goldilocks

Literally data presented by the council. Using counters not eyes. Nothing to do with where you live or perspective. Just facts. ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sure, how easy to come up with pro LTN stats while > sitting in a comfy chair in a quiet house on a > recently closed road. > > Entirely different perspective when living on a > boundery road where all your traffic is now > redirected. > > Just because you don't see something anymore it > doesn't mean it stopped existing.

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?

It would be clear if you were looking at the right graph. You're quoting the East Dulwich Grove East graph - there's a handy picture on the page above showing the count point. You need to look at 'East Dulwich Grove Central' - you'll spot it as its the one where traffic has fallen! heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How much clearer can you get than Southwark's own > graph shown here?

Oh god - again with the conspiracy theories. I have the data because the council released it in the main report and I read it. 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.

Its not 'decrease' - its an actual decrease. I think from memory thre were around 3000 vehicles a day on MGN. Derwent and Elsie less than this but still quite a lot. Also need to consider MGS too. Just in case you missed it above. The previous count point that was used for comparison was near to lordship lane so wasn't actually counting all the traffic that previously travelled along the middle section of ED Grove. Thankfully there are traffic counts from pre the measures. Both council and DFT that show this to be true - eg the number of vehicles in the central section was greater than the bit by Lordship Lane. The 'new' count done in September shows that traffic has fallen since the measures went in and has fallen further in October. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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?

It is a new monitoring site for the LTN monitoring. This really isn't the conspiracy you're trying to make it Rockets. The council didn't include that site in the first two rounds of monitoring it did as part of the streetspace review. It has now been included. Hence it is 'new'. Yes - it would have been better if it had been included from the outset - not least as it would have prevented people getting so entrenched with a view that they can't accept that data doesn't back it up. There are historic counts at the same place that have been used for comparison.

You know that pointing out actual counts isn't gaslighting... heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'facts' ... the disappearing cars...and don't > gaslight my eyes, ears and lungs please - yet > again we are gaslighted for what we see, hear and > breath.

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.

I know its difficult when facts are presented that show that the theory you've been shouting about for a year is totally incorrect, and there's a cycle of grief that you have to go through, but at some point you have to stop claiming that your eyes are a better guide than a traffic monitor. Probably worth adding here that the October figures for that section of East Dulwich Grove show that traffic fell even further. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It hasn't fallen. Cars cannot disappear as they > have nowhere to go. Sept 2021 report admits a rise > in traffic on ED Grove - it's quite simple.

This is exactly right and accounts for the majority of the change in the monitoring that was included in the June data. In addition. In ONLY using the count nearest to Lordship Lane the pre figures were only collecting the numbers of vehicles coming from Lordship lane onto EDG, but not including any joining from Elsie, Derwent or Melbourne and turning right (or left from MGS) towards Townley. Therefore the 'pre' figure is understated for this central location. By using actual counts that existed before the schemes were put in and comparing this to actual counts in the same place after, this is how it can be seen that traffic has fallen outside the Charter School / Hospital site. Jenijenjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In very simple terms: > > 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 > > There has been no increase in number of cars > Townley Road to Melbourne Grove > But an increase of 20 cars I.e. 20% for the > section of road from Melbourne to LL > > Which explains an increase in only one section of > the road

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"!

The comparators for the central section are real counts not adjusted figures. Even if people scooted down hillsboro they wouldn't avoid it unless they were going back the same way. The count is further along. The section by L Lane has increased as traffic can no longer cut through from the streets between EDG and Grove Vale. However, the important point is that the previous 'pre number' understated the number for the central section of EDG as didn't take account of vehicles joining EDG from Derwent / melbourne / elsie etc. Comparing an actual count now to an actual count pre the measures shows that traffic at the central section has fallen. It has still increased on the bit by Lordship as now has all the eastbound traffic plus that which may have previously cut up say Ashbourne / MG. The West Section has another point of entry /exit being Townley Road.

