LTN Discussion

[malumbu]

I can't believe you'd actually ask someone and that they'd respond as well.  I find it better to speculate, make numbers up, and then base my argument on this.

Finding it strange that so many people get done - chancing it or what?

[Cancerian]

Dulwich LTNs, specifically the Dulwich Village/East Dulwich Grove and other LTNs made the ITV London news earlier. 

[DulvilleRes]

On 13/01/2025 at 13:30, Earl Aelfheah said:

Is there a reason we have yet another LTN thread? Also, any chance anyone knows who runs ‘one Dulwich’, or why their missives are constantly being reposted on this forum, despite people being able to sign up to receive them if they're interested?

Thanks. I suspect most people are in favour of school streets.

Couldn't agree more with this one. No one knows who runs One Dulwich, and who funds them. Their cheerleaders on this forum have consistently claimed they don't know, but they demonstrate huge knowledge of local politics, post their press releases and continue to parrot their attack lines which overwhelming end in a critique of Southwark Council and/ or individual councilors. These same posters refuse to answer any questions about potential political influence within One Dulwich, despite evidence that there is an alignment between issues championed by One Dulwich, and formal questions raised to the Council by local Conservatives. 

Any other significant local group, such as The Dulwich Society, I know or can find out who they are. They have open and transparent procedures, and I can find out how they are funded, but there is virtually nothing publicly available about One Dulwich, apart from a website that doesn't answer these questions. This does not feel to me to be good faith and transparency in local debating, and with so many unanswered questions hanging over One Dulwich, I am constantly surprised that admin allows their press releases to be posted on this forum.  

[Rockets]

14 hours ago, Cancerian said:

Dulwich LTNs, specifically the Dulwich Village/East Dulwich Grove and other LTNs made the ITV London news earlier. 

Yes a lot of local campaign groups have joined forces to lobby government:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/anti-ltn-campaigners-lobby-government-b1204631.html

That'll annoy the usual suspects no doubt....;-)

 

A couple of snippets from the article all of which seem perfectly reasonable and pragmatic: 

 

Fifteen community groups have sent a letter to the transport secretary Heidi Alexander arguing that LTN schemes often “do not have the backing of local people”.

 

The letter also called for the government to introduce “a strict regulatory framework” for new and existing LTN schemes to make sure that they cannot introduce schemes which do not have community support.

[march46]

One Dulwich seems to be largely represented by Richard Aldwinkle, frequently noted as their spokesperson in press. He’s known for comparing Dulwich Square to the Berlin Wall on Twitter, yet ironically criticises the LTN for stoking division. The contradictions are hard to ignore. 

Edited Thursday at 10:16 by march46
Typo

[first mate]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Yes a lot of local campaign groups have joined forces to lobby government:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/anti-ltn-campaigners-lobby-government-b1204631.html

That'll annoy the usual suspects no doubt....;-)

 

A couple of snippets from the article all of which seem perfectly reasonable and pragmatic: 

 

Fifteen community groups have sent a letter to the transport secretary Heidi Alexander arguing that LTN schemes often “do not have the backing of local people”.

 

The letter also called for the government to introduce “a strict regulatory framework” for new and existing LTN schemes to make sure that they cannot introduce schemes which do not have community support.

A bit random but I also strongly object to the council playing its 'environment, green and anti pollution' card to justify continued expansion of CPZ and LTN, but continues to press for more and more local parkland to be turned over for environmentally unfriendly events, run by private companies, through some of the best weeks of summer.

Edited Thursday at 10:57 by first mate

[DulvilleRes]

Also prominent local Conservatives were very active in the early days of the anti LTN movement, but seem to have vanished without trace, only popping up now and then to ask formal LTN related questions of the Council. Could they be involved One Dulwich, or indeed even posting on these threads? In the interests of transparent local politics, it would be great to know. Is their ghostly presence, not daring to speak their name, stalking these threads? At times the multitude of culture war style threads started on this forum start to feel to me less of a local debate and more of a campaign. 

it would also be great to get to the bottom of who funds One Dulwich. it isn't a cheap operation to run - each of those estate agent style boards costs £6 and upwards ( let us hope they opted for the eco friendly versions), plus the costs of a website, printing and the like. With so much political discourse generally degraded by misinformation, I'm sure most local people, whatever their views on issues, would welcome transparency on how any debate is conducted. 

