LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[first mate]

It is crazy.

Artemis Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> geh Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > trains to London Bridge halved

> > trains to Crystal Palace, stopped entirely

> > what is going on, I have seen nothing from

> either

> > councillors or MP on these cuts.

> > guess we are just supposed to suck it up

>

> Agreed. How are any attempts to encourage people

> to move away from driving going to work if the

> councils/government/TFL do not work together?

> Reducing public transport options at the same time

> as shutting roads is extraordinary. Is NO

> consideration being taken for those who aren?t

> able to cycle or walk to where they need to go?

[exdulwicher]

Re the train reductions, it's nothing to do with Government, TfL, Southwark or even the Train Operating Companies themselves who are simply reacting to a situation outside of anyone's control.

So many staff are being pinged by the Covid app and told to isolate that there aren't enough staff to run the regular timetable. So there's no other choice than to reduce the timetable to something that can be effectively staffed. This isn't just Southern, most Train Operating Companies are in the same situation as well as a lot of bus companies. Disproportionately so because drivers/conductors travel large distances and come into close contact with a lot of people.

Until Government comes up with something to say that double-vaccinated people don't need to isolate and can provide the enhanced testing to monitor it all, there's not much choice.

But it's got nothing to do with the council and no-one wants to be cutting train services!

[Rockets]

ohthehugemanateeLTN3 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> first mate Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Manatee says, "don't know which one Charlie

> Smith

> > is"

> >

> > That's a bit odd. He is a very well known

> Labour

> > Councillor. Perhaps you do not live locally at

> > all?

> [...]

> > I think I see what is happening here, it is to

> > keep attacking people on a personal level but

> > accuse them of doing the same in the hope

> others

> > believe this is what is actually happening.

>

> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

> 315;

>

> Dude, your two messages are on the same page? Do

> you really think everyone here is so dim they

> won't notice?

>

>

> Alice Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> ------

> > Your argument is invalid. No one wants to do

> nothing.

>

>

> No one apart from One Dulwich, who given the

> choice between doing nothing and suggesting an

> alternative went for the former. And you. Until

> you come up with an actual practical solution

> which is even vaguely possible to implement given

> UK politics and power structures, you are

> advocating doing nothing.

Manatee, your claim that One Dulwich wanted to do nothing is incorrect and probably suggests you haven't been following this particularly closely over the last year or so. Maybe scroll back over this thread and get up to speed on what actually happened - save us all the time trying to explain it all to you! ;-)

P.S. still waiting for this data you have seen that shows the LTNs in Dulwich are working. Feel free to share when you're ready.....

[alice]

Maybe M3 is best ignored. Convoluted posts just restate lack of knowledge.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The government have just published their one year review of ?gear change? initiatives (which include LTNS). Dulwich gets a call out:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gear-change-one-year-on-review

[ohthehugemanateeLTN3]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Manatee, your claim that One Dulwich wanted to do

> nothing is incorrect

Remind me again what they asked people to select?

> and probably suggests you

> haven't been following this particularly closely

> over the last year or so. Maybe scroll back over

> this thread and get up to speed on what actually

> happened

No amount of "explanation" changes their actions to something else. They could have suggested an alternative. They did not. Ultimately the only thing they have stood behind is doing nothing. Vast volumes of verbiage don't change that. Yes, you've given lots of excuses as to why they suggested doing nothing. Goodness knows why but I read them, maybe even all of them. Hard to know if I missed the odd page. But do you know what it amounts to?

Doing nothing.

Nothing nothing nothing.

Nothing.

> P.S. still waiting for this data you have seen

> that shows the LTNs in Dulwich are working. Feel

> free to share when you're ready.....

Already did. You didn't like the answer so you keep repeating the question. It's a debating tactic to be sure, in as much as you are at least attempting to debate and it is a tactic you are using.

alice Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe M3 is best ignored.

This is the anti-LTN way: ignore anyone who is pro LTN. And then you can claim everyone is anti LTN. Foolproof!

[Earl Aelfheah]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The government have just published their one year

> review of ?gear change? initiatives (which include

> LTNS). Dulwich gets a call out:

>

> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gear-ch

> ange-one-year-on-review

From the PM?s foreword: ?I know many people think that cycling and walking schemes simply increase car traffc on other roads. But there is now increasing evidence that they

do not. We sometimes think of traffc as like water: if you block a stream in one place, it will fnd the next easiest way. Of course some journeys by car are essential, but traffc is not a force of nature. It is a product of people?s choices. If you make it easier and safer to walk and cycle, more people choose to walk and cycle instead of driving, and the traffc falls overall.?

[ohthehugemanateeLTN3]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> From the PM?s foreword: ?I know many people think

> that cycling and walking schemes simply increase

> car traffc on other roads. But there is now

> increasing evidence that they

> do not. We sometimes think of traffc as like

> water: if you block a stream in one place, it will

> fnd the next easiest way. Of course some journeys

> by car are essential, but traffc is not a force of

> nature. It is a product of people?s choices. If

> you make it easier and safer to walk and cycle,

> more people choose to walk and cycle instead of

> driving, and the traffc falls overall.?

