goldilocks

I was pointing out the lack of factual accuracy in your 'low car ownership' comments. Yes - compared to a couple of wealthy streets, but not comparative to anywhere else. Yes - ED Grove has congestion at peak times - but a lot of the time the road is totally empty. I'm struggling to remember a time when it wasn't congested at peak times and the monitoring data shows that traffic has fallen since the LTNs put in (i know you don't 'believe' this - but I can't do anything about that). Do I think that more needs to be done - yes, do i think that reopening all roads would change congestion on ED Grove - no, there would still be peak time traffic. Also - the dutch estate isn't mostly empty of cars - the majority of the spaces are full at weekends or evenings and they have garages too. Its not public parking its just extensive free parking for residents.

Also a fair point - we need all wood burning to stop. But in the meantime - so as not to dilute the very real message here. Please do not light personal wood burners tonight.

In the central section of EDG there is the dutch estate that has more parking spaces than flats and is free for residents. There is then the row of converted shops by the charter school the majority of which have off road parking for at least 2 cars. Then there is the row of houses opposite the charter school some of which are flats with parking right outside that is mainly full. Where is this low car ownership section you speak of Heartblock? heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Village end in Village Ward is wealthy...come > down my end and view all our lovely garden-less > flats, come talk to the family next door with two > bedrooms and 4 kids - It's not unhelpful and it > isn't them and us - it is the truth that so called > boundary roads have lower income families, lower > car ownership and a higher BAME percentage of > residents. > You may find this an unhelpful truth - so be it. > > 2.5 million house on Gilkes with storage for 3 > cars (an LTN supporter) versus a 2 bed rental no > car storage and dependent on PT (a family that is > in despair about the LTN causing congestion).

Its a bit like suggesting that cigarettes with filters are better than roll ups. Possibly though both are dreadful for you. The same is true of all types of wood burning and wood burners. Even the most 'efficient' modern stoves are unlikely to replicate their test burning emissions in real world tests - both too wet and too dry logs have negative effects on emissions, and even 'perfect' ones still release harmful pm2.5 in much greater concentrations than anything else in an urban context. The most galling thing about woodburning is its entirely avoidable. People have heating, the woodburners are an additional source. The instagram / ideal home type glossy brochures have sold us all a massive lie. Its not cosy its not green and it contributes massively to poor air quality and is harming you and your neighbours. macutd Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i thought KILN DRIED LOGS were ok to burn?

100% agree. Use your other sources of heating. Yes gas central heating pollutes too, but its no where near as detrimental as burning solid fuel, even in the most 'eco' log burner.

Do you mean that you were caught speeding by the speed camera outside the school on Peckham Rye?

As its been a while... this is your regular reminder that (if you're using this thread as any kind of source of info rather than just the usual suspects arguing) there is no council data showing increased pollution on major roads. Some groups opposed to LTNs have done their own monitoring, and some people have used individual peak data and quoted this against maximum averages. Caveat emptor Jellybeanz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > march46 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I notice that as well as the Dulwich schemes > being > > made permanent, there are several other London > > boroughs announcing similar this week. A > positive > > start to 2022. > > > > Lambeth - Railton and Oval > > > https://twitter.com/lambethlivingst/status/1478727 > > > 399298809858?s=21 > > Lewisham - Lewisham and Lee Green > > > https://twitter.com/lewishamcouncil/status/1478450 > > > 423484792849?s=21 > > Enfield - Bowes > > > https://twitter.com/enfieldcouncil/status/14783257 > > > 82736945160?s=21 > > I think the principle idea of LTNs is a good one > BUT I do not think they work in certain areas / > for certain streets. In ED they have undoubtedly > caused more traffic and pollution on the main > roads, which are jammed esp at peak times. > > Yes you can argue more people now walk or cycle > but was that just a lockdown effect when many > (myself included) could work from home as the > office wasn't open and thus have more time as no > longer commuting. > > Monitors are showing pollution has increased on > main roads and as we know Lordship Lane and many > other well used roads, especially A roads like the > south circular, have residents who deserve > consideration too, as they will be breathing in > more heavily polluted air. > > We used to live near the junction of Lordship Lane > and Dulwich Common and my husband had heart > problems as a result of breathing polluted air. > The health issues disappeared when we moved on to > a side road. > > I think we all need to be more understanding > towards the other side here and those who have > "won" on having LTN road closures made permanent > need to check themselves (why are you in favour? > is it personal gain as you live on a road that has > been closed to vehicles or is it because you think > the wider population has benefited?) and look at > what those against or in favour (depending on your > side) are saying. > > Many businesses have been badly affected by LTNs. > Callow Locksmiths for example have moved from > Melbourne Grove to Lordship Lane as they weren't > getting the passing trade. Yes the kids at Charter > East benefit from walking down a safer road but > once they have walked a few minutes they are back > on Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove / Grove > Vale anyway. > > I personally am against the LTNs as they slow down > public transport having caused more vehicles to > use main roads. I like the idea of less traffic > but LTNs do not force people to stop using their > cars, they simply take a different route.

