Turney Road closure scrapped

[Rockets]

Rollflick - Turney Road is already a quiet road with significant amounts of cycle infrastructure already in place - perhaps let me turn the question back to you and ask why you think it is not a good road to cycle down. I am more than happy to cycle my children down there now and let them cycle to the velodrome on their own - and in my mind Turney Road doesn't need additional investment (and to suggest spending £1.8m of tax-payers money on that councillor vanity project was a joke), there are other roads that are for more needy - it is also interesting to see that there seems to be two types of cyclists using the DV junction - those that  turn left along Dulwich Village - usually full kit wallies heading off to Sydenham Hill and beyond - and children cycling to Dulwich Hamlet - only a few head along Turney.

 

My position from the beginning has been that Turney didn't need closing but unfortunately the council got seduced by the pro-cycling lobby that convinced them that the only way to increase cycling is to close roads - which is an utter nonsense.

 

[northernmonkey]

@Rockets obviously don't know which way you'd be happy to let your children cycle on Turney Road - but during peak times the issues are more pronounced in the section between Burbage and Croxted where the amount of parked cars combined with the amount and type of traffic means that cycling doesn't feel safe, and not somewhere i'd be happy for children to cycle independently. 

[Rockets]

Northern - so how does closing the section from of Turney from the DV junction to Burbage help that - because the traffic doesn't come from there does it? Therein lies the problem with the ludicrous suggestion to spend £1.8m closing part of the road that didn't need closing (when clearly the council had not done the required due diligence)....and now any sensible discussion about roads that people feel do need better infrastructure are pointless because we can't take council proposals seriously due to how flawed proposals like Turney have been and I suspect no-one in the council will have the appetite to put their name to future proposals given the embarrassing failure of the Turney closures. I can't help but think that Cllr Rose's departure is somehow linked to this debacle.

 

 

[northernmonkey]

I'm not going to deal with the conjecture in your post as I, like you, have absolutely no knowledge on that.   

I would imagine the proposal was to reduce overall volumes.   You say 'the traffic doesn't come from there does it' in relation to the DV/ Turney junction.  Again - I don't know as i haven't seen detailed traffic flow data.  Maybe all the Westbound Turney traffic comes from Burbage but in reality I'd imagine that at least some of it also comes from DV and therefore closing off that arm of the junction would reduce volumes overall at least in part. 

My preference - if I had any influence whatsoever, (which given I'm writing this on the EDF rather than as policy for the council, its clear I don't) would be to filter Turney at Croxted Road under the bridge.  This would massively reduce traffic along Turney but also remove one of the 'turning arms' at Croxted and thus reducing congestion. 

[Abe_froeman]

 

Quote

 i haven't seen detailed traffic flow data.

It must be out there somewhere and easy to find if they were really going to spend £1,800,000 to divert that traffic away from a few cyclists  in the middle of a cost of living crisis.

Perhaps one of the lycra warriors on here would be kind enough to link us up to that data.

[northernmonkey]

There was detailed traffic flow data available at the start of the OHS project - it may well have been recorded since then.  Rockets suggested that the traffic doesn't come from Dulwich Village to Turney so perhaps he has insight? 

 

Also - @Abe, do try to move away from the 'othering' - its tedious. "Lycra warriors" - or alternatively 'people who ride a bike who are parents, children, teachers,  doctors, people who work in offices, people who work in shops, you know, other human beings!

[ab29]

I sincerely hope this is the beginning of the end of LTN vanity project which did exactly ZERO to improve, well,

anything.

Edited June 6, 2023 by ab29

[Abe_froeman]

I only know one doctor down that wa,y Northern Monkey, and they drive a Porsche to and from the office every day. Wouldn't be seen dead on a bike.

Edited June 6, 2023 by Abe_froeman
typos

[malumbu]

I know plenty of people in the medical profession that cycle, for health, the environment, and getting from A to B.  Social prescribing is when those in the medical profession encourage some with mental health problems to get involved in their community and take up activities such as cycling, rather than prescribing drugs.  Have you tried cycling Abe? I bet you'd love it.  It can transform your life.  https://www.gov.uk/government/news/walking-wheeling-and-cycling-to-be-offered-on-prescription-in-nationwide-trial

[Abe_froeman]

Yeah, I cycle a fair bit in London. The main factor that puts me off idoing it more is other cyclists.

