LTN Discussion

[diable rouge]

Nigello Wrote:

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

Back to the physical reality of the Village LTN - it?s ugly and looks extemporised with the random planters, useless traffic lights and trip-friendly kerbs.

Don't fret Nigello, some nice, bright, colourful plastic banners around the planters will soon brighten up the place...:)

[DulvilleRes]

The anti-LTN lobby, as I recall, during the consultation gave the advice to anyone with negative feedback about the LTN's to go for the 'remove them completely' option, as they didn't like the framing of the questions. The Council went ahead anyway and put in a number of significant improvements.

What has made this whole issue so difficult to make constructive progress on is it has always felt overtly politicized. The relentless targeting of the councilors - sometimes physical in the form of graffiti near their homes/ the stalker style pictures of them - the local Conservatives seemingly campaigning on the LTN's as a single issue and the opaque 'Vote Them Out' group has felt at times to me like it has come from another place than simply finding the best solution to a local issue.

[ohthehugemanateeLTN3]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

>

> Interesting, so when the consultation occurred

> last year and the overwhelming view was removed

> the LTN from those that responded, you still want

> to claim that the council did a pretty excellent

> job listening to feedback ?

67% of people not liking the LTN in its current form isn't quiiiite the same as 67% want it removed, but I can see why you might strongly feel that it is. I was in fact one of those 67%, and I too thought it could use some changes. Ambulance gates, for example, which the council did put in.

Excellent listening on the part of the council, I'd say, you see, because they actually listened to the respondents not easily digested but rather optimistically phrased One Dunwich posters.

> Didn't feel like it at the time 😕

I don't especially like being counted as being against the LTNs, so I shall just say: Oh, the humanity!

[heartblock]

Constructive progress - Southwark should make it their aim to monitor pollution on the most polluted roads and make all effort now to reduce it to be below WHO health guidelines. Anyone unhappy with that? Is that "using air quality as a weapon to justify (my) belief'

Where is the pollution data for EDG?

Ot are those on closed roads satisfied with the current status?

[ohthehugemanateeLTN3]

We should get One Dulwich to tackle the scourge of dog poo as well: clearly the solution is to fairly spread it on everyone's front path in equal amounts, because attempting to tackle the underlying cause would be unfair...

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Constructive progress - Southwark should make it

> their aim to monitor pollution on the most

> polluted roads and make all effort now to reduce

> it to be below WHO health guidelines. Anyone

> unhappy with that?

Why on earth would you think that?

> Is that "using air quality as a

> weapon to justify (my) belief'

Yes, because you clearly want to use air pollution data to justify the metaphorical spreading of dog poo equally on everyone's front path. The fix for car based pollution is not to make more car traffic but spread around a bit, it's to reduce car traffic.

> Where is the pollution data for EDG?

>

> Ot are those on closed roads satisfied with the

> current status?

Nope, not even slightly. I want more bus only restrictions and other disincentives to drive like CPZ and road width restrictions to add incentives for active travel such as increases in segregated cycle lanes. And planning rules to encourage local shops. Other things too, but it's pointless to discuss things beyond the scope of what the council can do here.

LTNs are only the beginning...

[heartblock]

The dog poo analogy is quite a good one. So all the people living on Melbourne Grove can own dogs and on Calton and Gilkes two or three dogs. They can the dump their dog poo on my road so their road is clean.

Yes I see..that's a great idea. The amount of poo is the same ..but its all on my road. Got it. Thanks.

[Rockets]

DulvilleRes Wrote:

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

> The anti-LTN lobby, as I recall, during the

> consultation gave the advice to anyone with

> negative feedback about the LTN's to go for the

> 'remove them completely' option, as they didn't

> like the framing of the questions. The Council

> went ahead anyway and put in a number of

> significant improvements.

>

> What has made this whole issue so difficult to

> make constructive progress on is it has always

> felt overtly politicized. The relentless targeting

> of the councilors - sometimes physical in the form

> of graffiti near their homes/ the stalker style

> pictures of them - the local Conservatives

> seemingly campaigning on the LTN's as a single

> issue and the opaque 'Vote Them Out' group has

> felt at times to me like it has come from another

> place than simply finding the best solution to a

> local issue.

