exdulwicher

Hopper in itself was a result of already cutting or shortening some bus routes and a recognition that people might now have to get 2 buses where previously it was only one. The reason behind cutting the buses or having some terminate earlier than before was to free up capacity in central London. Strand, Oxford Road and Trafalgar Square where a lot of buses terminated was rammed solid so the answer was to remove some of the buses going there which would also increase reliability. But equally, it would mean ?3 fare where previously it was ?1.50 so that wasn't an acceptable result. You're right with CrossRail - that was supposed to be operational now but it was always going to result in a second bus reshuffle and probably some train timetabling re-work as well. The delayed opening of that has cost a lot in lost revenue as well.

You run a fine balancing act on this. It costs ?xx to run the train service in the timetable. Keeping fares low encourages use of public transport so you end up with more people paying a (relatively) low fare which gets you close to the required ?xx. However if too many people try and use it, the system breaks down - it's unpleasant to be crammed into the armpits of strangers every morning and evening so (some) people will find an alternative. It sort of self balances eventually and you can actually use ticket price as a way of managing this. Putting fares up discourages use of public transport. There are some people who'll more or less pay whatever (office workers in the City for example), there are some who won't be able to afford that (minimum wage / gig economy people potentially working anti-social hours) so you end up with fewer people paying a (relatively) higher fare which again should get you close to the required ?xx. The trick is balancing all that while still having a PUBLIC transport system, not one for the wealthy. Which is why it needs subsidy, it's not a traditional business. The railway costs money whether its being used or not. One of the arguments doing the rounds now is that there's a lot of air being transported around London by near-empty trains but reducing the number of trains running, because of the complex way it's all delivered, does not make it cheaper to run. Plus drivers still need their minimum hours to maintain currency, tracks and trains need maintaining at set intervals whether they're being used or not. To within a fairly small percentage range, "the railway" still costs ?xx whether it's sitting there unused or whether it's running a full timetable. And some of it is political too of course - put the fares up and you're "hurting hard-working Londoners", keep the fares artificially low and you're "running a bad business".

There's also the ?24 million cost to taxpayers of the cable car in spite of BJ's promise that it was going to be funded by private finance. The bendy bus saga. BJ can't even claim credit for the cycle hire scheme, that was all sorted by Ken Livingstone. Khan is far from useless - he's a bit uninspiring at times and possibly less ambitious than required (certainly there were several shovel-ready schemes good to go when he came into power which he then put on hold for more consultations and eventually dropped altogether) but he's generally a decent guy doing a broadly very successful job. Obviously as a Labour Mayor under a Conservative Government he's had to put up with a lot of negative press too which hasn't helped his image or popularity ratings. Whereas for Boris, the job was solely about image and with no thought given to how much money he was spaffing against the wall on pointless vanity projects...

Well so far Khan has managed not to spend ?53m on a non-existent Garden Bridge, not spend public money on having an affair with a "technology entrepreneur", not spend ?300,000 on unusable water cannons and not carry out expensive "studies" into blatantly unviable projects like Boris Island Airport so he's already doing far better than BJ. Factor in the phasing out of the ?700m grant from Government and the fact that Khan inherited a ?1.5 BILLION deficit from Boris (which he's reduced by 71% since 2016). Some of the planned funding did depend on CrossRail being operational by now but ultimately, Khan has done FAR better at running TfL than Boris ever managed. TfL's deficit before Covid was down to about ?200 million which, compared to what he took on from Boris, is excellent management. As usual with Boris, he's lying, lying some more and distracting as much as possible from his own multitude of failings. TfL funding depends mostly on fares. That's collapsed by 90% and it would have done that under any Mayor in the world.

Agree on the road pricing front. Lose the "road tax" (Vehicle Excise Duty) and run a toll system based on vehicle type, time of day, distance and so on - could even bring occupancy into it so single occupant pays more than a full car. In this country though it'd be political suicide and you'd need fairly careful management of data / privacy as well as it's essentially a tracking system. The fact that people post their locations on Facebook / Instagram and it can be tracked via Oyster Card, spending on bank card, ANPR, CCTV, mobile phone etc is generally missed in all of that complaining... I genuinely can't see Congestion Charge being extended at this time. It *will* happen at some point (whether the original CC or a fairer Road Pricing system or potentially just an increase in ULEZ cost) but the Government are under attack from all sides at the moment and while it's useful to them to pretend that it's all the fault of a Labour Mayor, that smokescreen won't hold for long.

