LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[DulwichCentral]

Erm excuse me @Rockets I wasn't asking you. I was asking @heartblock as I've never seen heartblock's alternative suggestions. I may have missed them.

[ab29]

We should re-brand "pro LTN lobby" to "pro-social injustice lobby".

Ok, I'm not really adding to a sensible discussion here but one is able to take only so much.

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Erm excuse me @Rockets I wasn't asking you. I was

> asking @heartblock as I've never seen heartblock's

> alternative suggestions. I may have missed them.

DC - you have missed them (it seems a lot of the pro-LTN lobby miss them every time someone posts them - one might suggest it was deliberate.....there is a lot of "post them remorse" going on here as in people ask someone to post something, they do and then the "post them" questioner pretends they have never seen them - I suspect because they don't have a rational response).

BTW in case you missed my comments on Underhill do feel free to share you thoughts on that when you're ready.........#iwontholdmybreath.....

[goldilocks]

So - a quick search on the DFT map shows that there is a count point right outside the hospital site:

https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/#16/51.4597/-0.0770/basemap-countpoints

This was a manual count in 2005, 2007 and 2016. Inbetween those times the manual counts were adjusted (presumably by average changes) - interestingly the adjustment from the estimate re the manual wasn't much at all, which seems to indicate the estimates were reasonably accurate.

What is it about this DFT data that you object to?

heartblock Wrote:

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

> No - the baseline for pre-LTN 2019 figure used was

> an estimate based on 2016 DFT data - source and

> count method not given. There was a pre LTNs

> number that was an actual count in 2019 - 9386,

> but they didn't use this as a baseline and chose

> to use the inflated estimate - choosing 16354 as a

> figure for the baseline - I wonder why?

>

> The 2021 data was a 2 day manual count - no day of

> the week specified so could have been at the

> weekend and was not the traffic count tubes but

> was 13583

>

> So if you use the manual counts and no estimate

> the traffic increased by 13583 - 9386 which is an

> extra 4197 vehicles a day, which is a 44%

> increase.

>

> But they used an estimate for baseline and a count

> as the post LTN so they say a drop of 2771 - bad

> maths as this calculation gives a 2671 decrease -

> and declare a 17% reduction.

>

> Rubbish research and terrible maths - But feel

> free to look at it yourself.

[heartblock]

1. DC Pay attention - all ideas have been submitted to this forum on multiple occasions.

2. GL Any undergraduate knows in research methods you do not compare an estimate with an actual count.

[heartblock]

3. RP what is a pro-carbon lobby? Who do you mean? Are you talking about Southwark Councillors creating High Traffic Neighbourhoods by diverting traffic onto Croxted, LL and ED Grove, what a great name for Southwark! Can include building on green spaces to that?

[Penguin68]

Underhill Road figures

Just to comment that one of the counting 'posts' was just outside my house in Underhill - it was in place for less than a week, and for 36 hours or so one of the two strips was lying loose - the fixing on the side of the road opposite the counting mechanism had failed, although this was subsequently re-fixed. I would not place a huge amount of faith in whatever this returned. I cannot comment on other strips on Underhill - how long they stayed or whether they stayed intact.

[Rockets]

Penguin68 - you live on Underhill does a 3% increase in traffic seem accurate to you?

[KidKruger]

Crystal Palace Rd is now a HTN, at least compared to what it was like before the LTNs were implemented.

It?s not just the volume of cars which is startling, it?s the panic/urgency/desperation of drivers? behaviour which has increased. I guess with Lordship Lane rammed nowadays, other routes are sought to enable them to feel like they?re making some sort of progress in their journeys.

Just a matter of time before a serious injury or worse, seems inevitable - you can?t have so much stressed traffic through an entirely residential street without an eventual accident involving pedestrians or a cyclist.

Let?s Trade Neighbourhoods.

[heartblock]

Yes KK exactly - an alternative needs to be offered. The You Tube vid was interesting in that actual short journey's in distance may not be the issue.

Clean, comfortable, cheap, regular, reliable and end-to-end public transport is the answer. Travelling by PT in Denmark was a joy, never missed having a car and it felt like a 1st class experience (worked there for a bit).

I only drive about 3-4 times a year long distance, but if the PT was like Denmark and cheaper than the few journeys I make - I wouldn't ever bother driving.

[CPR Dave]

Seen quite a few cars smashed into on crystal palace rd by drivers going too fast trying to get through the jams and make up lost time from lordships lane.

Hoping the council will close it off soon too now they've painted the cycle spine markings on

[heartblock]

Does a ex-Southwark road planner. mate of a Councillor, a Guardian journalist or someone's Mum live on CP Rd? If not I'm not sure you will be allowed a quiet LTN road and will need to rough it with us plebs on LL, Croxted and ED Grove with a HTN rd sweetie.

[legalalien]

in response to this and also eastdulwichhenry's post above - I think I read that part of the reason for reopening Melbourne Grove South outside restricted hours is to help relieve the traffic on LL (which I guess would help CPR but would mean more traffic on MGS, all to help cope with the displacement caused by the CL/Calton/DV closure.)

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> Crystal Palace Rd is now a HTN, at least compared

> to what it was like before the LTNs were

> implemented.

> It?s not just the volume of cars which is

> startling, it?s the panic/urgency/desperation of

> drivers? behaviour which has increased. I guess

> with Lordship Lane rammed nowadays, other routes

> are sought to enable them to feel like they?re

> making some sort of progress in their journeys.

> Just a matter of time before a serious injury or

> worse, seems inevitable - you can?t have so much

> stressed traffic through an entirely residential

> street without an eventual accident involving

> pedestrians or a cyclist.

> Let?s Trade Neighbourhoods.

