Rockets

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've been through this several times above, but > its a site that had previous counts already. In > addition to the council ones that they used, there > were also DFT manual counts at that site so the > numbers can also be corroborated for > reasonableness. > > The site is 'new' for September and October > because it wasn't included in the previous > monitoring for the Streetspace programme of > monitoring. Not necessarily that it had never > been a monitoring site before now. > > The monitoring shows a 20% year on year fall in > all traffic on the central section of East Dulwich > Grove which is great news for people attending the > Health Centre, children walking to the charter > school ED and those using the new MUGA. > > Obviously though, as you have so clearly > documented, even a 20% fall as compared to pre > pandemic figures isn't enough and so more is > needed on East Dulwich Grove to deter driving. > I'd like to see parking removed, more space for > cycling and an extension to the CPZ hours to cover > 8-6 rather than 8:30-6:30 with enforcement of the > zone to stop school drop offs. I think that these > things would help. > > > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ... central 'This is a new site for data > > collection, having started in September 2021' - > so > > where is that pre-LTN data from...hmmmmmmm? Why wasnt it monitored before Sept 21? Surely if the council had monitoring done there previously it would make sense to monitor during the LTN phase? This is why people are so sceptical, nothing the council is doing makes any sense. Like adding one set of October numbers in a report focussed on Sept. Do they know what they are doing?

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Out of interest Goldilocks how is it that you have > the October data? Are > you involved with the council, is the council > making it available to a select group, or is it > publicly available and you could send us all a > link? > > I say that as I?ve been keen all along for the > council to make raw data available to all at the > same time and without curation. I?m as much > concerned about process as outcome as process > issues apply to a much wider range of things. Maybe there is some truth to the rumours that selective briefings from the council have been given to pro-LTN groups.

I am still not buying it I afraid - way too many holes in the council's data and way too many if, buts, maybes and asterisks on how they compared different data sets recorded on different dates in different years. Look at the Turney Road debacle or the detailed analysis of cycling figures put out by the council. It remains a "decrease" for many of us until the council provides some clarity, some more details on methodology and timings of monitoring etc - which, of course, they have promised but failed to deliver. I presume they are briefing you, and the other residents on Melbourne Grove on this, seeing as you have something of the inside scoop ;-)! The point remains - you are celebrating one section of one road that you happen to live on/near that has experienced a "decrease". Shame for those sections either side of yours hey....

So what you, and the council are saying then, is that 3,000 cars a day were going down Melbourne Grove/Derwent and now aren't and that is why there is a "decrease" on EDG Central?

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets - very few cars cutting down MG to go to > eg Grove Vale would have historically gone on EDG > at all. > > The central section of EDG was understated by > assuming that the count data from near to Lordship > applied to the whole section. That counter would > not include any cars driving south along the now > filtered roads and turning right to go west on > EDG. > > The EDG monitoring site outside the health centre > was a location that was monitored at various > points pre the Dulwich "healthy streets" > initiative. It has also been a location for DFT > manual counts too so can corroborate the > reasonableness of the data via that publicly > available set. So why then does it say that the EDG Central site is a new monitoring site for Sep 21 - your position is somewhat undermined by the council's own document....which says: This is a new site for data collection, having started in September 2021? Also the point that Jenijenjen made is baseless as well because if there had been a monitoring point there those cars turning down Melbourne Grove from EDG would have been counted already before turning. No matter where you suggest the traffic is coming from the "reduction" in the EDG Central section does not look at all accurate given the increase in the two sections of road book-ending it. Or are you trying to claim over 3,000 cars a day were going down Melbourne Grove?

