One (part of) Dulwich

[raptortruckman69]

Never mind about buses, cars parked along Lordship lane block the flow of traffic for cars. If you want to reduce the long queues and resulting pollution, removing all parking on Lordship lane and having it side street only would hugely improve traffic speeds.

That would likely help buses if you care about that sort of thing because they are stuck in the same traffic. However buses stopping to pick up passengers on the side without a proper bus lane also cause traffic jams.

With all the arguing back and forth over buses Vs bikes people have forgotten that motorists are also important.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

2 hours ago, raptortruckman69 said:

removing all parking on Lordship lane and having it side street only would hugely improve traffic speeds.

You can't even move (let alone time restrict, charge or even delete) a parking space without it being portrayed as part of a council cash grab, a conspiracy to destroy high streets, a left woke virus 5G war on motorists...

[Rockets]

On 13/08/2024 at 20:34, Earl Aelfheah said:

It is not an ‘untruth’ to say the data showed a decrease in traffic across the wider area. Of course ‘the wider area’ means those roads that were monitored. That didn’t include underhill road, but did (from memory) include part of Lordship lane.

I believe the data showed traffic decreased by 12% compared to before the scheme, across all count sites. The monitoring went on for many months so not sure whether this was the final position but it was certainly in that ball park. It is not the case that traffic ‘only’ fell within the boundaries of the LTN as claimed above.

Sorry to go all Ben Kingsley on you from Sexy Beast but No...no,no,no,no,no,no,no...No....

 

The council's data collection of the "wider area" was so fundamentally flawed that it is laughable anyone takes it seriously..."that didn't include Underhill"...hmmmm why might that have been.....it didn't include a lot of the boundary roads soaking up the displacement. If I remember rightly the A205 was not monitored because "that was the responsibility of TFL".

And the monitoring on Lordship Lane (near Melford) did not include any vehicle going under 10 after they moved the strips from near the entrance of Court Lane to adajcent to Melford...again why did they do that...?

Interesting as well that their last update to their own dashboard showed marked increases in traffic above pre-Covid levels on many of the boundary roads.

And a final reminder that the council initially only installed monitoring strips on roads INSIDE the LTNs rather than outside and only put them outside when they were forced to by public pressure. Again, why did they only want to monitor traffic levels INSIDE the LTNs..

 

On 13/08/2024 at 18:53, Earl Aelfheah said:

This was right at the start of the launch of the scheme and was specific to Croxted Road. They made changes to the scheme accordingly to address it (literally years ago).

No that was in 2022. Are you also suggesting TFL stating what they did that forced Will Norman to intervene was part of the anti-LTN lobby? They clearly stated delays were a direct consequence of the displacement from Dulwich LTNs, Southwark councillors took offence, made a load of TFL people cry and Will Norman was forced to wade in and try to keep the peace.

 

On 13/08/2024 at 18:53, Earl Aelfheah said:

There is no evidence that LTNs delay buses generally, and certainly not on Lordship Lane specifically.

There was actually from TFL not long after the measures went in and it was impacting Lordship Lane (in one direction if I remember rightly).

Edited August 15 by Rockets

[malumbu]

Re earlier post about parked cars disruptung the flow of cars - looked like a carcentric comment,  correct me if I was wrong, in urban areas buses are a more efficient and less polluting means of mass transport.  I was trying to get a reference and there was an interesting discussion on the skeptics website but once they started talking BTUs I switched off.  How unpatriotic 

[first mate]

10 hours ago, Rockets said:

Sorry to go all Ben Kingsley on you from Sexy Beast but No...no,no,no,no,no,no,no...No....

 

The council's data collection of the "wider area" was so fundamentally flawed that it is laughable anyone takes it seriously..."that didn't include Underhill"...hmmmm why might that have been.....it didn't include a lot of the boundary roads soaking up the displacement. If I remember rightly the A205 was not monitored because "that was the responsibility of TFL".