They had a note up in their window before Christmas saying they'd stay closed a bit longer as having some work done on the shop. Can't recall how long they said but don't think it was long.

I agree its not 'wise' but lets stop the hand wringing about him being a primary school teacher. He didn't tweet it from the school account, its his personal account. Twitter has an age limit of 13 so his pupils shouldn't be seeing it. Its not exactly a secret that James is hugely anti Tory, so not sure why its coming as a huge surprise to anyone.

Not quite true to say 'no one can work it out' - I've given you an explanation, you just don't believe it to be true. That's very different from 'no one can work it out'. I assume that this means though that once the council provide the information on the actual counts from January / September, you'll be able to understand that traffic has fallen in the central section of EDG. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > redpost Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Why don't you do something positive and > submit > > an > > > FOI request instead of endlessly complaining > on > > > this forum? > > > > There is no need to do that - the raw data and > > detail on the methodology and analysis is all > > freely available on the council website > already! > > This whole "we need more data" talking point is > a > > load of old tut. > > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/i > > > > mproving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review? > > > chapter=4 > > But it's not is it....look just three or messages > earlier there's a debate going on between myself > and Goldilocks as we try to unravel what has been > done with the EDG Central numbers - no-one can > work it out. > > Given you are so enlightened by the info shared by > the council perhaps you can tell us how the > council has gathered the EDG Central data? > > ........nope didn't think so, this is why the > council, none other than the council leader, > promised to share the raw data and methodology > because without it you can't make sense on how > they arrived at their numbers. Nothing has been > shared. > > It seems the only people happy with the level of > detail shared are those whose agendas are > validated by them. > > "Hurrah, victory is ours - who cares where the > numbers came from or whether they are accurate."

The word 'believe' is doing some heavy lifting there Rockets. Even you yourself later say that it might not be the case and note (correctly) that it would be helpful to have the raw data. It is my understanding that the comparable data is from the same site and not adjusted. But rather than stating that the conclusions must be wrong, perhaps you could wait for the data. I agree though that its really unhelpful to not release it all at the same time, not least cos it gives oxygen to your conspiracy views which really isn't helpful. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Legal I believe the EDG Central data from Jan 19 > was from a different location (has the council > clarified where it was?) and then was "adjusted" > to create Sept 19 numbers. That adjustment seems > to have been adding MG numbers to EDG numbers to > create a much bigger number of cars to deliver a > "reduction" in numbers compared to new Sept 21 > data from the new site on EDG Central that had not > been previously monitored. > > But it looks like this is based on modelling > rather than actual data as the council charts > clearly show no data was collected at the EDG > Central point in Sept 19 and there is a disclaimer > to that effect on the EDG Central slide. > > If you use the Jan 19 figures alone from the old > monitoring point then there has been no > reduction. > > The creation of the EDG Central monitoring point > seems to have only been done to create the > narrative for the U-turn as it seems odd adding it > in so late into the process and going to such an > effort to create the Sept 19 figures. > > I don?t think the council has done this anywhere > else have they? > > Perhaps Cllr McAsh or one of the council's > spokespeople from Melbourne Grove would like to > clarify as it is beyond confusing...;-)