Because the questions were: keep it, make changes (but they didn't say what), remove it.

If you don't specify what changes you are going to make you can't expect people to vote for it. Common sense really. That left anyone who was against it one option: remove it.

Most respondents said remove it, the council ignored them and carried on regardless.

[Rockets]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> Sigh - this isn't what happened. We've been

> through this before, but you're not interested in

> facts - just owning the thread or proving that

> your alternate reality is correct.

>

> The lane has always been there -its a feeder into

> the bike box but cars used to cut across it and

> now can't - the right filter was nothing to do

> with the cycle 'lane' appearance.

>

>

> As for Heartblocks - the traffic was fine 20 years

> ago and then Southwark started messing around with

> the junction - there really are no words!

>

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > exdulwicher Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Ha ha....that's the only piece of segregated

> > cycle

> > > infrastructure they have put in across the

> > whole

> > > area and it does impede the traffic by

> > narrowing

> > > the lanes to allow only one car to pass and

> > causes

> > > a daily tailback in front of Dulwich Hamlets

> > > school - thus creating more pollution for the

> > > school children. I think you'll agree that's

> > > probably not a good thing.

> > >

> > > Cos there was never, in all of history, ever

> a

> > > tailback in front of Hamlet before LTNs...?

> > >

> > > You only need one lane there. Traffic coming

> > into

> > > DV from Turney can only go left or right and

> it

> > > has it's own phase, it's effectively a T

> > junction

> > > for cars now.

> > >

> > > The advanced green phase for cyclists needs

> to

> > be

> > > a bit longer to shift more riders before the

> > > traffic behind starts up and tries to turn

> left

> > > "across" the flow of riders who can go

> straight

> > on

> > > and in fact it's not difficult to envisage a

> > time

> > > where you'll need to give a full green phase

> to

> > > cyclists only at that junction. Same at

> Townley

> > > crossing over into Greendale.

> >

> >

> > Ex- but the tailbacks are worse since the LTNs

> > went in - every day (after the closure times)

> the

> > traffic crawls to that junction.

> >

> > Funny isn't it how they put that bike lane in

> and

> > suddenly had to put a right-turn greenlight in

> > because it became so snarled up because they

> had

> > reduced what was effectively two lanes into

> one.

> > Typical of so many planners - put something in

> > that causes a problem and instead of fixing the

> > problem try to move the problem on somewhere

> else.

I have to take issue with you on this. But putting the pylons in created traffic problems, congestion and more pollution. But no adjustments have been made have they. Why? Surely the pragmatic approach would be to say, this has caused a problem let's try to fix it but it seems when you put anything in to support cycling it becomes untouchable.

Today, traffic tailing back all through the village and Lordship Lane today...was there an issue somewhere else?

[Rockets]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> The dog poo analogy is quite a good one. So all

> the people living on Melbourne Grove can own dogs

> and on Calton and Gilkes two or three dogs. They

> can the dump their dog poo on my road so their

> road is clean.

> Yes I see..that's a great idea. The amount of poo

> is the same ..but its all on my road. Got it.

> Thanks.

Love the door poo analagy....don't poo on this street but feel free to poo on those streets around the corner

[KidKruger]

Oooh, but there won?t be dog poo round the corner because it?s all evaporated. Haven?t you heard ?! 🙄

Rockets Wrote:

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

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> > The dog poo analogy is quite a good one. So all

> > the people living on Melbourne Grove can own

> dogs

> > and on Calton and Gilkes two or three dogs.

> They

> > can the dump their dog poo on my road so their

> > road is clean.

> > Yes I see..that's a great idea. The amount of

> poo

> > is the same ..but its all on my road. Got it.

> > Thanks.

>

> Love the door poo analagy....don't poo on this

> street but feel free to poo on those streets

> around the corner

[alice]

I?m just visualising evaporated poo.

[ab29]

The dog poo analogy sums up the LTN just perfectly.

[Rockets]

Anyway, before the poo police try to get this thread closed, anyone know why the traffic was so bad through the village and along Lordship Lane this afternoon. On Lordship Lane it was tailing back to beyond the cinema heading towards the GG roundabout.