[first mate]

Dulville, I take it, that you see no contradiction between this council pushing LTNs on the basis that they improve the environment and their agenda to monetise swathes of prime, green parkland by putting parks up for hire for use by events organisers, through many weeks in summer? How can an environmentally conscious council possibly greenlight weeks of noise, light and diesel generator pollution, not to mention year on year damage and detritus after each event? Please explain?

[Earl Aelfheah]

6 hours ago, Rockets said:

Yes a lot of local campaign groups have joined forces to lobby government

Let me guess, all these groups are called ‘One something’ and we don’t know who runs any of them, or how they’re funded. #astroturfing.

[Rockets]

Probably...but despite continued attempts to undermine them by somehow suggesting they are a political trojan horse they keep fighting and clearly aren't going away so it looks like some of you are just going to have to gnash your teeth, call them names and just live with them! 

#powertothepeople!!! 😉

[Earl Aelfheah]

We don’t know whether they’re a political Trojan horse or not. Don’t you think that’s a problem? You say ‘they’ keep fighting, but who exactly are ‘they’. Who runs ‘One London’?

The lack of transparency is really quite remarkable 

What’s to stop me calling myself a spokesperson for One London, seeing as it has no constitution, governance or declared structure?

In fact I am the leader of One Dulwich. We are now strongly in favour of LTNs after a road to Damascus conversion 

[malumbu]

7 hours ago, Rockets said:

Yes a lot of local campaign groups have joined forces to lobby government:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/anti-ltn-campaigners-lobby-government-b1204631.html

That'll annoy the usual suspects no doubt....;-)

 

A couple of snippets from the article all of which seem perfectly reasonable and pragmatic: 

 

Fifteen community groups have sent a letter to the transport secretary Heidi Alexander arguing that LTN schemes often “do not have the backing of local people”.

 

The letter also called for the government to introduce “a strict regulatory framework” for new and existing LTN schemes to make sure that they cannot introduce schemes which do not have community support.

You probably didn't bother to read to the end where the article refers to a group supporting measures like LTNs, and a DfT announcement saying that local decisions for local authorities.  So a lot of noise but no change, worse is that these groups opposing LTNs NEVER have sensible alternatives 

[Earl Aelfheah]

That’s true. But also, to clarify, as the leader and official spokesperson for the ‘One’ group, which includes One Dulwich, as of this afternoon we do support LTNs.

Edited Thursday at 17:48 by One Dulwich

[Rockets]

6 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

In fact I am the leader of One Dulwich. We are now strongly in favour of LTNs after a road to Damascus conversion 

Well done. Congratulations on your new role. At least Dulville can now stop banging on and on about who is running it because it appeared to be becoming a bit obsessive!!! 😉 

28 minutes ago, One Dulwich said:

That’s true. But also, to clarify, as the leader and official spokesperson for the ‘One’ group, which includes One Dulwich, as of this afternoon we do support LTNs.

Earl, I am not sure changing your forum name and picture is really in the spirit of what the forum was set up for and I am sure admin won't take favourably that you are now masquerading as someone else completely - we have had bouts of that sort of thing before and they got themselves banned....

 

Maybe I will claim the Earl name to really confuse people....

[Earl Aelfheah]

Campaign Update | 16 Jan

Why does Southwark need low traffic neighbourhoods?

A low traffic neighbourhood is a network of streets from which “through” motor traffic has been removed – this means traffic travelling through an area, not accessing a residence inside it. It is usually a whole area, bordered by A-roads, railways or other boundaries, rather than one or two streets. Every street is still accessible by vehicle, but barriers like bollards, planters or ‘camera gates’ prevent vehicles taking a short cut across the area.

Low traffic neighbourhoods, LTNs for short, have been found to increase walking and cycling, make streets safer, and reduce driving and car ownership.

Why do we need low traffic neighbourhoods? Four reasons

1. Too many motor vehicles dominate our roads

In 2019 there were over 30,000 injuries reported due to road traffic collisions in London. Of those 3,780 were serious and there were 125 deaths due to road violence. Motor vehicle traffic is also a major contributor to air pollution which results in an estimated 9,500 early deaths per year in London.

Transport accounts for 25% of carbon emissions in Southwark. Southwark Council has declared a Climate Emergency and must reduce the number of motor vehicles on our streets urgently. We are already seeing impacts due to climate change so radical change is needed. Due to their high carbon cost, electric vehicles can only be a small part of the solution.

In Southwark, 60% of households do not have access to a car, which is skewed towards people on lower incomes, yet groups that do not have access to a car are most likely to be harmed by them. Disabled people and those with health conditions make 32% fewer car trips in London, yet as pedestrians, disabled people are five times as likely to be injured by a driver than non-disabled people.