I am not sure it does as how do you then account for the 500 or so vehicles that are disappearing along the section from LL to the Central monitoring point every day - there is no longer anywhere for them to go so why are those numbers so different in the Sep 21 numbers? Also it does state in the report that the EDG Central monitoring site was new for Sep 21 so how did they get the data from Jan 19 and Sep 19 to deliver the "reduction". Also the below doesn't stack up because of the position of the Central monitoring point because the cars turning onto Melbourne Grove from EDG heading east would have already passed the threshold. Before LTNs > 100 cars travel east from Townley Road > 20 of these cars turn into Melbourne Grove > 80 cars travel along eastern end EDG to LL > > After LTNs > 100 cars travel east from Townley Road > None of these cars can turn into Melbourne Grove > so 100 cars travel on eastern section of EDG

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just in case anyone is reading this at face value > - this is an incorrect summary . It is nothing to > do with adjusted monitoring data. > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > And for all the people in the room the claimed > > reduction in that section is only because the > > council "adjusted" their Jan 19 monitoring data > to > > create a number for Sept 19 - they magically > > increased the number of car journeys from > 12,408 > > in Jan 19 to 15,316 on Sep 19. Without that > magic > > formula applied that section still shows an > > increase comparing actual data (albeit from Jan > > instead of September). > > > > Does anyone know what Cllr Rose's secret sauce > is > > for the calculations? > > > > The fact the council claim a 28% increase on > the > > EDG East section, a -17% decrease on the > Central > > section and a 17% increase in the South section > > should be ringing alarm bells - those > monitoring > > sites are within a few hundred yards of each > other > > and the fact they "adjusted" the central one > > probably provides people with the answer they > > need. > > > > Unless, does someone have an explanation for > the > > discrepancy rather than just doing the "well > > people of EDG Central section our 100 yard > section > > of road was a success at least"! But why then is the East Dulwich Grove Central section the only to include both a Jan 19 and Sept 19 set of numbers? And why then does it say: *Pre-implementation data for January 2019 has been adjusted to September 2019 levels to ensure comparability" Whilst all of the other slides says: *Pre-implementation data has been adjusted to September 2019 levels to ensure comparability

And for all the people in the room the claimed reduction in that section is only because the council "adjusted" their Jan 19 monitoring data to create a number for Sept 19 - they magically increased the number of car journeys from 12,408 in Jan 19 to 15,316 on Sep 19. Without that magic formula applied that section still shows an increase comparing actual data (albeit from Jan instead of September). Does anyone know what Cllr Rose's secret sauce is for the calculations? The fact the council claim a 28% increase on the EDG East section, a -17% decrease on the Central section and a 17% increase in the South section should be ringing alarm bells - those monitoring sites are within a few hundred yards of each other and the fact they "adjusted" the central one probably provides people with the answer they need. Unless, does someone have an explanation for the discrepancy rather than just doing the "well people of EDG Central section our 100 yard section of road was a success at least"!