Hi Rockets. The legal / consultation side of things is a little outside my area really but in general... Emergency are used when there's a threat to life and they can be dropped in literally there and then - the police can arrive on scene of an emergency like a car crash, fire in a building adjacent to the road etc and they can close it. No issues with any of that, it sits a little to one side of the other TROs and although it can last a while (like if there's a danger of a crane collapse until its made safe), generally it's a few hours only. Experimental - these are planned anyway, you don't just turn up, drop a planter and wander off again, they are mapped out and, by their very definition, some of them will have elements of the previous Healthy Streets plan. What's gone in is NOT the full HS plan - that included a filter at the Plough junction (Dulwich Library / Eynella) and it had camera filters with residents passes. The current Experimental doesn't (no time to process the residents passes). The idea behind Experimental is that it happens alongside a consultation and sometimes a bit of on-the-fly adaptations as required. Personally I'm a big fan of them as it makes things vastly cheaper than consulting, revising, re-consulting etc, then obtaining planning permission and roadworks clearance, putting up with months of roadworks and then finding that it doesn't work and you need to re-do it. Councils really need to do a lot more of this although the political side of things (for example the perceived lack of consultation) needs careful management. Lambeth seem to have managed that better than Southwark to be honest. It also really helps with modelling work, there's far less theory involved as you can almost see what is happening in real time, work the predictions and mitigations far more accurately and then use that to extrapolate other methods. Usually, one measure on its own is insufficient - like putting ion a 20mph zone, that's often useless on its own as everyone ignores it; you need to do it in conjunction with traffic calming / cameras / a filter. They're not unlawful - obviously they do get people's backs up but equally many people are in favour of them. That often depends on exactly which roads people live on, want to use and the way they want to use it (walking, cycling, driving etc). The challenge here (and elsewhere in London and nationally) is that it's dropped into a very pro and anti entrenched position, there's seemingly little middle ground. As I say, the political aspects of it are kind of outside my area of modelling. Generally though, the councils know what they're doing from a legal point of view - usually because it's incredibly expensive for them if they get the legal side of things wrong!

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, spotted it there this morning but it seems to > have popped up after the batch of documents that > accompanied the decision notice at > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHo > me.aspx?IId=50023654&Opt=0 which is where I had > been looking... it?s not mentioned in the table to > the report that is approved in the decision notice > either as far as I can tell. Surely it can?t just > be randomly added into the TMO having not been > included in that decision process? Is there a > supplementary decision? It was definitely in there when the document went live on 15th October although I admit I only scanned the text and concentrated more on the maps.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As an aside, I hadn?t appreciated that > there was now a bus gate at the Burbage/ Gallery > intersection - don?t think that appeared on the > maps that accompanied the Southwark decision but > is included in the traffic order? It's on Page 8 of the document here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/traffic-orders-licensing-strategies-and-regulation/traffic-management-orders?chapter=5&article Hopefully that link should work, if not it's the LSP Dulwich Trail phase 2 link on Southwark's TMO page. The map for the southern village junction (Burbage / Gallery) is page 8.

jazzhino Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Judicial Review > > > There needs to be a legal challenge by means of a Judicial Review. I have obtained legal advice > which confirms that in order to legally enforceable the roadblocks, there needs to be a > second order under section 9 and 10 of the Road Traffic Act 1984. > > Furthermore, the 15 October 2020 order experimental orders under sections 9, 10 and 63 of > the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 can be challengeable within six weeks. In the the first > instance a pre-action protocol letter would need to be served on the council. A few points: ETRO is already made under Sections 9 and 10, there isn't a second order. ETROs are made under sections 9 and 10 of the RTRA84 and sections 22 and 23 of the LATOR(EW) [which is the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996) And you missed Section 22: Experimental orders 22.?(1) The provisions of regulations 7 (publication of proposals) and 8 (objections) shall not apply to an experimental order. (2) No provision of an experimental order shall come into force before the expiration of the period of seven days beginning with the day on which a notice of making in relation to the order is published. (3) The order making authority shall comply with the requirements of Schedule 2 as to the making of deposited documents relating to an experimental order available for public inspection. (4) Deposited documents shall be so made available, at the times and at the places specified in the notice of making in relation to the experimental order, for a period beginning with the date on which that advertisement is first published and ending when the order ceases to have effect. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You've also noted Section 63 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 - that refers to providing cycle parking / cycle stands so not sure what that has to do with things?

It'll come sooner or later anyway but this is just Government sabre rattling at the moment and playing politics: Conservative Government vs Labour Mayor. Won't happen now not least because it would take months of planning, installation and implementation and would cost millions.