Its not the different choices made - its that the base count for that section wasn't included before as (like many on this thread) people assumed it would be the same as at the junction with Lordship and its not the case. I'd also note that the reduction in traffic at the central section is even more impressive when you consider that the vaccination programme has been run with TJ as a hub centre for Southwark GPs so has generated lots of extra trips for people getting to appointments, especially given the absurdly ample parking on site. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, the results of consultation should be used > carefully, but the point is that they should be > used, with views acknowledged and not ignored > completely. It feels (to me and apparently to > quite a few others) as though the consultations > have only been done because they are a legal > requirement and not with a genuine open mind and a > desire to improve predetermined plans. Whether > that?s true, or a perception caused by poor > communication by officers and councillors (in > particular councillors on social media), who > knows? > > Cllr Rose has said in a couple of recent meetings > that the council need to learn from the Dulwich > experience. I take that as an acknowledgment that > it has been handled somewhat less than perfectly. > Ex-D I note you haven?t responded to my > suggestions that repeat ETMOs on champion Hill and > failing to include school input on MGN (resulting > in revocation and the temporary traffic order) > aren?t things that inspire confidence. Not that > you have to, of course! > > Leaving aside everything else, I?d have a lot more > respect for the council if they could put their > hands up and organise some meetings allowing > people to vent about process and discuss - not the > substantive details of this scheme - but how they > can improve what seem to be fairly poor engagement > processes. I would be happy to volunteer time for > that sort of process review exercise. I wonder > whether it sits with the transport department or > the cabinet member in charge of engagement > generally? There seem to be similar problems with > housing issues. > > As Christmas approaches, maybe time to spend time > reflecting on and trying to better understand each > others? perspectives and dialling things down a > bit? Just finished a documentary on Amazon Prime > entitled ?The Street? from 2019, dealing with > gentrification in Hoxton and different > perspectives on that. Well worth a watch. > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Street_(2019_f > ilm) > > All the best to everyone for the festive season, > in difficult times. > > PS I will of course get out a map at some point > and try to understand the central EDG ?Bermuda > Triangle? issue. I?m going to guess it?s parents > on the way to private schools choosing Townley > Road over Melbourne Grove and left into EDG - that > would seem consistent with the original rationale > of removing the MGS closure to relieve pressure on > Townley?

Whilst by no means wanting to get into a back and forth with you how on earth did you get to your 48%? Are you really taking the increase at Lordship Lane and then adding on the 20% reduction to get to a 48% of all vehicles that have disappeared? If so there's a massive oversight in your method terms of not understanding the denominators for the traffic variance calculators. Traffic increases or decreases from a base count before the measures were put in so the increase by Lordship Lane is against a base count pre measures at that point. Similarly the decrease the health centre is based on a base count before measures at that point. I know you don't believe that happened, so thats not something that can be reconciled here, although I assume that once you do understand that the counts in January and September are actuals that you'll be able to revise your calculations?

and we're back to - this data doesn't support my own perception, so I'll continue to believe that I must be right and the data is wrong... The only thing we can say is that its true that you think traffic has increased. That doesn't actually mean that overall traffic has. There is clear evidence showing that actually traffic has fallen. Indeed, outside Heartblock's house and her neighbours who are sad about the current levels of traffic on the central portion of EDG, its actually fallen by 20%. This isn't gaslighting, just data supported fact. Its clear that you aren't individually going to accept the data, and thats up to you, but for anyone else reading - the latest data shows traffic down from the previous counts, - down overall on the section of East Dulwich Grove where there is a 'remove LTNs sign' on every house, and - active travel is up.

