goldilocks

Whilst having a bulk purchasing agreement with a supplier that is perhaps signposted on council websites, I don't think that subsidising drivers is a good use of public funds at all. If people wish to put these on their own private property then its part of their cost vs insurance vs repair assessment. Additionally there is that secondary issue that the catalytic converters are broken down into different components for value and unlikely that the people doing that are legit, so not clear how this would help.

It seems pretty clear - no? Like you managed to find it even in your confused state? The thing is - whatever adjustment factor they had applied, you'd have questioned. The fact that the data is unadjusted is clear (because you have quoted the bit where its stated) and the average figures for london also stated.

If you applied that logic to the nth degree, then you'd lounge any references to Dulwich Village on this thread as its the East Dulwich Forum. Also - maybe you should be less rude? Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > northernmonkey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > What policies do they have that show they?re > > ?centrist? @heartblock? > > > > The only policies they suggested were fighting > to > > remove LTNs and fixing the postal service > > (something that they had no remit over). > > > > There is nothing to suggest that they are ?Tory > > light? so let?s not pretend that in voting for > > them you won?t be voting for Conservative > > councillors - they are part of the local > > association with all that entails > > Maybe you should keep out of Dulwich Village Ward > politics as I don't believe you live in it?

I would suggest that you get in touch with your local councilor to ask - or that you email Cllr Rose and cc officers for info - I understand that monitoring data is available on the link shared but similarly struggle to isolate the right counts so don't doubt that there is a difficulty with accessibility. The last sentence 'the time periods during which the data in the report were collected are shown overleaf' indicates its available though. However - this is not the same as 'there are problems with the data - which is what you stated but clearly don't 'know' Yes - it would be an issue if it compared holiday and not - but as you don't know - suggesting there are 'real problems with the data' is a stretch given what you actually know.

Oh look you're doing it again Rockets 'I think that there's a problem because it suits my narrative, I haven't actually worked out if there is a problem and at this stage I just have questions, but i thought I'd throw some mud around because there are enough people on here who will repeat it as fact' You raise a question as to whether data was collected either both within or both outside school holidays. Rather than finding out, you thought you'd just suggest it in a way that indicates you know the answer. Its clear you don't. The data is difficult to get hold of, its not presented well, the comms have been ineffective and insufficient. Does this mean any of it is wrong? no! Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > "we have evidence in the form of traffic data - > > which shows traffic is significantly reduced > for > > the largest section, between Melbourne Grove > and > > Townley (where the Charter school, health > centre > > and Dutch Estate is)" > > > > Evidence - mmhhh nope I live in that area and > it > > is definitely worse, so the 'data' is not > correct > > for 'that' section. You have got it wrong anyway > - > > Charter/Health Centre is in the old Dulwich > Hosp > > site and isn't at Townley - that central > stretch > > is about 10 metres and doesn't include Townley > or > > the Dutch estate. > > > > Alleyn's is at Townley - so you really don't > know > > the area very well at all - do you? > > > > Try living here in the same flat for 35 years > and > > you might have a bit more knowledge of this > road. > > Heartblock - most of the pro-LTN lobby don't look > beyond the "everything is awesome" headlines they > are spoonfed by the council and they regurgitate > it without actually checking for thenselves. > > I started taking a closer look at the > "methodology" that the council shared to support > the figures they published and it makes for > fascinating reading. To say it is a flawed piece > of research is an understatement. > > My interest was peaked to look beyond the > headlines because the methodology document stated > that the pre-scheme data collection was done out > of school holidays yet it didn't make the same > claim for the post-scheme data collection and I > wondered whether the council had been fudging the > results in their favour by comparing school > holiday flows with non-school holiday flows. > > I am still working through it but if anyone wants > my initial headline assessment PM me and I will > happily share the key slides that I think pose > more questions than provide answers and maybe > someone else can take a look and see if they are > seeing the same things I am.

Ah - Heartblock's parallel universe where East Dulwich Grove wasn't busy / standstill at 8am.... its been a while!

Hi redjam - have you heard anything further on this please? The letter indicates that phase 2 works are planned to begin in feb 2022, so wondered whether there had been any update as to whether the funding has now been secured?

Understood that it was reopened now. Andy Simmonds had tweeted that the S Circular had reopened. Not sure if any remaining roadworks though, but don't think its fully closed any more.

Or alternatively fines won't apply to those following the signed diversion? The diversion route is up through the village or EDG - NOT Townley though. tiddles Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The south circular was closed both ways from > harvester to Dulwich college. The signs directing > traffic were pushing them thru the village (this > was at 3.03) which means all those cars will get > fined. Wonderful joined up thinking. Cannot wait > for may

Thats a really good point March46 - there is an expectation that this road is safe by the children using it - having it suddenly full of speeding cars would be a disaster.

Heartblock - doesn't really matter who was a Cllr when a privately run business decided to close down East Dulwich (not Southwark) sorting office citing efficiency concerns, but really with an eye to the value of the site for resale. My point is that cllrs can't control this, its not in their remit. They can speak against it (and did), Helen Hayes has raised the issues too but it hasn't done anything. Now two dudes in the Village are going to fix it all, leave it with us... Basically my point is that who is able to actually influence specific things is badly understood, even included those running for office.

