slarti b

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Other than these two spots (bare in mind that this is rush hour), I saw very little evidence of the > 'TRAFFIC CHAOS!!!' people have suggested. Thanks for the photos, do you have a whole EDF page to yourself :-) Anyway, is your conclusion a) that traffic is so quiet that the council didn't need to put in the DV closure at all and there is no need for any further, phase 2 measures? or b) that the high traffic volumes are very much time limited (especially in the morning peak) so timed restirction would deal with the problem? My own view is b. I have been cycling in to work a few times over the last few weeks and around 8.30 Dulwich Village is stationery with cars backed up from the EDG junction as they try to turn right. Not sure about teh afternoon peak, I normally come back quite a bit later. So maybe we need just some kind of timed restriction 7.30 - 9.00 am? It still leaves the issue of where the displaced traffic will go to but, hey, the councillor's don't care so why should we.

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Today at 3.45pm Those pictures makes you wonder why the councililors need to make such disruptive chnages doesn't it ? :-) IN reality of course, it shows that the traffic problem is very dependent on time, esecpially the mroning rush hour. That is why OneDulwich have always pushed for timed closures at the DV junction rather than a complete closure.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >Village actually remarkably quiet. How was the section going North of DV junction. Was there a long queue of cars watiing to turn right at Red Post hill on to EDG?

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- However I agree that even the most ardent 'active travel' supporter would not want to increase emissions by increasing standing traffic. They may not want to increase standing traffic but that is the inevitable end result of the policies they support. It is the massive elephant in the room they refuse to address, or even acknowledge. Putting in road closures will lead to a small amount of evaporation, maybe 5-10%? The rest will be be displaced onto main roads, and we know where these are in Dulwich even though councillors won't admit it.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The answer to traffic fumes - make it easier for people to drive anywhere they like! Most of the through traffic displaced by these knee jerk road closures will not evaporate. It will go on other "main" roads as we are seeing. Remember that was one of the objectives of OHS.

@bestnamesetc Which roads do your childern use to get to school, The ones the councillors are diverting traffic onto?

mr.chicken Wrote: Drivers skew rich, white, male and middle aged You may well be right but can you point me to your evidence for this statement for London drivers so we can compare withe the profile for commuter cyclists? btw are you a support of Margy Plaza ?

mr.chicken Wrote: > Why can't the pro pollution, pro traffic jam lobby come up with something more convincing than "nuh > uh"? Who are these people? Are you referring to the supporters of the Margy Plaza, (aka "Dulwich Square") who want to divert through traffic onto "main roads" such as Lordship Lane, EDG, Croxted Road, Half Moon Lane etc so they can organise weekend concerts in the middle of the street while less privileged areas suffer the displaced traffic, associated jams and pollution? edited to add - are you a friend of Margy Plaza ?

mr.chicken Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- By "evidence" you mean a 1 line quote buried somewhere in a 276 page document for me to find. I on the other hand pointed to the specific page and specific numbers. I'm sorry if that disappoints you. The quote by TFL, which I slightly paraphrased originally, is a summary of the section on cycling demographics using TFL's own data. As such it is not a buried quote. I trust my interpretation of the data, that's why I read the numbers. The figures you quote are for the complete sample of the LTSD survey, not the cyclists. So, you are reading the wrong numbers and your interpretation is therefore also wrong !! Are you prepared to acknowledge your mistake ??

Mr Chicken, you seem miffed I have produced the evidence you suggested was non-existent, sorry to disappoint you. You question the interpretation of the data but that is TFL's interpretation not mine. And I trust TFL far more than Southwark's biased propoganda. Anyway, i am away this weekend but happy to continue our discussion next week. Have a nice bank holiday.

mr.chicken Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Says "actually" and makes a claim with zero evidence. Are you a One Dulwich supporter by any > change? I was quoting the TFL "Travel in London" report 12 from 2019. The precise quote is "Most people who cycle in London.. tend to be mostly male, white, in employment, and with relatively higher household income". Happy with that? The TFL reports are very informative, impartial and they also provide all the backing data. Unlike Southwark and our local councillors who are happy to rely on misleading selective data with no sources to support their assertions. Yes I am a One Dulwich supporter. I would much prefer to see a holistic solution that does not split East and West Dulwich and that achieves the objectives of the OHS scheme. What does that have to do with your comment? Edited to (i)clarify quote and (ii) to add that, as someone who has been commmuting by bike for 20 years I fit that cyclist profile myself :-).

mr.chicken Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Drivers skew rich, white, male and middle aged, Actually that is true of cyclists, particulalry commuter ones. They tend to be mostly male, white, employed earning high income and middle aged.