It's the professional commuters that are the worst. On race bikes in lycra doing their daily Tour de la Office. 

The best cyclists tend to be Boris bikers // other renters // amateurs on sit up and beg bikes. 

The worst are those who are throroughly committed to cycling. They go through red lights, push people off the road, cycle on the pavement, weave into oncoming traffic and give everyone else a bad name. I had some 5star s**t in clip on shoes actually lean on me going round a bend in the road once to speed himself up. Absolute bell end. 

[first mate]

Abe that has also been my experience and I agree with you.

Typical born-again cyclist response above. The worst offenders are those  former car drivers who enjoyed speed and 'handling' the car. I think certain risk taking behaviours and the desire to go as fast as possible transfers to their new vehicle of choice, when they adopt cycling.

[malumbu]

Abe, First Mate, I feel your pain.  Clearly you are extremely angry about many who cycle.  I understand that CBT is a very good therapy for helping with obsessions.  Here's a helpful link to the NHS.  Good luck!  https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/talking-therapies-medicine-treatments/talking-therapies-and-counselling/cognitive-behavioural-therapy-cbt/overview/

I've offered similar advice this evening to someone really angry about state supported events.  Others extremely angry over everything that LB Southwark does may similarly benefit.

CBT is not to be confused with CBD (cannabis oil) but perhaps that may also be useful too.

 

[Rockets]

Malumbu - I think you are stepping over the mark now. Making suggestions about how someone can manage their mental health. Honestly, get over yourself or do everyone a favour and lounge yourself again - I am afraid your contributions are adding no value here.

 

i think you should remove both the posts you made this evening about mental health - it’s not necessary, is incredibly passive aggressive and you should not stoop to those levels.

[first mate]

Yep, a new low, using the serious issue of mental health to try to score points in some way. Pretty revealing really.

[mr.chicken]

Perhaps then you could all stop spewing anti-cyclist hate (you know who you are) over every relevant thread. It's tiresome and polarising and designed to make every thread descend into a shouting match.

It's also deeply irrational. So what IS your motivation?

 

 

[first mate]

As a cyclist I simply say what I see and experience. Most of the so-called anti-cyclists on here also cycle. I think trying to frame the experiences of others as "spewing anti-cyclist hate" is OTT. You cannot make genuine issues just disappear by telling others to shut up and put up or, as others have done, advise those who disagree with you to seek intervention for mental health problems. 

[Rockets]

The fact that Malumbu has posted more since their appalling post and yet sees no reason to amend or delete it speaks volumes. Mr Chicken your “yeah but….” defence speaks volumes too……..

 

 

[mr.chicken]

18 hours ago, Rockets said:

 Mr Chicken your “yeah but….” defence

What defence, Rockets? You've been ragging on cyclists relentlessly for years, and your excuse is "yeah but he did it second". Which is, like, well, OK dude.

Edited June 12, 2023 by mr.chicken
change wording

[first mate]

 

On 06/06/2023 at 14:50, northernmonkey said:

There was detailed traffic flow data available at the start of the OHS project - it may well have been recorded since then.  Rockets suggested that the traffic doesn't come from Dulwich Village to Turney so perhaps he has insight.

With a view to avoiding another lounging and to get the thread back on track, is there any sort of update on the above?

Edited June 12, 2023 by first mate

[Rockets]

Certainly from the OHS study years ago they had monitored Turney and the results are here: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/our-healthy-streets-dulwich-phase-3/#:~:text=In response to concerns from,such as walking and cycling.

 

But since the DV closure I am not sure they have done any monitoring - since the DV closure went in the amount of traffic using Turney has declined as the cross area routes have been closed - basing that on nothing more scientific than spending a lot of time around that area and seeing heavy traffic focussed now on the northbound section of DV (especially at weekends). Certainly there have been strips in place for a while now around the Turney junction but I can't help but think that was retrospective after they announced their grand plan to close Turney and, as far as I am aware, none of that monitoring data has been published. It does make you wonder if the numbers they were getting could not be spun to close Turney - certainly not at a £1.8m cost to the tax-payer.

