One Dulwich have met with Cllr McAsh

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

52 minutes ago, Bic Basher said:

The fact is One Dulwich have provided new information

No, they haven't. It's all the same old claims.

[Earl Aelfheah]

...the same old claims that are demonstrably untrue.

This bit was interesting though: "we fully support the Council’s policies of reducing car use, reducing carbon emissions, and making cycling and walking safer". Just not in any practical, or tangible way whatsoever. And certainly not if it means reallocating any space so as to reduce the dominance of motor vehicles. 

Edited June 28, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

It was certainly news to me that Cllr McAsh had met with One Dulwich. I am interested to hear what his responses are to the various questions raised and will look here for that update. 

I am sure we can all agree that for LTNs to work locally they have to benefit all, not just a few.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Response to what?  A load of false and / or unevidenced claims about the harm LTNs do? They say they want to reduce car use, and improve safety for those travelling by foot or bike, whilst opposing measures which have been proven to do both.

There is very little to engage with.

I would have a lot more respect for them, if they just said "go away, I like driving my car".

Edited June 28, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, hpsaucey said:

Speaking personally, one of the things that irks is the Dan Wooton esque characterisation of people and presumed attitudes (flagged in bold) - example of which above. I'm not sure how this type of rhetoric is supposed to contribute to the final hope which is to 'rebuild bridges with many parts of the community' when the language is so cartoonish and divisive.

 

HP

 

Ha ha...well maybe we/I stop characterising those behaviours when those behaviours stop being the go to position by many of the people who have liked your comment - you know who you are!!! 

 

And I must admit your calling out of irksome characterisations is massively undermined when you use an irksome characterisation to make your point......somewhat hypocritical don't you think?

[first mate]

24 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Response to what?  A load of false and / or unevidenced claims about the harm LTNs do? They say they want to reduce car use, and improve safety for those travelling by foot or bike, whilst opposing measures which have been proven to do both.

There is very little to engage with.

I would have a lot more respect for them, if they just said "go away, I like driving my car".

In your view EA, shared by some, and which you are of course entitled to voice. However, many do not agree with you and there lies the rub. Presumably that is why Cllr McAsh decided to meet with OD.

[hpsaucey]

33 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Ha ha...well maybe we/I stop characterising those behaviours when those behaviours stop being the go to position by many of the people who have liked your comment - you know who you are!!! 

 

And I must admit your calling out of irksome characterisations is massively undermined when you use an irksome characterisation to make your point......somewhat hypocritical don't you think?

No - sarcastic probably, not hypocritical. Although as a long-ago student of eng lit and lang I do find the parallels between yours and DW's use of language quite striking.

Off thread...

Edited June 28, 2023 by hpsaucey

[Earl Aelfheah]

22 minutes ago, first mate said:

In your view EA, shared by some, and which you are of course entitled to voice. However, many do not agree with you and there lies the rub. Presumably that is why Cllr McAsh decided to meet with OD.

Except it's not a matter of opinion. One Dulwich say that they oppose LTNs and would remove them. We know from vehicle counts and academic research that LTNs reduce road injuries, reduce car use and increase active travel. So what are 'One' proposing to replace LTNs with? In all the areas where the 'One' groups have been successful in having LTNs removed, they've quickly gone very quiet, and nothing has been put in their place. So their actions and (lack of) solutions, are completely at odds with their rhetoric.

They literally support actions which objectively, demonstrably, would increase pollution, road danger and car use, and which reduce active travel. 

Edited June 28, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Bic Basher]

28 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Except it's not a matter of opinion. One Dulwich say that they oppose LTNs and would remove them. We know from vehicle counts and academic research that LTNs reduce road injuries, reduce car use and increase active travel. So what are 'One' proposing to replace LTNs with? In all the areas where the 'One' groups have been successful in having LTNs removed, they've quickly gone very quiet, and nothing has been put in their place. So their actions and (lack of) solutions, are completely at odds with their rhetoric.

They literally support actions which objectively, demonstrably, would increase pollution, road danger and car use, and which reduce active travel. 

And the actions of "Clean AIr" Dulwich haven't?

The fact is LTNs continue to split communities because those who live in them enjoy the benefits of reduced car usage while those on the boundary or outside see increased traffic and pollution as vehicles use already at capacity main roads, especially during the peaks.

