Raeburn

But Rockets, you were happy to post complete disinformation about an LTN on the other side of London?

The London Fields one was a made-up figure that was posted with an extra '0' on it. Please correct your earlier post to highlight that car ownership went down in Waltham Forest LTN.

Rockets Wrote: > And on the Waltham Forest increase of car > ownership within the LTN I am trying to find it (I > believe it was something Cllr Vincent Stops > tweeted based on DVLA data for registered cars > within the postcodes within the LTNs and that it > was linked to the gentrification of the area on > the basis of the LTNs). You might mean London Fields, and the stat which was posted and subsequently dismantled?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Waltham Forest's LTN led to a significant increase > in car ownership within it's boundaries..... Curious, where are you reading this? And what is a significant increase? I'm using google, but can't find anything that remotely supports this, but points to the opposite.

Well, it was absolutely fine for the low slung car with sports suspension I filmed doing it on two pavements, and heading up Court Lane. I can see there's a lot of ambition to discredit and take away from this planned, positive change, so I'll leave you all to it.

Not quite sure how cameras were installed pre May(cost + installation can't be cheap, plus presumably there's planning regs, Dulwich Estate, possibly licence for recording on highways, data protection etc to apply) and plans were made to open up then, if the Council tactic were simply ignoring the emergency service stakeholders. I'll point out again; it's motorists that ruined up a perfectly good temporary solution, and motorists that can't be trusted so we need expensive ANPR cameras. I'd direct any annoyance here, not at the work to bring positive changes that have been made.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My point was they ignored it from the moment they > received it - which was July 2020 - not sure where > you interpreted my note as my suggesting they > actively ignored a letter from the future...maybe > it was wishful thinking on your part. > > They ignored it for at least 14 months (and it > will be more given the changes being suggested > won't be in for some time)....that's horrendous > and a complete dereliction of duty by our > councillors and the council. Lives were being, and > are still being, put at risk by their stubbornness > and refusal to open the DV junction to emergency > vehicles. > > It's clear from all the comms sent by LAS recently > that LAS (and MPS for that matter) are reminding > Southwark that they have been telling them this > since July 2020 - they are the type of comms that > go in ahead of a public enquiry so everyone know > where the responsibility lies. > > Why did the council ignore the advice of the > emergency services? Was it that they felt their > strategic goals with LTNs were more important than > the needs of the emergency services? Are they so > disorganised that they didn't read it? Or was it > another "oversight"? Rockets, this was in the FAQ of the Southwark LTN review - my emphasis; 6. Why are there no questions about access for emergency services? People are free to comment and raise specific issues throughout the survey; this can include access for emergency services. We address any issues directly with the emergency services themselves as part of the review process. They have a formal role as a statutory consultee in relation to traffic and highways schemes, which will also be taken fully into account when developing our future plans after the consultation. We have fortnightly meetings with the emergency services across the borough, and this has been in place since Sept 2020. We discuss any incidents advised by the services and have instigated a number of changes to the Streetspace measures to facilitate access for the Police, ambulance and Fire services. So please, stop posting this stuff, it's simply untrue. Southwark listened, cameras were installed in/before May in preparation, now the junction will be open to emergency vehicles; happy? If you're not happy still, direct some ire at the drivers who mounted the pavements around the planters, and got those big concrete blocks put in. Was perfectly good emergency vehicle access until then.

You inferred Southwark actively ignored a letter (from the future), and/or have subsequently ignored it? And changes are being made (presumably) in/after consultation with stakeholders like LAS. Great news, right?

Rockets, the LTN was implemented in May/June 2020 - this letter was sent July 2020. The layout is now being adjusted to improve emergency vehicular access. Positive news, right? Please stop wilfully misrepresenting facts.

Ok P3Girl, you text-edited and changed the narrative, which confirms it was not an Imgur mix-up and simply you purposefully posting disinfo. I hoped to learn more about other gatherings last week but you fabricated them. Sorry if this discredits any future posts you make. Good luck with your cause.

Hi @P3girl, You've posted images from completely unconnected events? - first image is in Birmingham(!) in June 2021, not Ealing last week - second is Ealing Sept 2020, not Lambeth last week - final image is also Ealing Sept 2020, not Hackney last week. Could you correct your post with proper images from the events please. Wether by mistake or on purpose, it's not helping anyone, and undermines any reasonable points being made.

