northernmonkey

Why quibble over times? Well because 30 mins is different from 2 plus hours. East Dulwich Grove has always been busy for a 30 min or so stretch in the rush hour especially during term time and is always worse at the beginning of term for some reason (new parents trying it out before realising its a really bad way to get there?). first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The first photo is not accessible at all ( sorry, > cannot open it) but the second shows quite a > queue. Why quibble about exact times? You have > evidenced significant traffic buildup, right next > to a school and health centre. What we need is > videos or photo evidence taken over a number of > months at various times.

9:01 completely clear The first was a video, obviously not supported showing empty roads at 8:06. It?s a shame as video is much better as cant be manipulated in the same way to pick a gap in traffic

So based on today it would seem that there is a 30-40 minute period where it is busy in the mornings. I don't doubt that its possible that there was a day where it was busy for longer but I do doubt that this has been a trend and magically the day I look in response to these claims is an anomaly.

Though by 8:33 there was a queue

For example this morning at 8:06 there was virtually no traffic

If Heartblock can produce any evidence throughout the period they claim then that would be interesting. I'm sure they can provide one photo of queueing traffic but that really isn't the same of the 4-7 hours they are publicly stating. Time stamped photos or a time lapse of the rush hour would be great though!

I do agree that some of the analysis for the streets where there were one way restrictions wasn't helpful - i would have liked to see directional analysis as this would have been much more useful and given a truer picture. Croxted is an issue, I had hoped that the lights phasing would help but not sure if it has. I don't travel along Croxted daily though so can't comment. Unlike East Dulwich Grove where I travel pretty much every day, often multiple times.

I'm not sure really whether there is anything they can do, but on the other hand opening up and having a no car policy that you promote from the outset really sets the tone. It will help people assess whether they can get to the nursery without relying on a car. In reality some will still drive, especially given the lack of the CPZ south of East Dulwich Grove, but I think that if the expectation from people selecting the nursery is that they won't drive it will help. It is very near the station so its feasible for the majority not to drive. DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What mechanism can you use to enforce a no-car > policy with paying customers both in terms of how > it would be policed and issuing sanctions to > rule-breakers? > > I doubt it would create much extra traffic for the > reasons already stated, but think it would be > tough to enforce such a policy.

And on the 'accusations of lying' re East Dulwich Grove. Heartblock made statements that 'since schools went back the traffic is much worse than it was last academic year and now its congested for 2+ hours in the morning and evening and also that in the evening it can extend from 3:15-7pm. So thats over 6 hours of gridlock being claimed. Photographic evidence and video evidence shows this isn't the case.

I'm not sure 200% plus is the right figure - but your approach of 'southwark are evil because they have deliberately tried to mislead people' is laughable in the face of your support for One Dulwich. The 8% they raise in this 'paper' is also undoubtedly massively understated - but obviously chosen for effect and the hope that people will read the headline and move on. One Dulwich lie and use half truths to perpetuate a narrative of fear to stoke up support. slarti b2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > northernmonkey Wrote: > So - I cracked and read this 'report'. > > Following my earlier response to you I have now > read through that OneDulwich Report in more > detail. Well researched and balanced though I > think it pulls it punches a bit. The main issue > that strikes me is, not the fact that Southwark's > claims of a 231% increase are desparately over > inflated, but that Southwark council officers seem > to be manipulating and deliberately suppressing > data to support Councillor's political agenda and > mislead residents. > > The fact that Soutwark published these misleading > statistics just before the end of the Dulwich > Streetspace consultation period (presumably to > avoid scrutiny?) then encouraged respondents to > revise previous responses in the light of the so > called success of the road closures is absolutely > outrageous. > > This confirms a pattern of deceit by Southwark's > Highways department which is surely not fit for > purpose. Equally at fault are the councillors who > willingly promulgate these false statistics. > > Sadly we appear to live in a one party state with > no effective scrutiny or opposition to our local > (Labour) councillors, the (Labour) cabinet and our > (Labour) MP who seems to be a glove puppet for the > (Labour) councillors.

8:40 this morning - go pro footage shows no other car visible on the section towards the hospital and just beyond so 8:40 was clear. This evening was similarly free flowing by 3:45. May have got more congested later but it sounds as though the 7-9am, 3-7 isn?t a consistent pattern

Interesting - wasn't the case running up to summer, but willing to see whether it is the case now - 7:15-9:15 is out of line with my experience but will keep an eye out over this week and ask others doing the school run to do the same. Last year the traffic started building up just before 8am - so 7:55-8 and was then free flowing by 8:30-8:35 So 30-40 mins of congestion at a peak hour.

There was a point where you had conceded this wasn't true - and we'd got to the more factual position that it was 30-40 mins in the morning. But maybe its changed? So which 2 plus hours in the morning are you seeing queueing traffic. By 8:35-8:40 its pretty free flowing so is it starting at 6am? heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 2+ hours of idling pollution traffic in the > morning and 2+ hours every evening on ED Grove and > Croxted, it is terrible since Monday. > > Just published - 16-year large cohort study > reveals SHORT TERM NO2, PM10 & PM2.5 exposure is > associated with increased hospital urgent > admissions for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary > embolism - associated with a high risk of > morbidity and mortality. > > SHORT TERM EXPOSURE - Thanks Southwark Council!