And the monitoring on Lordship Lane (near Melford) did not include any vehicle going under 10 after they moved the strips from near the entrance of Court Lane to adajcent to Melford...again why did they do that...?

Interesting as well that their last update to their own dashboard showed marked increases in traffic above pre-Covid levels on many of the boundary roads.

And a final reminder that the council initially only installed monitoring strips on roads INSIDE the LTNs rather than outside and only put them outside when they were forced to by public pressure. Again, why did they only want to monitor traffic levels INSIDE the LTNs..

 

No that was in 2022. Are you also suggesting TFL stating what they did that forced Will Norman to intervene was part of the anti-LTN lobby? They clearly stated delays were a direct consequence of the displacement from Dulwich LTNs, Southwark councillors took offence, made a load of TFL people cry and Will Norman was forced to wade in and try to keep the peace.

 

There was actually from TFL not long after the measures went in and it was impacting Lordship Lane (in one direction if I remember rightly).

There really is a concerted attempt to rewrite history by some pro-LTN folk on here. The level of disinformation is astounding. 

[Rockets]

Yes and unfortunately for them, the councillors and others in the cycling lobby we have long memories, took good notes and don't fall for the spin! #accountability

Edited August 15 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

There really is a concerted attempt to rewrite history by some pro-LTN folk on here. The level of disinformation is astounding. 

Absolute nonsense. The data showed exactly what I said it showed. You can dispute the methodology (which you do for every and all attempts at researching the impacts of LTN schemes... they all broadly show them to be effective), but not the counts which were taken, as it's a matter of record. The data which was gathered showed average reductions in traffic across all monitored sites, conspiracy theories aside.

Edited August 15 by Earl Aelfheah

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

There really is a concerted attempt to rewrite history by some pro-LTN folk on here. 

Instead of getting into meta-arguments about what people do and don't remember the history to be, why not just link to the data?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Here was the report which was released in 22 - an assessment of the changes made to the scheme in response to feedback and some concerns (including I believe, concerns around buses). It showed traffic down and bus journey times improved https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/117775/Executive-Summary-June-2022_1-1-.pdf

1 hour ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Instead of getting into meta-arguments about what people do and don't remember the history to be, why not just link to the data?

The answer to this is that the data has always indicated a positive impact of the LTN overall. 

Edited August 15 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

But, as we have said before, terms like 'average', 'in general', 'overall' 'broadly' are not really that helpful. The issue is with LTNs in certain areas; sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. Good methodology is key to good data, if the methodology is flawed the data is not reliable.

Edited August 15 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

The point in saying 'overall' is that no traffic scheme is going to improve everything absolutely everywhere; There will always be some trade offs in the real world and you can't let perfection to be the enemy of good. In some areas traffic has increased. In many, many more it has dropped. The vehicle counts, the data gathered on walking and cycling, and analysis of bus times have shown that traffic across the area as a whole is down (both inside an outside the LTN), bus times are generally improved and active travel (walking and cycling ) have increased.

The problem with One Dulwich is that they were ideologically opposed to any restrictions on car movements from the very start (they published articles prior to the LTN being created stating that it would 'never work') . They have focussed on any individual data points which they think 'prove' the LTN is 'a disaster', whilst studiously ignoring the many more data points which show the opposite. They don't seem able to see the wood for the trees (or are cynically avoiding seeing it)

Whilst the council have assessed the overall impact, taken on board feedback and made improvements to the scheme to mitigate any discrete issues, One have never been constructive and have relentlessly clung on to anything they think they can use to claim they were right all along (see people still pointing to issues which have long been addressed above for example). And they've never really moved past demands that the whole thing be scrapped... because for One it's really just about looking for ways to 'prove' a pre-conceived prejudice. It's the definition of confirmation bias. 

Edited August 15 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

I thought the Council had simply ignored the many local Dulwich residents who objected, so any feedback taken on board has been highly selective.

