goldilocks

The reality is that we aren't going to get masses of east - west train / tram transport in the coming 5-10 years, so whats the alternative. Busses are the most obvious, but we need far fewer private cars on the road to make busses feasible and fast enough. Otherwise we're stuck with more and more congestion. Car travel is the reality because frankly its quicker than public transport and much more comfortable. Until that changes then there is little incentive to stop driving. ULEZ will help eliminate some journeys for those with non compliant cars as there is an assessment of whether its worth paying the fee, but don't expect it to make huge differences locally (although would love to be wrong on that. The route you mentioned to Hammersmith in the realm of 'longer commutes' is only 15km each way - thats under an hour on a normal bike and far less on an ebike with no need to be 'fit enough' to do the journey (but with the added benefit of still adding some built in exercise). The majority of journeys carried out in London are shorter than that and I would imagine from the area we live in (zone 2) shorter still than average.

I don't actually work anywhere at all convenient from London Bridge station - but where I work isn't relevant here - we live in a city with millions of other people so having individuals commute in private cars is just unfeasible. Hammersmith is a bit of a hassle to get to on public transport I agree, but thankfully advances in ebikes mean that cycling is becoming more accessible for a much wider group of people and lots of people aren't really making 15km trips, more the under 5km ones that could easily be swapped (and yes there is loads of data on the average trip length in London).

In Heartblocks world - to square off her dislike of LTNs shes constructed a parallel universe where drivers are mostly 'busy mums taking kids to school and then going onto their 'little job' or care workers. Completely ignoring the fact that car ownership is a luxury and one that many of the poorest cannot afford. I'd also like to know where all these 'mums' are working where they can drive to work - and why that should be preserved. I work in central London, I don't expect to be able to drive to work because it isn't practical in a city of this size. The same is true of zone 2.

I have both 'actually looked at the report' and read it. Nothing you have posted in that link changes anything I said upfront. There are lots of responses from streets directly affected, this is still not the same as a majority of residents though. Its not actually even clear that its a 'majority of residents' on those streets. This is the problem that yet again the data isn't really good enough to make such granular assessments, so we're back to high level comments - and my high level comments were accurate. ockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > goldilocks Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > If 7542 was made up solely of responses to the > > mailed out survey then you would have a point. > > But it isn't. It also includes responses from > > anyone who filled it in online, of whom you > have > > no means of knowing where they live. The > relevant > > detail from the consultation report is below: > > > > A consultation newsletter was posted to 19,729 > > postal addresses in May. We also notified 3,339 > > people by direct email, after they > > had registered in the previous phase. 576 paper > > surveys were posted to people who had requested > > them. > > We received 7,542 responses to the survey. Of > > these 209 were voided as being duplicates > (people > > providing more than one > > response). Of the remaining 7,333, some 5,538 > > identified themselves as living or working on > > streets within the consultation zone. > > We operated a ?unique identifier? system with > > numbers available either on the envelopes that > the > > newsletter came in or in the > > emails that were sent ? however only 1491 > > responses included anything in the ?unique > > identifier? field, and many of these were > > incorrectly used ? therefore this metric has > not > > been used in the analysis below. > > Goldilocks - have you actually looked at the > report or are you basing your assumptions on a > presumption? You do realise the council has broken > the feedback down by a street-by-street basis as > well as within the Consultation Zone as a whole? > They even plot a map to show the % of respondents > on each street..... > > Take a look at the report - it's pretty compelling > that an overwhelming majority of those people > within the Consultation Zone responded that they > wanted it returned to its original state. > > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s1015 > 17/Appendix%20D%20-%20Dulwich%20Review%20Consultat > ion%20Report.pdf

If 7542 was made up solely of responses to the mailed out survey then you would have a point. But it isn't. It also includes responses from anyone who filled it in online, of whom you have no means of knowing where they live. The relevant detail from the consultation report is below: A consultation newsletter was posted to 19,729 postal addresses in May. We also notified 3,339 people by direct email, after they had registered in the previous phase. 576 paper surveys were posted to people who had requested them. We received 7,542 responses to the survey. Of these 209 were voided as being duplicates (people providing more than one response). Of the remaining 7,333, some 5,538 identified themselves as living or working on streets within the consultation zone. We operated a ?unique identifier? system with numbers available either on the envelopes that the newsletter came in or in the emails that were sent ? however only 1491 responses included anything in the ?unique identifier? field, and many of these were incorrectly used ? therefore this metric has not been used in the analysis below.

