Rockets

Rah x3 - have you been drinking from the council Kool-Aid fountain again? https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/traffic-data-analysis And the chart goes a lot more red if you include the 15%+ area-wide decrease in traffic when comparing pre- and post-Covid numbers.

And if you don't vote expect a house visit from a load of Labour press-ganging councillors and activists around 6pm tomorrow.....;-) Sorry, couldn't resist! Always intriguing the night before an election - which way will it go? Will some of us be saying "there you go, Dulwich has finally had it's say on LTNs and has spoken" or will it be others saying "well, those 20 people on the forum who voted against Labour made zero impact". Time will tell.....

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > goldilocks Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Comments about how people are looking for > things > > to be offended at are bizarre in the face of > what > > he said! > > > > Tristan?s comments were unacceptable but it?s > just > > one example of how the anti LTN campaigners > > (Conservatives , Dulwich Alliance - though > they?re > > essentially one and the same as Clive Rates > > founded the Dulwich Alliance) make offensive > > comments to further divide. Like this from one > of > > their spokespeople: > > > > https://i.imgur.com/l9TO8tx.png > > The Tory/Dulwich Alliance candidate is comparing > his own bugbear to the events of 9/11 and > Stalinist occupation of Germany. It's completely > bonkers. The hysterical bleating by some on here > about Southwark being a "one party state" is in a > similar vein - rhetoric that's offensive to people > who actually suffered under one party states. > > All of this language is completely > disproportionate to what is - as a reminder - a > disagreement about whether a couple of junctions > in suburban London are open or closed at rush > hour. But of course this is happy turf for > Johnson's Tory party - if you can incite a culture > war by using inflammatory terms like "bumboys" and > "letterboxes", you can shift attention away from > uncomfortable topics like backhanders from > developers, hundreds of millions of pounds spent > through the "VIP hotline" for Tory donors, woeful > mismanagement of COVID, austerity, Brexit, the > affordable housing crisis, the choking of TfL and > so much more... Not they are not. One is referring to the Dulwich Village LTN as ground zero for the issues caused by them - you do realise that the term ground zero was used for a very long time before it was applied to the World Trade Centre attacks don't you? You do realise it has multiple uses: one of which is in reference to the "starting point of an activity"? And the other is comparing the building of the Berlin wall to the building of the Village LTN. Yes it's a bit sensationalist but nothing more than that - you have to admit though that the parallels are striking. Perhaps people should spend less time trying to find things to be offended about and think about why people are still banging the "why haven't they listened to us" drum. Are some of you secretly hoping the Tories win so you really have something to moan and be offended about? ;-)

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The iPlayer copy of the LTN report will be deleted > tomorrow, so have added a copy to YouTube for > those who want to watch later. > > Very balanced piece...I do love the bit where Cllr Williams says that LTNs are "one bit of the jigsaw" and then mentions ULEZ as another. He should have said that LTNs are, seemingly, the only bit of the jigsaw Southwark has! Anyway nice to see a Labour councillor admitting the existence of the LTNs (interesting they sent him to be interviewed) as it seems the DV incumbents are forgotten they exist - not a mention of them anywhere in their leaflets! Someone should do some media training for Tristan - he should have asked to be filmed with the traffic behind him not the kids rolling out of school!!!

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Comments about how people are looking for things > to be offended at are bizarre in the face of what > he said! > > Tristan?s comments were unacceptable but it?s just > one example of how the anti LTN campaigners > (Conservatives , Dulwich Alliance - though they?re > essentially one and the same as Clive Rates > founded the Dulwich Alliance) make offensive > comments to further divide. Like this from one of > their spokespeople: > > https://i.imgur.com/l9TO8tx.png Ok so the metaphorical comments made about the physical divide the council put in place in the village are designed to further divide the community? Correct me if I am wrong but the council did put a physical divide in place didn't they? Honestly, so many people seem to spend their lives trying to find things to be offended about...and then telling everyone how offended they are that they took offence to something....#usuallyonsocialmedia Funny how they only take offence when it is someone with a view opposed to theirs - they are more than happy to turn a blind eye to things that are actually offensive when the colour of the "team shirt" the person wears is the same as theirs! Few of the usual suspects on here had anything to say about Cllr McAsh's Xmas Day jumper offence (as a primary school teacher he should have known better that children would have inevitably seen it) that was further shared by the leader of our council....but that isn't at all surprising is it?

