LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[heartblock]

Siduhe, yes it is bad and your/my observations backed up by Southwark?s own figures that show on one measure an increase in traffic if 25% and on another 36%.

The jams are awful and change daily in terms of time of day and length of time. Of course living for 30 years on this road and observing change or your observation compared to your previous experience will be dismissed by the more observant and far better abled to assess traffic movements.

Maybe living in an LTN improves cognitive function.

No I will not be posting proof of my observations on this forum, I send the proof to my local councillor in hope that they actually do something as per the Councils recorded increases in traffic.

Ok busy time at Uni from Monday... so goodbye forum for a bit...

[Spartacus]

It's no good arguing amongst ourselves over if traffic is higher or lower than what each other sees (I see no ships 😱)

What we need to see is the figures that Southwark publish and the results of the consultation.

Then we can debate what has happened, how accurate their interpretation is and what happens next

As I understand it a decision may be due soon but I could be wrong on that.

[northernmonkey]

Calton Avenue Average daily cycle flow.

Sept 18 768

Sept 20 1039

35% increase.

Figures from One Dulwich report.

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Northernmonkey said:

>

> "If the September figure was chosen as a baseline

> and compared with Sept post measures, from memory

> it would produce something in the region of a 35%

> increase in cycling".

>

> Weasel words NM. Phrases like "from memory" or

> "something in the region of" are not useful or

> convincing.

[Otto2]

Just to say, that photo of the queue - that queue was there more days than not pre-ltn - I know as I have walked/cycled my kids to school down Ed Grove for 9 years. The stretch from Melbourne to Alleyns always the worst and we often dismounted from the bicycle and walked on the pavement for that bit and walked faster than the traffic.

On the upside, I now see many many more people walking and cycling and have spotted some great new bikes out there that carry children. A segregated cycle lane down Ed Grove would be very beneficial and no doubt reduce the number of drivers on the school run.

[slarti b2]

Otto2 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A > segregated cycle lane down Ed Grove would be very beneficial and no doubt reduce the number of

> drivers on the school run.

There may be some practical difficulties but if they could be overcome that sounds reasonable. And a segragated cycle lane down Calton Avenue could also benefit cycling without the Calton Avenue closure that is causing so much congestion and pollution on the boundary roads. That is the sort of reasonable conmpromise that the Council should be considering arther than trying to force though draconaian measure based on dodgy data.

[northernmonkey]

There is space for potentially a bi directional cycle lane all along the section by the dutch estate - it would then need to turn off on thorncombe road, travel along glengarry as a quiet street and then would need some rearrangement of the pavement / parking by the shops to get to Melbourne Grove where it could link up north / south with the filtered streets.

[slarti b2]

northernmonkey Wrote:

> Calton Avenue Average daily cycle flow.

> > Sept 18 768 >Sept 20 1039 > 35% increase. Figures from One Dulwich report.

Isn't it good that One Dulwich are so open about their data, shame we can't say the same about Southwark council. And as I wrote previously, One Dulwich have actually chosen the lowest Sep 18 baseline in their report. They could instead have used the Dept for Transport's raw data for Sep 18 (901) or the estiamte for Sep 19both of which would have reduced that increase.

But, in comparison lets look at Southwark's report shall we?

Nov 18 ( or maybe Dec 18) 259

Sep 20 1,039

Increase of 301%!!!!!!

Of course that innacurate and fraudulent "301% increase" is the sort of figure that minorty activists like to tweet to claim LTN's are working.

But do you could consider that 301% figure in Soutwarks report reasonable? Or the previous 47% increase in traffic through the junction claim ? Or do you think that Southwark deceiving the public is just " a bit iffy" and fine if it supports your cause?

Open your eyes.

[northernmonkey]

I don't think any of us think that cycling has gone up over 300% on Calton. But similarly we can all see that One Dulwich's 'catchy headline' deliberately underplays for effect. Neither is helpful or engenders trust.

[DulwichCentral]

Isn't increased boundary road traffic One Dulwich's main concern?

If they care so much about this why aren't they looking more closely at the data on EDG and offering their

*expert evidence* to prove that EDG is indeed gridlocked for over four hours a day every day?

[Abe_froeman]

I'd guess it's because the council have provided the evidence for that themselves

[DulwichCentral]

Yes 16% down - a reduction of 24,000 vehicles per day across the area.