No Rockets - there were some respondents - they were overwhelmingly negative, agreed. This doesn't mean they are a majority of people locally. Its not 'trying to belittle responses' its stating something that is factually true. The only 'truth' is that people who responded to the consultation were not in favour. This is unequivocally not the same thing as a majority of people no matter how many times you say it. It could be that the majority of local people are against the measures, but you don't 'know' this.

You really are consistently quite rude. Do you think it helps? ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Or perhaps you could do us a favour goldilocks and > move your righteous indignation here: > > /forum/read.php? > 5,2207080,page=1 > > Some of you, the 'holier-than-thou' folk already > tried it once.

When someone claims they're disappointed and you respond with 'what about this then' it is the very definition of 'whataboutary'. When an organisation produces material that turns out to have been 'an absolute clanger' as the kindest way of describing that inappropriate / insensitive slogan then it remains their responsibility - not that of those pointing out how crass it is to go round requesting it to be removed.

Thats just whataboutery. Is it wrong that Rosamund Kissi-Debrah gets abused on Twitter - yes? Is it wrong for Dulwich Alliance to have produced an 'all streets matter' poster? Also yes! Is it unquestionably unacceptable not to have intervened to have removed the posters? That'll be another 'yes'.

Lets combine these. Rockets, its a majority of respondents. Have you ever read trip advisor? @Heartblock - don't think anyone is saying its a statistical certainty - just that it shows it might have fallen AND its backed up by the counts in the latest data - again not a certainty because of the way the data is presented. However, if the council counts traffic outside the health centre AND at the previous points, then they could understand if it is correct.

And Rockets - again - 68% of respondents is not the same as 68% of Dulwich residents.

Still on this - they used the DFT data, which was an estimate for the most recent year, but which has been derived from manual counts on a number of different years (its been an annual data point for many years). This longstanding DFT data has been compared to the latest data from Southwark collected as part of the recent monitoring. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nope - they compared an estimate with actual > data..

I also fail to see any scenario where opening up MGS wouldn't increase traffic on the central section of East Dulwich Grove. So in an effort to alleviate traffic on Lordship Lane, its likely that the section of EDG between MGS and Townley will increase - particularly westbound. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > in response to this and also eastdulwichhenry's > post above - I think I read that part of the > reason for reopening Melbourne Grove South outside > restricted hours is to help relieve the traffic on > LL (which I guess would help CPR but would mean > more traffic on MGS, all to help cope with the > displacement caused by the CL/Calton/DV closure.) > > > KidKruger Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Crystal Palace Rd is now a HTN, at least > compared > > to what it was like before the LTNs were > > implemented. > > It?s not just the volume of cars which is > > startling, it?s the panic/urgency/desperation > of > > drivers? behaviour which has increased. I guess > > with Lordship Lane rammed nowadays, other > routes > > are sought to enable them to feel like they?re > > making some sort of progress in their journeys. > > Just a matter of time before a serious injury > or > > worse, seems inevitable - you can?t have so > much > > stressed traffic through an entirely > residential > > street without an eventual accident involving > > pedestrians or a cyclist. > > Let?s Trade Neighbourhoods.

That would be true in terms of estimate vs actual - but the DFT data has both actual (manual counts) and estimates (for the years where manual counts weren't undertaken). The count that is referenced is right outside the hospital, whereas the council counts were all closer to Lordship Lane. I think from looking at the latest data provided by the council in the report, the turning analysis (although again also limited time span and also peak hours only) also indicates that there has been a fall in traffic on that central section of East Dulwich Grove during peak times. So that's 2 different data sources indicating that traffic has fallen on the section of East Dulwich Grove between Townley and Melbourne Grove. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. DC Pay attention - all ideas have been > submitted to this forum on multiple occasions. > 2. GL Any undergraduate knows in research methods > you do not compare an estimate with an actual > count.