Rahx3 - not entirely correct - a small part of East Dulwich, closest to the station, has a PTAL of 4 - the rest has a PTAL of 3 or 2 and the Village and Peckham Rye areas are even worse. This is why the council referred to the Dulwich area having "poor" PTAL scores in the Transport Report of 2018. A lower PTAL score is one of the reasons for increased car use (because there aren't public transport alternatives) and one of reasons why the council said LTNs should only be put in in areas with high PTAL scores. Dulwich does not have high PTAL scores.

march46 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Saw this on Twitter, the ?Ground Zero? reference > is horribly distasteful and wholly inappropriate. > Deeply worrying coming from a Conservative > candidate who wants to represent the Dulwich > Village community. > > https://i.imgur.com/ecbMI49.jpg Can you explain why you find this so offensive - the term ground zero was widely used to describe the epicentre of many things - not just bombs or the WTC...surely he is using it as a metaphor - as in the Square is the epicentre of the problems caused by the LTNs?

Was there no Dulwich Village hustings? It's really interesting as Labour are trying to make this election about everything bar local issues (today we had a flyer saying a vote for a Labour is a vote against government X,Y,Z) whilst the Tories and Lib Dems are desperately trying to make it about local policies because one party are hated at national level and the other not trusted at national level (delete as applicable). I very much suspect local issues will be at the heart of most voting intentions next week.

Ooops, sorry admin time for us to self police again....I can confirm they did talk about LTNs but I couldn't hear what they were saying... They were surveying numerous leaflets from opposition parties which mentioned LTNs!

He was part of a group of councillors in Signoria in Dulwich earlier today enjoying a hearty lunch talking very loudly about their strategic plans to use their "database" to target "weak" Labour voters to get out and vote. Apparently, if they get exit polls in any given ward on polling day that shows they are struggling they will send groups of councillors/supporters to knock on doors of "weak" supporters within the ward to implore them to get out and vote.

They reference removing the LTN measures "in Dulwich" but the leaflet is from the candidates for the Dulwich Village ward so the map is focussed on that ward only.

Interesting to see the Lib Dem leaflet drop at our house today and them definitively say that they would work to remove the LTN measures in Dulwich Village - as one of their many pledges.

Given Labour have abandoned any mention of the LTNs in the their campaign leaflets (certainly in my ward), seemingly pretending they don't exist. I am not sure what the thinking is here - it actually looks very odd that they refuse to mention them when it is front and centre of every other party's campaigning and has been a huge part of Labour's term of office in our local wards and the biggest talking point. If they are re-elected does this mean they can't claim to have a mandate to roll more of them out? Anyone have any guesses what their strategy is here - are they hoping people have forgotten about the LTNs or are they desperately trying to distance themselves from them? I am in the Village Ward so have only seen the local candidates' leaflets - is it the same in other wards?

Bit late to this but my fav route was (quiet and quite pleasant): DKH Ruskin Park Loughborough Junction Loughborough Road Sidney Road Kimberley Road Union Road Stewarts Road Battersea Park Albert Bridge Kings Road Hortensia Road Brompton Cemetery Lillie Road North End Road Star Road

I have always struggled with the position of many on the pro-LTN lobby about the use of EVs (which I hasten to add seems to have been adopted by the council - I suspect due to the lobbying influence exerted by some during OHS and LTN discussions with vested-interest groups). If the objective really is to reduce emissions and pollution, as we are all led to believe it is, then EVs have to be part of the solution surely - for every diesel or petrol car removed (even if it is replaced by an EV) then that has to be an emissions-win surely? Not unless your objective is not to reduce emissions but to reduce the number of vehicles. A bit like the lack of infrastructure investment to support modal shift the council seems very unwilling to try and make EV ownership more accessible to a broader number of people - a bit like cargo bike storage it seems you can only really own an EV if you have a driveway and somewhere to recharge your car. It always seems alien to me how the council and Mayor laud their transition to EV for their vehicles yet do little to embrace and encourage private ownership of EVs.

I hope your wife is ok - I wonder if this is the same group that has been stealing phones in the Dulwich area?