It woulnd't pick you up driving from Forest Hill and turning into the South Circular because none of that is inside the ULEZ. The South Circular is the boundary road - so if you don't turn off it you can circle London to your hearts content ULEZ fee free!

From page 29 of the main monitoring report: 'for this site, DATA FOR A COMPARABLE LOCATION WAS COLLECTED IN BOTH JANUARY AND SEPTEMBER' The caps section is bold in the report - didn't seem to be able to make my font on here bold. Its not a 'smoking gun' at all. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > For those unable to find the table that shows > no > > ACTUAL measurement in Sept 2019 on ED Grove > > Central - which is the only 'count' used as a > > baseline to show the magical decrease of 20% - > so > > the figure is just made up. So not scrabbling > > around at all, no need as table is published. > > If you want to believe a made-up number then > fine, > > personally I would much rather Southwark > measures > > pollution on ED Grove - which it either hasn't > so > > far, or it has and is not publishing. > > Where is the air quality data? That is the > > question all those who support road closures > > should be asking - rather than gaslighting > their > > neighbours - maybe start supporting us on > boundary > > roads who have to put up with extra traffic and > > pollution - why do you care so little about us? > > Heartblock - and there it is - the smoking gun. > Despite the claims from Goldilocks to the contrary > it is clear no data was ever collected for Sep 19 > by the council. They took the Jan 19 numbers and > magically added 3,000 or so journeys to arrive at > the Sept 19 figure. They then suddenly decided to > begin monitoring at the ED Central location and > got figures that showed an increase on the Jan 19 > figures - one wonders if this was the trigger for > the ghost Sep 19 figures after the MG residents > complained they didn't want the changes to the > road layout Southwark suggested. > > The only way Southwark could justify no change > would be that they could demonstrate that the MG > closures were working as is and, magically, those > numbers appeared......call me a cynic but I smell > a rat! ;-) > > They are taking everyone for a ride.....and when > people on here suggest we should not be analysing > the data for holes I laugh to myself quite > heartily at the idea that we should all just go > about our business and turn a blind eye to > corruption and manipulation of the democratic > process. > > Imagine if everyone just turned a blind eye - (on > a different scale obviously but...) they'd be no > Watergate, No Cash for Questions, No Tory party > parties - hell we would all probably think that > Chernobyl was an unexplained freakish act of > nature! > > Our council and councillors are supposed to be > accountable to their constituents and at the > moment Southwark and our local councillors are > treating us with utter contempt and lying to us > and refusing to engage with us because they are > terrified of what we have uncovered as they know > their process and output in relation to LTNs is as > flawed at the LTNs themselves. > > They got away with it for years over things like > the CPZs but now they have a problem on their > hands as everyone is aware of the issues around > the LTNs and it appears far more people in the > area hate them than like them and we are months > away from a council vote where a few hundred votes > against them ends their political careers - > particularly problematic for any of them that > harbour desires to progress within the Labour > party.

But the monitoring does show a change in behaviour. Vehicle numbers are down - more so than Southwark norms and active travel is up.

Ah - so you're seeing people taking their kids to school as an unsustainable hobby - ditto walking. There is a huge shift when independent schools are off as they have a wider catchment and even though there is lots of good work on active travel, even the small percentage who drive cause a large impact. Theres also an argument that parents tend to take holiday when their kids are off, so if they are driving to work, they will be more likely to be away in school holidays. That said - assuming that people will change how they travel now once they return to work is a leap - both in that people who are working from home will return to work at the same level as before, but also that it will necessitate a shift in mode.

Why do you assume that people who work in offices drive to school - how do all these people drive to work? I work in an office - i drop my kids and then continue to the train station. Walking to school isn't a 'lockdown hobby' for most people. TFL have a funding crisis and are cutting services because of reduced demand - funnily enough driving is almost back to full pre pandemic demand whereas busses and trains are not. The latest wave of omicron is likely to increase that difference. The council do not have the ability to change public transport locally. The measures have reduced traffic overall, including on boundary roads and increased active travel.

