LTN Discussion

[first mate]

20 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

it's now the subject of carping about it having too many off-street parking spots and

No, just highlighting the odd and ironic juxtaposition of the Council's choice to impose a multi million pound but small car free square, right next door to a new development offering parking for 20 cars. Come on, it is a bit unfortunate. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Exactly. When they stopped people cutting through the park from the south circular it had the same effect. No more care workers. They should concrete over the whole area and reclaim it for car parking. Could put a warehouse style pizza hut and a Frankie and bennys around the perimeter. Because, we’re all in favour of supporting independents, but only in so far as it aligns with prioritising cars in all circumstances.

Edited September 24 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Come on Earl, you've got to admit First Mate does have a point...it's a bit odd that active travel is so important to the council that they repeatedly spend millions on that junction yet they increase the potential for car ownership by 20 by allowing a developer to add parking places. It's a bit....confused.

 

BTW I still don't think we have established that parking around Dulwich Park was a "cut through'. Does anyone actually remember Dulwich Park being a through route...or just having cars able to drive and park around the perimeter?

[Earl Aelfheah]

It was a through route. One of the main causes behind which the Dulwich Society formed https://www.dulwichsociety.com/the-journal/winter-2023/the-dulwich-societys-first-year

I don’t personally remember it, but my dad does. I actually haven’t been able to establish when they closed it to through traffic and he wasn’t sure.

he did point out that when they did it you heard almost exactly the same arguments you hear now in relation to the creation of the seating / pedestrian area outside the shops. Namely, ‘it’s an outrageous imposition on my right to drive wherever I want regardless of everyone else’.

[first mate]

It is an outrageous waste of taxpayer money, in a wealthy area, in a cost of living crisis.

Closing DP as a cut through, if it was ever genuinely used that way by many, which is doubtful, is beside the point and that closure did not cost millions. Trying to compare closure of DP to cars with closure of a main thoroughfare and junction is ludricous.

The only relevance of Dulwich Park to this issue is that it is a large green area where people can meet and socialise- there is also a cafe. This rationale was used by the council for creation of Vanity Square- "a place to socialise", they said. You know and I know, there was absolutely no need to create a small square in which to socialise in Dulwich Village. The area is chock full of places to meet and socialise already.

To put a new multi million pound 'carless square' creation on the doorstep of a new housing development offering storage for 20 cars is bonkers and something of an own goal.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

The cut through from the south circular to the village, was a major rat run at one point, so much so that the Dulwich Society formed to challenge it: 

Quote

Train services in the early 1960s were poor and commuters would drive into London. Dulwich was becoming a rat-run - in those days for example, you could cut through Dulwich Park from Dulwich Common to the Village;

I think the square has been very successful at creating a place to socialise to be honest. lots of people sitting outside the cafe's there and a focal point at Christmas, with the procession from the church to the square, where a carol service takes place around the tree. It's definitely created a welcome community space. 

It's interesting that the argument has now switched to the cost of creating the pedestrian area. Clearly the amount of money spend is far too high. But perversely you have the same people saying it's cost too much, demanding it all be ripped out, and the old layout re-installed at even more cost and disruption. The fact is that had Southwark not been so timid in the face of a vitriolic, obsessive minority who oppose any change, they could have implemented the improvements more quickly and more cheaply. Either way, in 10 years time, the idea that a small line of idling / queuing cars were ever prioritised over the square will seem as ridiculous as cars being allowed to cut through the park does now. In fact to most, it already does.

Edited September 25 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

I think we have to factor the ongoing costs of Vanity Square in terms of impact on those with limited mobility etc.. A cost analysis of that long term could be interesting.

That aside, I am glad that you have finally made some admission that the cost of this non-mandated space is excessive. It has taken us months to get here though.

I have cycled near that space on numerous occasions now and I honestly have not noticed masses of people socialising - the only proof this happens is photos of cyclists (possibly invited by LCC and from all over London) converging for a meet, or of local anti LTN protestors. That is it. As for Christmas day, well if you think spending millions warrants a one day social event then I think we are lost. Plus, it is not as though there are plenty of other places in Dulwich Village for people and Carol singers to congregate as the need arises.

[Rockets]

13 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It was a through route. One of the main causes behind which the Dulwich Society formed https://www.dulwichsociety.com/the-journal/winter-2023/the-dulwich-societys-first-year

I don’t personally remember it, but my dad does. I actually haven’t been able to establish when they closed it to through traffic and he wasn’t sure.

I think the definition of a through-route and rat-run was very different in 1963 so your comparison and use of this to illustrate your point is misleading....and the Dulwich Society says one of the issues was Dulwich was being used as a rat-run and cite the park access as an example but not the only example. In 1963 there was a boom in car traffic everywhere but it in no way compares to the definition of a rat-run now.

