Jump to content

Recommended Posts

When one looks at actual counts there are at least 2000+ extra vehicles travelling down ED Grove per day compared to pre-intervention - and this is in a background of decreasing rush hour traffic across London.

I truly believe if there had been no LTNs x 5 pushing traffic onto ED Grove the vehicle count would be lower per day compared to 2018/19 figures.

TFL have already admitted that a benchmarking exercise on 'side-roads' in 2018, made it appear as if traffic had increased on these roads and have written to FOI's that this data does not show any increase in 'side-road' traffic "No evidence of a year-on-year increase on minor roads from independent data over the preceding decade" from 2008-2018.

Flawed data used to increase traffic on already polluted roads.

Well done Southwark Council.

TFL have already admitted that a benchmarking exercise on 'side-roads' in 2018, made it appear as if traffic had increased on these roads and have written to FOI's that this data does not show any increase in 'side-road' traffic "No evidence of a year-on-year increase on minor roads from independent data over the preceding decade" from 2008-2018.

Flawed data used to increase traffic on already polluted roads.



It's not TfL, it's DfT.

Benchmarking is done every 10 years or so in order to account for cumulative errors that can occur as well as factors such as: new developments, changes in land use, changes to the road layout and so on. You can read about it here, I'm not going to re-type it all!

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/916034/2019-minor-road-benchmarking-frequency-asked-questions.pdf



this is in a background of decreasing rush hour traffic across London.


Wrong again. Vehicle miles travelled in Great Britain have had year-on-year growth in each year between 2010 and 2019. However, the sharp decrease in 2020 has resulted in traffic estimates that are lower than the 2010 levels. Therefore, to say traffic has fallen over the last decade would misconstrue, as the overall decrease is entirely due to the decline in traffic levels observed in the 2020 estimates. I've said before that Covid has messed up the modelling.


You can see DfT's counts for Southwark here:

https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/local-authorities/103


There's also a data disclaimer on there:

Traffic figures at the regional and national level are robust, and are reported as National Statistics. However, DfT?s traffic estimates for individual road links and small areas are less robust, as they are not always based on up-to-date counts made at these locations. Where other more up-to-date sources of traffic data are available (e.g. from local highways authorities), this may provide a more accurate estimate of traffic at these locations.


Counts from DfT, TfL and Southwark themselves won't always align so it's important to check which ones are estimates, which are actual counts and the methodology behind them.

I could be wrong but I think heartblock is referring to TfL's FoI responses/ position on the DfT benchmarking exercise. See for example,


https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-1884-2021.


It doesn't sound as if DfT or TfL have particularly comprehensive data, reading some of the emails on there.

Thank you legalalien, yes that FOI was interesting and yes the benchmarking was an exercise by DfT, but this is from TfL, as the information is from TfL's 2021 report - Travel In London Report 14, which was a comprehensive report that included section 7.2 Overall Trends For All Traffic In London.


It uses DfT figures and graphically shows the 'blip' in 2018/2019 benchmarking event.

In the report - pages 143-145, commentary is made about how this statistical benchmarking event resulted in a false 60% rise in traffic on side-roads that was not "an actual observed trend".

Traffic has not risen year by year on side roads and DfT after being alerted by TfL that their data which falsely indicated a rise, was being used to drive policy, are now reviewing their minor roads estimation methodology for future data.

And many of the pro LTN lobbyists at all levels have been using that side-road "increase" figure as a rational for LTNs.


In the same way that folks come on here waving the Dulwich monitoring numbers as proof of the success of the scheme without paying any attention to whether the data is accurate or at all trustworthy.


The council knows that if they put "good" numbers out they will stick with their supporters and their supporters will never ask for anything to support the figures.


It's called spin. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story and all that!

I?ve just been skimming through a planning application for a new building in Rotherhithe as it?s interesting to see how Southwark?s ?car free? borough policy feeds through to some of these


https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s105163/ROTHNEWROAD_VG_%20final%20V7.pdf


Interested to see just how little provision is made for ?visitor parking? (cars or cycles) to these new developments, and also the interaction between the council and TfL on modelled changes to local trips. Here, looks as though Southwark allowed for a small increase in private vehicle journeys and TfL have come back and told them that ALL trips have to be allocated to sustainable travel modes. I?m not sure what that means for any disabled residents. Southwark seems to contemplate two disabled parking bays but these are only ?potential?. Many of the new developments seem to be taking a similar approach. If public transport was perfect and convenient everywhere I guess this might work, but. Given the current financial state of TfL and the question mark over the Bakerloo Line extension (not relevant to this particular devt, but is for all the ones on the Old Kent Road), I do wonder what will happen.

I imagine that residents with a disability or are less mobile, will be told by certain lobby groups to 'try harder' when it comes to 'active travel' and by Southwark to use buses, when bus routes are being cut.


Meanwhile those with private garages and drives for private parking, living in gated roads can continue to be rewarded for their good luck and wealth by this poorly planned policy based on erroneous information.