Motor traffic has risen steeply in the last ten years across the country, and Southwark is no exception. Between 2013 and 2019, the number of miles driven on Southwark’s roads rose by 68.8 million miles or 15%.

2. Traffic has risen most on minor roads

While the number of miles driven on A and B roads in London has actually fallen slightly in the last ten years, on C or unclassified roads it’s risen by a massive 72% – most likely due to sat navs directing drivers away from main roads.

3. Too much traffic on minor roads is dangerous

Minor streets aren’t designed to carry lots of traffic. Blind corners and few crossings means speeding in particular has a great impact. Minor roads are more dangerous for main roads, particularly for children.

Each mile driven on a minor urban road, results in 17% more killed or seriously injured pedestrians than a mile driven on an urban A road.

Specifically, on urban roads, driving a mile on a minor urban road is twice as likely to kill or seriously injure a child pedestrian, and three times more likely to kill or seriously injure a child cyclist, compared to driving a mile on an urban A road.

TfL has recently found that while overall road casualties have decreased, there has been an increase for people walking and cycling and this increase is increasing at almost double the rate on minor roads.

4. Too much traffic on minor roads stops people walking & cycling

Our traffic-heavy streets put people off walking or cycling, especially more vulnerable groups like children and the elderly. Road danger and too much traffic are cited as the greatest barrier to people cycling more.

The solution to this is either protected space for cycling or reducing motor traffic volume. TfL and the DfT have guidance that suggests traffic needs to be below certain levels for people to cycling without protected space. It would not be practical to build protected cycling lanes on every minor road in Southwark and this would not benefit people walking, since traffic volume impacts those trips as well.

A third of Londoner’s car journeys are 2km or less, a distance that could be walked in 25 minutes. Two-thirds of trips are less than 5km and can be cycled in under 20 minutes. Distance is not what prevents most Londoners from walking and cycling.

This lack of physical activity is having a catastrophic effect on the nation’s health – cancer, heart disease and depression are all linked to sedentary lifestyles. Southwark is no different – our children have one of the worst rates of childhood obesity in the UK.

These problems can be solved by low traffic neighbourhoods

Low traffic neighbourhoods have three outcomes, 1) they stop rat running motor vehicles, returning through traffic to the strategic road network (unless they are accessing the neighbourhood, 2) they reduce short car trips made by local residents, and they 3) create space for walking, cycling, scooting and wheeling.

LTNs can can reduce vehicles inside the area by 50-90%, creating a quiet network of streets where anyone can walk, cycle or use their wheelchair in the middle of the road. They enable active travel, healthy lifestyles, less car use, fewer injuries and deaths, cleaner air and fewer carbon emissions.

They are not a substitute for other measures including pollution and speed control measures, and main road interventions including protected cycleways and bus lanes, but with 91% of people in London living on minor roads (this varies little by age, gender, income, disability and ethnicity), LTNs will play a key role in transforming Southwark. Read on to find out more.

What does research and data show?

People walk and cycle more in LTNs

By providing a safer environment LTNs enable more people to walk and cycle. Waltham Forest’s first low traffic neighbourhoods were implemented in 2015 so there has been time to study them in detail. Residents within an LTN walked 115 minutes more per week and cycled 20 minutes more. This was much larger than in areas that received other walking and cycling schemes without LTNs. King’s College London also found that increased active travel leads to longer life expectancy for residents in Waltham Forest.

Hackney saw similar results in the 10 years between 2001 and 2011 when it implemented low traffic neighbourhoods and installed modal filters. Cycling trips more than tripled in this time.

Manual counts were taken to gauge the impact of the Dulwich Village modal filters on cycling levels. The estimated number of school children cycling increased by seven times compared to a much smaller increase in a control site. There was also a higher proportion of women cycling compared to the control site.

Lambeth found that cycling increased by 51% within the Railton LTN and 32% across the area. Additionally it increased by 65% and 84% on Railton Road and Shakespeare Road, two through roads that are now filtered.

Many NHS Trusts in London have come out in support of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods due to the numerous health benefits they bring. Guy’s and St Thomas’ Charity is funding 3 LTNs in Southwark, in Brunswick Park, North Peckham and East Faraday. These schemes benefit schools in the area with goals to promote active travel among pupils.

