Jump to content

LTN Discussion

Administrator

By Administrator
in Roads & Transport

 Share

Recommended Posts

Rockets

Rockets

Posted
Posted

And Heartblock what many seem to forget is what we were all told repeatedly at school that sometimes it's not the answer that's important but how you got there.......


The reason why Southwark refuses to engage on this issue is exactly this - the answers they have got don't stand-up to any scrutiny as to how they got to them.

Artemis

Artemis

Posted
Posted

heartblock Wrote:

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

> 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


Wasn?t September 2021 the period when there was a fuel crisis and therefore traffic decreased considerably? I am puzzled why Southwark Council found this an appropriate period to use as a measurement.

dougiefreeman

dougiefreeman

Posted
Posted

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> 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.


How can you have a date for when the counters were there, if the counters weren't there?

heartblock

heartblock

Posted
Posted

Yep London ES reported

'The fuel crisis has been blamed for bringing car use down to its lowest level since May.


Department for Transport figures show car traffic in Britain on Tuesday last week was at 86% of pre-pandemic levels.


It has not been that low since mid-May.


Traffic for all motor vehicles was close to 100% before the shortage at filling stations, but was closer to 90% between Tuesday and Thursday last week.


On Monday of this week, the most recent day covered by the statistics, car traffic was at 91%, down from 97% a fortnight earlier."

heartblock

heartblock

Posted
Posted

To be honest, I'm not sure you understand and I can't help you with that.


It's the raw data in excel that is generated by the counter and not a 'tick sheet' - I have given you the official site of all the counters that Southwark uses, which Southwark directs anyone interested in the dataset to.


You keep saying that 'the 2019 count is an actual count - not extrapolated, not made up' and 'For the record, this isn't correct - the 2019 monitoring outside the hospital site was real.'


And when the raw dataset is presented and the fact that there was no counter there before Sept 2021 is explicit - you don't want to believe. So be it.

goldilocks

goldilocks

Posted
Posted

You have shown me the counts for a particular ATC site. I agree that particular numbered ATC didn't exist back in 2019 - it would have had a different number.


Rockets has pointed out that the tick sheet doesn't show a check for those dates either - therefore must be extrapolated.


I think that neither is necessarily a decisive factor in determining it doesn't exist.


Also - lets not be quite so condescending when earlier you posted out of date info supporting your arguments.

legalalien

legalalien

Posted
Posted

Decision on Brunswick Park scheme and associated documentation (no EqIA as they seem to have mistakenly uploaded one of the other documents rather than the EqIA which has been done)


https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7597&LLL=0


What struck me was the express recognition that displacement does in fact exist, it ?takes time? for schemes to have an impact on traffic levels. I believe this scheme is in part in Cllr Burgess? ward, guess it may have had some influence on the views she expressed on Monday.

Dogkennelhillbilly

Dogkennelhillbilly

Posted
Posted

heartblock Wrote:

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

> I tell my students off for being lazy

> researchers...then I come on here...


...and use figures a decade out of date to "prove" that London traffic peaked in 1999! 🤣

heartblock

heartblock

Posted
Posted

Ha Ha just seen the Dale disappearing act as Cllr Burgess asked about the 85% of boundary roads that suffer increased congestion after LTNs are implemented and him rushing out because he didn't have the data.


I know why, because I have looked at the raw data and there are no pollution or congestion monitors on many of the main boundary roads, just a few ATCs and some of them (the one near my house for instance) haven't had a recording taken since 2018.

legalalien

legalalien

Posted
Posted

I see on Twitter that Cllr Burgess is not standing this time around, may explain the honesty. Have tonight?s overview and scrutiny committee meeting on in the background and Cllr Buck seems to be being quite critical of council in the discussion on the climate strategy. Just googled and it seems he is either standing down or not selected for his ward. (Although I guess he could still). be selected for another one


I do wish councillors had more freedom / felt they had more freedom to say what they really think throughout their term and not just at the end.


Worth watching these committee meetings with an election approaches, both sides seem much more vocal than usual. Councillor Kieron Williams on to be interviewed shortly I think.

heartblock

heartblock

Posted
Posted

Researcher, research's their own policy with a ?1.5 million grant, as they forgot about impacts on disabled people. Like marking your own flawed homework and getting a nice cash prize for getting it wrong in the first instance. Meanwhile the NOx levels outside of East Dulwich Schools apparently remains at illegally high levels, with some levels higher than April 2021 - can someone give us the data, I have only seen it on Twitter.


