Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Surely data should always be scoured, especially if the methodology is suspect? No true scientist should ever object to data being scoured nor robust questioning of the methodology, especially if that data is used to support apparently unpopular policy measures.


The charge is that those who object are 'sheeple' and of 'confirmation bias' a case of pots and kettles it would seem.

Do we feel the data is comparable? 2019 was pre pandemic, people were going about their daily lives no WFH. From 2020 onwards, people have been working from home and not required the use of their cars. I would love to fast forward a year or two when we are all back in offices, and those who are currently walking their kids to school resort to having to drop off again.


Most of us are not anti LTN, just anti the failed measures currently in place.


The council needs to look at improvements for all and consult the public on what is best, since we are the everyday users.


Also, TFL are reducing bus routes, and some trains have been cut. How is that helping reduce congestion?

I think 'Sheeple' was ironic - as in anyone who is foolish enough to belive in the data being offered by the council and the experts they employ is Sheeple - Only 'we'* with our tin foil hats firmly in place can see the through the matrix etc etc...


*you

Why do you assume that people who work in offices drive to school - how do all these people drive to work? I work in an office - i drop my kids and then continue to the train station. Walking to school isn't a 'lockdown hobby' for most people.


TFL have a funding crisis and are cutting services because of reduced demand - funnily enough driving is almost back to full pre pandemic demand whereas busses and trains are not. The latest wave of omicron is likely to increase that difference. The council do not have the ability to change public transport locally.


The measures have reduced traffic overall, including on boundary roads and increased active travel.

Ah - so you're seeing people taking their kids to school as an unsustainable hobby - ditto walking. There is a huge shift when independent schools are off as they have a wider catchment and even though there is lots of good work on active travel, even the small percentage who drive cause a large impact. Theres also an argument that parents tend to take holiday when their kids are off, so if they are driving to work, they will be more likely to be away in school holidays.


That said - assuming that people will change how they travel now once they return to work is a leap - both in that people who are working from home will return to work at the same level as before, but also that it will necessitate a shift in mode.

Re schools - I emailed several schools, state and private, to ask what each was doing to encourage staff and parents to travel to and from school in a less environmentally damaging way, about five months ago. Only one replied.

Traffic and therefore pollution shrinks very noticeably during school holidays, ipso facto, people travelling to and from schools (or to and from schools whilst on longer journeys) are respsonsible for higher levels of congestion and pollution. Over to you, drivers...

The bottom line is that the LTN's were supposed to drive a change in behaviours, and that is not happening. Instead of trying to make it more difficult to drive, public transport should be more accessible and timely to other neighbourhoods/boroughs, not just the city, and the shift should happen naturally. I get there will always be people who do not want to give up their car, as has been said many times. But many of us want to make that shift without making it more difficult or unsafe for others.
Please explain how one's making a shift to greener transport can make it more difficult for others? How can an individual's decision to walk or cycle over driving be in any way more dangerous or harmful than taking a car? Whether or not there are LTNs is irrelevant to this question: it is possible to change one's mode of transport without its being linked to an LTN or cycle lane, etc. being established. One can make that shift even if one disagrees with the policy of LTN. There is no need to link the two and use the latter as a shield against making a positive change.

But the transport system is not easy to use if you are not based in the city. The lack of connections makes travel much longer than it needs to be. A few small changes, like extending the 63 to Honor Oak Park, say there is nowhere for the bus to turn, but there is the one-way system at the bottom of the road.


I was talking about the LTN's making it more harmful for others, pushing the pollution into other streets & around schools. Choosing who gets cleaner air & who doesn't has only divided the area. It is a right, not a privilege.

For those unable to find the table that shows no ACTUAL measurement in Sept 2019 on ED Grove Central - which is the only 'count' used as a baseline to show the magical decrease of 20% - so the figure is just made up. So not scrabbling around at all, no need as table is published.

If you want to believe a made-up number then fine, personally I would much rather Southwark measures pollution on ED Grove - which it either hasn't so far, or it has and is not publishing.

Where is the air quality data? That is the question all those who support road closures should be asking - rather than gaslighting their neighbours - maybe start supporting us on boundary roads who have to put up with extra traffic and pollution - why do you care so little about us?

Heartblock, the woman whose daughter's death was partly attributed to pollution now has a charity/lobby group. Perhaps she could help you do your own recording of pollution where you live?


http://ellaroberta.org/ella-roberta-family-foundation/

She is a bit busy being the WHO advocate for health and air quality at present, but yes we are in communication due to some shared experiences already.