I note that the Feb Dulwich Streetspace Review, admits two things

1. ED Grove Central has only been monitored since Sept 2021

2. They are going to "Explore measures to improve traffic conditions along ED Grove"


What does that tell me? Firstly as I have been saying there is no pre-LTN data for so called ED Central, which seems to be a point on the road rather than a stretch of road, so therefore all this spin about a fall in traffic is an exercise in justifying keeping Melbourne Grove closed

and

I would think if after 2 years of the flawed LTN implementation there is still need to 'improve traffic conditions' then this tells me that at least for ED Grove the traffic and pollution is much worse that pre-LTNs - especially taking into account the drops in traffic across London (from the same TfL 2021 report) - "plateaued across all areas, at a lower level than before".

I am a Blue badge holder and, according to the latest leaflet from Southwark I can ?apply for exemptions across all of our Streetspace schemes, borough-wide with the exception of the closure at the Dulwich Village, Court Lane and Carlton Avenue junction. Does that means I can go into a LTN? Use a bus gate during the restricted hours? I still don?t understand why there is a bus gate from Calton Avenue to EDG when there is no bus route on Townley Rd.

Just reading the Streetspace propaganda flyer that dropped through our door (it's as close to an admission they made a mess of this as you'll ever get) and what does it mean when it says: Improved access for emergency services

And then goes on to say:


Replacement cameras mean there is new additional access for emergency vehicles to and from Carlton Avenue, Dulwich Village, Court Lane and Derwent Grove.

I think they will be moving planters and putting in cameras so that emergency services can go through.


Strange they?re having to do this when the emergency services were consulted from the outset and were perfectly happy with the closures.


Oh that?s right - they weren?t.

On a related note if anyone is visited by canvassers, worth interrogating them about parking policy as well as LTNs, from earlier discussions the borough wide imposition of a CPZ is something planned but being put off until after the election. Was interested to see that the countryside charity is now also on a mission to reduce residential parking in London - even front garden parking.


We have to be in compact cities to save the countryside, among other rationales.


https://www.cprelondon.org.uk/news/why-boroughs-need-to-re-assess-parking-policy-now/

The delayed presentation/ interrogation of Cllrs Rose and Burgess about their respective portfolios is on the agenda for next Monday?s meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee


https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7273&x=1


A good test of whether the LDs can come up with some properly incisive questions to ask - which for me is key to my vote in May.


I?d like to see some properly thought out detailed questions about the whereabouts of raw data, choice of data points and presentation of data, for example.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> I think they will be moving planters and putting

> in cameras so that emergency services can go

> through.

>

> Strange they?re having to do this when the

> emergency services were consulted from the outset

> and were perfectly happy with the closures.

>

> Oh that?s right - they weren?t.



Yes a lot of the Streetspace newsletter is very carefully worded - plenty of use of the words "generally" and "most" in relation to traffic on main roads etc - a significant shift from the phrases used by the likes of Cllr McAsh at the outset about "all" and "every" road benefitting.


The reduction in the timed access is a clear demonstration that the measures have not worked as originally hyped.

'The reduction in the timed access is a clear demonstration that the measures have not worked as originally hyped'


Isn't it more like a clear demonstration that the Council has listened to concerns from residents voiced during the consultation, and made some sensible adjustments?

No, because most of the concerns voiced by residents said remove the closures. So that makes what they are suggesting both an admission that the measures did not deliver what was promised (else why make any changes at all) and nothing more than political tokenism....but personal opinions on that may differ from whichever side of the planters people live!


Let's be honest many of those most vocal on here in their unwavering support of the closures live on the closed roads and have benefitted the most.

The possible course for further action is that it has breached the Equalities Act by failing to consider appropriately the needs of those who are defined as having 'protected characteristics" under the act. The act isn't flawless but does include age (any age, not just the elderly) and those with disabilities who could be thought to be disproportionally affected because some people in those groups will have limited mobility and won't be able to walk for long distances, cycle and have difficulty using public transport. There are many other protected characteristics including gender and race, but it is harder to see how they could apply. Southwark has now agreed to exempt Blue Badge holders (very strict mobility criteria - can't walk more then 250 yards on most days), but only those who live in Southwark. The congestion charge is not applied to any Blue Badge holder, no matter where they live.

There is no time like an election year to get the interest of your local councillor. There will also be an election within the Labour Party to decide who succeeds Harriet Harman at some point...

And don?t forget that Southwark has also imposed the socioeconomic duty on itself


https://justfair.org.uk/southwark-council-amends-constitution-to-include-socio-economic-duty/


(Before anyone jumps in to mention any general studies, Southwark has to have regard to that duty in its own decision making. Properly, not just a mention in the decision making report to tick a box. I?m yet to be convinced that has happened).






oldermum Wrote:

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

> The possible course for further action is that it

> has breached the Equalities Act by failing to

> consider appropriately the needs of those who are

> defined as having 'protected characteristics"

> under the act. The act isn't flawless but does

> include age (any age, not just the elderly) and

> those with disabilities who could be thought to be

> disproportionally affected because some people in

> those groups will have limited mobility and won't

> be able to walk for long distances, cycle and have

> difficulty using public transport. There are many

> other protected characteristics including gender

> and race, but it is harder to see how they could

> apply. Southwark has now agreed to exempt Blue

> Badge holders (very strict mobility criteria -

> can't walk more then 250 yards on most days), but

> only those who live in Southwark. The congestion

> charge is not applied to any Blue Badge holder, no

> matter where they live.

