LTN Discussion

[ab29]

@Admin, if you benefit from the LTN it should not affect your judgement. You have archived / lounged the original LTN thread without a reason. Now you are policing / censoring this thread in a way you don't any others.

[Jenijenjen]

Admin made the first post on this thread saying

?The old thread [www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk] has been closed as it was getting too personal, too vindictive, too "wrong".

Please keep this thread on topic.?

Seems to me like they gave a reason

[Bic Basher]

Politics plays a major role in why we have the LTN in the first place. The fact we have Labour and the radical cycling groups in cohorts with each other, the latter have been very pro-active in the last week up to the election on Thursday is part of their strategy of keeping the Village and East Dulwich LTNs.

[Waseley]

Yes damn those cyclists with their healthy lifestyles and low carbon/emissions. Why isn't Southwark more like the outer boroughs? You don't see Bromley introducing 20mph on their roads, encouraging active travel and introducing other restrictions on hard working motorists. They have it right there, bikes are for children and public transport for poor people. Sadly I know people who think like this.

[Bicknell]

@Waseley

ltns in duwlich making buses slower. tfl has cut no.3. buses are what most peple rely on

[heartblock]

More people use buses than cycle and a huge amount of the slow moving traffic on Croxted and EDG that reduces the bus service efficiency is due to journeys that start outside the borough, as parents drive children to schools with very wide catchment areas. In this part of the borough PTAL is low. This is why LTNs Do Not reduce polllution or traffic in this area and the plan was badly mismanaged and misjudged.

The effort should have been thrown into increasing buses, increasing cycle lanes and making private schools put on more smaller school buses that collect more children across a wider area.

Yes..a few roads are enjoying less cars on their road, but at the expense of others health, environment and ability to live on a peaceful, safe road.

Very, very selfish and green washing instead of making any real environmental impact.

[geh]

37 ED to Brixton, I used to use this all the time, can't face sitting on it now, and presumably when Herne Hill 'improvements' enacted it will be even slower. Two consequences, no spend directed to local Brixton Market, restaurants/bars, plus if going into town, more often or not get an uber - so that's not terrible good is it!

[first mate]

Not a helpful or clever comment. Many of us who object to the mode and manner of implementation of LTNs locally are also regular cyclists. It is just that we see things as they are not as we would wish them to be. Please stop negative characterising of anyone that dares to query the efficacy of LTNs in the area.

Waseley Wrote:

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

> Yes damn those cyclists with their healthy

> lifestyles and low carbon/emissions. Why isn't

> Southwark more like the outer boroughs? You don't

> see Bromley introducing 20mph on their roads,

> encouraging active travel and introducing other

> restrictions on hard working motorists. They have

> it right there, bikes are for children and public

> transport for poor people. Sadly I know people

> who think like this.

[heartblock]

Framing us as climate-change denying, polluting, haters of walking/cycling, anti-green policy and petrol-heads is far easier than defending a failed project and actually engaging one?s brain to consider global impact. Of course when they are faced by WHO clean air and anti-pollution campaigner and woman of the year award Rosumund Kissi-Debra, who actively campaigns against LTNs on the same basis as anti-LTN campaigners in ED and Dulwich the gaslighting is exposed for all to see.

I feel the same about the 37 bus, I usually walk to HH station, but used to occasionally catch the 37 before the 5xLTNs driving congestion into EDG - but no longer. I?m lucky to be fairly mobile, but if I couldn?t walk to HH my bus journey on the 37 would take a long, long time in congested traffic now.

[Waseley]

Please read my last post. This was purely in response to the continued blame on militant cyclists. Which has got repetitive and boring. If I wanted to say that those against LTNs are entitled petrol head climate change deniers I would have done so. Some will be but I expect most posting on this forum aren't.

[Bic Basher]

In my dealings with the pro-cycling lobby, one of them took photos of the shopping end of LL at 5pm last week to show how quiet it is to claim the LTN is working.

Yet they didn't come to the Grove end of LL to see the traffic crawling to the lights at the South Circular which has got worse since the Court Lane/Calton Avenue closure, nor along Dulwich Common. They were also dismissive of the fact the buses are slower than before the LTN was implemented.

As I've said before, it's classist sneering of people who simply want to get around their area locally whether by car, bus etc while the party in power treat taxpayers as children who need to be told how to live.

[Spartacus]

I guess what will be good is that only people who live locally and are affected by the LTNs can vote here so we shouldn't see outside influces from pro LTN groups (including the cycling fraternity) shepherding supporters into the area to influence decisions.

[Waseley]

Well we are obviously looking at this from a different perspective. London in my lifetime has always been congested. Traffic built up at certain times coming East on the South Circ near the Grove Tavern in years gone by. Catford Bridge snarled up in both directions, again well before any LTN

Surely you can't argue that there doesn't need to be some controls. Otherwise support anarchy - from reading Orwell this may have briefly worked during the Spanish civil war. But sadly not for long

So some radical solutions. Get rid of the bus lane by Toolstation and turn Dulwich Common into a duel carriageway. That would get the traffic moving. Well as far as the Tulse Hill gyratory. And don't start me on Wandsworth....

I've cycled throughout SE22 and it feels Bo better or worse. I sign the odd petition, do the odd mass ride, but hardly see myself as a militant cyclist. And certainly less militant than those who campaigned against the felling of oaks by Cox's bridge.

