LTN Discussion

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Thanks bud, so Uber has dramatically caused an

> increase on EDG at school run hours. Ah ok, that

> explains it.

No, mate, this is another claim you've just invented. I'm just pointing out why using data from 2011 to prove that London traffic peaked in 1999 is valueless. The 2011 data won't reflect any of the big changes that have since then e.g. 10% growth in London traffic, a 10% growth in population, a 29% growth in PHV (Uber) journeys...

What exactly did you mean by the below? Will you expand on this or will you just make oblique and unsubstantiated references to some kind of conspiracy within Southwark?

> I suppose if you know who and why these particular

> planners were employed, it might be a clue to why

> such a terrible plan went ahead.

[legalalien]

I feel as though I need to know more about how these count tubes work. Are they pneumatic tubes or electrical/magnetic counters? If the former, if someone was parked, or stopped on the tube, would the machine stop counting other vehicles crossing the tube?

[Penguin68]

I feel as though I need to know more about how these count tubes work.

This may help

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-black-strips-laid-across-a-road-measuring

[goldilocks]

Why are you so sure that 2019 wasn't a 'pneumatic tubing counter'?

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Thanks bud, so Uber has dramatically caused an

> increase on EDG at school run hours. Ah ok, that

> explains it.

> 2019 wasn't an actual count using the pneumatic

> tubing counter that appeared at this point in 2021

> but was not there before. As I say the the

> Parliament research paper expresses the

> granularity of economic impact on traffic/private

> car use in London and is worth a read by those who

> can be bothered to understand the complexity.

>

> Traffic starting at LL travels down a road and

> cannot 'escape' until it gets to Townley (if open'

> or DV end). How do the closed roads of Elsie,

> Melbourne and Derwent make this traffic disappear.

> Do explain, because that is beyond my brain.

[redpost]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Thanks bud, so Uber has dramatically caused an

> > increase on EDG at school run hours. Ah ok,

> that

> > explains it.

>

> No, mate, this is another claim you've just

> invented. I'm just pointing out why using data

> from 2011 to prove that London traffic peaked in

> 1999 is valueless. The 2011 data won't reflect any

> of the big changes that have since then e.g. 10%

> growth in London traffic, a 10% growth in

> population, a 29% growth in PHV (Uber)

> journeys...

>

> What exactly did you mean by the below? Will you

> expand on this or will you just make oblique and

> unsubstantiated references to some kind of

> conspiracy within Southwark?

>

> > I suppose if you know who and why these

> particular

> > planners were employed, it might be a clue to

> why

> > such a terrible plan went ahead.

Yes, and petrol is cheaper in real terms (inflation adjusted) than 1983 ... this is shocking and indicative of spineless governments. Taking into account earnings (rise faster than inflation) and fuel efficiency, it's now cheaper than ever in real terms to drive around.

http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/petrolprices.html

[heartblock]

Because I live on ED Grove and it wasn't there. I travel pass that point almost ever day. That's why. It also states that in Southwark's own report if you look at the data detail. It documents this point as a new measurement point from 2021. Page 42 of the publised Appendix B: Traffic Flow Results ODF on this Southwark site https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review?chapter=4

"The charts below and on the following pages show the average daily flows on East Dulwich Grove Central, showing the difference between pre-implementation flows and data collected in January 2019 / September 2019 and September 2021. The choice of pre-implementation month January or September 2019 makes a significant difference to the baseline volume of cars/LGVs. Both are shown for comparison. January 2019 has been used in the main report to provide the more conservative estimate.

? This is a new site for data collection, having started in September 2021."

[heartblock]

No not a conspiracy, it is well known if you have taken note of the revolving doors of ex-Southwark Cllr and employees and then Southwark giving work to those ex's - I think Private Eye and the 35% campaign are both quite illuminating - but that's another thread really.

I would by the way - support the complete ban of all petrol cars in inner and outer London, with emergency vehicles being the only exceptions.

[heartblock]

The Medact briefing is excellent if anyone really interested in green and health issues...rather than tinkering around diverting traffic from one road to another. https://www.medact.org/2020/resources/briefings/health-climate-justice-at-cop-26/

We need fossil-fuel free solutions if we want to combat climate change and that means stepping away from and stop funding these huge conglomerates that fund the Tory party and sadly the Labour Party too.

Right I think that is me done :)

[goldilocks]

That really isn't what you should infer from that footnote though

It was a new site in the current round of monitoring. Ie it wasn't included in the April figures but was added in September. Its a massive leap from that to state that 'there was no 2019 monitoring, it was modelled'.

