Earl Aelfheah

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The stated aim of the scheme has always to reduce > harmful emissions caused by 'more polluting cars'. > The scheme has been successful so far; more so > than anticipated. It really is as simple as that. Exactly. And regardless, I can't see how anyone would think a reduction in the most polluting vehicle is a bad outcome.

Their appeal to populism & nationalism, their capture of elite support though government favours to the wealthy (VIP lanes), limits on public protest and extension of executive power (proroguing parliament), attacks on legal professionals ('activist lawyers') and now on the independent media through threats against the BBC and privatisation of Channel 4... it's all pretty worrying imo.

Personally, I am hoping that Johnson's government will get a firm message from the voters that there time is coming to an end.

Waseley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So you are not bothered about their other > policies? The Tories introduced the initiative. > Labour implemented it. LDs would like to support > such initiatives but have lost any USP and still > suffering from their time in the coalition. The zeal should not surprise you. Just look at this forum. It's been completely taken over by people obsessed with their 'right' to cut down any side street they like in their cars - They've even managed to convince themselves that having cars dominate every part of Dulwich will somehow increase active travel and reduce traffic (regardless of all data to the contrary).

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Today TfL finally admitted that the expanded ULEZ > didn't make as much as expected > > BBC News - London's expanded ULEZ raised less > revenue than expected, says TfL > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60520 > 700 Doesn't this suggest that it's been more successful than expected in reducing the number of high polluting vehicles travelling in the zone?

Today is the last day to comment on initial plans for future boundary changes: https://www.bcereviews.org.uk/

If we could get a segregated bike Lane on EDG / Half Moon Lane, it would be much easier for people to connect to Henre Hill and onwards via the Railton LTN to Brixton tube with grab and go electric bike.

BTW - Lime (electric hire bikes), have again extended their operating area so people can now hop on one for Herne Hill Station from ED to connect with the Thames link.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well done Rahx3 for reposting exactly what I > posted before - as you can see the ED Grove > Central ATC has 4 counts on the 6th, 13th, 20th > and 27th Sept 2021 and none in the period from > 2016 up until those counts. As I said a new ATC > from 2021, so the pre-LTN data is modelled. It has a count in 2019. It also has counts for East and West and turning data. So it has accurate data for that section both before and after the implementation of the LTN. I suggest that anyone interested in the data simply looks for themselves.

All raw traffic data files are available for download via Southwark maps. Select ?Southwark Highways? as the map configuration and then select ?traffic counts?. https://geo.southwark.gov.uk/connect/analyst/mobile/#/main This tells you where, when and how data was collected: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/77419/FAQ-and-data-collection-methodology_Dulwich-Streetspace_Sept-2021.pdf

It?s interesting how many people claim to be in favour of reducing car use, reducing pollution and increasing walking and cycling yet oppose every effort to actually achieve these things.

Thanks for sharing

Btw, I just noticed that Rockets claimed the traffic count data published was ?modelled? and not based on actual vehicle counts. That?s not true.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But to follow up on penguins point > > They can't tell what sort of engine the vehicle is > using > If 100 hybrids or electric go over it on battery > power for example, it still counts then as cars > and therefore the calculated figures will be > inaccurate. > > Therefore "guestimated" figures based solely on > volume not engine type are at best misleading at > wirst just completely wrong. You can use data on the proportion of hybrid, electric, diesel and petrol vehicles registered and combine with counts and weights of traffic, as well as flow data to get a pretty accurate idea of pollution levels. This is what they mean by ?modelling?. You can see the methodology in the report, published on Soutgwarks website. It?s not perfect, but as long as you apply the same methods consistently over time, you get a good idea of trend. As we have seen with the traffic monitoring data however, if it doesn?t show what people already believe to be the case, many will dismiss it. As a reminder, traffic counts show traffic across all monitoring sites down by 12% and cycling up by 61%.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is a one point measure, it has only had one > measurement and therefore change cannot be > calculated. A point measure is not a stretch. All > the schools have ED Grove buildings on this road, > the main entrance for Charter will be on ED Grove > when completed, the main entrance of JAGs is on > EDG and it is the main route for children to > travel. I would rather live in my 'ridiculous' > questioning world than an appearance of blindly > following dogma without question or inspection of > skewed data. > I have actually called for local PT, bike lanes, > to keep school road timed closures and I support > road pricing. > > Telling people what they think, calling them > ridiculous and misrepresenting their beliefs is > called gaslighting, it happens a lot on this > subject. The monitoring data for East Dulwich Grove Central (near Tessa Jowell Health Centre), saw a 20% decrease in traffic between Sept 19 and Sept 21. The main entrance to ED Charter is in Melbourne Grove; This is simply a fact. Your call to remove the restrictions on through traffic would increase traffic around the school.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Traffic hasn't dropped because this point > measure is new in Sept 2021, so it is impossible > to prove a drop at a single point on one count. > 2. There are three schools on EDG > 3. Two of Charter's entrances are on EDG and the > sports field is 2 metres from EDG and the main > entrance will be on ED Grove at the chateau if you > look at the plans, does that mean Melbourne will > open and EDG become the LTN? > 4. Explicit means - stated clearly and in detail, > leaving no room for confusion or doubt, so nope > 5. Through traffic means - traffic which continues > on a road or highway rather than crossing onto a > different road. all through traffic has been > diverted, so the through traffic or diverted > traffic is as you have willingly admitted now on > EDG Traffic on the central section of EDG has dropped. Your argument that this doesn?t include the school, because vehicle volumes have only been measured at two points either side of it, is absolutely ridiculous. You have called for the removal of the filter on Melbourne Grove North, to create through traffic from EDG to Grove Vale, passing the entrance of Charter. So yes, you are explicitly arguing for more cars to pass the entrance of the school. Alleyn?s is also inside of the new traffic restrictions btw.