[Earl Aelfheah]

That is literally one of the dumbest analogies I?ve ever heard. It assumes every trip in a car is 100% unavoidable. We know that a third of all car journeys in London are under 2k, (less than 20 mins walk, or around 5 minutes on a bike). If you make it more pleasant / safer to walk and cycle, and less convenient to drive, people will change their behaviour. There is so much research which shows this to be true. The data on the Dulwich LTN specifically, shows it?s happened here too, with 21,100 fewer cars on our roads every day (across all monitored sites). If you removed the LTNs that?s how many extra vehicles we?d be putting back on our streets.

[Rockets]

I would put a wager on the fact that if you removed the LTNs there would be no more cars. I suspect the 21,000 car reduction is due to changes in car use post-pandemic and nothing to do with LTNs.

What % reduction is that 21,000? About 15% per chance?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Yes, I know you don?t believe any of the research, the experience of car reduction schemes around the world, or the traffic counts in Dulwich. But presumably you do understand that not all car journeys are essential.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I mean even you must occasionally leave your SUV at home Rockets, deciding to walk, cycle, or take the bus instead? That?s why your analogy is so obviously dumb. There is a degree of choice. Unlike having a poo.

[Rockets]

I don't own an SUV.

My watch is telling me I did 25901 steps today so yes that would suggest I walk quite a bit.....

BTW those 21,000 car journeys are about 15% aren't they....which just happens to be the estimated reduction in general vehicle traffic post pandemic as people's lives changed due to home working etc is it not....can you really claim those to be because of LTNs?

P.S. I think you have missed the point of the original analogy someone made....

[Earl Aelfheah]

Ok, so how many of those 25,000 steps could you have chosen to have driven if you?d wanted to? There?s the massive, obvious hole in your poo analogy.

[ohthehugemanateeLTN3]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> The amount of poo

> is the same

You know, my dear heartblock, this is I think the first time I've heard you concede that the levels haven't gone up! You're half way now to accepting the facts and I applaud you for it. Who knew it would take a dog poo analogy to spark your neurons. Takes all sorts I suppose, but there's room for all sorts in this world so no harm.

Soon perhaps we will be able to have a sensible discussion and can jointly advocate how to remove pollution from where you care about in particular without bringing the totals way up to pre LTN levels because it seems that locally there is insufficient appetite for increasing pollution just to be "fair".

So: given the Labour win, the LTN is here to stay. Out of the options I put forth are there any you agree with?

I think if you do you might suddenly find yourself in the other side of the debate from out esteemed Rockets who I believe just wants to be free to drive. Though quite how, in the increasingly clogged roads (pre LTN), escapes me for now. I'm sure he'll explain!

[Rockets]

But if I had driven I would have been forced to drive down non-closed streets thus "pooing" my pollution on those streets....do you get the joke now?

Anyway any response to my suggestion that your touted 21,000 journey reduction has nothing (or very little) to do with the LTNs or are you just going to continue trying to ignore it....it won't go away you know....?

[heartblock]

Ahh Sea-Cow the originator of the poooooooo analogy. So are we supporting pollution monitoring and WHO levels of air quality for all roads in ED or not?

[heartblock]

Well 8am yesterday I posted "Then some actions - the money made by Southwark to be invested in ways to encourage less car use by parents taking children to school, pressure on the private schools to make it an admission rule, more EV charging points and a local network of green buses."

But I can give more if you like? But Medact is the organisation I support and I would advocate their solutions.

https://stat.medact.org/uploads/2021/04/The-public-health-case-for-a-Green-New-Deal-MEDACT-April-2021.pdf

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> But if I had driven I would have been forced to

> drive down non-closed streets thus "pooing" my

> pollution on those streets....do you get the joke

> now?

>

> Anyway any response to my suggestion that your

> touted 21,000 journey reduction has nothing (or

> very little) to do with the LTNs or are you just

> going to continue trying to ignore it....it won't

> go away you know....?

So you do accept that traffic is down by 21,100 vehicles a day since the LTNs came in now? You?re just claiming that it?s not related to the LTNs? Because previously you?ve claimed that traffic has massively increased?

[first mate]

Rx3, you know, just because Labour won it does not mean the data they pushed is correct...is that the point you are trying to make?