Pravda, sorry the Steetspace December update, dropped through our door today as well.....cleverly disguised as a piece of junk mail I opened it to read with interest that we were too late to make comments. Luckily I had heeded One Dulwich's warnings of these council underhand tactics and registered my objections - one wonders how many didn't and were denied their chance to have their say by council manipulation/incompetence.... Rest assured people of Dulwich this has nothing to do with Helen Hayes celebrating the fact that there were fewer objections submitted ahead of the last deadline....as she is using this as a bar for success on the LTNs she will no doubt be overjoyed that the council have skewed the process once again this time round! Unfortunately for many councillors May is not a long way away and people have long memories and their ability to meddle in the democratic processes may be coming to an end at the council elections. Let's hope we get some opposition in place to ensure the incumbents at Tooley Street can't ignore their constituents any longer as time and time again the council are abusing their (almost) one-party state and corrupting the system for their own ends.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Because large scale building works won't result in > an increase of HGVs? But look at the data Goldilocks - the only roads that registered a reduction in HGV traffic were Turney Road East (but not West), Court Lane, Calton, Melbourne Grove north and south. Now you would expect Court Lane and Calton to increase given the works at Gilkes Place and on Court Lane but they registered decreases which suggest the new building works are not impacting the figures yet and I can assure you there is a massive increase in HGV journeys around on those roads at the moment. There is something odd going on and I think the HGV numbers are a better measure of what is actually happening. Surely someone like Ex- can confirm whether HGVs are a better bar on monitoring strips in congested/crawling traffic? The increases in HGVs are areawide and not limited to those areas with the major building works. And remember TFL has been saying that there has been a pronounced decrease in HGV journeys (central London cordon -35%, inner London cordon -10%, outer London -3%) over the last few years.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Traffic doesn't disappear from ED Grove > > halfway..that if it is 25% up on one section it > > doesn't just disappear in the middle section - > it > > might slow down and idle. This is why the count > is > > so dubious. Explain - where do those extra 1000 > > cars go? > I > Maybe the 1000 mysteriously vanishing cars all > turn North up Melbourne Rd ? > Oh?.. Didn't they evaporate? This is my point on traffic speed - as someone on here far more knowledgeable than me explained - slow moving traffic may not register on the monitoring strips so that could explain where the 1,000 cars have gone - they are crawling along at the end of the road and so aren't triggering the strips. This may explain why HGVs are showing such an increase across the area as I suspect they will trigger strips however fast they are moving due to their weight. Can anyone confirm if that is the case?

Malumbu - the guy got a load of points on his licence and we got a promise from the police who dealt with the incident that they would stalk him to get him on something that took him over his points limit so he would lose his licence. The guy was living with his parents and when the police turned up at his house his mum was claiming that he wouldn't do something like that the policeman took her outside to show her the car with a missing rear windscreen and three big dents in it and her mood changed so I suspect the points were the least of his worries! But it was ludicrous that someone could deliberately drive into three people and not even get a ban - but that's the legal system for you.

A couple of points to note from the latest "data" . Firstly, have they adjusted the base figures on the basis of the error on Turney that was uncovered? Am I right in thinking that they are still claiming a 10% reduction in the overall traffic in the June number - which is the pre-Turney error number is it not - have they not run the numbers to adjust for the significant Turney Road error? Secondly, having had a quick flick through the 118 page document it seems clear that traffic has increased on all of the roads bar those that are closed - which is common sense. I wonder what happens to the overall traffic numbers when you remove the closed roads from the dataset - what this is clearly saying is that LTNs only achieve one thing - displacement? What the figures don't show is traffic speed as that is the measure of congestion and the council will have that data. The best we can do is look at the bus journey times - the council is claiming positive progression as things aren't as bad in terms of bus journey times as they were in June but look at upward trend in longer bus journey times on pretty much all routes since the restrictions lifted earlier this year - bus journey times are getting longer again which suggest more congestion. That is a worrying trend and undermines the council's "Pravda-esque" dressing up of the figures. Nice to see that Underhill data is included now which shows that traffic has increased along that displacement route but the overall challenge with the document is there is zero consistency in the dataset - in some they go back as far as 2017 as the base, others 2019 - interesting that the biggest displacement routes like Croxted and Underhill are some that use the oldest datasets as the base. Also, HGV numbers seem to be up across the whole area - what is driving this? Overall, the document does little to address the concerns of many that the LTNs are not delivering as advertised. of course, the pro-LTN lobby will wave this around as proof they are working but again, once you start scratching beneath the surface all is not well but the council is trying to dress this up as some sort of victory when it is anything but. You have to commend the council on their efforts to manipulate the narrative on this - it's a fantastic example of how to try to hoodwink the electorate!

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The latest data shows a further fall in traffic. > Across all count sites traffic has decreased by > 12% compared to before the scheme. > > Of course, it will make no difference to those > opposed, but encouraging for anyone interested in > the reality of what?s happening. Where is this data coming from - who is claiming a 12% reduction?