Waseley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So Mr/Mrs Rockets. You are against all Low > Traffic Neighborhoods. So you should not vote > Tory as this is their policy. The assumption is > therefore that you supported the status quo where > car was king. We'll I'm not with you on this but > I appreciate your honesty. Waseley - rather than trying to push the "petrolhead" narrative (I know it is the go-to position from the pro-LTN handbook) why don't you read what I have actually posted both on that message and previous messages? I said I am not pro-LTN and my position is not the Tory position of pull them out - my position is more Lib Dem (as in LTNs make sense in some areas and not in others - I personally was amazed when the Soho LTN was withdrawn as there it made perfect sense). I actually agree with the council's own initial assessment that LTNs won't work in areas with low PTAL scores - which is why I am objecting to the LTNs in Dulwich - because the moment you put them in you create more problems than they solve and, guess what, despite the protestations from the pro-LTN lobby this is exactly what is happening. I also think the council have completely overlooked any other modal shift infrastructure initiatives and have put all of their eggs in LTNs. I think they could have done a lot more to improve cycle and walking infrastructure as other boroughs have successfully done but Southwark have been sleeping at the wheel and thought LTNs were the only thing they needed to implement.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can't speak for Rockets, but data turned into > statistical analysis is always manipulated, my > question is why use a baseline that is post -LTN > implementation rather than pre? If LTNs work and > reduce traffic, congestion at peak times and > pollution I'm all for them, but I have found no > convincing research and locally have witnessed the > opposite effect. I very much suspect because if they used the Jan 19 pre-Champion Hill LTN data their Dulwich LTN report would need to conclude that EDG Central traffic increased post Melbourne Grove LTN implementation - and that would be the truth getting in the way of their "good" story. Look what happens when you remove the Sep 19 figures from the council's monitoring data: Jan 19: 12408 Sep 21: 12675 Oct 21: 12016 Nov 21: 12421 Dec 21: 10,74 Jan 22: 12414 In real terms (when you consider the overall reduction in traffic is anywhere from 10% - 15%) traffic has actually increased significantly on EDG (and most other roads monitored during the LTN monitoring). But this is what LTNs do - they push more traffic down fewer roads. It is also interesting looking at the Champion Hill report (and I think this goes some way to explain why the council refuses to monitor Underhill Road) but LTN reports tend to focus on the roads immediately adjacent to the LTNs - remember the whole argument about Aldred et al not analysing "boundary roads"? One trend that was seen in the much-heralded Waltham Forest LTNs was that displacement impacted roads up to 3.1 miles away but by trying to contain monitoring to the immediate area allows the council's to try and paint a rosier picture. In the Champion Hill report you can see this in action as it clearly shows a substantial increase in traffic along EDG Central but it is dismissed as not being caused by the LTN - without any rational as it why that might be.

I am definitely not pro-LTN. I think LTN's are a lobby-group influenced sledge-hammer to crack a nut that do more harm than good. You have to ask yourself some questions: - why did the council decide to add EDG Central midway through the LTN monitoring process? Who lobbied them to do it? - why did the council choose to use the Sep 19 "data" rather than the Jan 19 data in their LTN report? - why does the council steadfastly refuse to provide monitoring for Underhill Road - one of the main displacement routes for traffic? - why when the elected local councillors stated that only if every road saw a reduction in traffic could the LTNs be considered a success are the same councillors now happy for 3 of the 9 monitored roads to register an increase in traffic? - why has the council not accounted for the overall reduction in vehicle use since the pandemic in any of their LTN monitoring reports. Surely the post LTN monitoring is getting a 10-15% head-start which has nothing to do with LTNs? And so the list goes on...it's hardly hyperbole.....it doesn't take a genius to work out what is going on here. Many are more than happy to turn a blind eye to it (usually those who they live on one of the roads benefitting from the closures!)

To be honest, I am not convinced you have provided anything other than more fuel to our fire! The Champion Hill displacement issue being the latest case in point which does look like the major cause of the 15,000 peak that the council (and you) insist on referring to to help justify the closure of Melbourne Grove. The mistake the council made was creating the new EDG Central monitoring as it was clear it was nothing more than a trojan horse to help maintain the Melbourne Grove closer at the behest of the residents and numerous pro-LTN lobby groups based there. Some of us think the LTN monitoring information is being manipulated by the council and given the weight of evidence you keep presenting to us as you try to defend it, it becomes clearer and clearer every day that it is being manipulated. On that subject of wilful manipulation, can anyone guess when the Champion Hill closure went in....yup, you've guessed it February 2019!!!!? Here's a snippet on it on the Southwark Cyclist's website: Southwark Council installed a one way filter in February 2019, preventing motor vehicles from using Champion Hill to drive from Dog Kennel Hill to Denmark Hill. The council monitored the area until September 2019 and prepared a report. Now, can anyone guess why the council chose the Sept 19 figures for EDG Central rather than the January 19 ones? Hmmmm......it's interesting that both the council and Southwark Cyclists go to great lengths to claim that the increases in traffic on EDG may not be from the Champion Hill but "other external" factors but provided no suggestions for what they might be. Yet the council's own report on the Champion Hill closures shows that there was only one road that had "notable increases" in traffic in both directions when comparing pre- and post-closure of Champion Hill and that was what is now EDG Central (Denmark Hill, Champion Park and Dog Kennel Hill all had notable increases but only in one direction). Displacement occurs across a wide are when these LTNs are thrown in and there are always more losers than winners unfortunately.