 

I do wonder whether the cult of LTNs is starting to unravel and with Aldred's recent research in Lambeth whether authorities are now wising up to the fact that LTNs do very little to have a positive impact on vehicular traffic as those small, single figure % decreases within the LTNs are doing little to offset the increases outside of the LTNs and you can't turn the whole of London into a single LTN. Also very interesting, and telling, is the number of cars vs vans in the Aldred survey suggesting the private car is no longer the biggest problem but vans and delivery vehicles. Very interesting that Peter Walker didn't run this in the Guardian as an "exclusive" like all of the other Aldred reports published previously! 😉  

 

P.S. Mr Chicken - I haven't stooped to Malumbu's levels though have I - they crossed a line but a line that they, and others, like you, seem more than happy to cross (and validate)? Encouraging someone to seek Cognitive Behavioural Therapy is a low-blow and something no educated, considerate, adult should be posting - it's a childish, passive-aggressive, ill-thought post that demonstrates a total lack of awareness and is offensive to anyone who may have a mental health issue - and the fact it is still unedited speaks volumes.

 

P.P.S I am a cyclist - we've probably shared the same cycle lane! I am just one, of many, who feel the more cultish elements of the cycling community are giving us all a bad name.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

That's a total misrepresentation of the research again Rockets. Evidence suggests that LTNs lead to drops in number of journeys and (now also) vehicle miles driven. Separately there is data showing increases in walking and cycling and reductions in road casualties. For those interested...  https://love.lambeth.gov.uk/ltn-study/

Here is the summary from the latest study (which adds to a growing and consistent body of evidence suggesting that LTNs work):

"In summary, our findings suggest that residents in Lambeth started driving less once their area became an LTN. Notably, our outcome measure captures total past-year driving, including trips that the Lambeth LTNs are less likely to impact (e.g., inter-city trips, or travel outside London). It is plausible that for shorter and more local trips the relative decrease in LTN residents’ driving would be greater than the estimated 6% decrease in total past-year driving. This suggests that, in Lambeth and other similar inner-city areas, widespread roll-out of LTNs could make an important contribution towards reducing how much residents drive, and towards reducing local volumes of motor traffic."

Edited June 12, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Earl, perhaps you care to enlighten me on how it is a total misrepresentation of the research?

 

Here are the findings from the report:

 

Table 2.Average daily driving time, pre- and post-LTN implementation: main analysis

	Inside the LTNs	Near the LTNs	Control area
No. cars and vans in analysis, pre/post	1700 / 2025	1352 / 1658	5523 / 6598
Mean daily km (SE), pre	20.3 (0.3)	20.3 (0.4)	20.4 (0.2)
Mean daily km (SE), post	19.6 (0.3)	20.7 (0.4)	21.0 (0.2)
Change in km (SE), post minus pre	-0.7 (0.5)	0.3 (0.5)	0.6 (0.3)
Difference-in-differences change in km (95% CI), relative to the control area	-1.3 (-2.4, -0.3)	-0.3 (-1.4, 0.9)
p-value for difference-in-differences effect	p=0.01	p=0.64

 

The research suggests that INSIDE the LTNs there was a 4% drop in the number of mean daily kms - does it not (maths was never my strong-point)? Hurrah! A reduction. After three years (can we agree that there is no chance not to suggest these haven't bedded-in now) is that enough? I remember way back when all this started a lot of the pro-LTN lobby would point to studies from The Netherlands etc suggesting that 11% reductions were seen with LTNs and I said at the time that that was not nearly enough.

Is 4% enough to make a difference given the congestion problems this causes outside of LTNs?

And look what happened near the LTNs - miles increased. Weren't we promised by the pro-LTN lobby and councillors that LTNs reduced traffic for everyone?

 

Look I have been very clear from the beginning that  LTNs will reduce driving within LTNs (of course they do) it is their impact outside of them that is the important factor that determines whether they can be considered a success. If you want to claim success as an incremental (rounding error) reduction go ahead, have a party.