For the record, this isn't correct - the 2019 monitoring outside the hospital site was real.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Because I live on ED Grove and it wasn't there. I

> travel pass that point almost ever day. That's

> why. It also states that in Southwark's own report

> if you look at the data detail. It documents this

> point as a new measurement point from 2021. Page

> 42 of the publised Appendix B: Traffic Flow

> Results ODF on this Southwark site

> https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/i

> mproving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review?

> chapter=4

>

> "The charts below and on the following pages show

> the average daily flows on East Dulwich Grove

> Central, showing the difference between

> pre-implementation flows and data collected in

> January 2019 / September 2019 and September 2021.

> The choice of pre-implementation month January or

> September 2019 makes a significant difference to

> the baseline volume of cars/LGVs. Both are shown

> for comparison. January 2019 has been used in the

> main report to provide the more conservative

> estimate.

> ? This is a new site for data collection, having

> started in September 2021."

[goldilocks]

Looking for things that we do agree on - i think this is one of them. I'd support a scrappage scheme for ICE but not grants for purchase of EVs except for those with blue badges.

We need to remove ICE from the roads and we need to dramatically shift away from private cars to allow public transport options to be more effective.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> No not a conspiracy, it is well known if you have

> taken note of the revolving doors of ex-Southwark

> Cllr and employees and then Southwark giving work

> to those ex's - I think Private Eye and the 35%

> campaign are both quite illuminating - but that's

> another thread really.

>

> I would by the way - support the complete ban of

> all petrol cars in inner and outer London, with

> emergency vehicles being the only exceptions.

[Lebanums]

Metallic Wrote:

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

> I still have no understanding of the stats showing

> fewer cars in central EDG whilst at either end the

> stats show car numbers have gone up. So where do

> they go? Cloud Cuckoo Land?

I'm not advocating for either side here, just thinking out loud. A theory could be that queueing cars take longer than previously to complete the journey from one end of EDG to the other, showing a count of less cars over a period. Where the other end cars are turning off because of queuing traffic?

[Rockets]

Let's just clear this up once and for all - the EDG Central numbers deserve far more scrutiny and showed be treated with extreme caution.

Here's why:

There was a count (in a different place on the road) in Jan 19. The council then "adjusted" that figure to create a Sept 19 number (which was not based on an actual count). They, without any explanation, adjusted it upwards from 11,832 to 14,214. The Sept 21 figure which was based on a count (but in a different place to the Jan 19 one) counted 11,442 - this is what gave them the "decrease" in traffic on EDG Central.

Without their adjustment of the Jan 19 figure to create the Sep 19 figures the reduction would have been negligible.

So, until there is a clearer explanation from the council on why they made such a large upwards adjustment to the figure then I don't think anyone should be using the EDG Central figure of any proof of anything.

The "reduction" is, basically, modelled.

[Jenijenjen]

See my post at 11.05 am today. Before the LTNs Traffic was joining the flow from LL from Derwent, Elsie and Melbourne. Now cars are unable to enter EDG from these roads, the traffic in the central section has decreased.

[goldilocks]

But Rockets - you actually can't 'clear anything up once and for all' because your assertions are conjecture too. We need the council to confirm that the Sept figures are adjusted. I don't think they are because they don't follow the adjustment figures stated.

There was a count in the section between MG and Townley near to the health centre. It may not have been in exactly the same point as the Sept 2021 one eg to the nearest cm, but in the same section - so that 'in a different place' is doing some heavy lifting in that sentence.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Let's just clear this up once and for all - the

> EDG Central numbers deserve far more scrutiny and

> showed be treated with extreme caution.

>

> Here's why:

>

> There was a count (in a different place on the

> road) in Jan 19. The council then "adjusted" that

> figure to create a Sept 19 number (which was not

> based on an actual count). They, without any

> explanation, adjusted it upwards from 11,832 to

> 14,214. The Sept 21 figure which was based on a

> count (but in a different place to the Jan 19 one)

> counted 11,442 - this is what gave them the

> "decrease" in traffic on EDG Central.

>

> Without their adjustment of the Jan 19 figure to

> create the Sep 19 figures the reduction would have

> been negligible.

>

> So, until there is a clearer explanation from the

> council on why they made such a large upwards

> adjustment to the figure then I don't think anyone

> should be using the EDG Central figure of any

> proof of anything.

>

> The "reduction" is, basically, modelled.

[goldilocks]

The data supplied is a daily count - so unless we're suggesting its taking over 24 hours to cross East Dulwich Grove, I think not!

Lebanums Wrote:

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

> Metallic Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I still have no understanding of the stats

> showing

> > fewer cars in central EDG whilst at either end

> the

> > stats show car numbers have gone up. So where

> do

> > they go? Cloud Cuckoo Land?