What I believe One Dulwich are looking for is a more considered solution to road usage where bicycles and motor vehicles can use local streets without it being to the detriment of one group over another.   Three years since the two LTN schemes were introduced and it continues to be a struggle for those of us who live on boundary roads.

[Rockets]

22 minutes ago, hpsaucey said:

No - sarcastic probably, not hypocritical. Although as a long-ago student of eng lit and lang I do find the parallels between yours and DW's use of language quite striking.

Off thread...

Ha ha....definitely hypocritical in my book! Also glad to see you have jumped right into the "paint someone as a right-wing fascist if they don't agree with you" mantra from the pro-LTN handbook....sorry you're really going to have to try a bit harder than that.

 

I notice this is now  a "hot topic" on the forum - that must be galling to those who claim no-one is interested or wants to talk about it anymore.....

 

Bottom-line from the reactions by many on here is that the fact that councillors are engaging with One Dulwich is really annoying a few people - perhaps they should call Cllr McAsh and ask for the conversation to be lounged, sorry I mean don't engage in any form of debate with anyone who dares question the LTNs!!

 

And Earl research suggests LTNs reduce road injuries, reduce car use and increase active travel INSIDE LTNs - I think one of the things One Dulwich is pushing for is the missing data from the council to determine whether that is happening outside the LTNs too that might be impacting the health of people who live, breathe or are educated on those roads - surely that is a good thing?

 

Cllr McAsh always said that LTNs could only be considered a success if everyone benefitted so good on him for picking this up - let's see where it leads. Local, regional and national politics were one of the reasons LTNs became a thing during Covid and those same things are the reason that will probably spell the end to them as well - it's started already with the comments from Sadiq.

 

[Bic Basher]

3 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Cllr McAsh always said that LTNs could only be considered a success if everyone benefitted so good on him for picking this up - let's see where it leads. Local, regional and national politics were one of the reasons LTNs became a thing during Covid and those same things are the reason that will probably spell the end to them as well - it's started already with the comments from Sadiq.

I don't think it's all party politics regarding LTNs either.    Aspire which is a hard left Corbynite party won Tower Hamlets on a socialist agenda, yet they also removed LTNs that the previous Labour administration introduced during Covid.

The Lib Dems are for LTNs on some councils, most notably Bath and Oxford, but were against the LTN scheme in Dulwich.

[Earl Aelfheah]

9 minutes ago, Bic Basher said:

And the actions of "Clean AIr" Dulwich haven't?

The fact is LTNs continue to split communities because those who live in them enjoy the benefits of reduced car usage while those on the boundary or outside see increased traffic and pollution as vehicles use already at capacity main roads, especially during the peaks.

What I believe One Dulwich are looking for is a more considered solution to road usage where bicycles and motor vehicles can use local streets without it being to the detriment of one group over another.   Three years since the two LTN schemes were introduced and it continues to be a struggle for those of us who live on boundary roads.

"what...One Dulwich are looking for is a more considered solution to road usage"

...which is what? 

In every area in which they have successfully had LTNs removed, they have not gone on to campaign for anything else to replace them. Rhetoric aside, they only define themselves in opposition to LTNs. They say they want to reduce car use... how exactly? Do any of their supporters actually agree that they should use their cars less? I don't believe it and more importantly their actions demonstrate that they don't mean it. 

And regardless of anecdotes and unevidenced claims made repeatedly on this forum, there is a body of evidence now that all shows LTNs achieve their aims. Aims that 'One' claim to support. 

Edited June 28, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Bic Basher]

2 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

And regardless of anecdotes and unevidenced claims made repeatedly on this forum, there is a body of evidence now that all shows LTNs achieve their aims. Aims that 'One' claim to support. 

Tell that to my mother who has developed breathing problems since the LTN was introduced or the fact that day I see traffic on Dulwich Common which is even worse (no actual data because Southwark refuse to monitor a TfL managed road).

[Earl Aelfheah]

That is anecdote. I am very sorry to hear about your mother, but it is too many cars which are causing that pollution - which has been a problem on the South Circular for a very long time. I would 100% support a proposal to reduce that traffic. I suspect 'One' and it's supporters would not, if it involved restricting car use in any way.