Years ago you could drive straight through Dulwich park - so from the S Circular to Court Lane. Reopening the park to traffic would also ease the congestion and free up cars who can't use the South Circ today but no one is suggesting that because (rightly) having traffic going through the park sounds like a bad idea! However, I'm willing to bet that had the park only closed last year there would be people calling for that. In terms of whether it is appropriate to point out what is the council's role though - there are a large number of people who look to blame cllrs for many things they're not responsible for, so its an understandable point however made. I'd also note that the local Conservative wannabe cllrs seem to think that they will improve the mail service, despite it being a privately run company and nothing to do with the council and therefore trying to make clear where council's mandates end appears reasonable. Unless Tristan Honeybee or whatever he's called is going to deliver the postal backlog on one of his long runs (which seemed to be his other main point re election) then it seems unlikely they'll have much effect on that either - and that's from people actively seeking election, so the fact the general public doesn't know what is and isn't within a council's remit is entirely plausible.

This is true - but also a lot of the ones that are are passivhaus and off grid. In cities they are disastrous for our air quality. There is no such thing as an eco friendly way of burning solid fuels.

This is true Sue - only in the last few years has the full impact really been clear. It is however very clear - even new burners are harming you, your family and your neighbours.

Or its via the vivacity monitor they note and the review of the data collated by those monitors is done by the company supplying them rather than the council? I don't know either, but i'm not suggesting conspiracy. Rockets - to be clear, you have absolutely zero idea who did the analysis, but you've decided to sling mud 'cos as you know some of it will stick - especially if you keep saying the same things over and over. For anyone dipping in and out of this thread - there is nothing in the data that suggests that the cycle count numbers on Calton Ave were done by a cycle group. This is just one of the things that Rockets thinks and is presenting as fact.

These are questions you need to ask the council on their monitoring - no idea how i'd have this information. Though re question 4 I'd put money on the fact that its because that statement exists elsewhere in the report and its been erroneously copied across.

Sounds likely in terms of what happened to it. Could you put a note on the street asking for its return in the hope that the person who took it walks / drives past regularly? Asset Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don?t suppose anyone picked one up thinking it had > been placed outside for taking? > Moving son out of house and it has disappeared. > Only thing I can think that happened 😬 > Would be amazing if I get it back. Have had it for > over 30 years 😢

And yet - when faced with actual traffic counts from the DFT on the section of road that runs past your house and comparing those counts to the new monitoring which shows that traffic has fallen on East Dulwich Grove, you refuse to accept this. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So - basically dump your pollution on your poorer > neighbour, whether in a different borough or on a > road managed by TFL - well at least at last there > is a truth being told. > Originally the traffic everywhere was going to > 'evaporate', then it was going to be diverted to > streets 'built to take cars', now it's clear that > traffic doesn't evaporate and the urban streets > that traffic is diverted to are major residential > areas - and quite clearly cheaper/higher density > housing on the South Circ, so will be more > affordable than a leafy street of 5 bedroom > houses, the excuse now is - 'oh we have no control > over those roads'. > The changing narrative is so obvious. > > I would like to know what the rise in congestion > has been pre and post LTNs there must be a > historical way of measuring this from Google-maps. > I would also like to know why, when I walk out of > my door in the morning I am faced with cars, HGVs > and buses idling in a traffic queue from LL all > the way down to Village Way - which never existed > before the LTNs went in. Even in the 30+ years of > living here, if there were road works etc - there > was always the ability for traffic to divert. > Why are my lungs, my ears, my health less > important than someone living in Melbourne or > Calton, why is my road and my neighbours lungs > less important. > The traffic has not evaporated - this is a failed > 2 year experiment and a failure of the East > Dulwich and Dulwich community to care about > others. > Selfish.

I think people are willfully ignorant. They've spent a lot on the woodburner, they love the feeling / how cosy it is and frankly don't want to think about how its harmful for them and their neighbours. If you try to give people information on how harmful they are they ignore it or indulge in whataboutery type comments (see above really). Agree too that charcoal bbqs and firepits also sholdn't be used. If you must bbq then a gas one is preferable to a charcoal one from a localised air pollution perspective (not perfect, but 'better')

Nigello - aside from being utterly wrong - this is neither the time nor the place. There are not 'a few dozen at the very most' wood burners in SE22 and as per above, it doesn't matter whether or not your wood is kiln dried, its still massively polluting. Solid fuel burning accounts for huge amounts of pollution in urban areas and its growing and most gallingly its on the increase. Yes cutting down on consumption is really really important - but even if you do all those things I'd still be wanting people to refrain from burning wood in a period of extreme poor air quality as it has a hyper localised impact.

Maybe because it isn't constant - there have been postal issues throughout 3 years. They peak around Christmas but also exist at other times. However, there are clearly efforts being made to sort out the backlog and I suspect this is being talked up by Royal Mail. I'd imagine the survey is to understand whether this has made any difference at all locally? From a personal perspective I'm still waiting for mail from mid December so that would be a 'no'.

Measurement near the ED nursery (private nursery that chooses to use the front garden nearest the road for play areas for its youngest children whilst prioritising the owner's SUV parking at the rear)is higher yes. Central isn't made up - it has actual traffic counts - details in the latest report. It doesn't support your argument so you're trying to claim it doesn't exist.

Oh - so you're ignoring the 'central' counts - eg the ones closest to your house? Ok... heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nope it's Sept data - EDG East > Jan 2019 - 8140 > Sept 2021 - 11007 > > Gilkes Crescent - 0

Based on the September data, it doesn't. You are using the count near Lordship Lane and applying it to your flat. This is wrong. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The section I live in - flats no private parking, > not many gardens - Ed Grove East > Southwark data shows an increase in traffic by > 2867 cars/HGV a day. > > Well done Southwark!