That's fantastic! UK railways still use an amazing mix of metric and imperial. Railway length is measured from a defined point (ie distance from origin station) so all technical documents refer to features (like a set of points, a bridge etc) as being xx miles, yy chains from [origin] A chain is 22 yards. 10 chains to a furlong and 8 furlongs to the mile. No chance - not unless you go for computer science at degree level. This is more fun than talking about road closures, maybe we need another thread in the Lounge for random geeky maths!

I'm not attacking Alleyn's for existing or for having a large catchment area. I went to school there myself! The point I'm making (as a result of the story above about the 4x4 parking on Dovercourt) is that it publicises free parking in the surrounding residential streets which causes knock-on issues - now you can argue that any number of ways: people knowingly bought a house near a school (several schools actually) so they should know what to expect at least occasionally. the school was there long before any of us moved to the area. the school has a responsibility to its surrounding community to address any traffic issues that it directly causes. the council has a responsibility to help with that from both sides. And that is coupled with the much greater number of cars on the roads and the greater size of them (modern cars are about 25-30% bigger than cars 30 years ago). So yes of course there are issues as there are at any venue where lots of people gather in a short space of time (your example about churches). The point is then about how that is addressed because any one measure on its own (like a single LTN) is not going to sort it, it needs a combination of interventions. Same with most traffic issues to be honest.

Picking this one up from a couple of pages back: Modeller, not planner. And it's a private company. The green sign is not a traffic sign. As long as the (official) Road Closed sign is displayed, the green sign alongside it acts as "clarification" or guidance or advice or whatever term you want to give to it. Non-issue. Dovercourt and, to a lesser extent Beauval, have LONG been used as sink roads for Alleyns. The school literature used to boast of the "ample free parking in surrounding residential streets" (it used to badly impact the Townley Road / EDG end of Calton as well). No-one really minded when it was a dozen or so cars (usually 6th Formers) along the upper reaches of Townley Road away from the houses but when it was school open day, Founder's Day etc, it was absolutely solid around there. And when two massive Range Rovers meet head on along Dovercourt or Beauval, you get a stand-off when neither one is actually capable of reversing their Urban Tank without taking out half the street.

This smacks of the countless "Share The Road" campaigns that have been done over the years, all promising improved road safety and "awareness" and "respect" between drivers and cyclists / pedestrians. None of them have ever worked, they're essentially ways for Government to say that they're very keen on promoting road safety and then never actually doing anything and just leaving the status quo of cars everywhere. To drivers it means "Get out of the way, stop bothering me" and to pedestrians / cyclists / wheelchair users it means "Please don't kill me!" For the last 30 years, no-one has considered "all" road users, they've considered how to make things easier for drivers. Cyclists get that bit of pointless paint along a bumpy kerb. Pedestrians get a couple of inconvenient zebra crossings 300m away from the shops they actually want to visit. Bus and train users have seen decades of fare rises and falling reliability. Meanwhile drivers get acres of free parking right outside the shops and a ten-year freeze on fuel duty. That's the outcome of "considering all road users". It's marginalised cycling and walking to single digit percentages, it's made "the school run" a thing, even radio stations refer to it as "drivetime". We've sleepwalked into a state where driving half a mile is the default normal thing to do because it's so cheap and easy and because people are fundamentally lazy, they'll always take the easy option. Loads of roads, free parking = lots of driving. Take away the free parking (CPZs), filter a few of the roads to actually FORCE change (the roads are not CLOSED, you can access any part of them by car, you just can't use them as a cut-through), make it more inconvenient to drive and easier to just walk / cycle through a filtered road and you start transitioning to considering ALL road users. Not just the easiest / quickest way through for cars. The speed of the change is pretty unprecedented, not least for councils who are unused to working at this sort of speed of delivery but the longer the changes are left, the more severe they're going to have to be. Sorry, but that tipping point has been reached. I don't necessarily agree with all the changes, I think some are going to have to be altered but the critical thing is that the information is established and acted upon. If you look to areas like Hackney and Walthamstow where these sort of changes have been in place for a while under whatever name they were given (Mini-Holland, Quietway, LTN etc), most have worked very well indeed and no-one wants the streets re-opened to a big free-for-all. Lambeth has actually done very well out of theirs, the communication has seemed a bit better.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can anyone show any scheme which has SIGNIFICANTLY reduced motor volumes? The best even the most pro-scheme lobbyist can show is a maximum of 11%. NO IT ISN'T! Back on page 41, I posted a link to a meta-analysis study which had looked at 60 traffic reduction schemes worldwide to assess various measures and outcomes. Obviously very few people actually bothered reading the thing and someone asked about overall reduction - I copied and pasted an extract from the report which stated a MEDIAN (not a maximum) outcome across all these various schemes in several different countries of 11%. In fact the exact phrase I posted is here: 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%. In other words, in half the cases, over 11% of the vehicles which were previously using the road or the area where roadspace for general traffic was reduced, could not be found in the surrounding area afterwards. Now in that context, median is kind of the best statistical tool to use (rather than mean) because it takes account of outliers. Depending on what the scheme is, where it is, the control measures introduced etc, it showed a wide range of outcomes but this time, you can actually go back and read it yourself because it's very clear that the 11% figure has been held up as some kind of absolute gold-plated figure for all schemes everywhere and it's "only" 11% (and therefore not worth doing??) What's even more telling is that the meta-analysis got shouted down as being: old / out of date (apparently science done before 2000 is no longer valid?!) flawed (go, on, tell me HOW it's flawed, I'd love to hear it) biased (no it's not, the whole point of meta-analysis is that you're looking at previous studies and studying their methodology, not the original raw data) And yet all the people saying that the study was rubbish simultaneously grabbed the 11% figure that came from that same study like a dog with a bone and now won't let it go and are twisting it to their own ends.