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Clearly the amount of money spend is far too high.

I am glad you acknowledge that but why do you not challenge the council on this - after all they have been telling everyone they do not have any money?

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The fact is that had Southwark not been so timid in the face of a vitriolic, obsessive minority who oppose any change, they could have implemented the improvements more quickly and more cheaply.

I think what you are describing there is what is known as a dictatorship...you're basically saying they should have ignored the views of the majority of residents.....Your obsessive minority mantra is really getting a bit tired now - time and time again it has been shown to be anything but and the obsessive minority are the ones on the other side of the argument.

 

2 hours ago, first mate said:

I have cycled near that space on numerous occasions now and I honestly have not noticed masses of people socialising - the only proof this happens is photos of cyclists (possibly invited by LCC and from all over London) converging for a meet, or of local anti LTN protestors. That is it. As for Christmas day, well if you think spending millions warrants a one day social event then I think we are lost. Plus, it is not as though there are plenty of other places in Dulwich Village for people and Carol singers to congregate as the need arises.

You are spot on - there is no more socialising there than there was before (despite the varied attempts by the friends of Dulwich Square to muster community activities). In fact, the biggest congregation of people there over the last 5 years has been the anti-LTN protest. Do kids hang around there after school on summer's days - yes they do, but they used to before the closure too? I did laugh that when a couple of kids started using the first design for skateboarding during lockdown some of those behind the square complained to the council and got measures added to stop them from doing so.....bah humbug.....

[Penguin68]

11 minutes ago, Rockets said:

but it in no way compares to the definition of a rat-run now.

I had always thought a 'rat-run' was the diversion of traffic through residential streets, adding to pollution and increased dangers. Traffic through a park (and one with a far lower speed limit than the 30mph then prevailing in London residential streets) wasn't ever really, in that sense, a rat run. It tended, in rush hours, to take traffic further away from people than that actually using the streets. The two gates other than the one on the South Circular didn't really get you anywhere useful (unless it was your own street) - I think these were mainly used when e.g. the A205 was otherwise blocked - as frequently happened and still happens, but without that, or other remedies.

And of course sealing this problem was no more costly or difficult than shutting the big gates that were already there and were shut when the park closed anyway.

[raptortruckman69]

I'm confused who supports what now.

Who other then myself actually wants the Dulwich LTN torn up to the enable the larger volumes of necessary, lower polluting and largely smoothly flowing traffic we had before (especially Calton)?

And who is here to complain (rightfully) about the council but would rather not have any more changes?

And obviously the lycra mafia who largely want to crow

[first mate]

On 25/09/2024 at 12:58, Rockets said:

You are spot on - there is no more socialising there than there was before (despite the varied attempts by the friends of Dulwich Square to muster community activities). In fact, the biggest congregation of people there over the last 5 years has been the anti-LTN protest. Do kids hang around there after school on summer's days - yes they do, but they used to before the closure too? I did laugh that when a couple of kids started using the first design for skateboarding during lockdown some of those behind the square complained to the council and got measures added to stop them from doing so.....bah humbug.....

I had to laugh when I read that. Perhaps the skateboarders will return once building work on vanity square is finally completed. I would imagine a fair bit of this space will also be used for Lime, scooter and bike storage?

[Spartacus]

Just came across this on Instagram, made me smile but his pount does have merits as air moves all the time do clean air can get replaced by someone else's pollution, possibly from the other side of the world 😅

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C-qGR7oMEfo/?igsh=ejh4MDg0bndoMnk5

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

So some great news. After 114 pages, we have reached something of a consensus concerning the work of Professor Rachel Aldred and her team. Previously Rockets and First Mate have rubbished her research, but have recently conceded over on the West Dulwich LTN Action Group thread, that she is indeed an expert, even citing her work personally. Below is a summary of some of the conclusions her work has reached across a series of studies, some London wide and others based on in-depth London borough research. We can now all agree that LTNs lead to:

1. Their roads that are safer
2. Their streets that are less dominated by traffic
3. They have lower crime levels
4. They benefit deprived areas and under-represented groups
5. They have no adverse impact on fire service response times
6. They are supported by the public
7. They enable more active travel
8. They lead to reduced car use
9. They enable young people to be active#

Links to all the studies here: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-impacts-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-feb-2024-acc.pdf

Edited October 5 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Since you have chosen to post the same thing in two different threads see reply in West Dulwich LTN.