LTNs reduce traffic volume and car ownership

Evidence from Hackney and Waltham Forest shows that low traffic neighbourhoods reduce car journeys and car ownership. Traffic is not just displaced and overall traffic in the area drops. This may take some time as when new schemes go in it takes time for them to bed in. People get used to the changes and GPS apps update. Over time some people also change their mode of travel and switch car trips to walking and cycling ones.

While some car journeys will take alternative routes this must be viewed in the context of traffic only increasing on minor roads in the last decade as shown above. From a traffic management standpoint it is also much more difficult to manage traffic if it avoids signalised crossings by taking back routes.

There are some claims that LTN trials have increased congestion on boundary roads. It’s important to note that traffic has increased all across London since Covid-19 due to less people taking public transportation, but while we wait for Southwark to release monitoring data, we’ve heard from residents that traffic near these schemes is no worse than it was prior to them being implemented. Both Lambeth and Hackney have released monitoring on LTNs as part of their Covid-19 transport response. They found LTNs did not increase overall traffic on surrounding main roads. Additional monitoring in Lambeth has shown a 31% decrease in traffic and 23% decrease in HGVs in and around the Railton LTN.

In addition to cycling tripling in Hackney, car journeys also halved in the 10 years the council implemented LTNs and modal filters. In Waltham Forest traffic levels fell by 56% on roads within the LTN with a 16% drop overall resulting in 10,000 motor car journeys disappearing. 

This is due to traffic evaporation. By reducing road capacity for motor vehicles, traffic decreases. This has been seen in many places around the world. When walking and cycling are made more safe and convenient, and driving slightly less convenient for short trips, fewer people choose to get in their cars. Some people will stop making particular trips, combine multiple trips into one, change destination, travel at a less congested time, or switch to public transport, walking or cycling.

King’s College London also found that Waltham Forest’s low traffic neighbourhoods reduced air pollution. Another study showed a dramatic drop in illegal air quality levels, including on main roads.

It was also found that car ownership within LTNs dropped 6% after two years. This was much larger than other areas where other walking and cycling schemes were implemented. Surveys have also been done that also show evidence of lower car ownership after an LTN is implemented.

LTNs improve road safety

By reducing traffic volume, road safety within an LTN improves. As mentioned above, motor traffic on minor roads is more dangerous than main roads, and collisions on minor roads have been increasing at a much higher rate than on major roads according to TfL.

In Waltham Forest there was a 70% reduction in road traffic injury per trip on roads within the LTN for people walking, cycling and in motor vehicles. There was also no negative impact on boundary roads. 

Many main road collisions occur at junctions with minor roads. Removing rat running traffic reduces these junction movements making them safer. Modal filters placed at junctions with main roads eliminate all motor traffic movements.

LTNs see reductions in street crime

Waltham Forest saw a 10% reduction in street crime within their LTNs and a larger decrease in violent crime. No displacement to other areas was found. This could perhaps be due to more eyes on the street, an idea Jane Jacobs popularised in The Death and Life of Great American Cities. This requires neighbourhoods that encourage people to be out on the street, not ones that just have passing cars.

All About LTNs | Better Streets For Southwark

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

I am sure admin won't take favourably that you are now masquerading as someone else completely

I’m sorry, who exactly am I masquerading as?

Edited Thursday at 20:02 by One Dulwich

[ab29]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Well done. Congratulations on your new role. At least Dulville can now stop banging on and on about who is running it because it appeared to be becoming a bit obsessive!!! 😉 

Earl, I am not sure changing your forum name and picture is really in the spirit of what the forum was set up for and I am sure admin won't take favourably that you are now masquerading as someone else completely - we have had bouts of that sort of thing before and they got themselves banned....

 

Maybe I will claim the Earl name to really confuse people....

I am very grateful to what One Dulwich - the real one not the troll on here - do for the local community and ordinary people who live on main / boundary roads, are elderly, disabled, unable to cycle, not able to afford to simply move somewhere better.

@Administrator isn't this too much?

 

[first mate]

Admin are you saying ab29 is too much or that the person ( possibly Earl) now pretending to be One Dulwich is the culprit.

I think the fake press release was a bit much and hope it will be removed, as these tactics feel very Trump-worthy. 
 

 

 

[Rockets]

Whomever One Dulwich is, and hats off to them, when they see this type of reaction I do hope they take it as validation that they are doing exactly the right thing.  These types of reactions shows they are doing exactly what they need to and are really needling those who blindly support the council and their plans.