Southwark closed the 5 roads around ED Grove and they have a duty of care to their residents to measure the air quality consequences and to publish these before any consultation. As it stands a group of EDG residents have measured the air quality by self-funding, but these measurements are not 'official' measurement. So the 59-60 NOx figures (WHO - anything over 40 is a risk to health) are easily dismissed.

What you need to ask yourself is 'why isn't Southwark measuring our air quality' ?

heartblock Wrote:

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

> For those unable to find the table that shows no

> ACTUAL measurement in Sept 2019 on ED Grove

> Central - which is the only 'count' used as a

> baseline to show the magical decrease of 20% - so

> the figure is just made up. So not scrabbling

> around at all, no need as table is published.

> If you want to believe a made-up number then fine,

> personally I would much rather Southwark measures

> pollution on ED Grove - which it either hasn't so

> far, or it has and is not publishing.

> Where is the air quality data? That is the

> question all those who support road closures

> should be asking - rather than gaslighting their

> neighbours - maybe start supporting us on boundary

> roads who have to put up with extra traffic and

> pollution - why do you care so little about us?


Heartblock - and there it is - the smoking gun. Despite the claims from Goldilocks to the contrary it is clear no data was ever collected for Sep 19 by the council. They took the Jan 19 numbers and magically added 3,000 or so journeys to arrive at the Sept 19 figure. They then suddenly decided to begin monitoring at the ED Central location and got figures that showed an increase on the Jan 19 figures - one wonders if this was the trigger for the ghost Sep 19 figures after the MG residents complained they didn't want the changes to the road layout Southwark suggested.


The only way Southwark could justify no change would be that they could demonstrate that the MG closures were working as is and, magically, those numbers appeared......call me a cynic but I smell a rat! ;-)


They are taking everyone for a ride.....and when people on here suggest we should not be analysing the data for holes I laugh to myself quite heartily at the idea that we should all just go about our business and turn a blind eye to corruption and manipulation of the democratic process.


Imagine if everyone just turned a blind eye - (on a different scale obviously but...) they'd be no Watergate, No Cash for Questions, No Tory party parties - hell we would all probably think that Chernobyl was an unexplained freakish act of nature!


Our council and councillors are supposed to be accountable to their constituents and at the moment Southwark and our local councillors are treating us with utter contempt and lying to us and refusing to engage with us because they are terrified of what we have uncovered as they know their process and output in relation to LTNs is as flawed at the LTNs themselves.


They got away with it for years over things like the CPZs but now they have a problem on their hands as everyone is aware of the issues around the LTNs and it appears far more people in the area hate them than like them and we are months away from a council vote where a few hundred votes against them ends their political careers - particularly problematic for any of them that harbour desires to progress within the Labour party.

From page 29 of the main monitoring report:


'for this site, DATA FOR A COMPARABLE LOCATION WAS COLLECTED IN BOTH JANUARY AND SEPTEMBER'


The caps section is bold in the report - didn't seem to be able to make my font on here bold.


Its not a 'smoking gun' at all.


Rockets Wrote:

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

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> > For those unable to find the table that shows

> no

> > ACTUAL measurement in Sept 2019 on ED Grove

> > Central - which is the only 'count' used as a

> > baseline to show the magical decrease of 20% -

> so

> > the figure is just made up. So not scrabbling

> > around at all, no need as table is published.

> > If you want to believe a made-up number then

> fine,

> > personally I would much rather Southwark

> measures

> > pollution on ED Grove - which it either hasn't

> so

> > far, or it has and is not publishing.

> > Where is the air quality data? That is the

> > question all those who support road closures

> > should be asking - rather than gaslighting

> their

> > neighbours - maybe start supporting us on

> boundary

> > roads who have to put up with extra traffic and

> > pollution - why do you care so little about us?

>

> Heartblock - and there it is - the smoking gun.

> Despite the claims from Goldilocks to the contrary

> it is clear no data was ever collected for Sep 19

> by the council. They took the Jan 19 numbers and

> magically added 3,000 or so journeys to arrive at

> the Sept 19 figure. They then suddenly decided to

> begin monitoring at the ED Central location and

> got figures that showed an increase on the Jan 19

> figures - one wonders if this was the trigger for

> the ghost Sep 19 figures after the MG residents

> complained they didn't want the changes to the

> road layout Southwark suggested.

>

> The only way Southwark could justify no change

> would be that they could demonstrate that the MG

> closures were working as is and, magically, those

> numbers appeared......call me a cynic but I smell

> a rat! ;-)

>

> They are taking everyone for a ride.....and when

> people on here suggest we should not be analysing

> the data for holes I laugh to myself quite

> heartily at the idea that we should all just go

> about our business and turn a blind eye to

> corruption and manipulation of the democratic

> process.

