kissthisguy

To take one example, the pattern for Croxted has been clear. It's one where flow is down (which cllrs have brazenly and either cynically or ignorantly cited as a win) but congestion is up. That is evidenced by TFL raising alarms over the significant delay of the number three bus on that route, following the implemtation of LTNs. I quite understand that ATCs aren't a single snapshot of a point in time (and have never suggested otherwise) but understanding congestion as well is vitally important. Both Southwark and Lambeth have access to a useful data point in this regard, through Waze for Cities. Are you arguing that congestion doesn't need to be monitored or part of the data presentation to residents? Troubling if so. exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But you see my point - if the council is only > releasing ATC data it tells you nothing about > congestion? Which is the important piece in terms > of harm. > > Well it does because you don't just take one > snapshot. Traffic counts are averaged over times > (time of day / day of week / week of year etc) to > get the bigger picture. If you find an hour where > the traffic count off one roadside tube sensor is > obviously out of whack, you can look at the wider > picture - was there some sort of blockage nearby > creating an unusual flow, had someone parked with > the wheels on the tube? Compare it with other > days, look at other sensors nearby, check the > sensor for any malfunctions or damage, align it > with pollution monitoring etc. > You don't just go "hey look, it only counted 10 > cars that hour, publish that quick!" > > That is also part of the reason why you can't > demand data immediately; it takes time to gather > it, verify it, analyse it and present it in a > meaningful way. You're looking at medium-term > traffic patterns, not an individual hour where it > may have been free-flowing or congested.

But you see my point - if the council is only releasing ATC data it tells you nothing about congestion? Which is the important piece in terms of harm.

Thought this was interesting - it's about illegal e-scooters as opposed to ones in the trial schemes, but still quite hair-raising stats for collisions. https://newsfromcrystalpalace.wordpress.com/2022/01/07/illegal-use-of-e-scooters-putting-londoners-at-risk-of-significant-harm-says-labours-gla-crime-spokesman-258-collisions-in-first-six-months-of-last-year-more-than-3600-seized-in-11-months/

I'll see if it's available - can you do the same for congestion on Grove Vale pls? Ta

Amen. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hopefully we can all keep to the theme and discuss > statistics, pollution, consultations in a more > considered manner.

The reason I'm unconvinced about traffic being 14% down on Grove Vale is that it makes no sense (unless congestion) given daily traffic counts on A2216 Grove Ln Sth are up significantly. The Champion Hill scheme is interesting in that the council has claimed an increase of just 6% on Grove Lane Sth, which leads on from DKHill. However, this figure fails to take into account the cumulative impacts of the 2019 (approx 600 cars) and later 2020/21 Champion Hill trials (686). The true figure is an increase of approx 1300 cars though some estimates go as high at 1500, or 15.8%. Will look into this discrepancy. That increase isn't coming from Peckham as there's no right turn from Grove Hill Road. And of course there's no left turn from Champion Hill. It's also not just a southbound increase. So it's coming in part from Grove Vale / DKH. I walk, cycle and get the bus enough in the area to tell you it is far more congested than previously. But happy to be proved wrong if you can show me the congestion data. As I say, ATCs don't tell the whole story.

Humour me, then, and direct me to congestion data in what you've posted? Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The problem is not with a lack of data. We are > knee-deep in data. The problem is that people > don't understand the data and/or don't want to > believe the data because it doesn't align with > their preferences. > > https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/traffic_flo > w_and_volume_data_for?utm_campaign=alaveteli-exper > iments-87&utm_content=sidebar_similar_requests&utm > _medium=link&utm_source=whatdotheyknow

Moral of the story is pneumatic cord ATC counts can only tell you so much. What they don't do is tell you about congestion. Unless you understand congestion, you can't understand harm (aka the most important element of all of this).

Not odd in the least - congestion is up therefore counts are registering fewer cars. (As explained above). Interesting that the council did not release any active travel data, when it has a Vivacity monitor (the machine captures car, LGV, HGV, cycle and pedestrian counts) at Goose Green roundabout. Yet another piece of the jigsaw missing... march46 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?Congestion created? - odd comment given data > shows Grove Vale traffic volumes are significantly > down, 14% from memory. > > > kissthisguy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Northern monkey is right about pollution not > being > > static of course. There's evidence to show that > > pollution's effect on London's TFL red routes > > extend to 150m each side of the road. If you > live > > at either end of Melbourne Grove / Derwent you > > probably have worse pollution owing to the > > congestion created on Grove Vale / EDG.

Just received a bundle of Christmas cards, which I know were sent early Dec. It's hopeless. Thanks for posting the petition, have signed.

Northern monkey is right about pollution not being static of course. There's evidence to show that pollution's effect on London's TFL red routes extend to 150m each side of the road. If you live at either end of Melbourne Grove / Derwent you probably have worse pollution owing to the congestion created on Grove Vale / EDG.