Good news Artemis; gvmt released info on this last week, inc reiterating plans for 50% of journeys in cities and towns to be walked or cycled by 2030. This 50% objective has been at the heart of Transport messaging this year, aligning with the UK/UN's Sustainable Development Goals for 2030. Reassuring to hear; https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-publishes-worlds-first-greenprint-to-decarbonise-all-modes-of-domestic-transport-by-2050 Statement from Sustrans here; https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/news/2021/july/walking-and-cycling-should-be-natural-first-choice-for-short-journeys/ But better analysis here, put into more context; https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2021/07/14/uk-unveils-revolutionary-transport-decarbonization-plan-but-still-to-spend-27-billion-on-roads/

No, I don?t think it?s acceptable - I keep agreeing with this - so we need to reduce the traffic on all these roads too. Would love to have more incentives/penalties to drive this change, so it?s not indefinite. Do I think it?s unfair? Yes, no one should be breathing someone else?s fumes, that?s why this is unfair. AlexandHelenC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Absolutely infuriating responses, Raeburn. Let?s > consider the possibility that the LTNs do not > result in a substantial reduction in overall > traffic (which seems to be the case after nearly a > year of the measures being imposed) - would you > find it acceptable that the residents on those A > Roads suffer the consequences of the displaced > traffic indefinitely, while others enjoy the > benefits of their roads being closed? It?s a > simple question but one that the LTN supporters > consistently avoid.

But they are both A-roads - A2216 and A2214? I'm just highlighting the difference between the way these routes are treated by the council, discussed, and why comparison between an A-road and a residential street aren't equal. I didn't make up this designation, and I'm not campaigning for traffic on either btw - I want less traffic everywhere, and do everything I can to avoid contributing to it. .....I'm also not going to get into an argument about tarmac.......

But Rockets, you haven't been clear about what you're actually asking - I haven't been avoiding it, just didn't understand what you wanted. ATM, honestly, I have no idea - I occasionally used those routes over the years, but would actively avoid EDG if I could due to the fast and unpleasant traffic. I've not been down them over the last year at rush hours, so honestly can't say? Same goes for LL - no idea. It's always seemed jammed/congested - or traffic speeding when it is clear at night - so has been unattractive for years. would prefer to take the residential streets and avoid where I could between Goose Green and Forest Hill. No idea if this is up/down/same, honest answer. I can say for a fact that traffic and pollution has been bad for years, and that average vehicle size is notably bigger. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But you do realise, don?t you, that the traffic on > these roads has increased massively since the > closures went in as a direct consequence of them? > Simple question??do you think that is acceptable > as part of the bigger goal? From your refusal to > answer the question I may suspect the answer is > yes?;-)

I still don't understand your question here Rockets. I pointed out that all the roads that were mentioned in the videos, and are being highlighted, are A-roads - Croxted, EDG, Norwood, LL - primary through routes designed to move traffic from one point to another vs surrounding residential roads. No amount of discussion will change the status of these routes I'm afraid, and as such, it'd be futile to have an opinion (either way). But I am in agreement; the pollution is totally unacceptable, and I'm completely sympathetic to Heartblock. Why not focus on the reducing the drivers/milage thats causing the most pollution outside front doors, and allow roadspace to essential road users, instead of enabling more driving and pollution? I empathise that some drivers are inconvenienced, but this is only because they have have been driving (polluting!) unchallenged for so long.

With this hypothetical situation (and Rocket's earlier q around the same theme) - you are asking if I think an A-road should be re-designated a residential road, and a residential road, into an A-road? I have no idea, I'm not in town planning, but I guess it would be quite a hugely laborious process to re-route all the subterranean utilities along the new primary route. Besides, it doesn't really matter because cars are the problem. We need less cars. Not the current level we have, and certainly not more. I would target the unnecessary vehicle users (and direct cause of the pollution), rather than create a new A-road. All this energy need to be directed toward reducing car dependancy, and support those who are actively reducing vehicle use, to the benefit of everyone. dulwichfolk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think the point is how would anyone feel if one > day someone/council decided to funnel all the > traffic down your road and everyone was telling > you it?s for the environment so keep quiet and > back the system as in the end ?we hope? it will > get better for all.