>

> I'm not advocating for either side here, just

> thinking out loud. A theory could be that queueing

> cars take longer than previously to complete the

> journey from one end of EDG to the other, showing

> a count of less cars over a period. Where the

> other end cars are turning off because of queuing

> traffic?

[heartblock]

The exact date and number of the ED Grove Central counter counts are 4 counts - 06/09/2021 13/09/2021 20/09/2021 27/09/2021.

There is no other counter in this section. There is one near Oxonian Street with 69 counts and another old one near Dutch estate with two counts from 2018 and it hasn't been used since - all From Spectrum Spatial Analyst for Southwark Highway - you can search for yourselves.

A very worrying thing when looking at the site that Southwark directs one to when looking for raw data - the NO2 measurement stops after 2018 with no monitors on ED Grove..I can only hope that this is not the case. The nearest monitor is on Grove Lane at Goose Green school and records an astounding and toxic average of 47.9 but as it is only one measure in that year I'm not sure how it can be an average.

Is this really the data collection currently being measured by the Council

[heartblock]

https://geo.southwark.gov.uk/connect/analyst/mobile/#/main?mapcfg=Southwark%20Highways

[CPR Dave]

You can see from Google street view that weren't pneumatic tube traffic counters on the road in 2019:

[heartblock]

Yes CPR Dave - do you know why you can't see PT Tube counters at ED Central point on Google Street View, because one cannot see what was never there. I imagine we will be told that's our 'perception' very soon......

[goldilocks]

Or it wasn't the same date - If you had a date for when the counters were there and a date for the image it would be more compelling. Eg if the counters were for a week there are 3 weeks where they wouldn't be down within a month.

Heartblock - I do agree that the data on the site doesn't help - but neither of the counts show there so I'm assuming that theres been some error or oversight somewhere re its inclusion - but not that they've just extrapolated the data point.

[Rockets]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> But Rockets - you actually can't 'clear anything

> up once and for all' because your assertions are

> conjecture too. We need the council to confirm

> that the Sept figures are adjusted. I don't think

> they are because they don't follow the adjustment

> figures stated.

>

> There was a count in the section between MG and

> Townley near to the health centre. It may not

> have been in exactly the same point as the Sept

> 2021 one eg to the nearest cm, but in the same

> section - so that 'in a different place' is doing

> some heavy lifting in that sentence.

>

>

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Let's just clear this up once and for all - the

> > EDG Central numbers deserve far more scrutiny

> and

> > showed be treated with extreme caution.

> >

> > Here's why:

> >

> > There was a count (in a different place on the

> > road) in Jan 19. The council then "adjusted"

> that

> > figure to create a Sept 19 number (which was

> not

> > based on an actual count). They, without any

> > explanation, adjusted it upwards from 11,832 to

> > 14,214. The Sept 21 figure which was based on a

> > count (but in a different place to the Jan 19

> one)

> > counted 11,442 - this is what gave them the

> > "decrease" in traffic on EDG Central.

> >

> > Without their adjustment of the Jan 19 figure

> to

> > create the Sep 19 figures the reduction would

> have

> > been negligible.

> >

> > So, until there is a clearer explanation from

> the

> > council on why they made such a large upwards

> > adjustment to the figure then I don't think

> anyone

> > should be using the EDG Central figure of any

> > proof of anything.

> >

> > The "reduction" is, basically, modelled.

Goldilocks but I can. The basis for my analysis is fact based. According to the council's own reports there was no actual count in Sept 19. The council states that in both their Data Monitoring Appendix (slide 4). Take a look and you will see that it clearly indicates only two data collections for EDG Central - Jan 19 and Sep 21 and then in the council's traffic flow analysis document it says:

Slide 45: Pre-implementation data for January 2019 has been adjusted to September 2019 levels to ensure comparability

Slide 46: Directional analysis compares Jan 19 to Sept 21 - no mention of Sept 19.

[kissthisguy]

Tom Tom or Waze would have it. The question is whether you can go back and assess historical data or trends over time I guess.

[kissthisguy]

If not you could screenshot certain roads from the app at intervals but that'd be a major ballache.

[heartblock]

goldilocks just go and look at the data point - on the site that Southwark Council directs us to. I'm not sure I can be anymore specific for you. Just go and look. 4 counts in Sept 2021 and that is it. Don't rubbish what I am telling you is there until you look at it yourself. It really is only 4 measurement on 4 days in Sept 2021, I know this doesn't fit into what you want to be the truth, but go and look at the actual raw data counts. This is exhausting...

[heartblock]

Ok it is hard to take a screenshot of the data, I think Southwark, just make it hard on purpose, but this is the total number of counts from this point - Southwark give no other pre-2021 data for this 'stretch' of road