Still no - you're conflating two separate points again. The previous monitoring reports did not include any data for the central point. The new September monitoring report does include new data for an ATC count outside the health centre from September (but not earlier in the post streetspace period) and also for October. The comparator numbers are to my understanding, taken from earlier routine monitoring at the exact same point that the council was doing at certain intervals. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So even the January 2019 count wrong as not on ED > G Central- thanks Goldilocks (so no pre-LTN > Central EDG data at all!) - do look at the > published count tables by the way - you also might > see a big, big. big hole in the Council's > conclusions. > > So adding 3000 cars onto one of the most polluted > school roads in ED is a baby step and fine for > you? > > Well I do know my neighbour with a new baby in a > garden less flat on ED Grove was in tears at the > traffic and pollution on ED Grove. I met her on > her walk to her Mum's house to drop of baby so she > could get the bus to her cleaning job and the air > was awful. > Baby steps - yep ok.

Well at least we are conceding that 3000 vehicles a day is far too high for a small road with a school entrance on it. Baby steps...

Again - you're wrong about the Charter school and building works. The MUGA was being finalised throughout September and I think into October - there were frequently heavy vehicles turning. The construction management plan specifies that they enter from the West of East Dulwich Grove too I think. The previous January count published was not in the central section - there is a handy dot on a map to help you with this! heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yawn... table showing counts - no count in Sept 19 > on ED Grove Central - so a made up number. If you > are going to plaster a 20% decrease on a new count > of a long road all over the show - just to prove > that closing Melbourne Grove is great for all of > us - don't make up Sept 2019 data and use that as > your pre-LTN baseline. > > Also weirdly - don't add 300 more cars to the > actual count in Jan 2019 from your previous > published measure in Jan 2019 which was also > kinda, sorta..nearly near central ED Grove > either. > > On this made-up number in Sept 2019- which had > never been considered before, the 24hr restriction > on Melbourne Grove was kept in place to make the > MG residents 'happy' - nothing to do with hard > data. Why was this new count made-up for this last > consultation? Is it because the Council were going > to only have timed restrictions on that section of > MG near so called ED G Central - were Southwark > more concerned about losing votes on MG than the > pollution and traffic on ED Grove - do votes > matter more than children lungs? Apparently so. > > Weird that made up numbers give a decrease of 20% > and actual counts an increase of at least 25% of > course that translates to 1000+cars more on ED > Grove - I see the HGV has gone through the roof - > again, there was not much work on Charter School > in Sept as kids at school, so don't keep going on > about more building work - it is diverted traffic > from nice leafy roads. > > I can walk faster than the 37 bus down ED Grove - > before the LTN I used to occasionally catch it if > I was running late or the trains from Herne Hill > were messed up, but not now, the bus time app > hasn't been adjusted for the idling traffic down > ED Grove. > > I do hope you all had a listen to WHY IS > ANTI-ROADS CAMPAIGNER JOHN STEWART AGAINST LTNS? > https://www.the-spokesmen.com/johnstewartltns/

Yes I don't do that - the park is surprisingly dark - especially the link to the Canal path. I'm not sure I'd feel happier if it was lit though either - once it gets quieter I think going round is sensible. Its another reason why cycle paths through parks can't be the only option, we need safe routes from traffic but also for personal safety that can be used at night too.

And again - as I've said many times. I have no idea what adjustments the council have done to the data (because I'm not the council) - but before commenting on how great the numbers are I did some research and corroborated with the DFT count from exactly the same place. So even if the September number is adjusted (but not sure whether it is or not - that wording is the same throughout so it might just be a carry through footer) then its supported by other data too. Link here: https:/https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/manualcountpoints/47606/roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/manualcountpoints/47606 heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Because I read the small print. As someone once > said to me - do your own research.

not the main bit of burgess no - but the bit from walworth through to camberwell is ok.