Jump to content

LTN Discussion

Administrator

By Administrator
in Roads & Transport

 Share

Recommended Posts

northernmonkey

northernmonkey

Posted
Posted

Didn?t you claim above that it was- you stated quite clearly that traffic had increased and that it wasn?t just southbound,


The grove vale reduction is from the latest monitoring released by the council. It doesn?t include the data you mention though as far as I know.

exdulwicher

exdulwicher

Posted
Posted
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.

Dogkennelhillbilly

Dogkennelhillbilly

Posted
Posted

The endless search for data is a furphy. There is no bar graph that will ever satisfy you that the opposing view is correct. People are demanding absolute single statistic proof (which never happens in a multivariate world) that aggregate traffic has been reduced by 50% (which would be a wildly successful outcome for a single traffic scheme). It is not going to happen.


OneDulwich's ramblings on the data are either wrong-headed (because they're riddled with logical errors and mistakes that demonstrate a own lack of understanding) or worse an deliberate attempt to make everything seem so confusing that it's better to do nothing about traffic. As OneDulwich favours doing nothing and heading back to the status quo ante, I suspect it's the latter. But it all depends on how clever or stupid you think OneDulwich and its backers are.


"Sorry what - traffic is down 14% on grove vale and you?re claiming that?s because it?s more congested so not counted?


You?ve got to see that written down that sounds insane?"


It is insane - but it's what happens when unstoppable force (facts) meets immovable object (belief that LTN is bad) - you start making stuff up in an attempt to reconcile the two.

dulwichfolk

dulwichfolk

Posted
Posted

What do you think went wrong with the meaningful analysis the council did regards turney road where they published the incorrect values (lower count) when they saw there was an increase in the joining burbage road. Wouldn?t they have thought where is that traffic going and it doesn?t match our figures?


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

>

> 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.

KidKruger

KidKruger

Posted
Posted

DulvilleRes Wrote:

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

> Is there any evidence, as some posters have

> claimed, that LTN's are having a beneficial effect

> on house prices within LTN's? I've seen nothing.

> If there is no evidence, it does feel a

> saddeningly divisive claim to make.


I could confidently claim that a house on a busy street that becomes effectively a private street will become more desirable. To believe otherwise, in London, is folly.

Why would anyone need evidence for that - it?s obvious !

kissthisguy

kissthisguy

Posted
Posted

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.

kissthisguy

kissthisguy

Posted
Posted

Check out Calton Ave and Court Lane, and compare with Croxted / Grove Vale for house price movements. It's all in the public domain.


KidKruger Wrote:

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

> DulvilleRes Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Is there any evidence, as some posters have

> > claimed, that LTN's are having a beneficial

> effect

> > on house prices within LTN's? I've seen

> nothing.

> > If there is no evidence, it does feel a

> > saddeningly divisive claim to make.

>

> I could confidently claim that a house on a busy

> street that becomes effectively a private street

> will become more desirable. To believe otherwise,

> in London, is folly.

> Why would anyone need evidence for that - it?s

> obvious !

Rockets

Rockets

Posted
Posted

One Dulwich update


One Dulwich


Campaign Update | 9 Jan

Dear all,


The Council?s final decision on the controversial Dulwich traffic orders has still not been published (Southwark?s website was last updated on 24 December 2021), but we are assuming that this will happen any day now. The Council brought in a temporary traffic order because the original experimental traffic order for the Dulwich Village/Calton Avenue/Court Lane junction ran out on 29 December 2021. However, the Liberal Democrat councillors on the Overview & Scrutiny Committee decided not to call the decision in by the deadline of 4 January 2022, so there seems to be nothing now to stop the traffic orders being made permanent.


What this means is that the Council has decided to go ahead with the Dulwich LTNs despite strong local opposition (two out of every three of those living and working in all three LTNs opted in the public consultation to return the roads to their original state), and despite the fact that all our many questions about the data on which the decision is based remain unanswered.


The Dulwich Alliance (which One Dulwich is a member of) is now waiting for a formal legal opinion on the process Southwark has followed to arrive at this decision.


Meanwhile, many One Dulwich supporters have contacted us to ask how, as a campaign group, we can call our councillors to account for 1) failing to represent the views of local people, and 2) pushing ahead with a flawed scheme that discriminates against those with protected characteristics, displaces traffic on to residential roads with schools and health centres and damages the viability of local shops and businesses. This is a particularly interesting question as the local elections in all local wards take place on 5 May this year ? that is, in just under five months? time.


One Dulwich is an apolitical organisation ? its supporters belong to many different political parties and none. However, we will be looking with interest at whether candidates standing for election in the Dulwich area support the Council?s decision to make the road measures permanent, or whether they intend to fight to have this decision reversed. This is a key local issue, and we will report back to you what they say.


In the meantime, please make sure you are registered to vote: Register to vote - Southwark Council.