So - a quick search on the DFT map shows that there is a count point right outside the hospital site: https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/#16/51.4597/-0.0770/basemap-countpoints This was a manual count in 2005, 2007 and 2016. Inbetween those times the manual counts were adjusted (presumably by average changes) - interestingly the adjustment from the estimate re the manual wasn't much at all, which seems to indicate the estimates were reasonably accurate. What is it about this DFT data that you object to? heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No - the baseline for pre-LTN 2019 figure used was > an estimate based on 2016 DFT data - source and > count method not given. There was a pre LTNs > number that was an actual count in 2019 - 9386, > but they didn't use this as a baseline and chose > to use the inflated estimate - choosing 16354 as a > figure for the baseline - I wonder why? > > The 2021 data was a 2 day manual count - no day of > the week specified so could have been at the > weekend and was not the traffic count tubes but > was 13583 > > So if you use the manual counts and no estimate > the traffic increased by 13583 - 9386 which is an > extra 4197 vehicles a day, which is a 44% > increase. > > But they used an estimate for baseline and a count > as the post LTN so they say a drop of 2771 - bad > maths as this calculation gives a 2671 decrease - > and declare a 17% reduction. > > Rubbish research and terrible maths - But feel > free to look at it yourself.

Tintagel has Goose Green school on it and given proximity to Elsie, the two together are viewed as the 'school street'. Melbourne / Jarvis are the same re Charter ED.

Ah, I don't know why the gov map would be different. Also worth remembering that Charter East Dulwich gets an extra form this year, although its virtually impossible to predict what it will do to the distance offered, largely depends on siblings, but reasonable to assume that the distance would increase from the prior year.

When i've looked at this in the past, there has been info in the admissions section detailing the eastings /northings coordinates you need to put into a map to get the point the measurement is done from. Do you happen to have the furthest distance offered by Charter North please (and preferably in September rather than on initial offer day)? Many thanks

Interesting ab29 - as the timed restrictions aren't in place on the weekend. Maybe, you're just noticing traffic more because its become a focus? The monitoring for Lordship Lane at the bottom end shows a fall. I see you disagree with this monitoring because your eyes tell you a different story but the data tells us that traffic has fallen on pretty much every boundary road. The exception is East Dulwich Grove but the last monitoring released seems to show that even on there the traffic effects aren't the same along the whole street.

It was a large demonstration - especially when compared to the previous ones One Dulwich have run. There were hundreds of people. In Covid times its more likely though that crowds are over estimated though as people aren't getting as close to one another. Its not a concerted effort to come on and point out that the guesstimates from One Dulwich are wildly overplayed and that this is indicative of their approach overall. @Slarti - majority of people responding to a consultation is different from a majority of people locally. If we meet in the middle and say 500 (generous - especially as some were groups from other areas who will join any anti LTN protest) then as a % of local people its not even close. No one is looking to divert attention, rather pointing out that you're adding 2+2 and getting 5 (or 1000 perhaps)!

But wouldn't you agree Slarti, that sending out messages stating 'an estimated 1000 people' calls into question One Dulwich's grasp on facts. What does it matter if it was 300 vs 1000? Think its just the blatant lies that matter really.

Even looking at the photos on twitter shown by the anti LTN accounts shows that there were no where near 1000 people there. The area covered looked to be up as far as the end of Harold George on the Square side and then in front of the chemist on Dulwich Village side and across the road. Did One Dulwich use the Donald trump approach to crowd quantification?

Looking at the discussion on Dulwich Alliance / One Dulwich (if there's a difference between these two groups I'm yet to work it out) then it seems that they are trying to walk a very fine line to maximise their support. Actually saying what they do want - which has on numerous occasions seemed to be a system of permits for certain residents is tricky as it would seem obvious that such permits wouldn't apply for everyone in the 'local area'. Eg the likelihood is that anyone Lordship Lane or further East would not be included. It seems likely that being clear on this would inevitably reduce supporters once people realised that their scheme would result in the same issues they have complained about except that people living in a very small area would have permits to drive. Hence we have a continued and deliberate lack of clarity as to what is being asked for.

I'm not going anywhere - i didn't name the thread or write the daily fail article. But its yet another horrifying attempt to link the two. Had I been going there i'd have said 'look how low LTN opponents will sink - will you condemn it, go on, will you'. But that would be ridiculous! This is just a horrible assault by two men riding motorbikes. Those are the facts that we know at this point.

I can't imagine that people who behave like that have the bikes legally registered to them. Also why 'LTN violence'? Sociopathic behaviour from hooligans maybe, but anything trying to blame traffic filters for this is a stretch!