Anyone know when the Met are due to complete their investigation/ the Gray report drop?

Heartblock references the school: "Before the x5 LTNs forcing traffic to be funnelled down my high density residential school road". I'm simply pointing out that traffic on the East Dulwich Grove side of Charter has actually dropped, and through traffic on Melbourne Grove North (where the main entrance is), has been removed. Heartblock has explicitly called for through traffic to run past the entrance to the school.

Wow. Thanks for sharing

It kind of makes sense to have a market by the station, but I do wonder what the impact would be on North cross Road? Not sure ED can really sustain both

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I see it's the end of half-term and I look out my > window to see the 37 bus and an ambulance stuck in > a long-line of stationary, idling traffic once > again. Before the x5 LTNs forcing traffic to be > funnelled down my high density residential school > road, I never noticed the traffic being that > different between term time and school holidays. > Of course I will be told that I'm 'dreaming' this > or it's my 'perception', even though I suggest my > 35 years of living on the same road...might mean > my longitudinal, observation is probably longer in > years than some critics age and very valid. > > Maybe I'm so old that I must be a UKIP-ing, > polluting, car-loving one of 'them'. Or maybe I'm > a green issue supporting, social inequality aware, > longtime campaigner and expert in cardiovascular > and respiratory health...I'm sure someone will > helpfully tell me what I think, who I am and what > I really see, very soon. Is the school your referring to East Dulwich Charter? Because just a regular reminder that traffic around this school has actually decreased. In fact the entrance is inside the LTN - on Melbourne Grove - a road on which you're explicitly calling for an increase in traffic.

Waseley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why are you on an anti-cyclist agenda. As someone > who talks about how they used to cycle a lot it's > a little confusing. Your case would be stronger > if you stuck to the impact of LTNs rather than > make cheap comments for the pro car community. Isn?t it just. ?Used to? is probably doing a lot of heavy lifting. From previous comments I suspect in reality @Rockets drives an SUV, but stand to be corrected. It?s interesting that many of the ?clean air for all? placards along Dulwich Village, East Dulwich Grove and Half Moon Lane, stand in driveways with several large vehicles. But I?m sure that outside their vocal support for more through traffic on side streets, they are committed environmentalists, as the signs suggest.

Just your regular reminder that despite many of the unsubstantiated claims on this thread, the LTNs have increased the number of people walking and cycling, reduced traffic both inside the LTN and on boundary roads and made our streets safer.

It?s amazing how many people on this thread, who claim to be pro active travel, and fiercely concerned about pollution and congestion, also object to the ULEZ, to road pricing, to attempts to discourage the growth of massive SUVs, and oppose clarifying road rules which put responsibility on those in charge of fast moving heavy machinery to take special care around pedestrians and cyclists. Yep, the Dulwich Onesies are so genuinely concerned about the negative impact of too many cars, that they campaign not for a further extension of the ULEZ, or the removal of on-street parking, or for any of a myriad of other potential interventions which would help, but focus solely on increasing through traffic on side streets.

The situation with the post is getting ridiculous. We've also recently received some Christmas cards.