It is you that is clinging to ideology. You seem to be saying that because LTNs work in some places that is reason to continue if they don't work elsewhere , because we don't live in a perfect world? One Dulwich are concerned with efficacy in one area, which as we know, has a low PTALS score.

You also justify your position by keep stating we should believe the data and the 'overall' picture, even though the methodology is flawed- as we know the Council have been highly selective about where they have collected their data.

This seems to be a case of waiting long enough for the dust to settle and then spinning the past, counting on the likelihood that many will lose track of what has gone on and why. I have nothing to do with One Dulwich but I like the questions they keep asking and hope they will continue because this Council is getting away with a lot. I still cannot believe the overall cost of Dulwich Square- unnecessary profligacy at a time when every penny counts.

As I have also said before, I am a regular cyclist and occasionally use a car. I am not a rabid petrolhead; but I dislike lies, manipulation and extremism driven by ideology or, in the Council's case, a need for money. 

I dislike how on the one hand our council smugly trumpets how green it is because it wants to get all cars off the streets and tells us how our children should be free to play on streets instead, but on the other is intensely relaxed about selling off our park land for use by the highest bidder and see those areas damaged in the process. It is hypocrisy at its finest.

[Rockets]

8 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The answer to this is that the data has always indicated a positive impact of the LTN overall. 

Data released by a council who are, ideologically, desperate to show their intervention is working, and which you admit yourself is incomplete (Underhill) is certainly indicating but not proving a positive impact - its a lesson in spin!

At every juncture the council has lied and tried to mislead residents about the real impact of LTNs. The very existence of One Dulwich is because a lot of people were fed up with the claptrap the council was peddling to validate their LTNs.

Edited August 15 by Rockets

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

 One Dulwich are concerned with efficacy in one area, which as we know, has a low PTALS score.

This PTAL stuff is a complete distraction and concern trolling. Mr OneDulwich has never explained why removing an LTN to allow private cars more road access everywhere will improve public transport. He has never explained why he is also opposed to LTNs in places with high PTAL scores. And he has never proposed any measure that would improve public transport generally or PTAL scores specifically.

[first mate]

I don't know who 'Mr One Dulwich is.' If you know for sure, can you tell us? 

I thought this was about locals with mobility issues and those who have a greater need to use a car (in a low PTALS area) and have found the LTN and Dulwich Sq have made life a whole lot more difficult for them. A whole load of them objected, did they not and were pretty much ignored.  But I think this reflects the council party line that the end justifies the means and there will be collateral damage along the way. 

 

 

[Rockets]

42 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

This PTAL stuff is a complete distraction and concern trolling.

But that's where you are very wrong because the very council that cited poor PTAL scores as the reason there was so much car use in Dulwich then said that LTNs should only be put in areas with high PTAl scores. 

And then proceeded to put them in the very place they said would not be good for them, an area with poor PTAL scores.

So the issue is not with distraction or trolling but one of rank hypocrisy from a council who have, since then, lied, misled and tried to manipulate the narrative.

It's just some of us as smart enough to take a step back and say hang on a minute this is not right and a very dangerous precedent. Others seem happier to turn a blind eye and lap up the council Kool-Aid like George Galloway drinking milk from Rula Lenska's imaginary cup!

[DulvilleRes]

On 15/08/2024 at 19:55, first mate said:

I don't know who 'Mr One Dulwich is.' If you know for sure, can you tell us? 

I find it is staggering that One Dulwich's cheerleaders on this forum tell us that they don't know who One Dulwich is, or who funds them, and despite demonstrating a keen interest in the minutiae of local politics, are too incurious to find out. That doesn't stop them posting their at times dubious press releases.

What is consistent about many of the anti -LTN posters on this forum is the punchline of whatever point they are making is often some critique of the council and/ or the Labour councillors. The question can be asked - are Dulwich traffic issues being permanently and artificially hyped up to serve a political agenda? All the evidence points to One Dulwich and their cheerleaders being a vocal minority in the community - most people accept or embrace the changes. 