> There is no time like an election year to get the

> interest of your local councillor. There will also

> be an election within the Labour Party to decide

> who succeeds Harriet Harman at some point...

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Thought I had posted earlier but didn?t work,

> clearly. Conways are at Court / Calton this

> morning moving planters around to make way for

> ambulances etc.


Thank goodness - they have been delaying response times significantly despite the claims to the contrary from the pro-LTN lobby. The way the council have treated constituents has been shameful but the way they ignored the input from emergency services about not physically closing roads has clearly been endangering lives and is utterly unforgiveable. Putting ideology ahead of constituent safety is a massive blot on their collective copy books and I hope someone is held to account for ignoring the pleas of the emergency services to remove them sooner.

DulvilleRes Wrote:

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

> 'The reduction in the timed access is a clear

> demonstration that the measures have not worked as

> originally hyped'

>

> Isn't it more like a clear demonstration that the

> Council has listened to concerns from residents

> voiced during the consultation, and made some

> sensible adjustments?


That's exactly right, but the hardcore on here are chucking an epic tantrum because they didn't get things exactly their way. Compromise or fixing congestion and pollution isn't what they're interested in. Anything less than total removal of all aspects of the LTN is unacceptable to them, regardless of the data, the facts, or the opinions of anyone else. OneDulwich was categorically against all new traffic measures during the consultation, and it hasn't changed its mind since.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Latest Discussions

    • I don’t think Reform will withstand the heat of any election.  Finding enough people to stand will be bad enough. Finding credible ones quite a bid tougher  I think yes this government is lacking in a long term plan and has not had a good first year. Today the least.   but the speed with which this was dealt with is a notable shift compared to last 14 years where months would drag by and we would constantly be told to draw a line under  if Labour called an election tomorrow, there is not a single party that could present a better alternative with any credibility. And that’s a low bar Reform are dangerous lunatics but more worrying is the descent of the Tories into the same swamp i also worry that England voters have contracted some melodrama virus after the Tories where we had 5 PMs in almost as many years  it’s ok for governments to be unpopular without needing to have an election every 1-2 years       Looks like Lucy Connolly will me one of those Reform candidates at next election tells you everything you need to know about that party and where the country would be headed 
    • Well, I made £50 out of it and Alice owes me another bullseye, so I had a good day Clearly the thread has moved on, but just a final few words on Rayner (from me, at least). If she hadn't gone like this (with a chance to revive her career at some point in the future) there's plenty of other stuff loaded up and ready to be fired at her about the motivation, finances and machinations of her move down South. It's not pretty reading. Tawdry doesn't come close. I was born in Ashton Hospital and grew up in Tameside, I've got a lot of friends and family who weren't as lucky as me and didn't make it out, some close to her constituency party, and there's been a lot of bad feeling around 'Our Ange' for a long time. My favourite quote was: 'She should fuck off back to Stockport.' And that was from a party member. The writing was on the wall for her. Moving from Ashton (majority c6.5k, large Pakistani minority, but predominantly white working class and targeted by both the Independent Alliance and Reform) to Hove (majority c20k, neither of these issues with the electorate) was a pretty cynical move, and she's fucked it royally. 'The Honourable Member for Hove and Portslade' will be sleeping a lot easier in their bed tonight. This thread was never supposed to about Labour bashing, and I'm not sure it is. It's definitely descended into 'Whataboutery', and that seems to be the problem, in my mind at least, with British politics. It's playground stuff, he said/she said, blame-game bollocks. Watch PMQs and ask yourself if you'd accept this sort of behaviour amongst toddlers, let alone in an elected parliament. One thing that does stand out is the opposition to Reform across the board, and yet we seem to be sleepwalking towards a likely scenario where Farage could head up a minority Reform government. I've 'followed' politics since the late Seventies - mainly because the BBC News came on right after 'Roobard and Custard' or 'The Magic Roundabout' - and I can't remember an era where both major parties are so bereft of leadership, direction or ideas. There's a certain irony that we'll all be getting a test text on Sunday to warn us of an impending 'National Emergency'. Seems quite prescient.
    • But not old enough to remember the highest unemployment rate, inflation and interest rates in history in the early eighties under the Tories? A rather selective memory you have. There has never been a four-day week: it was a three-day week imposed by the Conservative government under the Blasted Heath.
    • I see that there was a government consultation started in July 2024, a response, and then a revision to the National Planning Policy Framework, and then to the Green Belt guidance in February 2025, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/green-belt .  It includes the updates but doesn't give the nescient much clue of what was materially changed. There will probably be some good, and less good, summaries to be found. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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