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am certainly incapable in answering any questions on traffic management Well, you seem to share that characteristic with our local Councillors. And, like you,the councillors shoudl not be in a position wehere they are messing around making changes that affect thousands of people without understanding the consequences. As a start try actually reading the CGK study, it is only 273 pages.

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is a meta analysis of 33 studies on traffic calming. > Did you read the abstract of that report? In fact do you read and understand any of these links you post? to quote "through traffic is removed from residential streets by means of, for example, street closures or one-way systems. Speed reducing devices are often installed in residential streets. Main roads are improved in order to carry a larger traffic volume without additional delays or more accidents" So tell me which main roads will be carrying the larger trafic vo9lumes? This is actiually the same question I keep answering about displaced traffic that you are incapable of answering!

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In my search for evidence for or against road closures, this link may interest some. You need to read, analyse critically and see how these road studies apply to Dulwich, rather than posting links to what is essnetially marketing material. For example, the EU study rehashes a couple of Cairns Goodwin and Hass-Klau (CGK) case studies from their 1998 study, including Nurnberg. In their results table (used to calculate the figure of 11% evaporation campaigners always talk about) CGK show a traffic evaporation for the Nurnberg scheme of -149% and -86% (yes they have double counted it, they do this several times with results that favour their assertions). However, when you look at their report summary Goodwin admits that traffic in the overall Nurnberg area actually increased. His report, and the others you mention, are subjective, cherry pick results that suit them and use completely invalid statistical analysis that discedits their results In terms of relevance to Dulwich, find some studies relating to through traffic, much of which is work related, where there are alternaive routes close by and then lest see what they say. Finally back to the question neither you, exDulwicher, the councillors or the pliant council officers will answer: which roads do you want the displaced traffic to use instead of Dulwich Village and Calton Avenue... and Burbage\Turney etc

Andrew, You have posted links to a highly questionable 20 year old study on traffic "evaporation", which does not cover pollution. You have also posted a recent Napier paper on school streets which is not comparable to the wide spread closures and restrictions the local Councillors are imposing; resticting a cul-de-sac for 1.5 hours a day is not the same as shutting off a road carrying thousands of threough traffic movements. So, please stop making assertions about "all the evidence" and "all the studies" unless you can supprot it with credible, comparable evidence The Napier study does however have some useful information, eg the measures other councils are using such as timed cli=osures, raised bollards and ANPR monitoring with residents permits. oine DUlwich has suggested these but teh councillors say they are not possible. Is thsi down to the competence ( or lack of) of the Southwark traffic department?

Serena2012 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m genuinely concerned that neither the Goose Green councillors nor Southwark have properly > considered the implications. One of the objectives of the OHS proposals was to move traffic from "residential strees" onto "Main Roads" and the proposed Covid measures are continuing with that. The Village ward councillors who are driving these changes will certainly have considered the implications, increased traffic on EDG, Lordship Lane Half Moon Lane, Croxted Road etc, but it seems they have dismissed them as not important. I am surprised that C'llor McAsh and his colleagues haven't taken more of an interest since their ward constituents will be bearing much of the brunt of the traffic displaced from Dulwich Village and Margy Plaza.

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know that many on this thread think that polution will go up with road > closures but all the evidence is to the contrary. Can you provide "all the evidence"? You have linked to a 20 year old, highly questionable, non peer reviewed study on traffic "evaporation" supported by extremely dubious statistics but even that doesn't mention the issue of pollution does it?