This is absolutely right. In traffic engineering circles it is called "induced demand":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

if you build more roads, you get more car journeys and rather obviously (and backed up by solid research) the inverse is observed too.

[ab29]

"if you block a stream in one place, it will find the next easiest way" - precisely: you close a road and the traffic will go through the next available one.

The only thing that this scheme has achieved so far is that it has made lives of thousands of people on the boundary roads much worst and has divided the community in a way that even Brexit didn't.

[Mscrawthew]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The government have just published their one

> year

> > review of ?gear change? initiatives (which

> include

> > LTNS). Dulwich gets a call out:

> >

> >

> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gear-ch

>

> > ange-one-year-on-review

>

> From the PM?s foreword: ?I know many people think

> that cycling and walking schemes simply increase

> car traffc on other roads. But there is now

> increasing evidence that they

> do not. We sometimes think of traffc as like

> water: if you block a stream in one place, it will

> fnd the next easiest way. Of course some journeys

> by car are essential, but traffc is not a force of

> nature. It is a product of people?s choices. If

> you make it easier and safer to walk and cycle,

> more people choose to walk and cycle instead of

> driving, and the traffc falls overall.?

🤔

Boris Johnson has been criticised for taking a short helicopter flight from London to the West Midlands to promote a local bike hire scheme, despite the train from London taking just more than two hours.

Critics said the flight was ?completely unnecessary? and cast doubt on the sincerity of the prime minister?s pledges to fight the climate crisis. Travelling by air produces far more global-heating emissions than other modes of transport.

Johnson took the 50-minute helicopter ride in a Sikorsky S-76C on 5 May,?departing from north-west London?and landing at?Wolverhampton Halfpenny Green airport

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/13/boris-johnson-took-unnecessary-helicopter-trip-promote-bike-scheme-cast-doubt-pledge-fight-climate-crisis

[heartblock]

If you support a Tory-Boris initiative that makes private wealthy quiet roads at the detriment of people living in higher density housing on other roads, while decimating public transport, then don?t ever say you are campaigning to reduce pollution or car use.

How nice it must be to live in a nice house, in a nice quiet street that your car is parked in and tell us that we are the ones that believe in ?dirty air for all? as the trolls on social media call us residents of the sacrificed roads...which then you drive your kids to school on.

LTNs do not reduce pollution and impact those exact people who are more likely to suffer from cardio respiratory diseases.

[ohthehugemanateeLTN3]

ab29 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "if you block a stream in one place, it will find

> the next easiest way" - precisely: you close a

> road and the traffic will go through the next

> available one.

Tell me ab29 what information do you have that proves the entire field of traffic engineering wrong?

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you support a Tory-Boris initiative

You see my approach to LTNs is to be rational about them, not emotional. Therefore I evaluate arguments on their merits and support from the data. Turns out in this one instance, Johnson appears to not be wrong. Stopped clock and all. But I'm not going to reflexively do something harmful just because a prime minister that I dislike wants me to not.

> that makes

> private wealthy quiet roads

Do at least try to keep your story straight. I thought you were all complaining about Croxted road getting more traffic. Maybe you're one of the ultra rich who considers the ?1.5 million pound houses to be high density affordable housing?

> while decimating public transport

NGL, the Tories are about as good on public transport as one might expect. That still doesn't make them wrong about traffic.

> nice quiet street that your car is parked in and

> tell us that we are the ones that believe in

> ?dirty air for all?

I own no car, but until you can suggest a practical solution that's precisely what you are advocating for.

[PeckhamRose]

Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, who died of an asthma attack who had lived on South Circular Road: this terrible story is ignored when setting up Low Traffic NEighbourhoods. The school and residents on Grove Vale, for example, suffer more now because traffic can't turn into the side roads to get where they need to be more quickly. It also means cars and delivery vans and so on are using more petrol/electricity even, in traffic jams. The logic does not add up for me. Goose Green Roundabout is not always at a standstill, but very, very often is. But putting Low Traffic Neighbourhood blocks at the areas of residential streets such as Grove Vale is, is just thoughtless. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-55330945

[ohthehugemanateeLTN3]

PeckhamRose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, who died of an asthma

> attack who had lived on South Circular Road: this

> terrible story is ignored when setting up Low

> Traffic NEighbourhoods.

She died in 2013,long long before the LTNs. Walthamstow LTN set up in 2015 has shown that over an extended period, the fears about increased traffic do not pan out.

What's worse is that traffic has increased substantially in London since 2013:

https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/regions/6

And yet people here keep proposing basically doing nothing. Yes I know people are proposing wild grand schemes that are unimplementable. Proposing something that cannot or will not happen is no different from proposing nothing.

[Rockets]

Oh Manatee...really...you went there...wow....she died from pollution..her mother is campaigning because she sees what LTNs do and she wants to stop what happened to her daughter happening to anyone else.

And you're wrong on Waltham Forest...increases in traffic congestion beyond the LTNs have been consistent since it started and the impact is a very wide area.

[PeckhamRose]

THAT is my point. She died in 2013 and she died from pollution, yet the LTNs set up on Grove Vale and others, from a main residential road and school, means more traffic shall affect kids in the school, and those living on the main roads being made to breathe in more fumes BECAUSE of the LTNs forcing more traffic on to those roads. Please follow the logic.

ohthehugemanateeLTN3 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> PeckhamRose Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, who died of an asthma

> > attack who had lived on South Circular Road:

> this

> > terrible story is ignored when setting up Low

> > Traffic NEighbourhoods.

>

> She died in 2013,long long before the LTNs.

> Walthamstow LTN set up in 2015 has shown that over

> an extended period, the fears about increased

> traffic do not pan out.

>

> What's worse is that traffic has increased

> substantially in London since 2013:

>

> https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/regions/6

>

> And yet people here keep proposing basically doing

> nothing. Yes I know people are proposing wild

> grand schemes that are unimplementable. Proposing

> something that cannot or will not happen is no

> different from proposing nothing.

[ab29]

Very accurate observations in the article by Paul Wheeler written back in February(someone posted it here once I think).

https://www.onlondon.co.uk/paul-wheeler-why-londons-road-wars-are-tearing-labour-apart/

[heartblock]

No I live in a flat and as an NHS worker then teaching future NHS workers my salary is small. I walk and take PT and hardly ever drive.

My road has an increase in 26% traffic since LTNs.

I have already said I live in ED Grove and have lived in the same small flat for over 30 years.

So LTN Manatee where do you live? How long have you lived there? Do you live in an LTN? Do you drive?

Rosamund Kissi Debrah campaigns for a reduction of pollution since the pollution on the road she lives on just of the South Circ was officially classed as a factor in the death of her daughter. Because she understands that LTNs push traffic and pollution onto roads where there is a higher degree of residents that are more vulnerable to pollution, due to multi factorial issues, she campaigns against the current poorly planned LTNs, while taking the message of the need for cleaner and cheaper public transport, stopping burning of wood, log fires etc.

A well known bike group tried to no platform her at a conference on lung health and clean air and she is trolled by members of the same group on Twitter.

[ohthehugemanateeLTN3]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh Manatee...really...you went there...wow....

Lol Rockets you're so beautifully transparent! We both know PeckhamRose went there. Are you actively trying to give the anti-LTN crowd a reputation for dishonesty or does it just come naturally to you?

> she

> died from pollution..her mother is campaigning

> because she sees what LTNs do and she wants to

> stop what happened to her daughter happening to

> anyone else.

And yet traffic has increased substantially across London since 2013. Just because something tragic happened doesn't make her correct. And we can't make public policy based cherrypicking the stories that make the news. Lots of people have died of pollution and have no voice. It seems you are uninterested in them and simply want to score points.

Hmm,seems we can both engage in hyperbole and emotional reasoning.

> And you're wrong on Waltham Forest...

No I'm not.

so I say again: traffic has increased substantially since 2013. What do you propose that's actually practical to reduce pollution?

Again, I expect no real answer.

[heartblock]

The on London article is excellent.

[Rockets]

And so is this one...before the Guardian went all pro-LTN propaganda...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/11/how-london-got-rid-of-private-cars-and-grew-more-congested-than-ever

[Rockets]

Manatee, if you look at what happened within the LTNs then yes it could be considered a success (although I did read, but I am not sure if it is true, that car ownership increased within the LTn boundary there).

Outside the boundary it is a different story (the council's data showed a permanent 20%+ increase on traffic on a road 3.1 miles from the LTN after the closures went in (and other boundary roads had increases too).

But maybe this gets to the crux of the issue - there are those on the pro- side of the argument who will only focus on the "success" within the LTNs whilst many focus on what happens outside to determine the success or not.

[alice]

Johnson has a journalist?s persuasive metaphors. But here we?re are talking Dulwich specifics. The location of Dulwich LTNs.

[Rockets]

I see the latest One Dulwich update says the council has confirmed that all responses to the LTN review will be given equal weighting no matter where they come from.

There seems to have been a policy U-turn on this one...

Cast your mind back to the CPZ consultation where 68% of Dulwich respondents said no yet they pushed ahead with it on the basis that a few roads voted in favour of it and defaulted to "what those people on those roads wanted".

We can probably assume that the last minute canvassing by Labour activists after the review extension did not deliver the desired result so they now need the help of the likes of Southwark Cyclists to get the numbers they need....

https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/have-your-say-and-support-safe-cycling-in-dulwich-and-champion-hill/

[first mate]

Rockets, James McAsh came on here and explained that re CPZ each road would 'decide' if it was to have CPZ or not. Of course, they had to do it that way or they would never have got the CPZ ball properly rolling, when they introduced CPZ round the station. Had they done it as a whole area thing, they'd never have managed the CPZ onslaught. Southwark saw no contradiction in actively encouraging car ownership for those living closest to the train station.

Of course, however, when it suited them Southwark reneged on their own terms and decided to chop Melbourne Grove up and count it as two separate roads. Had they counted it as one road they could not have put in CPZ as the majority of residents were against CPZ.

The Councillors also made a big deal about how vital it was to listen to minority voices, not just the majority view.

So now I guess their plan is to invite people and children from all over the borough to have their say?