It seems to have been significant enough for the council to, repeatedly, state that there was no monitoring in place on East Dulwich Grove Central prior to Sept 21 - seems odd if there is only a 14 metre discrepancy - they moved the strips on Lordship Lane about 200 metres from Court Lane to Melford Road without any caveats being applied to the reporting. And remember the council don't even mention that it might have been in a slightly different location - they say........No data collected for East Dulwich Grove Central prior to September 2021....that's pretty definitive. Does anyone know why they might be saying that yet using Sept 19 data as proof that there has been a reduction in traffic? My personal theory is that they are making things up as they go along, someone used the Sept 19 numbers in the LTN wrap-up report, the council published it and then upon further review someone has found something that makes them think they can't/should not be using it/claiming it. It seems that whatever they did it gave them 3,000 more vehicle journeys between the Jan 19 and Sept 19 numbers and using the Sept 19 numbers gave them a "reduction" that would not have been there had they used the Jan 19 figures. It's clear the council has been manipulating the figures and reporting to their advantage throughout this whole process and they still have a third of the roads monitored showing an increase in vehicles compared to pre-Covid - not what they promised from the scheme at all.

Goldilocks - you really are the gift that keeps on giving - that TFL data merely goes to show how bad they are at estimating/modelling traffic levels. Look at what happens between estimated (which the majority of those years are) and actual traffic counts - how they inflate cyclist numbers and the number of car journeys and then how an actual count reduces the number of cycle journeys by half and the number of car journeys by about 20% - I think their methodology is making presumptions and assumptions that aren't actually happening in reality! Look at the difference between the 2016 Estimated count and the 2017 actual count.... That chart also highlights that car use has been declining over the last 15 years (which is counter to a lot of the arguments put forward by the pro-LTN lobby to justify closing roads - aren't we supposed to have seen a 10x increase in car-use?). Also, it also goes to show that cycling has been declining over the last 15 years too - another argument that the pro-LTN lobby won't agree with....

The claimed numbers for Sep 19 always looked like an anomaly and it looks like there was some sort of problem that would have led to the increase - but so interesting the council chose to use that number rather than the Jan 19 number - which looks far more realistic (and consistent when compared to other numbers). Be interesting to know why the Jan 19 numbers weren't added to the interactive map. I do wonder whether the council has chosen the Sep 19 numbers solely because it helps their narrative and has allowed them to try and convince people (especially their supporters on Melbourne Grove) that the measures are working. As we can see from the below, strip out the bloated 15,000 for Sep 21 and EDG Central sees an increase in traffic compared to pre-Covid levels. That increase becomes even more pronounced and significant once you address the area-wide reductions in traffic. Jan 19: 12408 *monitoring from a different, unspecified, location around EDG Central Sep 19: 15316 *the modelled numbers that magically jump by nearly 3,000 to give the council the reduction you tout and now used as the baseline for pre-Covid traffic levels on EDG Central Sep 21: 12675 the number quoted in the initial monitoring report but they now seem to be claiming 12,730 Oct 21: 12016 Nov 21: 12421 Dec 21: 10,746 Jan 22: 12414 The council seem to be trying to deliberately mislead people to fit their own agenda. Interestingly, I received the vote for Margy and Richard leaflet yesterday and, per other comments, was very surprised to see they made zero mention of LTNs - it's almost as if they are trying to pretend they aren't an issue in this election but accountability has never been a strongpoint for modern Labour!

Dare I say it, but is the pre-Champion Hill number set the Jan 19 numbers?

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and looking at that there should also be some > January 2019 data? as the report compares the > Sept 2019 data with the January 2019 data. It > does note in relation to evening peak traffic that > "The variations observed along East Dulwich Grove > and Denmark Hill are not likely to be > attributable > to the Champion Hill scheme. ", which I guess begs > the question as to what they were due to. > > Northernmonkey, sounds as though you have seen the > January 2019 data given you say it's artificially > low due to school holidays? Is it available > online? Is there a discernible difference between the amount of school holidays in January compared to September? Aren't they comparable - the majority of schools go back in the first week of both months? According to the council's data the difference between Jan 19 and Sep 19 on EDG Central was at least 3,000 journeys or 25% more - something has triggered that and I am not sure it's schools.