LTN Discussion

[Earl Aelfheah]

The data is there for all to see, if they’re genuinely in it. I don’t believe you are remotely interested in anything but misrepresenting it, and / or undermining it, to try and make a case that confirms a position you took before the changes were even implemented. 

…much like OneDulwich

Edited October 9 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

But Earl, come on - how are One Dulwich misrepresenting the council's data - which you can see below. What message does the council data send you? And just imagine what it would look like if Croxted was reported accurately and they'd bothered to monitor Underhill....I am pretty sure this is not the grand vision promised by the council.....in fact in Cllr McAsh's stated view this must be considered a failure must it not?

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/traffic-data-analysis

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

17 hours ago, Rockets said:

What does it show then? You would acknowledge, surely, that if there was displacement the roads that have shown significant increases in traffic since pre-Covid would be the ones expected to show an increase?

Why ask? Do you really care what the data says? On one hand you quote it (where you think you can spin it to support your prejudice) and on the other you rubbish it as unreliable (exactly as OneDulwich does repeatedly). You do the same with all research on LTNs, on the impact of the ULEZ, with cycling data from Tfl etc... 

You've openly admitted that you only consider information relevant where it conforms to your predetermined view.

But, so as not to be accused of avoiding the question: One claim that the data collected by Southwark Council shows that "...the Dulwich LTNs have not reduced traffic but simply displaced it." This is not what the data shows.

Yes, there has been different impacts across different streets, including some displacement, but the data shows an overall reduction in traffic. To say that it hasn't reduced traffic (at least based on the data they're quoting) is untrue.

 

Edited October 10 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

but the data shows an overall reduction in traffic

BTW your claim of the data shows an overall reduction in traffic - where are you getting that from - I know the council claimed that but did they provide any data as the dashboard doesn't give you the function to look at the overall volume for all roads they monitored? Remember those percentage figures are compared to the volume of traffic pre-Covid so a 1% increase on EDG is a far greater volume of traffic than a 1% decrease on Townley. 

What their own charts show is that the council's grand plan has failed - that all the LTNS have done is displace traffic.

On the basis that Cllr McAsh said that the measures could only be considered a success if traffic reduced for everyone then clearly they have failed.

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

But, so as not to be accused of avoiding the question: One claim that the data collected by Southwark Council shows that "...the Dulwich LTNs have not reduced traffic but simply displaced it." This is not what the data shows.

Again what data because the dashboard certainly suggests some roads have seen increases whilst others decreases - which is displacement is it not?

 

[DulvilleRes]

On 09/10/2024 at 11:03, Rockets said:

Which mis-information in particular?

If you respond with any examples, I would suggest it's not on the scale of the misinformation programme run by the council and their supportive cheerleaders around the "success" of said LTNs.

Why don't you first answer the basic questions you've been asked many times first?

- Who are One Dulwich?

- How are they funded?

- Do they have any close involvement with local Conservatives?

if you are unable to answer any of the above because you aren't involved in One Dulwich and know nothing about them, why is it that you take such a keen and sustained interest in the issues, demand accountability from the council, yet regularly post the One Dulwich press releases unquestioningly? Do you not feel that this is a strange approach when it comes to establishing facts and data, especially when the claims of the anti LTN lobby have come under question on a large number of occasions? 

As regards misleading statements, a decent starting point is the 10th November press release last year, subject to a good deal of too and fro at the time. Funnily enough you were trailing the issues that ended up in the press release a few weeks ahead, so clearly you are a trailblazer when it comes to local traffic issues, and great loss to One Dulwich that you aren't involved with them. 

[ab29]

In a similar way:

Why don't you first answer the basic questions you've been asked many times first?

- Who are Clean Air Dulwich

- How are they funded?

- Do they have any close involvement with local Conservatives /Labour / Lib Dems?

if you are unable to answer any of the above because you aren't involved in Clean Air Dulwich and know nothing about them, why is it that you take such a keen and sustained interest in the issues, demand accountability from the council, yet regularly post Clean Air Dulwich / pro LTN press releases unquestioningly?

 

[DulvilleRes]

Literally no idea, but they aren't posting their press releases on this forum, are they? So they form no part of this active discussion

The issue here is we have a string of posters regularly putting up One Dulwich press releases on these transport threads, writing in huge detail on local traffic issues, which at times mirrors those press releases, and in a manner that suggests a strong engagement with local politics. The posts are frequently characterized by an attack on the council, and worse in my view, deeply unpleasant personal attacks on the local councilors.  Yet they claim they know nothing about who One Dulwich are, and who funds them. 