 

And whilst Ms Aldred laces her summaries with "could" and "decreases would be greater" the alternative headline could be that:

 

LTNs decrease vehicle miles within an LTN but increase them outside.

 

Also this note in the findings section is fascinating - are people in Lambeth keeping their cars - weren't we promised a reduction in car ownership in LTNs too?

 

However, the similarity between the LTN and control areas suggests that the Lambeth LTNs have not seen a notable drop in car/van ownership. This contrasts with the 6% decrease in car/van ownership after two years observed in the longer-established LTNs in Waltham Forest (Goodman, Urban, and Aldred 2020).

 

I am sure admin will probably lounge this thread (under duress from the lounge police no doubt) but maybe it is time to re-instate the LTN thread to the main forum as these developments are still a talking point locally and Turney Road etc is all part of the LTN and OHS programme and these findings from our neighbouring borough are important for people to assess the impact and decide for themselves given the council seems to have dropped any form of their own monitoring, and ultimately if the forum doesn't want to talk about it forum nature will run it's course and it will drop to the bottom very quickly.

[DulvilleRes]

The question can be asked - does it suits some people with a political agenda that isn't always apparent to keep banging on about LTN's? The issue got overtly politicised at the last local election with the local Conservatives ( one of the candidates co founded a local anti LTN group) running on virtually this one local issue, and they didn't win. That would indicate that locally this isn't quite the burning issue that some posters keep making it out to be.  

 

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

For anyone interested, please read the research for yourself. Rockets conclusions are at odds with those undertaking the research. But he’s probably far more qualified than the academics who actually did the study right?

It is of course just one piece or research, but one in an ever growing and consistent body of research showing that LTNs are being effective in cutting car use, journey mileage, increasing active travel and reducing road casualties.

on the other side of the ‘debate’ there is no academic research I have seen supporting the arguments of the pro car dependency brigade.

At this point if you still maintain that LTNs increase traffic or car use, or somehow reduce active travel, you have to dispute *all available evidence*, rely on anecdote, and / or believe in a vast conspiracy.

Edited June 12, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

But then, by the same measure, does it suit some people with a political agenda to try and bury the issue/lounge the issue on the forum to ensure people aren't holding the those who implemented these measures accountable?

 

Should we all just ignore the fact that the council was proposing to spend £1.8m of our money on closing a junction that didn't need closing? How much money did they waste on a project that was laughed out of the funding debate? Have they ever clearly explained why they even pursued this folly, who was responsible for it - it seemed to come out of the blue, a surprise to everyone and no-one seemed to know why closing Turney was ever even tabled?

Earl, you don't have a response do you - you rarely ever do - you say, this interpretation is wrong but then never actually provide any analysis to back it up which leads me to believe you don't actually have an argument?

 

And defaulting to no-one has done peer-reviewed analysis to support the anti-LTN position is probably because no passionately anti-LTN position researcher has been paid £1.5m by the very people implementing the measures on the streets to prove they aren't working! 😉

 

Just take a look for yourself at the below and make your own mind up (remember Near the LTNs are within 200m of the LTNs, control area is over 200m from the LTNs) - let's be honest the control area is more than close enough to be considered part of the LTN disruption area:

 

Table 2.Average daily driving time, pre- and post-LTN implementation: main analysis

	Inside the LTNs	Near the LTNs	Control area
No. cars and vans in analysis, pre/post	1700 / 2025	1352 / 1658	5523 / 6598
Mean daily km (SE), pre	20.3 (0.3)	20.3 (0.4)	20.4 (0.2)
Mean daily km (SE), post	19.6 (0.3)	20.7 (0.4)	21.0 (0.2)
Change in km (SE), post minus pre	-0.7 (0.5)	0.3 (0.5)	0.6 (0.3)
Difference-in-differences change in km (95% CI), relative to the control area	-1.3 (-2.4, -0.3)	-0.3 (-1.4, 0.9)
p-value for difference-in-differences effect	p=0.01	p=0.64