I find the whole language putting people down as pro and anti (tribal)unhelpful. I expect many are happy for modifications to LTNs but agree with the general concept of introducing some inconvenience to drivers. Which has been done numerous times over the decades to close off rat tubs, so is nothing new.

My mother's family grew up near the North Circ at a time when there were few private cars. Now it is a six lane motorway. And often congested. Irrespective of emissions there are just too many journeys. Shouldn't something be done?

[Bic Basher]

A lot has been done, certainly since Khan replaced Boris as Mayor. You can't avoid the cycle lanes on the Embankment and Blackfriars Road for example, along with the one at the Oval.

We live just inside the ULEZ and I'd welcome it being extended to the GLA boundary along with sensible LTN proposals.

Why did Southwark get the LTN right in Borough? They have better public transport connections and is close to London Bridge and the Elephant and has easy walking and cycling access to the City and West End.

Unlike Borough, Dulwich has poorer public transport, is hard to travel between East and West Dulwich using buses (along with cuts to Routes 3, 12 and 40) and the Kingswood Estate has no direct bus connection that serves either East or West Dulwich and that's before you attempt the trains. East and North Dulwich hasn't had a proper regular rail service since 2020 on weekdays, buses are noticeably taking longer not helped by the 20mph speed reduction introduced across Southwark before Covid.

What the LTN has achieved is traffic using Underhill Road to avoid the Lordship Lane peak jams, Dulwich Common and the eastern end of LL with increased traffic as local traffic has to use the main roads to get to the Village and back, while Croxted Road in the peaks is one big traffic jam. If Labour get back in on Thursday, it'll certainly spread to Herne Hill which will add to the already negative traffic issues and I wouldn't be surprised if they try another LTN scheme for streets east of LL although Friern Road has been closed for through traffic for years.

[Metallic]

All this adds up to, is that all the Dulwich LTNs imposed against the will of the people are rubbish, life-ruining things that have affected how many people live. Unless you are sitting in your quiet little enclave, which in some respects I am - but I care about people on the fringe who have taken the traffic we use to share.

Bad design. Bad outcome. Bad.

[Bic Basher]

BBC London are covering the Dulwich LTN as part of their election coverage today.

[Earl Aelfheah]

'The will of the people'. About sums it up. Lib Dems running a cynical, populist campaign to make driving as easy as possible / increase car use.

[Spartacus]

Rah x3

Its about a democratic process and the council engaging with and listening to residents

But you seem to want to run a "cynical, populist campaign to make cycling as easy as possible / increase cycle use."

Pot and kettle here

[heartblock]

That isn't what the LibDems said at all... they don't think the current LTNs reduce pollution or traffic on polluted roads, they want to bring in policy with residential support and they have discussed and explained these policies. Nowhere have they said they want to make driving easier or increase car use. So please keep to the thread discussing LTNs and stop putting words in others mouths.

Now - back to LTNs - has anyone seen March/April traffic and pollution data for EDGrove?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> Rah x3

> Its about a democratic process and the council

> engaging with and listening to residents

>

> But you seem to want to run a "cynical, populist

> campaign to make cycling as easy as possible /

> increase cycle use."

>

> Pot and kettle here

It's cynical, because the Lib Dems say they support LTNs, just not in local races where they think there may be a vote in opposing them.

And i'll point out that those opposing LTNs 'claim' the want to reduce car use and increase active travel, as do the lib dems. Another reason why I see their campaign as entirely cynical.

[Bic Basher]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Spartacus Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Rah x3

> > Its about a democratic process and the council

> > engaging with and listening to residents

> >

> > But you seem to want to run a "cynical,

> populist

> > campaign to make cycling as easy as possible /

> > increase cycle use."

> >

> > Pot and kettle here

>

> It's cynical, because the Lib Dems say they

> support LTNs, just not in local races where they

> think there may be a vote in opposing them.

>

> And i'll point out that those opposing LTNs

> 'claim' the want to reduce car use and increase

> active travel, as do the lib dems. Another reason

> why I see their campaign as entirely cynical.

They supported the LTN in Borough because it was a sensible plan, the Dulwich one wasn't thought out properly, nor properly consulted.

If that's not an election issue for them, then what is?

[alice]

borough is flat with good local transport

Dulwich neither

[heartblock]

Stephen Edwards, the chief executive of Living Streets, said: ?Nobody wants to vote for dangerous roads, air pollution and rat running. The government?s own evidence shows that there is overwhelming support for traffic reduction and space being reallocated to people walking, wheeling and cycling.?

?Of course, if low-traffic schemes aren?t working, authorities should be working with residents to find other ways to reduce car dominance and prioritise people.?

[Bic Basher]

I remember the Congestion Charge being set-up with the genuine intention of reducing traffic and for a while it worked, but it's nothing more than a revenue earning cash cow for TfL as drivers would rather pay the ?15 per day charge than lose out on work. It's something companies and the self-employed now have to budget for.

The real solutions have to come from the motor industry by reducing emissions from petrol/diesel vehicles and speeding up the process of EV becoming the norm. Shell have converted some former petrol stations into EV charging stops.

Where local authorities can help is increasing EV charging points and reducing costs for those who go EV as a real. Every council estate should also have EV points so it's not just for people who can afford to put one in their driveway.

[CPR Dave]

It's not about emissions though - the cycle lobby and Labour don't want you to own an electric car either.

They want you to go back to the 1800s