This feels to me scarcely credible. The reason why it matters is you would expect debate on a local discussion forum to be conducted in good faith, and something feels not right in that regard. It may of course be entirely co-incidental, but this perception isn't helped by the fact that recently a senior local Conservative was castigating her colleagues in a public meeting for using alleged underhand techniques when it came to influence in local issues. 

Quite apart from issues of openness in local democracy, the reason why it also matters is local journalism across the country is in crisis, and because of the lack of resources, a lot of reporting on local issues relies on press releases or trawling local forums for stories. The often highly questionable claims of the anti-LTN lobby have on occasion winged their way unchallenged into the local press; the one that always sticks in my mind is the hilarious claim that 1000 people turned up to the 2021 Dulwich Village demonstration. To believe the hype put out by One Dulwich, you would think they are some kind of local popular mass movement, the evidence points otherwise, and towards a world of spin. All credit to the posters on here who tirelessly fact-check some of the factual inaccuracies and misleading information put out by the anti-LTN lobby.

[first mate]

Eh, Dulwich Roads have been on here posting and commenting on the mental health of other posters- words to the effect of you need to stop your unhealthy obsession with..., we live 'rent free' in your head.

I found that aspect quite interesting as that sort of phrasing and approach echoes that of some regular and rabidly pro LTN posters on here and is pretty low and gross, to be honest. I wonder if those posters are closely linked to Dulwich Roads?

BTW your vapours about 'attacks' on local councillors is ridiculous. if local councillors make poor decisions they should be held accountable for them.

[Rockets]

DulvilleRes - I think the crux of the issue remains - you don't like it when anyone dare question your grand plans. You want an open (or closed!) road and nothing challenging your views of doing things.

Unfortunately for you we live in a democracy and groups like OneDulwich are very much part of that process. A process you are just going to have to live with.

Power to the people and all that!

There's certainly a nasty streak/fanatacism amongst many on the pro- side of the argument there is a long list of nasty posters on here (LTNBooHoo, LTNManatee, MrChicken and now seemingly DulwichRoads) and, at times, the attitude and tone has been amplified by some councillors.

Edited October 12 by Rockets

[Penguin68]

Can I recommend, for those who are interested, the August 2024 DEMOS report on LTN's ( UK Policy Briefing: Democratic deficits, disinformation and low traffic neighbourhoods ) https://demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/LTNs-Policy-Briefing_UK.pdf.

This is very interesting (to me at least) and an important conclusion (again to me) was:-

Overall, this study challenged the assumptions that local rows over LTNs have been fuelled by wild conspiracy theories. Instead, it points to a failure of councils to properly understand and engage their communities; to national politicians stoking divisions for political gain; and to an absence of high quality local journalism. Here, we find a democratic chasm (my emphasis) at a local level between councils and communities in which disinformation has flourished.

Although Dulwich was not chosen as a focus for the study (the locii were Rochdale, Enfield and Oxford) I think many of their findings would be locally applicable. Worth a read, at least I thought it was.

Amended to add that Demos is very clear that they wish wide circulation of their study.

Edited October 23 by Penguin68

[snowy]

And another interpretation (the report was published when the Conservatives were in power):

"Analysis of the most popular social media posts on the subject between 2022 and 2023 reveals that the proportion classed as ‘disinformation’ – including conspiracy theories – rose from 5% to 28% year-on-year, the report by the cross-party think tank Demos and the Public Interest News Foundation found. 

In parallel, the proportion of the same posts that could be classified as anti-LTN rose from 48% in 2022 to 79% in 2023.

Demos says that the stark rise in disinformation came in the year that “Rishi Sunak attacked councils for the introduction of the policy his Government had previously championed”.

There were also concerns that councils failed to properly engage and consult communities as the Government funding was dependent on fast implementation of the schemes. Direct attacks on the infrastructure such as planters, cameras and bollards have followed, as well as death threats against local councillors, the study found."

[KalamityKel]

11 hours ago, snowy said:

And another interpretation (the report was published when the Conservatives were in power):

"Analysis of the most popular social media posts on the subject between 2022 and 2023 reveals that the proportion classed as ‘disinformation’ – including conspiracy theories – rose from 5% to 28% year-on-year, the report by the cross-party think tank Demos and the Public Interest News Foundation found. 

In parallel, the proportion of the same posts that could be classified as anti-LTN rose from 48% in 2022 to 79% in 2023.

Demos says that the stark rise in disinformation came in the year that “Rishi Sunak attacked councils for the introduction of the policy his Government had previously championed”.

There were also concerns that councils failed to properly engage and consult communities as the Government funding was dependent on fast implementation of the schemes. Direct attacks on the infrastructure such as planters, cameras and bollards have followed, as well as death threats against local councillors, the study found."

Hasn't Southwark been a Labour thing for quite some time? What does the previous Government have anything to do with anything except demonstrate it really makes no difference whether it is this one or that one, they're all just as bad (yes open to interpretation but does boil down to the same thing).