PS Glad Raptor Man has now revealed himself as pro LTN 😉

Edited October 5 by first mate

[Rockets]

<removed>

I have merely validated her claim that tube counters do not count well in slow moving congested traffic. For even you to claim any of us have validated her overall research (if you want yo have a discussion on that bring it on as I have already posted some of my comments on that when it was first released) is a work of pure fantasy.

This is confirmation bias by you on a massive scale and utterly laughable. You must be really desperate.

Edited October 5 by Administrator
Removed unnecessary jibe/attack against another forum member

[Earl Aelfheah]

50 minutes ago, Rockets said:

This is confirmation bias by you on a massive scale and utterly laughable. You must be really desperate.

You still don't understand what confirmation bias is do you?

Over on the other thread, just to remind you, you said:

Quote

...I will take the word of the likes of Rachel Aldred and people who actually know what they are talking about

I don't believe I have ever claimed that you had 'validated' her research. I don't believe for one second that you have such expertise. I believe I said that you had conceded that she is indeed an expert (or at least 'someone who knows what they are talking about), even citing her work personally. I think you'll find that this is true, but feel free to point out where I am lying.

So to clarify, you do think she knows what she's talking about, but you disagree with the conclusions of all (?) of her published research?

Edited October 5 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

7 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You still don't understand what confirmation bias is do you?

I think it is you that doesn't understand it i am afraid.

 

7 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So you do think she knows what she's talking about, but you disagree with the conclusions of all (?) of her published research?

About the accuracy of tube counters in stop start traffic under 10kmp/h - yes.

Does that mean i agree with all of her conclusions in her published research- no. And why would it, its nonsense to suggest I would.

Just because I like one song from an album doesn't mean i have to love the whole album. Life isn't binary. 

Honestly, come on....your claim that because I agree with her on one thing is a massive reach at best to suggest I then agree with everything in that report or everything she has ever published. Really? Is that how you approach everything?

1 hour ago, first mate said:

PS Glad Raptor Man has now revealed himself as pro LTN 😉

Yup looks like RaptorMan forgot to log out of their troll account and log back in to their main account to like the post...it was bound to catch up with them eventually....:-) I wonder who it actually is......

[raptortruckman69]

It's pretty simple really. When Aldred thinks the Dulwich LTN works well it's obvious we disagree with her opinions and find she lacks all credibility. When she notes a flaw in the data used to support her position, we agree and she clearly is an expert who knows what she is taking about in that particular narrow case.

We will take her expertise when she displays it. Not otherwise.

 

[first mate]

 

• Member
• •  3.7k

Posted 2 hours ago

  2 hours ago,  Earl Aelfheah said:

You still don't understand what confirmation bias is do you?

Rockets said: I think it is you that doesn't understand it i am afraid.

 

In summary, it seems, it is Earl's view is that because we are told Rachel Aldred is an expert we must either accept as gospel absolutely all of her research findings or we must completely reject all of them, it is very black and white, either or. There can be no critical evaluation and no shades of grey. 
 

 

[snowy]

That's again not what confirmation bias is. 

[Penguin68]

This thread, and other recent ones on this board, are demonstrating the impossibility of squaring faith (or belief) and Knowledge/ science.

I do hope that this will sink in soon so that the same pointless arguments (pointless because those espousing faith and those espousing knowledge will never agree) can cease.

I have had a dog myself in this fight, but it's really getting quite tedious now.

Could we move on until there's something actual novel to discuss.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

3 hours ago, raptortruckman69 said:

 When she notes a flaw in the data used to support her position, we agree and she clearly is an expert who knows what she is taking about in that particular narrow case.

There are two problems with adopting an ironically stupid persona in online discourse. The first is that it becomes somewhat boring and suffocating, so it's hard to stay in character. The second is that ironic stupidity online is indistinguishable from normal stupidity online.

[Rockets]

Well said...and people are, usually, smart enough to see through these ludicrous attempts to try to make a point. It was clear from day 1 that RaptorTruckMan was a fake account.

[DulvilleRes]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Well said...and people are, usually, smart enough to see through these ludicrous attempts to try to make a point. It was clear from day 1 that RaptorTruckMan was a fake account.

I always throught there was something fake about the anti-LTN posters on this thread who would post One Dulwich press releases and endlessly about traffic issues, but would then claim they had no idea who was behind One Dulwich and who funded them. 

[Spartacus]

50 minutes ago, DulvilleRes said:

I always throught there was something fake about the anti-LTN posters on this thread who would post One Dulwich press releases and endlessly about traffic issues, but would then claim they had no idea who was behind One Dulwich and who funded them. 

I often post stories from the BBC news website, I have no idea who is in charge of the website or often who writes the articles. 

Does that make me fake ?