goldilocks

But Rockets - you actually can't 'clear anything up once and for all' because your assertions are conjecture too. We need the council to confirm that the Sept figures are adjusted. I don't think they are because they don't follow the adjustment figures stated. There was a count in the section between MG and Townley near to the health centre. It may not have been in exactly the same point as the Sept 2021 one eg to the nearest cm, but in the same section - so that 'in a different place' is doing some heavy lifting in that sentence. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let's just clear this up once and for all - the > EDG Central numbers deserve far more scrutiny and > showed be treated with extreme caution. > > Here's why: > > There was a count (in a different place on the > road) in Jan 19. The council then "adjusted" that > figure to create a Sept 19 number (which was not > based on an actual count). They, without any > explanation, adjusted it upwards from 11,832 to > 14,214. The Sept 21 figure which was based on a > count (but in a different place to the Jan 19 one) > counted 11,442 - this is what gave them the > "decrease" in traffic on EDG Central. > > Without their adjustment of the Jan 19 figure to > create the Sep 19 figures the reduction would have > been negligible. > > So, until there is a clearer explanation from the > council on why they made such a large upwards > adjustment to the figure then I don't think anyone > should be using the EDG Central figure of any > proof of anything. > > The "reduction" is, basically, modelled.

I was thinking the same Alice - think they've lost the franchise so wouldn't imagine much will change until then

Looking for things that we do agree on - i think this is one of them. I'd support a scrappage scheme for ICE but not grants for purchase of EVs except for those with blue badges. We need to remove ICE from the roads and we need to dramatically shift away from private cars to allow public transport options to be more effective. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No not a conspiracy, it is well known if you have > taken note of the revolving doors of ex-Southwark > Cllr and employees and then Southwark giving work > to those ex's - I think Private Eye and the 35% > campaign are both quite illuminating - but that's > another thread really. > > I would by the way - support the complete ban of > all petrol cars in inner and outer London, with > emergency vehicles being the only exceptions.

That really isn't what you should infer from that footnote though It was a new site in the current round of monitoring. Ie it wasn't included in the April figures but was added in September. Its a massive leap from that to state that 'there was no 2019 monitoring, it was modelled'. For the record, this isn't correct - the 2019 monitoring outside the hospital site was real. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Because I live on ED Grove and it wasn't there. I > travel pass that point almost ever day. That's > why. It also states that in Southwark's own report > if you look at the data detail. It documents this > point as a new measurement point from 2021. Page > 42 of the publised Appendix B: Traffic Flow > Results ODF on this Southwark site > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/i > mproving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review? > chapter=4 > > "The charts below and on the following pages show > the average daily flows on East Dulwich Grove > Central, showing the difference between > pre-implementation flows and data collected in > January 2019 / September 2019 and September 2021. > The choice of pre-implementation month January or > September 2019 makes a significant difference to > the baseline volume of cars/LGVs. Both are shown > for comparison. January 2019 has been used in the > main report to provide the more conservative > estimate. > ? This is a new site for data collection, having > started in September 2021."

I think that Friday commuters are fewer and fewer in the increased hybrid working we're seeing. Not sure that people going home on a Friday night would want to stop off for an 'artisan sausage roll' or even a kilo of apples (depending on the type of market) - plus there is M&S for general food and the lovely Marvellous Greens and Beans who are open late anyway for Greengrocer offerings plus the excellent Jones the Grocer for more 'artisan foodstuffs' if that's what people are looking for. Essentially the types of markets that work are the Northcross / Herne Hill offerings and they work best in the daytime when people are getting food and browsing limited other offerings. Sunday would clash with Herne Hill rather than Northcross and would seem more sensible as its less of an easy walk between ED and HH than it is between MG and Northcross.

Why are you so sure that 2019 wasn't a 'pneumatic tubing counter'? heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks bud, so Uber has dramatically caused an > increase on EDG at school run hours. Ah ok, that > explains it. > 2019 wasn't an actual count using the pneumatic > tubing counter that appeared at this point in 2021 > but was not there before. As I say the the > Parliament research paper expresses the > granularity of economic impact on traffic/private > car use in London and is worth a read by those who > can be bothered to understand the complexity. > > Traffic starting at LL travels down a road and > cannot 'escape' until it gets to Townley (if open' > or DV end). How do the closed roads of Elsie, > Melbourne and Derwent make this traffic disappear. > Do explain, because that is beyond my brain.