Edited June 28, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Bic Basher]

2 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

That is anecdote. I am very sorry to hear about your mother, but it is too many cars which are causing that pollution - which has been a problem on the South Circular for a very long time. I would 100% support a proposal to reduce that traffic. I suspect 'One' and it's supporters would not, if it involved restricting car use in any way.

Pre LTN, they'd be traffic jams queuing from College Road to Lordship Lane during the peaks with a small pile of queue from Firemans Alley to LL waiting for the lights.  It wasn't so much of an issue as cars could use Court Lane to get onto LL towards Forest Hill.

In the last 18 months or so, it's now common for cars to queue for most of the day in the eastbound direction on the Common, even at 8pm.

I'd like to hope when TfL finally remodel the traffic lights at the junction of LL and Dulwich Common that it'll relieve some of the queues on the Common and Lordship Lane where there's a queue of cars waiting to turn right onto the South Circular.

[malumbu]

I always enjoy a good laugh, and the new designation that this thread was hot (s*** hot) brought a massive smile to my face.  I had a nice sit down at Dulwich Beach today and watched the few bikes tootle through.  Some rumble strips (or whatever they call them) are sufficient to slow bikes down as necessary.  There, a solution, that will hopefully make most of you happy.

Bic, sorry to hear that cars are queuing for most of the day.  That will be in deed frustrating if it takes you several hours to turn right.  Reminds me of a Dr Who episode where Ardal Ohanlon plays a cat (for some reason the human race have evolved into cats) stuck in congestion for a lifetime https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1000253/characters/nm0641192

I'm hoping to get lots of likes and laughs on this comment.  I've posted more likes in a day than I have posted in total on anything on line for the whole of my life.

Edited to add I told both the vans today spewing smog on Dulwich Common to get their diesel filters sorted.  We need schemes to reduce vehicle use to help improve our air, in particular getting older diesels off the road.  Oh wait a second, I recall the ex-Mayor proposed an ultra low emission zone.  He even talked about a zero emission zone in the congestion charging area.  I hope we would encourage Mayor Khan to continue the good work of Mayor Johnson.

 

Edited June 28, 2023 by malumbu

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

31 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

They say they want to reduce car use... how exactly? Do any of their supporters actually agree that they should use their cars less?

They've always been quite amenable to exemptions for residents - so I suppose you could say that they're in favour of other people driving less.

[Earl Aelfheah]

23 minutes ago, Bic Basher said:

Pre LTN, they'd be traffic jams queuing from College Road to Lordship Lane during the peaks with a small pile of queue from Firemans Alley to LL waiting for the lights.  It wasn't so much of an issue as cars could use Court Lane to get onto LL towards Forest Hill.

In the last 18 months or so, it's now common for cars to queue for most of the day in the eastbound direction on the Common, even at 8pm.

I'd like to hope when TfL finally remodel the traffic lights at the junction of LL and Dulwich Common that it'll relieve some of the queues on the Common and Lordship Lane where there's a queue of cars waiting to turn right onto the South Circular.

That might improve flow (good), but what would you do to reduce cars use, improve road safety and encourage more walking and cycling?

[Rockets]

There is more than anecdotal evidence about the A205 and the impacts of the LTNs - this from the Systra monitoring report - the 20% increase in cars from GPS data would be consistent with the anecdotal evidence.

This is why One Dulwich want Cllr McAsh to find the incomplete/missing data as the picture is currently only telling part of the story.

 

• No traffic count data has been collected on the section between Tulse Hill and Forest Hill. A direct comparison of the changes in traffic volumes is therefore not possible. 
• Turning count data at the junction of Dulwich Common / Lordship Lane suggests a negligible (1%) change in traffic volumes on Dulwich Common compared to pre-scheme. 
• Telematics data (based upon estimating volumes of traffic using GPS data from cars) suggests that volumes of cars only may have increased by over 20% on Dulwich Common between Croxted Road and Lordship Lane. It does not record LGVs or HGVs. 
• There are no bus priority measures on the section of the A205 between Croxted Road and Lordship Lane, therefore bus journey times could be expected to be correlated to traffic volumes. Journey times were relatively stable, mostly showing no large change from preCOVID journey times for much of 2021, until a large jump in some weeks in June 2021. The scale of this increase suggests it may be due to a factor other than the volume of traffic alone.
• It is therefore hard to draw a firm conclusion about how traffic volumes on the South Circular have changed since the implementation of the Streetspace measures.

