at certain times of day of course, as there always has been. Are you ever going to produce any evidence at all to back up you claim that the LTN increased traffic, congestion and pollution? I doubt it, because we all no there isn't any.

Pollution has fallen on all of those roads. And of course vehicle counts, which monitored those roads for a year following the implementation of the LTN, found that traffic decreased. Those roads have of course always experienced bad traffic (especially during rush hour). There are some who seem to have convinced themselves that they were previously congestion free.

Again (sigh) - there are vehicle counts that took place before the LTN was implemented and for a year afterward. It showed a general reduction in traffic across the wider area. An independent consultancy were commissioned in advance of the LTN implementation to model the likely impacts on air quality before the changes. They concluded a likely drop in air pollution. There is several years worth of air quality monitoring data from across Dulwich, all showing that pollution has fallen since the LTN was introduced. All of this data strongly links the LTN to a reduction in pollution (that's not to say it's the only thing impacting pollution as I have already said). The evidence 'supporting' your claim that pollution has increased involves a sentence about air quality in 2019, before the LTN was introduced, whilst ignoring the above. In other words, you offer no evidence.... It's almost as though you're entirely predictable

In 2019 there was no LTN, and yes, there was a problem with air quality. By 2021 they had introduced an LTN. That was the intervention (I wouldn't call it a 'miracle cure' but you can if you want) that they 'found'. They predicted that it would lead to a drop in air pollution, based on modelling. They have monitored air quality consistently since and it has improved across the area.

There is air quality monitoring data freely available. I've posted it above. Pollution has not increased on any of the monitored roads. So which road are you claiming it has increased on?

You have offered no evidence that the LTN has increased pollution, because despite your repeated claims to the contrary, it has not.

To be clear: traffic count data show motor traffic decreased by 12% across the wider area following implementation of the LTN. Pre-implementation modelling predicted reductions in air pollution, and subsequent monitoring data confirms that NO₂ levels have fallen since the LTN was introduced. You continue to claim that the LTN has increased congestion and pollution, citing what you describe as an “incredibly important and damning single sentence” from a 2019 report written before the LTN was introduced. This is clearly irrelevant to assessing the impact of the LTN and appears intended only to create confusion in the absence of anything to justify your statements (you also falsely suggest it’s been hidden by Southwark to add an air of conspiracy when in fact it’s available on their website).

Is anyone left to comment? I assume we all fled the impending doom, before it's opening?

You responded to a post pointing out that pollution has fallen post LTN, with a single sentence from a 2019 report that was commissioned before the LTN was created (and the road was still open to motor traffic). It's a non-sequitur / totally irrelevant. It's very clear what you're trying to do. It's entirely misleading. You have repeatedly claimed that the LTN increased pollution, with no evidence whatsoever. It is not true.

I pointed out that modelling prior to the LTN suggested that it's introduction would reduce pollution, and that air quality monitoring post implementation showed improvements in air quality. I also jibed that: You responded right on cue, with a link to a single sentence in an irrelevant report from before the LTN was introduced (whilst accusing others of selectively plucking data that validated their position 🤣) You're relying on the fact that people won't read the detail, leaving with the impression that pollution has risen, or at least that it's somehow a disputed fact. It is not.

A genuine question - doesn't this relate to monitoring that took place when the junction was still being used by motor traffic? I believe Calton Avenue was first closed to through traffic on June 25th 2020. So how is this remotely relevant? Yes, that's the argument made by some, but it's not what the data shows.

The absolute irony. Ignoring all the modelling and several years of air quality monitoring data, to pull out a single line, in a single report from 2019 when the junction was still open to motor vehicles. And that line is the only thing that should be given any weight in a discussion about the impacts of closing the junction to motor vehicles - referring to anything more relevant or recent is evidence of selective use of data to validate a position? No self awareness at all. This is of course not true. It's freely available on their website.

This is absolute nonsense. There is no evidence that the LTN increased congestion. Vehicle counts show the opposite - traffic decreased in the year after the LTN was implemented. There is no evidence that the LTN increased pollution, air quality modelling pre-implementation predicted a fall in pollution, and air quality monitoring post implementation confirmed that pollution did indeed fall. It's as predictable as it is tedious. Something Rocks made a big thing about, but now washes over for convenience. Much like he smears academics, who he then quotes as authoritative sources when it suits his predetermined view on something. He's not remotely interested in good faith debate.

Yeh, I agree. There is no way (that I can think of) that you could easily disaggregate those different factors. It's correlation, rather than causation. That said, pre-LTN implementation they modelled the likely impact on pollution, which predicted falls in NO2. There were falls in NO2. So whilst the causes of these falls will be multi-factor, it seems likely that the LTNs contributed to them / had a positive impact, especially when combined with traffic monitoring data which showed falls in traffic across the wider area a year after implementation. Of course, Rockets will be here to tell you again (with no evidence at all) that pollution has increased. It hasn't.

On NO2 (I know not exactly what you asked, but it's the air pollution data available). I transposed the data for the local monitoring sites from the report above, to make it easier to engage with (they use reference numbers, but not site names, and obviously its jumbled in with multiple sites across SouthwarK:

Here is the provisional air quality report for 2024: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-12/Southwark_air_quality_status_report_2024.pdf

What then?

Don't know about particulate pollution, but there is published data on local NO2, which shows pollution falling year on year. A year of monitoring traffic on boundary roads to the Dulwich LTN post implementation, showed a decrease in the number of vehicles on average. These two facts taken together suggest other vehicle related pollution is likely to have fallen also. Think this is all I can find on particulates specifically, but is for the whole of Southwark so doesn't really answer the local question: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-10/Air Quality Status Report Southwark 2023.pdf I would suggest writing to your councillor, before putting in an FOI.

Agree - it's really not on.

Embarrassing Talk about Trumpian

@first mate Here’s the problem: it’s absurd when someone publishes something that claims to be an objective summary of an FOI when it plainly isn’t, for you to then insist that people respond to that summary rather than the FOI itself. If that distinction isn’t obvious, then we really have jumped the shark. Please don’t talk about things feeling trumpian whilst being complicit in such obviously bad faith / dishonest tactics.

It's not a summary. Are you suggesting that Lebanums is telling the truth when he says he used the prompt 'scan it and give me a synopsis?' to produced a detailed seven-point governance risk critique? Or are you saying you don't care that it's not the truth? I've told you my view on the information in the FOI - engaging with the full content, not a fake 'summary'.

Yes, you've ducked the question again. Are you suggesting that @Lebanums is telling the truth when he says he used the prompt 'scan it and give me a synopsis?' to produced a detailed seven-point governance risk critique, or that you don't think he's telling the truth, but you don't care?

@Rockets You constantly mock the large body of academic research, but offer no peer reviewed research to support your many 'alternative' claims. You've smeared academics repeatedly, including individuals you've previously cited favourably when (you've mistakenly thought) their work aligns with your position. You've repeated claims of increased pollution in the area many times, including on this thread, which are demonstrably false. And you have ducked this question. It would be good to know whether you're defending what you know to be deliberately misleading statements, or whether you actually believe that they're true.