It's the underpass. Streetview (that's looking at it from the west looking east towards HPC). Congestion charge starts as you dip into that underpass. If you go around the surface road you can drive all around HPC, up Park Lane, down Grosvenor Place etc and not pay it cos you're on the outer border of it. If you zoom right in on the CC map hwere: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-charge/congestion-charge-zone you can see the arm of it and the way it goes UNDER HPC. Using the surface road is fine. Hope that helps. :-)

Rockets: there's a difference between Emergency and Experimental. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/making-traffic-regulation-orders-during-coronavirus-covid-19/traffic-regulation-orders-guidance-on-the-traffic-orders-procedure-coronavirus A lot of what is being used at the moment is Emergency under the new legislation (linked above) Experimental exist already: S9 of the RTRA1984 although they're not used as frequently as they should be - in terms of cheap traffic control they're very good but a lot of people complain bitterly with the "WE'VE NOT BEEN CONSULTED, IT'S UNDEMOCRATIC!" rant and most councils can't be bothered dealing with the fallout (even though it's something they're legally allowed to do as a democratically elected authority).

slarti b Wrote: > So you haven't answered my quesions have you, as > brief reminder, > 1) Are, DV, Calton, Court Lane Townly Rat runs, yes\no > 2) which roads do you think the displaced traffic should use, please name them > 3) Is it right to displace increase congestion and pollution and displace traffic onto the "main" roads - yes\no > > Question 2 is particularly important and supporters of these schemes, the councillors, > posters on here like RaRa and ExDulwicher refuse to answer it. So come on, lets hear which roads > should suffer increased congestion so we can have weekend concerts in Margy Plaza :-) I've not answered because here is no one answer to "what roads should be used instead?". It depends on the journey. Start/end points, "ideal" route vs other options, use of sat-nav vs driver just saying "I'll do X instead", purpose of journey (and that is important to differentiate between a delivery driver doing (say) 6 drops in an area vs a parent driving a child to school and then driving back empty). It will vary depending on time of day, purpose of journey and distance of journey. If you're driving 1km then you probably don't have many alternative route options (and frankly, if you're driving 1km, that's the entire purpose of these filters, to stop you doing that!) but if you're driving 20km then you probably have a few more possibilities that don't affect the overall time of the journey. One of the benefits of doing it this way with temporary measures and then just looking at what actually happens is you don't really need a huge amount of "before" data (some is certainly helpful but it's actually not as critical as some people seem to think), you get to see the results in real time with the expected disruption followed by the smoothing out of the line as people get used to the revised routes / options open to them and you can tweak things a bit as required. It won't all be perfect but it's a lot better than building an entire new junction then coming back and redoing it 2 years later. I'm not a fan of weekend concerts and other assorted crap in Dulwich Square (or whatever its name is this week) by the way. It's a road and it's still used by pedestrians and cyclists; muppets doing the waltz there get right in the way! (edited for spelling)

Councillors deal with a huge range of issues across their constituencies, they cannot be experts in social care, traffic, law and order, schools, pollution, building controls and all the other countless issues / complaints / comments that cross their desks from constituents. Their job is to collate it all, direct it to the right department in the council or Government where there ARE experts (either in-house or contracted in) who can deal with it in the appropriate manner. Moaning that a councillor is not an expert in whatever the topic du jour is doesn't help. They're (supposed to be) experts in campaign work, working with representatives of local organisations, interest groups, businesses and residents etc. To be fair, most generally do try their best although like all generalisations, that hides the few that are genuinely brilliant and the few that are near enough invisible until election time...