>

> Imagine if everyone just turned a blind eye - (on

> a different scale obviously but...) they'd be no

> Watergate, No Cash for Questions, No Tory party

> parties - hell we would all probably think that

> Chernobyl was an unexplained freakish act of

> nature!

>

> Our council and councillors are supposed to be

> accountable to their constituents and at the

> moment Southwark and our local councillors are

> treating us with utter contempt and lying to us

> and refusing to engage with us because they are

> terrified of what we have uncovered as they know

> their process and output in relation to LTNs is as

> flawed at the LTNs themselves.

>

> They got away with it for years over things like

> the CPZs but now they have a problem on their

> hands as everyone is aware of the issues around

> the LTNs and it appears far more people in the

> area hate them than like them and we are months

> away from a council vote where a few hundred votes

> against them ends their political careers -

> particularly problematic for any of them that

> harbour desires to progress within the Labour

> party.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> She is a bit busy being the WHO advocate for

> health and air quality at present, but yes we are

> in communication due to some shared experiences

> already.

>

> Southwark closed the 5 roads around ED Grove and

> they have a duty of care to their residents to

> measure the air quality consequences and to

> publish these before any consultation. As it

> stands a group of EDG residents have measured the

> air quality by self-funding, but these

> measurements are not 'official' measurement. So

> the 59-60 NOx figures (WHO - anything over 40 is a

> risk to health) are easily dismissed.

> What you need to ask yourself is 'why isn't

> Southwark measuring our air quality' ?



Maybe take a look at my earlier post. https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,2092625,2250739#msg-2250739


I've read further into the report actually Southwark has measured the air quality on EDG using AQMesh pods - see page 15.


The report states:

Southwark Council provided hourly average measurements from AQMesh pods on East

Dulwich Grove from 18th May to 19th June 2017 and from 18th May to 24th July 2021.

Comparing the same periods in 2017 and 2021 shows average NO2 concentrations were 33

μg/m? in 2017 and 23 μg/m? in 2021. For these periods, the maximum hourly average

concentrations were 67 μg/m? and 52 μg/m?, in 2017 and 2021 respectively; over the two-month

period in 2021, the maximum hourly average concentration was 56 μg/m?. The change

in concentrations at this AQMesh pod location is in line with continuous monitor and diffusion

tube measurements.

There was no count at ED Grove central in Sept 2019 - it is very simple, as the table shows.


Can you possibly explain what a 'comparable' site is and also why 300 cars were added to the actual Jan 2019 count?


I think this matters as the amazing and magical 20% reduction from 'actual factual data' is being twittered up as a positive 'result' by people living on nice closed roads. It is magical because it is a 25-28% increase at other sites on ED Grove (actual counts) and the HGV, Motorbike increases are huge - where did this 20% go?

Ha ha... it doesn't seem the council is even sure themselves whether they collected the data or not...on one page of the report it says they didn't, on another it says it did. You'd expect more clarity and consistency and attention to detail from the council wouldn't you....it may not be a smoking gun but the gun has definitely been loaded don't you agree?


It is an amazing coincidence don't you think that the numbers that we are arguing about, and the numbers that the council isn't sure whether they collected or not, are the ones showing the biggest increase in numbers that allows you to claim what a rip roaring success the LTNs are on your street?


Funny that....

Wow 56 that high - we measured above 60 - ED Grove is very polluted then. What was the PM2.5 and PM10 measurements - these are the carcinogenic and inflammatory pollutants that we don't want pedestrians with adult and children to breath in.

Yet again oh closed road supporters - when are you going to start thinking about your neighbours on boundary roads - do I hear any support for policy to lessen traffic and pollution on our roads - I'm listening....

Travel in London - published today. TFL


1.The standout feature is the relative increase in weekend cycling ? typically doubling relative to pre-pandemic levels, although with large variation, emphasising the increase in ?leisure? cycling. Weekday cycling shows a different picture, typically close to pre-pandemic levels.


(What days of the week did Southwark measure cycling numbers?)


2.It is particularly important that air quality improves around schools and the number of state primary and secondary schools in areas exceeding the legal limit for NO2 fell from 455 in 2016 to 14 in 2019, a reduction of 97 per cent.


(Is ED Grove School street still one of those with high pollution - likely considering the above WHO measurement of 56NOx)

It's going to be very interesting to see what happens to traffic flow numbers when the council reduces the operating hours. If modal shift has taken place then there should not be a huge increase. If all the LTNs have done is displace traffic elsewhere then you would expect an increase.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...