But for everyone's sake, and seemingly for Earl's own benefit, it might be time for admin to intervene here and direct Earl back to proper forum etiquette or tell them it might be time to follow Mr Chicken, LTNManatee and LTNBooHoo to another forum!

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Whomever One Dulwich is, and hats off to them, when they see this type of reaction I do hope they take it as validation that they are doing exactly the right thing.

Thank you Rockets. I’ll try and post regular campaign updates, alongside any other anonymous individuals who wish to adopt the pseudonym One Dulwich.

[first mate]

53 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Whomever One Dulwich is, and hats off to them, when they see this type of reaction I do hope they take it as validation that they are doing exactly the right thing.  These types of reactions shows they are doing exactly what they need to and are really needling those who blindly support the council and their plans.

But for everyone's sake, and seemingly for Earl's own benefit, it might be time for admin to intervene here and direct Earl back to proper forum etiquette or tell them it might be time to follow Mr Chicken, LTNManatee and LTNBooHoo to another forum!

Well it is interesting isn't it, that they will go to such lengths to try to sabotage the message of anyone that disagrees with them. 
Perhaps we should all start pretending to be other organisations. One of us could be Dulwich Roads!!

Edited Thursday at 20:59 by first mate

[Rockets]

6 minutes ago, first mate said:

Well it is interesting isn't it, that they will go to such lengths to try to sabotage the message of anyone that disagrees with them. 

People only ever do this when they have no thoughtful or rational argument! Or they call people names. Either way it's a clear sign of weakness, childishness or madness - take your pick! These are the types of posts you see before celebs say they are: "taking some time away from social media". 😉

7 minutes ago, first mate said:

Perhaps we should all start pretending to be other organisations. One of us could be Dulwich Roads!!

And this is why admin does need to step in because if everyone behaves likes this the forum is dead.

Edited Thursday at 21:06 by Rockets

[ab29]

.

Edited Friday at 06:35 by ab29
.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It’s actually a serious point (albeit illustrated a little tongue in cheek. ‘One Dulwich’ is just a pseudonym for who knows who (is it you Rockets, or a local Conservative MP perhaps)? There is no transparency whatsoever. I could set up a website called ‘one Dulwich’ tomorrow and start posting updates and there would be zero recourse because that is all this ‘organisation’ has done. It has no constitution or formal governance and no accountability.

Until we have an idea who is behind these ‘updates’ they may just as well be coming from anyone, even me.

When you Rockets, regularly posts updates from ‘One Dulwich’ you are effectively doing what I have done above. That’s the point.

10 hours ago, Rockets said:

People only ever do this when they have no thoughtful or rational argument!

You should read the latest campaign update above. It makes the arguments very clearly.

…arguably more thoughtfully and rationally than the other One Dulwich

Edited Friday at 07:45 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

A number of us feel the council has been less than transparent in the way it has handled street changes etc and they have the power to impose an agenda, not just criticise someone elses.

Nonetheless, One Dulwich voices views that many recognise and agree with. I know this seems to drive you and other cycle lobbyists crazy, because it means you cannot control the messaging as you would wish, but that is democracy. 
 

Edited Friday at 08:19 by first mate

[DulvilleRes]

The anti-LTN lobby could do us all a favour, and actually answer the questions that have been consistently put to them as to who is behind One Dulwich, and who funds them.

They pride themselves on their 'citizen journalism' ( despite its many factual inaccuracies and misleading statements) and yet either lack the skill or the curiosity to find out. I certainly bear that in mind whenever one of their new anti-council 'revelations' comes to light. The other alternative explanation is of course that they aren't being truthful in their claims that they have no idea who is behind One Dulwich, so the then question is - are we all being subjected to a massive and sustained troll?

This article from a few months back always comes to mind when I read this section of the forum, about Conservatives in other parts of the country mimicing local papers

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/08/16/conservatives-caught-publishing-fake-newspapers-again-as-party-mimics-defunct-local-outlet/

A potential similarity being that there is a possibility that political campaigning is going on around local traffic issues in an untransparent manner. Could that be what is happening here? I was at a major public event last year where a prominent local Conservative openly called out her Dulwich colleagues for what she alleged were using underhand tactics in local issues. If it isn't the Conservatives, might it be Reform? The evidence would suggest that is doubtful, but the point is we don't fully know who this opaque group One Dulwich is.

Maybe with so much local interest now in getting these questions answered, the anti-LTN lobby on these threads might be able to do that? There should always be debate about local issues, but you would hope it to be done openly and transparently, and in good faith.