I suggest everyone bombard streetspace@southwark and cc their local councillors and Cllr Williams with both their objections and their shock at the incompetence with the way this process has been handled. This is yet another diabolically badly organised part of the "consultation" and the council will keep doing it unless they think their is some form of recourse. Wilful manipulation of the process? With every turn it looks more and more like it. They are either totally incompetent or utterly devious and the fact remains that none of our local councillors care - they are just turning a blind eye.

A few friends of ours have said that the walk-in at Guys is very quick as there are so few people going to that one (although this was before the latest wave I hasten to add).

Definitely encourage the person this happened to pursue the leaving the scene of an accident. Myself and two friends were the victim of a deliberate hit and run whilst we were at university and whilst we thought it was assault etc the police told us the best we could get was dangerous driving and leaving the scene of an accident and the court took very dimly to leaving the scene as it was the only thing that could not be argued by the defendant (although he did try to argue he had no idea he had knocked three people into the air but watching him trying to argue that point when his rear window glass was missing and the three huge dents in the side of his car was hilarious).

One Dulwich update below. Helen Hayes is encouraged because there are fewer objections...well that's a sign of the times and a sorry reflection of how much contempt our elected representatives treat these processes....what she probably meant to say is "I am glad our manipulation of the democratic process is paying dividends, I believe if we continue to ignore the will of the majority we will prosper eventually. Comrade councillors keep up your fantastic work ignoring your constituents...the party is proud of you." One Dulwich Campaign Update | 12 Dec Dear all, Respond to Southwark AGAIN: deadline 15 December The full text of officers? responses to comments received during the 21 days of the statutory consultation on the permanent traffic orders can be found here. As you can see, 2,095 ?valid? representations were received (273 were discounted for various reasons). Overall, 435 were in support, and 1,660 objected. The result? Southwark continues with the scheme (although changing the timed closure of Melbourne Grove south to a 24/7 closure). We are, however, invited to make formal representations on the officers? report by emailing [email protected] by Wednesday 15 December 2021. Repeatedly asking people whose views are consistently ignored to comment yet again (for the fourth time? We?ve lost count) on proposals that do nothing to improve air quality but still discriminate against those who are elderly, frail and disabled; displace traffic on to residential roads with schools and health centres; and damage the viability of shops and businesses is obviously just a cynical attempt to show that opposition is fading away. (As our MP Helen Hayes wrote to so many of us recently, after Southwark asked for our views on the minimal changes published in September, ?Although I have not seen the results, I understand that they show a significant decrease in the number of objections which is good to hear.?) Because this seems to be the game that Southwark is playing, please email [email protected] by Wednesday 15 December to put on record that the Council has not addressed your objections to the scheme, and is repeatedly ignoring the views of the majority. Southwark has given us no guidance on how to do this (perhaps in the hope that all emails can be discounted and declared invalid), so please feel free to forward your original objections with a covering note saying that Southwark has failed to provide adequate evidence that your comments have been properly considered. Age Speaks protest at Tooley Street Thanks to all who supported the Age Speaks protest and deputation to Southwark Council?s cabinet meeting on 7 December. There was good coverage in both Southwark News and the South London Press. With thanks and best wishes, The One Dulwich Team

Amazing isn't it how many of tbe council's notifications on all things Streetspace go missing.....we haven't had anything...

Not sure if you noticed but many (Will Norman, LCC, Peter Walker) were claiming a huge rise in cycling in 2020 on the back of the LTNs and other modal shift measures. Their grandstanding may have been premature as the figures nose-dived to below pre-pandemic levels which I am happy you are all finally acknowledging ;-). And your assumption that commuting is a fraction of what it was doesn't actually stand up to any scrutiny does it? It's hardly a fraction.....even the article you link to claims it is significantly more than a fraction....do you actually bother to read the whole article of things you post? Anyway, the bottom line is I think the measures have not had anywhere near the impact that people had hoped and a low single digit percentage gain in cycling numbers is all any set of measures will ever deliver and the collateral damage that goes with it does not justify it (and this applies as much to Dulwich as other parts of London). Can you persuade me that the "gains" are worth the damage being done by the measures? Even the 10x gains heralded by the usual suspects but a few months ago have just gone in a matter of months (maybe you'll try to claim these were commuters who stopped commuting midway through the pandemic....). Yes there might be a few more kids cycling to JAGs and DPL every day and a few more cargo bikes around but it doesn't come close to the numbers needed for proper modal shift to be happening. P.S. You're not my mate.....just so we're clear about that I am quite discerning about my friendship group and your aggressive approach on here suggests you wouldn't qualify...;-)