I'm not sure about claims re pollution not increasing. The data picture is very patchy and therefore should come with a serious health warning. 1)The A205 (south circular) was not included in the monitoring and as anyone who has to use it will tell you, it is far worse in terms of congestion since the LTNs. This means that claims that overall traffic in the area is down* comes with a big red flag. 2)IIRC what the (part-modelled? part measured) council monitoring showed was that pollution at was the same or up. If traffic is down, you would expect pollution to also be down. If it's the same or up, that must be attributable to the road closures. No surprise - the LTNs have increased journey miles and emissions and those lengthened miles have not been offset by modal shift. 3)*traffic can appear to go down while pollution simultaneously goes up. This is because what is being measured is traffic flow, ie the number of cars to pass a certain point over a certain time period. So what Croxted road is seeing is "traffic down" as Cllr Leeming has said, but this is because it's often moving very slowly or at a standstill. Emissions / pollutions will be up, significantly so. But away from the data picking (and the council has clearly been cherry picking to present the best possible case to justify a decision it made when it instituted the closures), what matters is people, and harm. What is not up for dispute is the incredible harm pollution does. There are 85,000 global peer-reviewed, robust academic studies on air pollution, it's effects on physical (cardiovascular, lung etc) and mental health. Even small increases in exposure have significant effects. For example even a 3 microgram increase per m3 in NO2 has serious implications for mental health conditions such as depression and psychosis - according to a study conducted in 2020 in Lambeth and Southwark) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/24/small-increases-in-air-pollution-linked-to-rise-in-depression-finds-study So we know that small increases are damaging; they often happen on roads that are already illegally polluted, therefore harm is compounded. Lessening pollution on side streets (with within legal limits of air pollution) to further harm those so clearly already in danger is an odd thing to condone and justify.

Although the Ivy would be nice, wouldn't it be great to see a non-chain restaurant in Dulwich Village? Creative menus are to be found in Peckham eg the Kudu places, Levan, Forza Wine. Shame ED's Terroirs closed and the orig Palmerston is no more. Is it that only chains can afford the rents?

@jellybeanz agree with all you have said above. In addition: making journeys longer (and often slower) cannot possibly be a climate emergency measure, as claimed.

Ahem. 260ish votes is a narrow margin in Southwark. In 2018 DV was a fairly even three-way split owing to brexit. The Tory vote took a big ding (Windrush also a factor), the LDs made a good showing based on an explicit anti brexit platform and the jury was still out (or rather the Labour party was fence-sitting) on their version of Brexit. Many people 'lent' Labour their vote that time round. Obviously LTNs are a divisive policy. Those on closed road win with lowered air pollution, a house price boost and the ability to have an even better car-owning experience (car ownership on those roads is high). Those on displacement routes suffer from worsened air quality, noise pollution and a very real possibility of worsened physical and mental health. Others who do not directly benefit or lose out may be impacted by longer bus journey times etc. As Rockets says, it will matter for some how cllrs have handled an admittedly difficult issue and I get the feeling that in DV people are pretty fed up - and in that context, 260ish votes is a margin that begins to look uncomfortably thin. DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They're not narrow margins - even in Dulwich > Village

Yes @legalalien, clumsily worded: I mean LTNs are the issue locally. Agree with you on the infill debate more widely. What both issues have in common is that they speak to a (at once nagging, now more insistent) feeling people have of a council that isn't listening and is willing to harm those who need protection / have least.

My two pennorth is that it's hard for independent candidates to get traction: no 'brand awareness', history, experience. Like it or not the main parties are to one extent or another known quantities. They have activists, data and a party machine to help them. Money, too. So for me it comes down to the point made earlier about getting representatives who represent, rather than ones who seem to be driven by dogma. The LDs can probably win a seat in ED, the Tories will almost certainly win one or both seats in DV. Of course much depends on the candidates - do they have a history of local involvement eg through volunteering etc. Plenty of people are quite rigid nationally (eg never vote Tory) but more flexible at a local level. The LTN issue is almost *the* issue of this election. Bound to be some upset.

@legalalien well put. And agree on the politics.

On judicial review - my understand is it's expensive and may be a fool's errand because the council can find another way of arriving at the same decision. If I were Southwark I'd be more worried on the human rights / health claims front. Might be worth watching Lewisham - home of Ella Kisi Debrah's family - for this.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks for the distractiom, there was not a lot > new of relevance that could be said on this > thread. Here are some other 'crazy' things > political parties have said in the past > > New Labour, New Danger > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Labour,_New_Dang > er > > Support the Cuts, sexist campaign with a lady > having her bra cut (sorry can't find the image but > this link will need to suffice): > https://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/ > 07/the_federation_.html > > And unabashed racism > http://equinoxconsulting.net/is-it-time-to-ditch-t > he-colour-black-for-our-true-heritage-african-3/ > (May have been a hoax, but don't let that get in > the way of a good story). -- Thanks for the deflection, Malumbu, but I don't think 1997 M&C Saatchi, The 1980s Federation of Conservative Students, nor the group that produced the racist leaflet in 1970 [interesting historical detail here about its precise heritage https://medium.com/@pitt_bob/if-you-desire-a-coloured-for-your-neighbour-vote-labour-the-origins-of-a-racist-leaflet-7978858dd02f ] either a) live in East Dulwich or b) are running in the May 2022 elections or c) have pledged to represent all voters.

Sorry I looked again. Wow he's got quite a grip around that woman! What a completely batshit photo. Is anyone - anyone at all - sensible running in May?

It is juvenile, aggressive and off-putting. At the very least, crap politics (unless all you're interested in is your own echo chamber). Perhaps Cllr McAsh forgets that most people aren't mad/tribal (delete as appropriate) enough to join a political party, but rather (like me) are floating voters. Goose Green ward and Dulwich Village ward are pretty marginal, aren't they? I'm astonished Labour hasn't asked him to delete it.

Right. This could be our problem. Now that you mention it, I once rang the wrong team and they seemed much more organised. To be fair, when you get in front of a doctor they are good but it's the nightmare of trying to see someone that has broken me!

Thanks very much

We just moved to ED from Burgess Park. Currently at St Giles surgery.