[first mate]

Spot on. We need councillors who are interested in serving the area rather than using their role to earn brownie points with their party at national level. The partisan nature of local politics is a problem.

Quite apart from the above, the street blocking planters local to me are now beginning to look a complete mess and really shabby.

[Penguin68]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

Quite apart from the above, the street blocking planters local to me are now beginning to look a complete mess and really shabby.

Rather like the policy then

[Spartacus]

Love this if it is true from Southwark news concerning the stones used in vanity square 

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/dulwich/ltn-hailed-as-eco-friendly-using-indian-stones-quarried-5000-miles-away/

 

[ab29]

Is anyone really surprised? Ltn been a shambolic scam. I now also understand why the basic services such as pavements cleaning are no longer available in parts of Southwark - all the money pumped into square of shame

Edited November 3 by ab29

[Rockets]

Oh dear...I think the council and the local councillors really need to start answering some questions on what and why they spent so much on that square.

And if these stones were shipped from India how on earth that tallies with a square designed to promote active travel and help manage the global warming crisis? 

It seems the vanity project may be an environmental disaster...what a waste of tax payers money.

Another council, ahem, oversight perhaps?

If this is all true the question we should be asking is can we trust the council to spend our money wisely?

[ab29]

Not sure if this has been confirmed - if so, beyond shocking:

LTN hailed as eco-friendly using ‘Indian stones quarried 5,000 miles away

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/dulwich/ltn-hailed-as-eco-friendly-using-indian-stones-quarried-5000-miles-

 

Edited November 5 by ab29

[Kathleen Olander]

On 03/11/2024 at 12:03, ab29 said:

Is anyone really surprised? Ltn been a shambolic scam. I now also understand why the basic services such as pavements cleaning are no longer available in parts of Southwark - all the money pumped into square of shame

Pavement cleaning of leaves took place yesterday in Court Lane!

They were even removing all of the unsightly weeds from kerbs as well.

None of the main roads have been cleared yet.

 

[Rockets]

On 05/11/2024 at 17:46, ab29 said:

Not sure if this has been confirmed - if so, beyond shocking:

LTN hailed as eco-friendly using ‘Indian stones quarried 5,000 miles away

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/dulwich/ltn-hailed-as-eco-friendly-using-indian-stones-quarried-5000-miles-

 

Not too many on the pro-side too keen to raise their heads above the trench to try to find a way to defend this....if true...it's a bit embarrassing for the council and their supporters and wonderfully hypocritical.

[ab29]

But of course, the-removed- from-reality-cyclists bubble and Court Lane rich residents remain unaffected; the latter has to be pristine as it leads to The Square of Shame 🙂

Let the plebs wait at bus stops, tripping over decaying leaves that are never cleared.

 

[Kathleen Olander]

Why is the pavement sloped at Carlton Ave DV junction, it's weird.  

As this change has been inflicted by Southwark Council for green purposes, it would have been nice to have had green grass rather than acres of paving slabs.

Edited November 7 by Kathleen Olander
Spelling error

[ab29]

One Dulwich

Campaign Update | 8 Nov Further controversy over the Dulwich Village junction re-design As reported in Southwark News, the Council has chosen to pave over the Dulwich Village junction with stone from Rajasthan in India, which has a carbon footprint up to four times greater than the traditional York stone agreed. The March 2024 decision document promised sustainable materials to reduce the impact of climate change. What went wrong? Separately, One Dulwich has raised community concerns about the the safety of the new junction with Southwark Highways. At a recent site meeting, Highways said that ‘education’ would persuade cyclists not to ride on the paved pedestrian area, but rejected the idea of either signs or a speed limit. When questioned about access for emergency vehicles, Highways said that a date had not yet been set for removing the bollards, and that the narrowness of the roadway was not a problem as fire engines and ambulances could mount the pavements. Disappearing documents Online links to Southwark’s documents about the Dulwich LTNs, including the Dulwich Streetspace Dashboard showing traffic data, are currently broken, apparently as a result of the council’s website redesign. We have asked for documents and data to be made available as soon as possible. Thank you for your support. The One Dulwich Team

[Bicknell]

why no cyclists speed limit? lots of kids here

[Rockets]

"4 x the carbon footprint" - good grief, if true, this really is becoming an on-going source of huge embarrassment to the council and councillors - seems to be own-goal after own-goal. Wasn't Cllr McAsh a member of the Green Party for a while - it seems as he signed off on that junction he isn't paying close attention or his green credentials have fallen to the kerb (or the Indian paving ;-))....

And if they have refused to put cycle slow signs at the junction you really have to question why not - and what agenda they are working to? If true, who is pulling their strings?