This is horrendous. I am glad there are witnesses - the person concerned should push the police to get a crime number and make an insurance claim against the drivers' insurance.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How much do you think has been spent on roads in > the same period? Are we questioning whether they > are a good investment? > > Again - if cycling is close to pre pandemic levels > in a pandemic when far fewer people have been > needing to travel throughout the period, then how > is this a decline in the round? No we are questioning whether the negative fallout associated with the installation of such measures is worth for seemingly no gain (or even a loss). Surely if you don't actually deliver more cyclists then the measures have been a failure - that's common-sense isn't it? Also I am questioning whether the pro-LTN protagonists were wise to herald the "10x" increase in cycling during the pandemic as proof that the interventions were working and were a success - as it seems to have been very short-lived and not anything to do with the interventions at all. On your second point, again, read the tweet - look at the second set of TFL slides he posted. Other modes of travel are increasing significantly - there is also a thought that increases in cycling during the pandemic could have been from people who use public transport who were not confident to travel on it and now their confidence is returning so they are abandoning bike travel. Bottom-line is, according to TFL's own data, cycling has declined to below pre-pandemic levels across London - despite all of the modal shift interventions within the city. Something clearly is not working.

Goldilocks - this is the point many people are making but I am glad you acknowledge that cycling is struggling to reach pre-pandemic levels. If you spend two years closing roads, installing new cycle lanes and building infrastructure to support modal shift yet the numbers of people cycling is lower than it was in 2019 then people will, understandably, question whether it has all been worth it, especially given the negative impact on other road users (especially other forms of public transport like buses). Will Norman et al touted a 10x increase in cycling in 2020..where has it gone? Did it ever really exist or has it all evaporated when lockdown ended? I suspect very soon there will have to be a pragmatic discussion on what's going wrong with these grand plans as it's clear it hasn't delivered what was intended.

I would probably look and read the tweet properly.....

Goldilocks, the DfT has published stats showing cycling has returned to pre-pandemic levels across the country. TFL has also been publishing numbers (quietly) about the downturn in cycling numbers. As I said before the problem is that Will Norman, TFL and councils got so excited by lockdown cycling numbers that they used it to herald the arrival of modal shift and used it to "validate" the LTN and cycle lane policies. Unfortunately it is increasingly clear that the rise in cycling was being propped up by people using bikes to exercise during lockdown and when lockdown ended so did the growth in cycling as life returned to normality. It was particularly pronounced in London as so much of the weekday commuting cycling stopped as people did not return to offices (especially the MAMIL types who invariably were in jobs that afforded them the ability to work from home more and had made up a large proportion of weekday cyclists pre-lockdown). Of course all of this is completely understandable but much of the new cycling infrastructure was built to facilitate weekday commuting and so was not being used a much as it should and could have been and led to massive increase in congestion for other vehicle types. This Labour councillor from Hackney is well worth a follow - one of the only Labour councillors on the planet not drinking the LTN is great Kool-Aid and he has been one the key voices challenging TFL on their cycling numbers. Here he tweets data from TFL statisticians that was presented to a TFL board meeting this week that shows the trends I have been discussing above (and remember, the chart is presenting % change and the majority of the overall cycling over the course of the year is well below 2019 levels). I have pasted the image from his tweet so you can see the TFL numbers.