[alice]

So from townley road to south circular totally jammed. 25 minutes car journey. 70% of cars turned right. Dulwich LTNs have not worked.

[northernmonkey]

Sorry Alice - you are saying that the Dulwich LTN hasn't worked because cars are turning right out of Townley Road onto Lordship in the direction of Forest Hill is showing that the LTN's haven't worked?

I'm interested because there are no southbound restrictions on Dulwich Village or Burbage Road so its unlikely to be displaced traffic travelling from the west to go south east. Traffic coming from the East would always have gone down Lordship or somewhere east of that where there are no LTNs, so what is the effect you're commenting on here please?

[Abe_froeman]

24,000 fewer vehicles per day on East Dulwich Grove? Really now?

[legalalien]

At a guess some of it is traffic trying to get out of the LTN area and head west or north west? As they can?t exit via Court Lane into DV or Turney or via Townley onto edg during restrictions? I?m thinking the traffic turns right into the 205 from LL?

northernmonkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry Alice - you are saying that the Dulwich LTN

> hasn't worked because cars are turning right out

> of Townley Road onto Lordship in the direction of

> Forest Hill is showing that the LTN's haven't

> worked?

>

> I'm interested because there are no southbound

> restrictions on Dulwich Village or Burbage Road so

> its unlikely to be displaced traffic travelling

> from the west to go south east. Traffic coming

> from the East would always have gone down Lordship

> or somewhere east of that where there are no LTNs,

> so what is the effect you're commenting on here

> please?

[DulwichCentral]

@Abe_froeman

>24,000 fewer vehicles per day on East Dulwich Grove? Really now?

Dont be silly thats not what I said.

If you look up the thread I said

'Yes 16% down - a reduction of 24,000 vehicles per day across the area.'

[alice]

northernmonkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry Alice - you are saying that the Dulwich LTN

> hasn't worked because cars are turning right out

> of Townley Road onto Lordship in the direction of

> Forest Hill is showing that the LTN's haven't

> worked?

>

> I'm interested because there are no southbound

> restrictions on Dulwich Village or Burbage Road so

> its unlikely to be displaced traffic travelling

> from the west to go south east. Traffic coming

> from the East would always have gone down Lordship

> or somewhere east of that where there are no LTNs,

> so what is the effect you're commenting on here

> please?

You misread my post, which perhaps was unclear. I was referring to traffic on Lordship Lane from Townley Road to the A205 jam packed, idling and polluting. Previously they would?ve been able to go down Calton or court avoiding the much longer detoured journey.

[Abe_froeman]

No dulwich central that is not what happened.

You asked why One Dulwich were not out collecting evidence of gridlock on EDG (sealioning, by the way) and I replied it was unnecessary because Southwark council's own data showed that to be true already.

You then brought up some irrelevant nonsense about 24,000 fewer cars

[DulwichCentral]

@Abe_froeman

It's perfectly clear what I wrote because hey guess what - its a thread! :))) so everyone can see it.

[dulwichfolk]

16% down when it states in the Southwark council document average traffic was down in Southwark 12%?so it is a 4% reduction at most to have this queuing traffic outside of the village and to keep everyone in a LTN happy

[Bicknell]

@dulwichcentral

southarks report says traffic down 24k vehicles a day across the area (says 23k on page 2 - not sure whhich is right)

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review

but who knows?

no raw data even tho this was promised

no traffic data released in august, even though this was promised

one dulwcih looked at 1 statistc (cycles up 231% on calton ave) and it wasnt accurate.

so we dont have much hope do we?

do councillors expect campaign groups to do the traffic counting for the council?

[Abe_froeman]

Yes it's perfectly clear that you tried to obfuscate from the terrible consequences for EDG of the LTNs after you realised how silly our question about collecting evidence was.

[heartblock]

18:26 queuing traffic all the way down ED Grove both ways....and no I?m not posting photographic ?evidence? just look out your window or walk down from your Melbourne gated road!

[heartblock]

19:01 queuing idling traffic on ED Grove one way from LL to Village in one direction...again Melbounites...do walk from your lovely quaint road and view the chaos......

[heartblock]

Quaint? Quiet..I have had an end of week Negroni..