no one other than you is suggesting that. There are several points here: 1. the 2019 count is an actual count - not extrapolated, not made up. The data supplied is inconsistent as to whether there were 2 counts or 1 which is unhelpful, but at least 1 count is 'actual'. My understanding had been that the September was actual too! 2. The point is not that traffic 'disappeared' but that in only counting near lordship lane and near townley road, it didn't take account of cars joining from Melbourne, Derwent or Elsie. 3. Comparing an actual count near the hospital site from 2019 to an actual count now shows that vehicles have reduced in that section. Its not magic - just looking at a map and understanding where traffic might have gone previously and now. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Metallic - this is the EDG Bermuda Triangle where > cars travelling from LL to DV disappear and then > re-appear. It's the magic unicorn of evaporating > traffic we were all told about.

Factually though East Dulwich Grove is often clear in the section between MG and Townley from 8:30 onwards and 3-4. That doesn't mean that there aren't high levels at other times. For example the traffic is heavy at 8-8:15 ish. The thing is, the presence of the schools that is used by people to suggest that the levels of traffic are unacceptable are in fact a significant contributor to this traffic. Whilst lost of families don't drive to school, enough staff and parents do to make a difference on the road infrastructure, especially as the difference between peak gridlock and off peak free flow is in reality so few cars (details available in the initial data provided by Southwark back in 2019 pre OHS). This is not a new problem, there has always been queueing traffic on East Dulwich Grove at this time.

Yes would agree that pavement pips on the section nearest to the planters to ensure that even loading isn't permitted would help with enforcement. The lorries for the building site are an additional concern so not adding to the congestion there would be wise. There have been more enforcement officers there this week - whether this leads to any change in behaviour remains to be seen.

It really isn't just the private schools who have the issues with school parents - though they're a convenient target for this ire. The streets are much quieter when they're on holiday, but its not the case that they're the only traffic - more they're the 'straw that breaks the camels back'. Since the square was put in there are a lot of parents using it as a drop off area and now, given that emergency access has been provided its more important that this doesn't happen as given emergency access is supposed to be available, having someone parked up for the school run for Hamlet / DVIS becomes even less appropriate.

Its the discussion of the 'low traffic Southwark' strategy where she is asked what the emerging themes are(which was her role at the time to develop) and she lists off a whole range of things like she's thinking of them for the first time finishing with 'or do you want me to do some more blue sky thinking' when in reality it was actually a question about what she has identified for future work and policy. Also interesting though where she suggests over time removing parking on roads - at least on one side. Wonder how many of her new found fangroup would be recoilling in horror at that? Given no changes will come without a CPZ, the idea of permits and significantly less parking could be a challenge for the 'you can't expect busy parents, people with young children, older people etc to use active travel crowd!

'making trouble for Cllr Burgess'? No not really - just commenting in response to all the fangirling that's going on upthread. My comments on the 'blue-sky thinking' were in relation to an earlier meeting where she was presenting back on progress made in her role. I'm sure its on youtube, but I can summarise it as 'zero'. Having looked up her current position Cllr Burgess is now 'Deputy Cabinet Member for Clean Air and Active Travel.' She has held a deputy cabinet position since I think 2020 and was previously responsible for low traffic Southwark and whilst Rose was the decision maker, Cllr Burgess had an associated deputy cabinet role. I raise this as Cllr Burgess has not been looking in from the sidelines! To be clear - I also agree that Rose's lack of responses to emails etc is very frustrating - especially when people like Rockets have continued questions that are valid and could easily be answered by someone who had bandwith or support to do so, but then the lack of response is taken as an assumption that the inferences drawn must be valid and Southwark data must be wrong. Essentially the lack of responsiveness frustrates everyone.

Said in jest - more than once... Anyway, lets take a moment on Cllr Burgess. She has been for the past 2 years, deputy cabinet member with responsibility for Low Traffic Southwark. Her title changed at some point, can't quite recall when or to what though but essentially the same mandate throughout. Over a year into her role there was a committee meeting where she was asked about what progress she'd made on a borough wide freight policy (to be clear - she was scheduled to talk, rather than asked when not expected). This was something that was firmly within her mandate and her response was vague, none defined and apparent that she'd done precisely nothing and then she finished with 'was that enough, or would you like me to do some more blue sky thinking'. If Cllr Burgess had been doing her job for the past 2 years then maybe Southwark would be closer to a last mile logistics policy which might be addressing all the next day delivery issues that are an increasing component of the traffic on our roads. But instead she's spent 2 years producing precisely nothing (though maybe this mystery paper will outline it all).