I'm not sure what your question is asking Rockets. Any pollution is unfair, especially if it's affecting non-contributers. My point was that the entire city is polluted by activities undertaken by a few which affect everyone - we need to reduce reliance on motor vehicles, specifically ICE vehicles, wood-burning stoves, air travel etc etc etc. Car ownership, I agree, it's extremely unfair, polluting at the expense of others. Most vehicles don't even fit on the driveways or in the garages that once took them off the streets, further clogging up valuable roadspace. ....hence all these initiatives to reduce reliance on vehicles, specifically short-hop journeys. The introduction of bike hangers, the extension of the ULEZ, free novice rides and training, all positive programs to reduce traffic and pollution. High car ownership = even more reason to establish healthier alternatives, more opportunity for positive change surely?

Heartblock, I completely agree with you, and sorry to hear of your situation. We have somehow normalised(!) illegal levels of air pollution for a decade, and accepted excessive motor vehicle use as standard. On some days you can look out from Dawsons Hill and see a yellow-brown fug trapped over London. It's absolutely not fair that a relatively small minority are entitled to damage the wider populations health, often most detrimentally to those who can afford it least. This needs to be reversed, along with a net reduction in all road traffic - and make way for people/businesses/services who absolutely need access to motorised transport (the cleaner, the better!), along with public transport and active travel.

Well, off the top of my head, The ULEZ extension in October. Although not perfect (electric vehicles still contribute heavy particulates through tyre/brake wear, and kickup these particles) it's a step to reducing pollution, and the number of vehicles on the roads Selecting non-vehicular traffic deliveries is great - Southwark were doing this through the food drops with PedalMe - but great to see more policy change to incentivise this. PedalMe were offering free trips for people going to get vaccinated too. There's free cycle-proficiency training and other initiatives in Southwark, plus a round of grants for e-pedal powered vehicles for businesses ....Fuel duty has been frozen for over ten years. Perhaps this should be boosted to make driving ICE vehicles and contributing to the pollution less appealing ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Since the air quality should be made better for > everyone, I want to know how is the council > planning to improve it on the roads such as LL, > Croxted Rd, EDG? Some of these roads are A roads > which doesn't change the fact they are also very > densely populated residential roads. > > So while we wait for people to stop using their > cars, which might never happen, the council is > happy to let the buggers living on these roads to > choke on the extra fumes and die of lung cancer 10 > years earlier - because who cares? Certainly not > the Labour councillors and by the look of things, > many on this forum agree with it.

It's not a plan, it's always been the case - it's just that sat-nav systems (like Waze) route traffic along residential streets to save the driver 60 secs, instead of using the roads which have been designated to move traffic around London. - here's a TFL map showing the network, which also includes LL. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-base-map-master.pdf This increase in traffic on residential roads has been increasing since the introduction of sat-nav technology around 2009. Alas, I'm not sure the tech giants are keen to address this - perhaps functions like asking if the journey is necessary, offering alternative/cheaper modes, or suggesting better times to travel, are around the corner? - not sure I mentioned 'major A-roads', sounds like I'm talking about dual carriageway!

....Which show how pleasant streets can be if we reduce reliance on large vehicles making unnecessary trips on residential roads, and further jamming them up with parking. Unfortunately, all the roads in the videos - Croxted, E Dulwich Grove, Norwood Rd - are all A-road designated, which means major through routes ie. assigned to move vehicles across key points. I think this is often overlooked when two roads are compared. The most effective method of reducing traffic and pollution on these A-roads is simple; stop using single-occupancy cars for unnecessary journeys at the busiest times of the day. dulwichfolk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I always ask the same question about the photos > and videos of people sitting in the road/parklet > having a drink at the square of shame unless it is > to wind up the displacement areas more then they > already are. >

Not sure what the point of these videos are - they show precisely how much traffic/pollution is caused by privately owned cars with single/low occupancy? How large/over-powered, and inefficient most of them are for the job? How end-to-end on-street parking add further to the congestion? That many of these queuing vehicles and biggest polluters will be dropped by October with the ULEZ extension comes in? That the school run is one of the biggest causes of congestion at this time of day?... etc etc etc. I'd say it's an advert to ask people IF they absolutely need to drive, and if so, is this the best time TO do it? slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Good video here showing how nice it is in the > morning in Dulwich Village when all the traffic > has ben diverted onto Croxted Rd, EDG, Lordship > Lane etc. Really nice that the residents of > Calton can enjopy their morning cappuccino in > peace now. > > > nnel=OnionBike > > An earlier video shows how awful it is on Croxted > road now... > > nnel=OnionBike

Alice, why do you call the Joyride initiative ?pathetic?? Genuinely would like to hear your perspective.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pathetic- a cycle ride for women. What do you mean by this Alice? Genuinely interested to understand your perspective.