Rockets

Rockets

Posted
Posted

But two thirds who responded did oppose the measures....never forget that....it may come to haunt the councillors in May.....and remember significantly more were opposed to it during the door to door research (although I am sure you will question the accuracy of that too....;-))


It seems May remains the only opportunity those who were ignored and overlooked during this sorry debacle will be able to make their feelings heard!


Whilst it is clear the council will make the changes permanent (it was clear this was going to be the case from the outset) the only silver lining might be that with some proper opposition post May they may not be able to get away with such poor form in future and will find they won't have such an easy time steamrollering their plans against the will of their constituents.

exdulwicher

exdulwicher

Posted
Posted
Are you arguing that congestion doesn't need to be monitored or part of the data presentation to residents? Troubling if so.


At what point did I say anything about "congestion doesn't need to be monitored"?!


In fact I said quite the opposite - monitoring traffic patterns is an essential part of the statutory consultation. Please don't try and twist my words. If you'd like clarification on anything, just ask. Where I know the answer, I'm happy to help; where I don't know, I'll say.

kissthisguy

kissthisguy

Posted
Posted
It's a gauntlet, and from their perspective, a reasonable one, given the circs. Making snarky debating points doesn't acknowledge the substantive: significant community rejection of what is, to all but the most ardent, a poorly-designed set of hastily-implemented, unconsulted schemes. It'll be interesting to see what promises, fudges, etc are proposed by all three parties!
kissthisguy

kissthisguy

Posted
Posted

Understood - thanks for the clarification. We agree that flow and congestion data both need to be gathered in order to fully understand impacts. (I'd also add there needs to be a quite granular understanding of the communities expected to take displaced traffic, and which communities are given the benefit, but that's a matter for another day!)


exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> Are you arguing that congestion doesn't need to be

> monitored or part of the data presentation to

> residents? Troubling if so.

>

> At what point did I say anything about "congestion

> doesn't need to be monitored"?!

>

> In fact I said quite the opposite - monitoring

> traffic patterns is an essential part of the

> statutory consultation. Please don't try and twist

> my words. If you'd like clarification on anything,

> just ask. Where I know the answer, I'm happy to

> help; where I don't know, I'll say.

kissthisguy

kissthisguy

Posted
Posted

For clarification this was in reply to northernmonkey's post about the DA announcement. Still getting the hang of this..


kissthisguy Wrote:

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

> It's a gauntlet, and from their perspective, a

> reasonable one, given the circs. Making snarky

> debating points doesn't acknowledge the

> substantive: significant community rejection of

> what is, to all but the most ardent, a

> poorly-designed set of hastily-implemented,

> unconsulted schemes. It'll be interesting to see

> what promises, fudges, etc are proposed by all

> three parties!

exdulwicher

exdulwicher

Posted
Posted
For clarification this was in reply to northernmonkey's post about the DA announcement. Still getting the hang of this..


If you type the word "quote" in square brackets: [ quote ] (but without the spaces), copy/paste the text you want to reference (and maybe the name of the author as well) and then use [ / quote ] (again, no spaces) at the end of it, it'll give you the neat block of text which you can then respond to. Saves messages being auto-formatted with all the > > add ins.


So:


Posted by kissthisguy Today, 08:47PM


For clarification this was in reply to northernmonkey's post about the DA announcement. Still getting the hang of this..



Edited because, ironically enough, I screwed up the quoting! 🤣

kissthisguy

kissthisguy

Posted
Posted

thank you @exdulwicher!


If you type the word "quote" in square brackets: [ quote ] (but without the spaces), copy/paste the text you want to reference (and maybe the name of the author as well) and then use [ / quote ] (again, no spaces) at the end of it, it'll give you the neat block of text which you can then respond to. Saves messages being auto-formatted with all the > > add ins.
march46

march46

Posted
Posted
One Dulwich is an apolitical organisation ? its supporters belong to many different political parties and none. However, we will be looking with interest at whether candidates standing for election in the Dulwich area support the Council?s decision to make the road measures permanent, or whether they intend to fight to have this decision reversed. This is a key local issue, and we will report back to you what they say.


I wonder how they know which party the people on their mailing list belong to?

northernmonkey

northernmonkey

Posted
Posted

It?s not a snarky debating point - it?s a factual and important one. Just because a majority of respondents said one thing that 100% isn?t the same as what one dulwich have said which is ?a majority of those living and working?




kissthisguy Wrote:

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

> For clarification this was in reply to

> northernmonkey's post about the DA announcement.

> Still getting the hang of this..

>

> kissthisguy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > It's a gauntlet, and from their perspective, a

> > reasonable one, given the circs. Making snarky

> > debating points doesn't acknowledge the

> > substantive: significant community rejection of

> > what is, to all but the most ardent, a

> > poorly-designed set of hastily-implemented,

> > unconsulted schemes. It'll be interesting to

> see

> > what promises, fudges, etc are proposed by all

> > three parties!

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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