It is only ?10 a year though and it makes it easier if you're not sure in certain circumstances Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it's a bit of a swizz that TfL charges you > to sign up for Autopay. If it were free, OP could > have just signed up for that, and if they got > pinged, they wouldn't have to worry about getting > fined.

Legalalien - ~I wasn't implying you were part of an organised group - but more that your 'I don't have any particular agenda line' is not really playing out by what you post on a much more frequent basis. The fact that you have repeatedly inferred something and drawn links to unrelated policy is more likely to promote more mass 'anti Southwark' hysteria. There are huge differences between Rye Lane and Melbourne Grove and any attempt to draw parallels between them is doing more than reaching! In terms of whether round the station would be a 'nice area for some bars' there is already the Cherry Tree - its not overrun and I can't imagine it would be thrilled by change of use of other businesses to eat into its trade. The empty building that used to be a bookies opposite the station seems kitted out to be a restaurant, but last time I looked the rent was astronomical and i couldn't imagine what could possibly do enough covers to support it. I'm always surprised by how long landlords will leave a business property empty rather than lowering rent though.

I don't really understand why its being proposed for Saturday rather than Sunday - not being in conflict with North Cross Road seems sensible and it is a 5 minute walk between the two. I don't have strong feelings about it either way (other than if it goes ahead the bins will need emptying more frequently than they are now), but I do question the demand for 2 markets doing the same thing 5 mins apart on the same day.

If you go on bikeregister and put in the frame number does it show as stolen? Lots aren't registered so it might not help, but if it was it would be a way of reuniting with its owner (and if its a brompton they'll be delighted!)

Well said Jenijenjen. I'd been reading Legalalien's posts on these and wondering whether to call out what is an obvious attempt to stir up ill will. There is absolutely nothing anywhere that would indicate that anything about night time economy in that area is anything other than conjecture and an attempt to provoke outrage which can then be pounced upon by the usual parties! Legalalien - you started out on this forum claiming that you 'didn't have an agenda and that you just wanted to ensure that people have all the info as its hard to find (which i agree with), but that not having an agenda has become more and more stretched over time to the extent that you're now creating things to provoke outrage. Jenijenjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No, you're not predicting, you are rumour > spreading to stir up further feeling against > Southwark Council, as do many of your posts. If > you have any evidence that this is being proposed > please supply proof other than the vague notion > that Southwark Council supports a night time > economy. > > In the case of the bars discussed in the > Bermondsey Scheme, they have been there for a very > long time. To compare the vibrancy of Bermondsey > Street with Melbourne Grove is laughable.

thank you

I was saying, that coming on to publicly note that you heard something that someone had said to someone else isn't the most reliable indicator of what was said. This thread has been an absolute experiment in misinformation. From the ill informed initial poster through to your 'he said, she said' interpretation of someone's recollection. Melbourne Grove isn't decimated - I know for those of you who want the road reopening, it would be helpful to present this to back up your perception, but there is no basis in fact. [Edited to deal with Heartblock's concerns on phrasing - don't want anything detracting from the very real concerns about the misinformation spreading attempts they're making!]

The two hours free is really helpful - lots of times I think that would be enough for picking something up. Does anyone know how long the training takes please?

Maybe thats a good plan march46 -weirdly people are often more accepting of something written on a flyer than being told it by someone else. Perhaps it makes it more 'official'?

@Heartblock - just pasting what you actually said here: From chatting to some Melbourne Grove retail owners, I have been told that the local Councillors are ambivalent and the residents want them all to go and have one 'nice' coffee shop and no businesses that attract school-kids. Charming! It was the 'I have been told' element that made me deduce that you were telling a story where someone said something!

If 'someone said' it, then it most definitely must be true... heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it would be interesting to answer > though...there are many closed roads, so it will > not identify.. I suspect it is a yes 'I do live in > an LTN' and yes 'I have a large house, a car and a > garden' and yes 'I drive on ED Grove', but of > course it's a forum and we are all allowed some > privacy..although someone recently did tell me > where I was located on ED Grove...but got it > wrong...so swings and roundabouts.. > From chatting to some Melbourne Grove retail > owners, I have been told that the local > Councillors are ambivalent and the residents want > them all to go and have one 'nice' coffee shop and > no businesses that attract school-kids. Charming!

Callow's was under offer a couple of months ago and the estate agent listings still list it as under offer.