Earl Aelfheah

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.

We don't need to guess about the impacts. There is data. It shows traffic down across the area (both inside the LTNs and on boundary roads), walking and cycling up and road accidents down. It also shows traffic on main roads trending down month on month. With the ULEZ also coming in to force, I suspect we'll see improvements in levels of pollution over time too. But none of it will make any difference to those who want to open up side roads to though traffic. Still, see you in another 100 pages of unsubstantiated nonsense.

... or when they claimed they shared the objective of reducing local car trips and reducing road accidents?

Do you remember when those in favour of opening side roads up to through traffic also claimed to be deeply committed to increasing active travel but claimed that LTNs would have no impact on numbers walking and cycling?

opening up side roads to through traffic would lead to a reduction in the number of people walking and cycling and an increase in car use. All the evidence shows it.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Or maybe Rahx3 they will question why our supposed > leaders led us down the LTN garden path. Maybe > history will show us it was complete folly that > made things worse rather than better and did > nothing to deliver against its stated objectives > and was only installed because of political > pressure exerted by pro-cycle lobby groups. They have delivered against their objectives. They've increased active travel and they've reduced car use and for that matter, road accidents. There is no evidence that they have made 'things' worse.

Of course, you're right about an individual micro scheme. But I do think they'll question why we did so little to discourage car use generally. I certainly don't think that looking back, anyone would think that decisions which involve opening up side roads to through traffic, discouraging walking and cycling and encouraging car use, would have been a good call.

I suspect that future generations won't judge us for having done too much in trying to discourage car use, but rather for having done far, far too little.

As long as those who want the removal of LTNs are clear that it will lead to a reduction in the number of people walking and cycling and an increase in car use across the area. At least that is what all the evidence suggests.

.....

Think it might be to do with rents, yes. I agree it?s a shame.

Just red that thread by the Secret Barrister ?. It?s an excellent, and very clear appraisal of the issues. Thanks for sharing.