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here is a recent study on the effect of school street closures. > > > https://www.napier.ac.uk/about-us/news/school-street-closures Thanks for the link. In terms of a school street or LTN or I was interested by the use of techniques such as timed term time restrictions, retractable bollards and ANPR monitoring with permits for residents. All of these have been proposed by One Dulwich but arbitrarily dismissed by our local councillors as impossible. However the study is not really relevant to the issue of displaced traffic and so called evaporation is it? For that figure of 11% you are still relying on a 20 year old study, using examples even older, which is very subjective and uses some very dubious statistics. I repeat my questions to you - was the study on traffic evaporation by Goodwin et al ever peer reviewed? - which roads are the COuncillors tryinging to displace traffic onto with their proposed measures.

exDulwicher, It looks like you don't want to answer my question about which roads the traffic displaced by the OHS scheme would end up using. Any reason why please?

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here is a the introduction to the study (Generated Traffic and Induced Travel) below. Andrew, Can you answer the questions relating to the situation in Dulwich rather than psoting posting the same links to theoretical research? To remind you, the question is "Nevertheless, even ignoring the many flaws in that study, the report's conclusion, is used by the council to suggest that 11% of the through traffic through Dulwich will evaporate. From the council's own figures that would leave over 6,300 daily movements diverted onto the "main roads", ie Lordship Lane, EDG, Half Moon Lane, South Circular Road and Croxted Road. That was one of the objectives of the OHS scheme that is now being implemented without consultation under the cover of Covid emergency regs. Do you think that is acceptable for those living or going to schools on those "Main roads"? xxx

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > From page 4 of the pdf I linked to earlier: > > "The mean average was a reduction of 21?9% and the median ? which is a better measure of central > tendency here, given the variability of results was a reduction of 10?6%. Goodwins statistical methodology appear highly questionable. Was the original paper peer reviewed by a statistican? Also, can you please, please answer my question about which roads the trafiic displaced\ reallocated from Dulwich Village will use?

Exdulwicher, you are avoiding my question!!! Displacement and evaporation are closely linked. In your example, if route A is blocked some of the traffic may evaporate but the rest will be displaced onto Route B (or C etc). The Council's presentation for OHS essentially said, dont worry about the displacement effect on the main roads because traffic will evaporate. But this is contradicted by their own figures. So, I repeat the question, which roads will the traffic displaced from Dulwich Village (less some evaportation) use for their journeys?

Exdulwicher and AndrewC Not sure who is responding to who on this thread but on the issue of evaporation and LTN's can you please tell me which are the major roads, (or in exdulwichers terms, stratgic roads) that traffic displaced from Dulwich Village will use? This was a clearly stated objective of the OHS scheme but councillors never stated which roads they were referring to. I accept there may be some evaporation (despite the obvious flaws in the figures used in the Cairns,Hass-Klau Goodwin report) but this will still leave a signifcant amount of through traffic using other roads.

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This makes interesting reading. A summary of 70 traffic studies and the average 'traffic > evaporation' measured. > https://www.onestreet.org/images/stories/Disappearing_traffic.pdf Andrew, Thanks for that, I guess that must be the source for the council's suggestion in the OHS "evidence" pack that 11% of traffic would "evaporate". But, looking at the study it looks highly biased and the conclusions very questionable in many ways; comparing apples not just just with oranges, but goats and yoghurt as well (short vs long term, pedestrianisation vs collapsed bridges, alternative routes vs no alternative, town centre vs through routes). Statistically it is questionable, averaging % increases, using a questionable denominator for the calculation %, giving equal weight to small and large schemes, duplicating results that support the authors' argument, ignoring effects such as short term closures being planned during quiet periods, ignoring teh effect of parallel measures etc etc. Nevertheless, even ignoring the many flaws in that study, the report's conclusion, is used by the council to suggest that 11% of the through traffic through Dulwich will evaporate. From the council's own figures that would leave over 6,300 daily movements diverted onto the "main roads", ie Lordship Lane, EDG, Half Moon Lane, South Circular Road and Croxted Road. That was one of the objectives of the OHS scheme that is now being implemented without consultation under the cover of Covid emergency regs. Do you think that is acceptable for those living or going to schools on those "Main roads"?