They really haven't - the nursery next door has (understandably) run a huge campaign against this, and i do have sympathy with their position. But they need to be cheaper than the new one and this will be their differentiator. This thread is 'stop mega nursery creating further traffic misery on East Dulwich Grove', but as has been shown - unlike the Health Centre which has been allowed to have lots of parking and thus contribute significantly to congestion on East Dulwich Grove, the nursery will have no on site parking, is situated in a CPZ so no drop off options available (again -its a nursery, you have to go in with them, you can't just kick them out in the road. There will undoubtedly be some staff who drive, but hopefully they will be discouraged by wider measures like traffic filters and ULEZ.

Some will undoubtedly drive. I doubt there are 55 spaces on Melbourne Grove South - whenever i walk along it its pretty fully parked up. Also given that a lot of the concern was around increasing traffic on East Dulwich Grove, as long as the filters remain, then they won't be travelling along EDG from the most part. Others will use public transport. Nursery workers aren't well paid, running a car is expensive.

It is true - 'as a cyclist' you will use normal roads. Would you let your small children? The idea of creating safer cycle spaces is just that - they are safer for a much wider range of people than just those with a propensity to cycle (typically male 20s to late 40s)

So the survey that was done was 'has cycling increased on Calton Ave'. Unequivocally that is the case. Even One Dulwich's attempts to discredit come up with a (smaller) increase in cycling. Regardless of whether it has shifted (and thats where the demographic data was particularly helpful in Anna Goodman's report), it can be seen that reducing or removing motor traffic substantially increases willingness to cycle. As has mentioned so many times, cycling has really remained virtually static in London for a number of years - a September to September comparison is likely to be more robust than a closer comparison of different months. I do know that the Goodman Study compared the weather on the days of the counts so as to ensure that they were broadly similar though.

So - I cracked and read this 'report'. The crux of it seems to be that One Dulwich don't agree with the baseline selected. They think that June should have been used and then compared to a completely different month (April) to show that cycling has increased, albeit less than the council claimed. The confusing thing is that there is a Sept 2018 figure that could have been used as a baseline and then compared to September 2020 (ie comparing September with September), but funnily enough this hasn't been used as the report headline. This comparison would have shown an increase in cycling in the region of 35%. Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rahx3??your timing is perfect.here?s some data > analysis of council numbers?..what do you think of > this?..is the increase 231% or just 8%?.? > > https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/has-cycling-on-calt > on-avenue-gone-up-by-231 > > Is the council trying to manipulate the numbers > they publish to influence public opinion?.like > they did with the 47% increase in traffic at the > DV junction during OHS?.looks like they might have > dropped another smoking gun at the scene of the > crime! ven't looked into

Exactly - that was the first sentence - its a business, they wouldn't be offering it if they didn't think it would make money. Other nurseries will either be a) better or b) cheaper. If they are neither they will lose business. They are also commercial ventures. But going back to the position in ED right up until the pandemic hit, there was a dearth of nursery spaces especially for under 2s and waiting lists at popular nurseries were years long.

The thing is - the nursery provider think that there will be sufficient demand or they wouldn't be paying millions for the site and development. Right now the position is difficult, flexible working arrangements have changed the hours people want, but if / when more people return to offices then there may be again increased demand. It is only in the recent year or so there have been available nursery places - in the past wait lists for popular nurseries have been years not months. The offering from the proposed nursery looks fantastic - its going to be more expensive than the one next door I assume (as the fees for the ED one aren't visible on the website) and that may be a differentiator, but if the other nurseries are a guide it looks like it will have brilliant facilities. Their other sites also do events for the nursery and wider community outside core nursery hours. In terms of alternative uses, I know people think it would be good as a community centre, but thats not on offer. Its been sold as a commercial concern and if not a nursery then what would be acceptable? My prediction is that if this didn't go through conversion to more flats would be likely.

I also have no idea why on earth they haven't released subsequent data, having shared the first trance and committed to sharing more. Its unhelpful for everyone involved in these discussions.

No personal interest whatsoever - just not accepting that parents will stop in the road and push nursery age children out to go to nursery..., Also questioning where all these parents will be parking given CPZ around that area. Were you all up in arms when the Tessa Jowell Health Centre was granted planning permission for so much on site parking. Blue badge and ambulance and then very limited other parking would have seemed more sensible, but as it is its a major contributor to traffic along that stretch.

This is a nursery thread. No one at all lets their preschooler out in the middle of roads. It did used to be a very common occurrence on Calton in the past, but in terms of whether it will be an issue for the nursery, I think we can unequivocally say it won't be!

Is this what the 'falls in cycling' narrative is based on? Its obviously a "difficult to draw clear conclusions from" data set. The effects of lockdown on how many people will cycle into central london (which is predominantly where these counts are), also school holidays look to induce a dip in cycling too. It will be interesting to see what happens through September / October as more employers are having at least some hybrid office / wfh model, if not fully back in the office.

And you are spectacularly rude, but it doesn?t really progress the discussion anywhere does it. Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > northernmonkey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > A small selection of older people who were > > incentivised to join a council call made a > number > > of claims. I totally agree they are real > concerns > > for those people. This doesn't mean its a real > > concern for all older people - or indeed that > > they're representative. The concerns need to be > > considered, assessed and if adjustments need to > be > > made they should be. That doesn't mean that > all > > comments made apply to all older people. > You are so patronising.