[Bic Basher]

One important thing that should be addressed in addition is that cyclists can use the pavement on Dulwich Common between LL and College Road as it's a shared path.

It's badly signed and only regular cyclists use it.   The amount of times I've seen cyclists use the very tight main road for motor vehicles when they can use the pavement.   Again, the remodeling of the LL/Dulwich Common junction should address this, especially from cyclists coming from Forest Hill who then continue to use the road. 

[malumbu]

The pavement is crap.  Surface is poor.  Not loads of space to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists.   No priority at junctions. I only cycle on it when the South Circ is chocca, even with two road works (close to Pines and Needles and further West) I've generally stuck to the road in recent days.  A reasonable cyclist can keep pace with the traffic, and overtake by stationary traffic at the lights, to be first to go on green. The shared use pavement is only there as the A205 is pretty narrow at this section.  It's probably a route where I've had no aggro with drivers over many years of using it.  Not that it is a fun road.

The Highway Code does not compel cyclists to use cycling infrastructure.  Surprising how many motorists are unaware.  There is a nice traffic calmed route to Clapham Junction when I have a more leisurely cycle.  This predates any LTN.  Had to scroll up to the title of this thread as hadn't a clue what the subject was.  So many merge into attacks on Southwark, the Mayor and/or cyclists.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

2 hours ago, Bic Basher said:

It's badly signed and only regular cyclists use it. 

I do use that path, but it's rubbish - it's narrow, uneven, and has several blind driveways. I understand why some wouldn't bother.

I'm interested to hear how OneDulwich intends to reduce traffic and speed up buses on the South Circular. The (in their words) negligible revent growth in traffic shows it won't get better on its own. What is the solution that doesn't involve people driving less?

[Earl Aelfheah]

6 hours ago, Rockets said:

…And Earl research suggests LTNs reduce road injuries, reduce car use and increase active travel INSIDE LTNs 

No it doesn’t. You know that’s not what the research says. It’s been shown to have positive effects in general, not just within the LTNs. Literally all the academic research.

If we remove LTNs and do nothing else, it will increase car use, increase road accidents and discourage active travel.

So if ‘One’ are calling for LTNs to be removed, but say they are in favour of reducing car use, what are going to campaign for in their place? In those areas where they’ve been successful in removing car restrictions, the answer has of course been absolutely nothing. 

Edited June 28, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

What has been asked for is data specific to the ED area. Citing research that draws on other boroughs, other counties and even other countries does not really help persuade, especially when that data contradicts what some are experiencing. It has been said that some LTNs seem to work well while others don't. The missing local data that OD has asked for and which Cllr McAsh has said he will look into should give a much more accurate picture of what is going on locally.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rockets: all those bullet points you've quoted above (without sources) suggest that there has been no measurable increases in traffic except for a small blip on one street in June 2021 (which it has been suggested was to do with light phasing, since corrected). You have also completely ignored the large amount of vehicle count data that does exist, and the broad body of academic research. Look a lot like you're searching for single data points, which might prove your prejudice.

The only thing that says what you think it does (although still in reference to only one section of road across a wide area) is:

"Telematics data (based upon estimating volumes of traffic using GPS data from cars) suggests that volumes of cars only may have increased by over 20% on Dulwich Common between Croxted Road and Lordship Lane. It does not record LGVs or HGVs. "

I would love to know the source of this. 

17 minutes ago, first mate said:

What has been asked for is data specific to the ED area. Citing research that draws on other boroughs, other counties and even other countries does not really help persuade, especially when that data contradicts what some are experiencing. It has been said that some LTNs seem to work well while others don't. The missing local data that OD has asked for and which Cllr McAsh has said he will look into should give a much more accurate picture of what is going on locally.

I'm sure they'll accept any new data showing LTNs to be effective as readily as they they have the existing data on the Dulwich LTN demonstrating decreases in the number of car journeys. It's good to hear that they have concluded LTNs are effective in general though, and are no longer disputing existing research.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah