LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> do I hear any support for policy

> to lessen traffic and pollution on our roads - I'm

> listening....

You received a wave of support for your proposal to remove parking from residential streets of Dulwich. I don't know why you're backtracking now...

[Rockets]

This is interesting. Is anyone else surprised given all the fanfare from Mr Norman et al that this isn't as impressive as you would have expected? Breaking 2018 Boris bike hires numbers with two weeks to go doesn't suggest as many people are using them as they touted.

[heartblock]

Removing parking from closed roads - yes, but interested in how one would reduce that figure of 50-60 NOx on EDG? Any ideas?

[heartblock]

8000 over 3 years..slightly less than 3000 per year and slightly more than 57 a week so about 8 more bike rides across all of London.

[geh]

LTN?s definitely altering my transport habits. I now never get the 37 to Brixton to then get the tube, too congested, too painful, too slow.

What I have done is to make a conscious decision to only purchase pre 40 year old vehicles that are classed as classics and exempt from Ulez and Congestion charge.

Someone once said for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction!

[Earl Aelfheah]

.

[Earl Aelfheah]

geh Wrote:

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

> LTN?s definitely altering my transport habits. I

> now never get the 37 to Brixton to then get the

> tube, too congested, too painful, too slow.

>

> What I have done is to make a conscious decision

> to only purchase pre 40 year old vehicles that are

> classed as classics and exempt from Ulez and

> Congestion charge.

>

> Someone once said for every action, there is an

> equal and opposite reaction!

Against the ULEZ and congestion charge too.

[Rockets]

The Jan 19 East Dulwich Grove Central data, the council website, the disappearing data, the "new data", the new conclusions..a thread...

Draw your own conclusions....this council is an utter omnishambles....

[Earl Aelfheah]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> geh Wrote:

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

> -----

> > LTN?s definitely altering my transport habits.

> I

> > now never get the 37 to Brixton to then get the

> > tube, too congested, too painful, too slow.

> >

> > What I have done is to make a conscious

> decision

> > to only purchase pre 40 year old vehicles that

> are

> > classed as classics and exempt from Ulez and

> > Congestion charge.

> >

> > Someone once said for every action, there is an

> > equal and opposite reaction!

>

> Against the ULEZ and congestion charge too.

I love the way that this poster seems to suggest that the congestion charge, the ULEZ and low traffic neighbourhoods force them to drive more and to buy more polluting vehicles. I mean that?s some mental gymnastics there. ?I don?t want to pollute, but what choice do I have??

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rockets - the data is getting clearer and clearer. I know you?re invested in your position, but I can?t believe that you honestly think that removing the LTNs wouldn't increase traffic and reduce active travel.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Honestly, do you think the number of kids walking and cycling to school would increase or decrease if you remove all restrictions on cars locally and all the quiet routes? I mean the data is clear what would happen, but what do you think? What?s your gut tell you?

[Rockets]

But Rahx3 I am not saying that am I? What I am saying is that there is increasing evidence that, following pressure from Melbourne Grove residents, the council has created a new set of figures to help justify not making their proposed changes to Melbourne Grove thus continuing to inflict continued increased congestion and pollution on other streets in the area whilst appeasing the residents of Melbourne Grove who have been central to the support of LTNs.

The fact the council removed the Jan 19 data from their website certainly suggests they were trying to hide it. The fact it then reappeared with their new Sep 19 figures magically added also suggests they were trying to bury something and deliver a very different message.

Do you have anything, beyond the usual pro-LTN blah blah blah, that you can counter that accusation?

[legalalien]

Just had an email with a 22 Dec response date (first email in the last couple of weeks,

?Dear all,

Thank you for your continued interest in the Dulwich Streetspace measures. We would like to advise that the all latest monitoring data has now been published here.

We want to give everyone an opportunity to reflect on this information, which has been central to our decision-making process .

Therefore, if you wish to comment on the new data or the decisions that we have published, the deadline for comments has been extended to Wednesday 22 December 2021.

A full report on the representations and the associated officer recommendations is available to view here.

It is really important to note that, although this marks the end of the current constitutional process, we will continue to monitor the situation in the Dulwich area, meet with residents and other stakeholders, and to review the progress of the measures against our objectives.?

[Rockets]

I had the same but, like you, I registered to receive the updates.

I wonder how the council are going to inform the thousands of people who received the mail shot but have not registered for email updates. Maybe they are relying on ESP.

Honestly, this council is beyond reproach. Yet still, people will come on here and defend them and claim this is a genuine oversight.

At what point do we have to question Cllr Williams' leadership and whether he is fit for the role?

[Sue]

Rockets Wrote:

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

>

> Honestly, this council is beyond reproach. Yet

> still, people will come on here and defend them

> and claim this is a genuine oversight.