One year on from the release of the Pave The Way report, Transport for All joins a research team led by Professor Rachel Aldred, Professor of Transport at the University of Westminster, that has been awarded over ?1.5 million to fund a study into Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) in London.


"One year on from our 'Pave The Way' report, which found that disabled people hold both positive and negative opinions on LTNs but feel their views have often been ignored, we are delighted to be part of this extensive new research project" Caroline Stickland, Chief Operating Officer at Transport for All

goldilocks

goldilocks

Posted
Posted

See you're still trying to discredit renown academics Heartblock. Not really doing yourself any favours, we all remember how this went last time.


Edited to add - you've also stated something as fact and then in the very next sentence asked for data because 'you've only seen it on twitter' - which I also think we've been through before in that just because you've seen 'something on twitter' it doesn't' make it true.

first mate

first mate

Posted
Posted

As I read it, Heartblock carefully qualified his/her statement with an 'apparently' made an admission it was seen on twitter and then asked for data. Not, as you say, presenting it a statement of fact.


You are either too quick to rush to judgement or not reading carefully enough.


goldilocks Wrote:

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

> See you're still trying to discredit renown

> academics Heartblock. Not really doing yourself

> any favours, we all remember how this went last

> time.

>

> Edited to add - you've also stated something as

> fact and then in the very next sentence asked for

> data because 'you've only seen it on twitter' -

> which I also think we've been through before in

> that just because you've seen 'something on

> twitter' it doesn't' make it true.

heartblock

heartblock

Posted
Posted

What is a 'renown' academic?


Within academia it is normal to question each others work and critically analyse research. Most academics would think that researching to see if your own research and policy is fit for purpose, with a large ?1.5 million grant, is possibly a little unusual. Doesn't it make sense that this should be directed by someone with a neutral POV.


And - wouldn't we all want to know the NOx and PM levels near our schools at peak CYP active travel - so I'm asking - what is it? Are Southwark monitoring this?

legalalien

legalalien

Posted
Posted

Interesting read - the report of the Southwark Citizen?s jury on Climate Change.


Lots of recommendations along the lines of the council?s existing policies, but despite being lectured by Prof Aldred, Jeremy Leach and consultancy Possible, the recommendation around LTNs is that


?f) Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) should only be implemented if extensive engagement with broader potentially impacted areas as well as the specific area is carried out thoroughly and shows support?.


And this to say about parking: ?Parking policies can and should be used as a tool to reduce private car ownership and usage. Specific policies to achieve this are sensitive and need careful local engagement, including car owners and non-car owners proportionately.?


Some of the questions asked were good questions and I wonder what the answers were.


Not sure about the sculptures and the accompanying explanations though.


https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s105769/Appendix%20A%20Southwark%20Citizens%20Jury%20Report.pdf

heartblock

heartblock

Posted
Posted

Thanks Legal - very interesting, I see the facilitators emphasised and encouraged "Critical thinking and digging deeper", something certain posters on this forum like to label "trying to discredit renown academics".

Some great recommendations I thought:


Affordable, accessible and appealing public transport should be the backbone of a low carbon Southwark. To achieve this there needs to

a) Increased number of electric buses

i) Improving public transport access parts of the borough which have low Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTAL) and large numbers of residents


Demolition as a last resort: Demolition impacts neighbourhoods and communities. We are concerned that demolition and rebuild may have a negative effect on climate change impact compared to refurbishing existing buildings.


Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) should only be implemented if extensive engagement with broader potentially impacted areas as well as the specific area is carried out thoroughly and shows support


Southwark should work with residents to increase canopy cover in the borough to achieve at least 35% cover within a specified timeframe and use this opportunity to engage residents in local community projects that enhance and upgrade green spaces across Southwark.

Mature trees should be protected, and only considered for removal when damaged or ill. /The council should use planning policy and other measures to encourage better use of brown sites, protect existing green spaces and enhance and expand green spaces, by, for example, converting parking spaces into mini parks and rewilding brownfield and other relevant sites.



So Southwark hasn't done any of the above - in fact demolition rather than refurbish has been the Southwark way at the cost of residents and the environment (Heygate, Ayelsbury, Elephant)


LTNs have be implemented with no engagement at the cost of impacted high density residential roads


And Southwark have constantly rejected and ignored suggestions of local clean, green buses and/or trams.


Mature trees and green spaces have been destroyed by infilling



I like this citizens jury, can they be our Southwark Council leaders please!

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...