[first mate]

Well you seem to know who this 'Mr One Dulwich' is, so tell us. I genuinely don't. The fact that you do, or say you do is interesting.

As for your sensitivity about criticism of the council- who else are we to hold accountable for management of LTNs, CPZ etc?

Edited August 17 by first mate

[Penguin68]

44 minutes ago, DulvilleRes said:

most people accept or embrace the changes. 

The only evidence to that is to the contrary. Any consultation or polling done has not shown majority support for these imposed changes, even in some of the streets 'benefited', and I use that word quite wrongly. 

[Rockets]

Many of which led to those famous words: "A consultation is not a referendum".

You don't have to spin your way out of a mess by saying that if you have majority support...

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

On 15/08/2024 at 19:55, first mate said:

those who have a greater need to use a car (in a low PTALS area) and have found the LTN and Dulwich Sq have made life a whole lot more difficult for them. A whole load of them objected, did they not and were pretty much ignored.

They weren't ignored. The council spent endless time over the years responding to the increasingly arcane queries of a dwindling number of "no surrender" Dulwich Village locals. They simply haven't got their way.

[Spartacus]

In the February report from the council on the proposal, 50% plus of respondents said they didn't support the scheme (out of 900 responses) 

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s119294/Appendix 2 - Consultation report.pdf

Hardly a dwindling number and their concerns do seem to have been largely ignored. 

Problem is Southwark find "reasons: to ignore them including "concerns that related to the wider traffic issues in the Dulwich area. " 

🤔

Edited August 17 by Spartacus

[malumbu]

Not really sure why Southwark make out that this is some sort of referendum (from the minority who respond to consultations) unless this was instructions from central government,  If we waited to go ahead with a consultation that showed more than 50% support with every project then power stations would not be built, new transmission lines erected, railways not improved and dare I say even roads not built.  There is always vested interest and those opposing change.  And as I am sure I have discussed before if you ask: do you want government to improve services the answer from most will be yes.  Do you want to pay more tax, "oh goodness gracious no".  It feels the same for air quality, road safety, and reducing carbon emissions.

The time to say no is at local and general elections, and there is an overall yes either because people approve, aren't bothered, do not see this as a single issue to vote a political party out (well some do and look where that got them) or the alternative is so dreadful. And a combination of these.

So we are planning to close some roads to improve the local area, active travel, and persuade some to drive less.  Are these the right roads?  Are the timings right?  Are penalties appropriate?  How can we improve other options?  What about vulnerable members of the public?

Not close the road? yes or no.  There will always be more people who say no for a variety of reasons not just because they are dyed in the wool petrol heads.

Interestingly I've felt penalty chargers are a wee bit too high in London,  You didn't expect me to say that did you?  But there again I have learned the hard way.  There is a balance and you do not want to alienate the masses the example being another thread where someone rightly got a penalty notice but complained about those consistently parking on double yellows, zig zags, outside schools etc, which does get my goat.  But there again best not get the penalty notice in the first place and make the serial abusers a separate issue.

Anyway nothing new here.  Almost went into a Del Amitri verse.  Perhaps at some point we accept that things aren't going to radically change back and move on.

Edited August 19 by malumbu

[first mate]

But surely the time to say 'no' to a specific issue is when that something goes out to consultation? In general, people do not vote at elections on single issues, although, as we have said before, quite incredibly some local Dulwich residents did just that.

I think those in favour of LTNs, CPZ etc, have to stop framing it as a left/right thing. I think for those of us against, it is about the validity and situation of certain traffic schemes and transparency and honesty of process.

As has also been said before, Southwark Labour were quiet in their campaigning on LTNs etc.., so the idea that they have a mandate to go ahead with their various plans is not the case.

Not sure I would refer to residents with mobility problems as vested interests?

Edited August 19 by first mate

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

43 minutes ago, first mate said:

I think those in favour of LTNs, CPZ etc, have to stop framing it as a left/right thing.

lol

"Rejoice in our socialist council, giving to the rich and taking from the poor."