[heartblock]

Calton/ Court/ DV is the real problem - Melbourne Grove N and S doesn't help- but opening up the Village would relieve many of the HTN issues. A local bus doing the round via Calton, Village, LL then back around to Sainsbury's and up EDG would help. I do wonder why Goose Green and ED Labour Councillors have allowed Labour Village Councillors to sh*t all over their ward?

[Rockets]

Heartblock - me too. It seems being a good party member is more important that being a good constituent councillor. It still galls me that Cllr McAsh (pre-pandemic) used the fact he thought the DV closure was coming to lobby residents on Melbourne to support their own closures on the basis of the displacement heading their way yet he cared not one jot for anyone else in his ward and the impact on them. He should have been calling out the foolishness of the DV closures and fighting for his constituents - a little less "solidarity comrade" and a bit more "you're doing what comrade" would have been a more appropriate response for a councillor who knew the displacement was coming. He and every other councillor is culpable for standing back and letting this happen - bowing to the party machine and being weak at the expense of the constituents they are supposed to represent.

[redpost]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Calton/ Court/ DV is the real problem - Melbourne

> Grove N and S doesn't help- but opening up the

> Village would relieve many of the HTN issues. A

> local bus doing the round via Calton, Village, LL

> then back around to Sainsbury's and up EDG would

> help. I do wonder why Goose Green and ED Labour

> Councillors have allowed Labour Village

> Councillors to sh*t all over their ward?

42 bus loading is minimal between Sainsburys and Camberwell Green, on what planet would tfl stump for a circular bus running empty all day?

[DulwichCentral]

ahh right - so that's your alternative solution is it @heartblock?

Open the Roads so they fill up with traffic again - and then stick an empty bus in with the gridlock.

[redpost]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Heartblock - me too. It seems being a good party

> member is more important that being a good

> constituent councillor. It still galls me that

> Cllr McAsh (pre-pandemic) used the fact he thought

> the DV closure was coming to lobby residents on

> Melbourne to support their own closures on the

> basis of the displacement heading their way yet he

> cared not one jot for anyone else in his ward and

> the impact on them. He should have been calling

> out the foolishness of the DV closures and

> fighting for his constituents - a little less

> "solidarity comrade" and a bit more "you're doing

> what comrade" would have been a more appropriate

> response for a councillor who knew the

> displacement was coming. He and every other

> councillor is culpable for standing back and

> letting this happen - bowing to the party machine

> and being weak at the expense of the constituents

> they are supposed to represent.

Yes, shocking, if only there were candidates who didn't tow any party line, could ignore the big party whips and had their own manifesto totally independent of the big parties, i think "independents" would be a good name for them.

[goldilocks]

That would be true in terms of estimate vs actual - but the DFT data has both actual (manual counts) and estimates (for the years where manual counts weren't undertaken).

The count that is referenced is right outside the hospital, whereas the council counts were all closer to Lordship Lane.

I think from looking at the latest data provided by the council in the report, the turning analysis (although again also limited time span and also peak hours only) also indicates that there has been a fall in traffic on that central section of East Dulwich Grove during peak times.

So that's 2 different data sources indicating that traffic has fallen on the section of East Dulwich Grove between Townley and Melbourne Grove.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> 1. DC Pay attention - all ideas have been

> submitted to this forum on multiple occasions.

> 2. GL Any undergraduate knows in research methods

> you do not compare an estimate with an actual

> count.

[heartblock]

But the roads won't be full of traffic because apparently LTNs make traffic evaporate..so there is no traffic to divert back to the empty roads...

[heartblock]

Nope - they compared an estimate with actual data..

[goldilocks]

I also fail to see any scenario where opening up MGS wouldn't increase traffic on the central section of East Dulwich Grove. So in an effort to alleviate traffic on Lordship Lane, its likely that the section of EDG between MGS and Townley will increase - particularly westbound.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> in response to this and also eastdulwichhenry's

> post above - I think I read that part of the

> reason for reopening Melbourne Grove South outside

> restricted hours is to help relieve the traffic on

> LL (which I guess would help CPR but would mean

> more traffic on MGS, all to help cope with the

> displacement caused by the CL/Calton/DV closure.)

>

>

> KidKruger Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Crystal Palace Rd is now a HTN, at least

> compared

> > to what it was like before the LTNs were

> > implemented.

> > It?s not just the volume of cars which is

> > startling, it?s the panic/urgency/desperation

> of

> > drivers? behaviour which has increased. I guess

> > with Lordship Lane rammed nowadays, other

> routes

> > are sought to enable them to feel like they?re

> > making some sort of progress in their journeys.

> > Just a matter of time before a serious injury

> or

> > worse, seems inevitable - you can?t have so

> much

> > stressed traffic through an entirely

> residential

> > street without an eventual accident involving

> > pedestrians or a cyclist.

> > Let?s Trade Neighbourhoods.

[Rockets]

Redpost - our local councillors are supposed to represent the interests of their local constituents are they not? That's why they are known as local councillors. If we cannot rely on them to stand up for their constituents then what are they there for - window dressing? I expect them to not toe the party line and do, instead, what is right for their constituents - that is what they are there for.

68% of Dulwich residents want the closures removed yet there is deafening silence from our local councillors - their silence speaks volumes.

Maybe it is reflective of the quandary the Labour party has got itself into that it has forgotten and neglected who actually elects them. Roll on May when, one hopes, some independent candidates will run and stand-up for Dulwich residents.

[goldilocks]

Still on this - they used the DFT data, which was an estimate for the most recent year, but which has been derived from manual counts on a number of different years (its been an annual data point for many years).

This longstanding DFT data has been compared to the latest data from Southwark collected as part of the recent monitoring.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Nope - they compared an estimate with actual

> data..

[goldilocks]

And Rockets - again - 68% of respondents is not the same as 68% of Dulwich residents.