Just again for the people at the back. Traffic on East Dulwich Grove fell on the section between Melbourne Grove and Townley Road by up to 20% when compared to before the measures were put in. Your road is not busier, it is quieter.

The work on Gilkes only really picked up again in late September, so would expect an increase in the next round of monitoring. The Charter works were ongoing through the period though and did result in lots of additional HGVs in the area. The MUGA was completed in around October I think from memory. So you'd expect an increase on EDG and some surrounding roads too as they obviously have to get there.

Because large scale building works won't result in an increase of HGVs?

This - but also that as well as traffic not turning off EDG down those streets, it is also not joining it from them! Jenijenjen 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?? > > Given that previously a lot of EDG traffic would > turn into Melbourne, Derwent etc, now those > options are not available it?s perfectly logical > that just the section leading into LL would see a > higher increase.

Or there are large construction projects like the Charter School East Dulwich which are ongoing and result in lots of HGVs in the area? Also the development in the village at Gilkes Place. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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?

No heartblock - it doesn't disappear. The point was that by only comparing the traffic at the lordship lane end of EDG it was never a true reflection of the whole street. Whilst it doesn't disappear, historically not all traffic joined EDG from Lordship lane. It could join from MG either side, Derwent or Elsie. None of which would have been included in the 'pre' monitoring from that site. Therefore the 'pre' number was understated for the majority of EDG. This number was actually available as the TJ Health Centre has been a DFT and Southwark monitoring site point for years. By comparing the traffic outside the health centre pre and post intervention, its possible to see that the traffic has fallen in this section - possibly by as much as 20% So thats a 20% fall on EDG outside the school and health centre. 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?

So that backs up what I just said - your previous comments were taken from the wrong section. The September data shows a fall in traffic on the main section of East Dulwich Grove between MG and Townley when compared to pre the measures being implemented. There has not been an increase on the whole of East Dulwich Grove.

@Heartblock - you've quoted the June data again there. The September data has an additional count point (one that they could compare as have had previous counts) outside the Tessa Jowell Health Centre and by the Charter sports pitch. This is showing a fall in traffic - either 20% or 3% depending on whether the comparison is January or September and they've used the lowest increase in the report as a prudent basis! The increase on EDG is right next to Lordship lane, which was always going to be the case as traffic can no longer cut down the side streets to avoid the junction, but in terms of actual volumes going along the main amount of EDG between Melbourne Grove and Townley Road, then traffic has fallen. So not a '28% increase on East Dulwich Grove at all.

Could it be positioned in the car park by the Francis Peak building?

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?

I have re looked at it On average - even weekday cycling is around or only slightly below 2019 levels - and probably on average over the year, in line. So not an overall increase. Compared to driving, tube and bus it is up but obviously fewer people are travelling overall. Therefore ignoring weekend cycling (though this isn't necessarily all about 'going for a ride', lots could be travelling for leisure rather than the activity itself) cycling is broadly aligned with pre pandemic numbers but those counts are from a smaller pool of people who need to travel on weekdays. By the same token of 'was the cycling investment worth it'? it seems that road use isn't up to pre pandemic levels, so shall we remove more of those? It seems drivers aren't using them!

I assume without looking that its the Vincent Stops tweet where he notes that cycling is returning almost to pre pandemic levels weekdays, whilst ignoring against a backdrop of tube / bus and even still road use being lower than pre pandemic. Doesn't that mean that if cycling is holding up mostly above pre pandemic levels, but all other modes are down, then in reality cycling has increased as the figures represent a smaller group of people actually needing to travel to work every day.

Rockets - lets have some data on 'cycling numbers plummeting'. Offical data using comparative counts though. The thing about cycling infrastructure and 'paymasters' is interesting too - its cheap. It doesn't require anywhere near as much maintenance as the road network - the mass of bikes plus riders is no where near as damaging to road surfaces etc.