>

I don't think you mean "beyond reproach"?

[first mate]

Deeply cynical and self-serving move by the Council, what a bunch.

In terms of shady data manipulation, they pulled a similar stunt with Melbourne Grove re CPZ.

Roll on the elections.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@rockerts - you avoided answering the question I put to you and I think it probably tells me the answer. At this point I think you know what would happen to the number of kids walking and cycling to school were the LTNs removed. It would drop significantly.

[legalalien]

Talking about councillors, an updated political ward map has just been posted on the website and I see one of the Labour councillors is now an independent (Cllr Fleming in Faraday). Is that a recent development? I googled but couldn?t see anything.

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103709/Political%20Ward%20Map%20December%202021.pdf

[Earl Aelfheah]

It?s pretty clear that there are no data that would satisfy those determined to believe LTNs somehow increase traffic and reduce active travel (against all evidence). It?s become about proving a preconceived idea / objection, and nothing else. It?s embarrassing to watch individuals picking through data looking for anything that they think might bolster their prior beliefs whilst completely ignoring the big picture (wood for the trees?). Very reminiscent of how climate deniers operate - you don?t have to prove your argument, just sow enough doubt to have people question the existing evidence. It?s almost a perfect example of confirmation bias.

If you tell me you genuinely think that removing LTNs won?t increase traffic and reduce the number of people walking and cycling in the area, I would be surprised.

[first mate]

Sorry Rx3 but dodgy data should not satisfy anyone.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Tell me you genuinely think that removing LTNs won?t increase traffic and reduce the number of people walking and cycling in the area.

[Rockets]

Rahx3 - removing LTNs would increase traffic on the roads that have been closed to traffic but would reduce traffic on roads that have been a displacement route for the closed roads. Would it increase overall traffic numbers - I very much doubt it - it would just redistribute the traffic to the levels it was at before?

Remember, private car ownership is declining in London, what is increasing is PHV and delivery vehicles so LTNs don't magic that away with LTNs - so you need measures to tackle that or measures to reduce the environmental impact of that if you can't get it to go away.

If the council puts in proper strategic area-wide measures to reduce the reliance on the car and to promote walking and cycling then I do believe it would decrease traffic and increase walking and cycling (but remember walking is already the most popular form of transport for people making local journeys in the area). But I also think we have to be realistic - something the council seems incapable of doing.

What you forget is that these measures are designed to, ostensibly, reduce pollution but have been skewed by lobby groups to be about reducing vehicle use - all vehicle use whether they pollute a lot or not.

LTNs are not the solution in isolation - you know that, the council knows that, we all know that. The problem is the council got seduced by the pro-LTN lobby groups (namely the cycle groups like the LCC and Southwark cyclists) into closing roads and using Covid and the need for social distancing as the underhand air-cover to roll them out without any engagement with the community as they had failed to get a consensus that these were the right measures during their OHS consultations. It was clear to many of us from those OHS days that all LTNs do is move the problem elsewhere and increases pollution - many have been consistent in that position since the outset.

And to that end let me ask you a question - do you really think the measures are working and fair if Goldilocks can herald the "success" of the EDG Central "reduction" numbers whilst Heartblock sees them as a failure because 100 yards up the same road in either direction traffic has increased by over 25%?

[Earl Aelfheah]

I find it incredible that you reach the conclusion that the LTNs have not reduced traffic or increased active travel despite all evidence to the contrary. But fair enough, I guess it's just an article of faith.

And the huge increase in the numbers of kids walking and cycling to school? I mean you can actually see it with your own eyes if you won't accept data. Do you think that would continue if one were to remove all the quiet routes and invite more cars to drive through the area?

[ed_pete]

Another snippet from the Air Quality Report.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/77414/Air-Quality-modelling-report_June-2021_Dulwich-Streetspace.pdf

Regardless of the argument over traffic levels, no real change to the levels of pollutants along East Dulwich Grove, Dulwich Village, Half Moon Lane, Village Way.

 

[Rockets]

Rahx3 - you're avoiding my question.....again....

They have reduced traffic on the closed roads and increased them on the displacement routes (that is clear from the data). Active travel was at 68% in Dulwich already and was probably even higher due to the pandemic before the LTNs went in - the active travel gains solely because of the LTNs will be negligible (maybe a low single-figure %) and I am afraid more children cycling to JAGs/JAPS and Alleyns who used to walk is not enough to justify the chaos and misery being inflicted on others.

Now, in case you missed it here is my question to you again:

And to that end let me ask you a question - do you really think the measures are working and fair if Goldilocks can herald the "success" of the EDG Central "reduction" numbers whilst Heartblock sees them as a failure because 100 yards up the same road in either direction traffic has increased by over 25%?