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What I like is the prospect of OneDulwich - > entirely unqualified in traffic management and > environmental monitoring - bickering over > pollution measurement methodologies. Taken a leaf out of Government's books. Discredit the figures you don't like, argue about how the figures are measured, change the method half way through... Government did it with Covid deaths... You can measure pollution from traffic counts, you don't need actual pollution monitoring stations on every road. As it stands, there are already a load of them in and around London, they produce really useful baseline trends across long periods of time and every year there's a massive drop in NO2 on days when they close the roads for RideLondon and London Marathon. However they also pick up background stuff too - general city emissions, aircraft and so on. Determining what comes from traffic requires intervention from traffic counts, weather models (wind patterns and vehicle turbulence both have significant effects on what gets measured and when). However you can use traffic counts interlinked with traffic flow data and split by vehicle type to get a really good picture of pollution maps. Flow is already there - all those strips of tarmac by traffic lights are detector loops. There are cameras all over the place, mobile phone data and traffic apps. Add in some actual physical counts at various times of day alongside the counters currently tied to lamp-posts (you know, those tubes that the helpful folk who demand to see data keep cutting...) and you can accurately predict pollution patterns. Vehicle type is important as HGVs emit significantly more than cars so percentage of vehicle type gives options to potentially re-route lorries or model the impact that a bus has - a bus emits more than a car but it takes [x number] of cars off the road (sadly x at the moment with social distancing is lower than x pre-lockdown). So you add one bus but subtract (eg) 30 cars. Yep, a thoroughly sensible person!

Two weeks is nowhere near enough. You need 6 months minimum to get meaningful data, work out the medium-term trends and extrapolate from there. Especially at this time when people could be self-isolating for 2 weeks, schools have only just gone back, there's a marked difference in "normal" commuting patterns. Takes a while for all that to work through the system. The absolute worst thing that could be done now is taking them up again, that would just be a total waste of time and money and wouldn't give any meaningful information.

Thanks for the clarification Rockets, appreciated, :-) At a guess, that's down to the conditions of funding and how quickly these emergency schemes need to be implemented. Lots of factors here - much of it imposed on councils by Government as to how and when they spend the money, not all of it related to number crunching.

I'd have to go back and read it more thoroughly but they did identify through-traffic, not sure if it included start/end points? Modelling does try and identify and break down journey by type so someone getting in a car is not just "driving" - the trip is classed by business or leisure or school journey for example. Several ways and means of doing it, there's a (fairly technical) Government document on the principles here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/888363/tag-unit-m3.1-highway-assignment-modelling.pdf If you want to read the entire thing, put aside a few days and search for Department for Transport TAG Unit, it brings up all the guidelines and documents. Mobile phone data is very good at giving origin and destination of journeys as well as overall reliability, which is a measure of the time taken to do a set journey; you end up with a sort of bell curve of it normally taking (say) 20 mins but in exceptional circumstances it might take 12 mins or 40 mins depending on traffic factors. The narrower the bell, the more reliable the journey. As a general rule, active travel is far more reliable than driving - you know it takes 20 mins to walk to the shops for example and that won't vary much but driving it could take 5 mins or it could take 30 depending on time of day, traffic factors, parking etc. No, it suggests that many people have not yet altered their behaviour. You always need time for measures like these to settle in, for people to be encouraged / nudged towards other options. It's up against a very challenging situation at the moment with mixed messages like "go back to work" followed now by "actually no, try and work from home again". A lot of people don't know if they're coming or going, the uncertainty isn't helping matters.

Thursday was when that car went into the wall at the top of DKH. Junction was closed for ages and it wrecked traffic in Camberwell, Peckham, all along LL out to Forest Hill... Not really a fair comparison to say that traffic was awful therefore it's the fault of the permeable streets. It's why I don't really bother with the anecdotes (from either side) with a still photo and a story of "I was travelling along [road] and traffic was free-flowing / gridlocked therefore..." because there are far more factors at play than just the permeable streets that someone walking along an individual road is unlikely to be aware of at first (like an accident/road closure somewhere else, a broken set of traffic lights, a badly parked lorry etc).

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am, but I haven't a clue. I'd like to know > what's less than an amateur though? Presumably it means someone who believes conspiracy theories from "a relative of an associate" rather than reading peer-reviewed scientific journals...? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200317175442.htm https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-not-human-made-lab-genetic-analysis-nature