LTN Discussion

[Rockets]

No I couldn't find the layer to show the info - there seemed to be a lot of options but not one of them showed the monitoring data. How do you get to that data - I would like to have a look?

Are you saying that this is your proof - because the number appears on a clickable council map that that is definitive proof that there was actual monitoring? And you put this above the council repeatedly saying both that there was no monitoring at that spot prior to Sept 21 and that they adjusted Jan 19 figures recorded on another section of EDG to create the Sept 21 figures for EDG Central?

You seem to be desperately trying to prove that Sept 21 EDG Central numbers are actual monitoring numbers when the growing weight of evidence shows that it was not - that the Sep 21 figure was derived from council modelling.

Additionally, EDG Central only has a fall if you use the phantom Sept 2019 monitoring data as the pre-Covid numbers. If you use the Jan 19, factor in the Covid traffic reduction number then there has been an increase - which brings it, not surprisingly, in line with the other two sections of EDG and, trend-wise, with every other road monitored by the council.

But we all know that EDG Central is so foundational to the residents of the Melbourne Grove (and other surrounding streets) to help them try to prop up the local councillors and this terrible LTN plan they put in place. Without it, there is little in the way of upside.

[northernmonkey]

Click highways to get to the data links showing the monitoring and dates

There is data for September 2019 (non derived). The January 2019 data includes some school holiday days so is artificially lower than the norm.

[heartblock]

?there wasn?t an ATC at that site prior to Sept 2021 as Southwark council itself states. Even the interactive ?dot? map of ATCs only has data from Sept 2021. I think our neighbour in the closed road needs to look again. As Southwark summarises in that sentence on the dashboard- it is a new counter from 2021 and there is no prior data.

[goldilocks]

I don't really know how to move forward from this 'there isn't any data' statement when its genuinely on a public access interactive map.

There is data and it is available to you.

Go to the map, select 'highways' as the layer and then click on the dot. There are multiple observations on the dot near to the Tessa Jowell Health centre, one of which is the September 2019 data.

Click the link within the 2019 count summary and you get a summary document

[alice]

when clearly smart people have trouble accessing such information what are the rest of us to do?

[goldilocks]

The webpage I linked to which explains where the data is held, also explains how you access it.

[Rockets]

Just because there is a number on a map (which I still can't find I hasten to add) doesn't mean it is based on actual data.

Are you really saying that the Sept 21 data is definitively, 100% actual data from an actual monitoring strip down in Sept 21 because someone added the council's number it onto an interactive map (amongst a lot of other numbers like the number and location of trees on a road)...?

Unfortunately your argument is massively undermined by the council's own smoking gun per [www.southwark.gov.uk]

....No data collected for East Dulwich Grove Central prior to September 2021

I don't see why you struggle to accept this - the council has been clear from the outset that there was no monitoring in place on EDG Central prior to Sept 21.

That is not s typo. A proof reading error or an oversight.

You can try to spin it any way you like but it just doesn't wash I am afraid.

The council has been consistent.

The graphs they used in both the LTN Monitoring Study and FAQs and the Data Collection Timings document show Jan 19 and Sep 21 - no sign of Sept 19 anywhere.

In the main monitoring report it states, clearly,: This is a new site for data collection, having started in September 2021.

Or is this all one big collection of proof reading errors......if so then you can throw every other part of the report out if it is laced with similar errors as that seems pretty fundamental.

[goldilocks]

'I can't find the data but I'm very confident it isn't there, and even if it is, its wrong'

Does that cover it?

[legalalien]

I had a go and found it - but just to make the instructions slightly clearer, the trick is not to try and use the "Highways" map layer on the map you see on the opening screen. You need to click on the arrow next to "map configuration", select Southwark Highways from the drop down list, this then brings up a different set of map layers which include the option to select traffic counts. there are 8 on there and if you scroll down the list on the LHS there are two 2019 ones by the look of it, one with the detail of eastbound traffic and one with the detail of westbound traffic, both seem to have the same data summary at the front.

[Spartacus]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> 'I can't find the data but I'm very confident it

> isn't there, and even if it is, its wrong'

>

> Does that cover it?

Thank you for finally admitting it Goldilocks 🤣

[legalalien]

Also worth mentioning that the 2019 data seems to be monitoring relating to the Champion Hill closure which predated the ?Dulwich Low Traffic Neighbourhood? concept a little, I think? So maybe the council counted it, monitored it in relation to Champion Hill, but don?t see it as LTN monitoring per se?

And then someone at the water cooler said - you know, we did actually do a count outside the health centre when we were looking at Champion Hill, why don?t we do another count in the same place and maybe we could compare it?

That?s my theory.

[sally buying]

In my opinion Champion Hill was the first rip off regarding traffic. From the brief flurry during rush hour there is no traffic.

Observation from a resident who lived in and around Champion Hill since 1958.

[Rockets]

Legal, thank's for the clear guidance on how to find it.

BTW Goldilocks etc - how on earth did you find that - it's hardly intuitive - did someone tip you off or send you the direct link to it? Even following the link from the LTN page you'd need to know where to find it once you arrive at the page.

I also noticed the Champion Hill reference on that dataset. Interesting to note as well that for Sept 21 they have posted a number of sets of traffic covering each week yet only one for Sep 19 with those inflated traffic numbers.

Still not convinced this is anything other than modelling - the council have been very clear, on numerous occasions, that no monitoring was in place before Sep 21 on East Dulwich Central - they aren't doing that for fun - there is a reason for that - we just have to work out what it is!

[legalalien]

The power of google - think it's this

https://www.camberwellsociety.org.uk/rw_common/plugins/stacks/armadillo/media/ChampionHillAreaMonitoringStudyFINAL.pdf

[legalalien]

and looking at that there should also be some January 2019 data? as the report compares the Sept 2019 data with the January 2019 data. It does note in relation to evening peak traffic that "The variations observed along East Dulwich Grove

and Denmark Hill are not likely to be attributable

to the Champion Hill scheme. ", which I guess begs the question as to what they were due to.

Northernmonkey, sounds as though you have seen the January 2019 data given you say it's artificially low due to school holidays? Is it available online?

[Rockets]

Legal - what a brilliant find....when did the Champion Hill closure go in - this report, and the monitoring, seems to have been used to determine the displacement onto other roads and, guess what, EDG was taking the brunt of the displaced traffic from the Champion Hill closure according to this report.

Ha ha, you couldn't make it up - the council used the increases in traffic on EDG from the Champion Hill closure to then help validate the "success" of the EDG LTN closure a few years later - robbing Peter to pay Paul anyone!!! ;-).

[Rockets]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> and looking at that there should also be some

> January 2019 data? as the report compares the

> Sept 2019 data with the January 2019 data. It

> does note in relation to evening peak traffic that

> "The variations observed along East Dulwich Grove

> and Denmark Hill are not likely to be

> attributable

> to the Champion Hill scheme. ", which I guess begs

> the question as to what they were due to.

>

> Northernmonkey, sounds as though you have seen the

> January 2019 data given you say it's artificially

> low due to school holidays? Is it available

> online?

Is there a discernible difference between the amount of school holidays in January compared to September? Aren't they comparable - the majority of schools go back in the first week of both months?

According to the council's data the difference between Jan 19 and Sep 19 on EDG Central was at least 3,000 journeys or 25% more - something has triggered that and I am not sure it's schools.

[heartblock]

Now that is very interesting - when I interrogated this data-set in February this year there were only 4 data points from Sept 2021 and nothing before that point (CSV file records 4 data-points attached as downloaded in Feb). Now data has been added from 2019 as well as the newer data from this year...mmhhhhhh...one can only wonder.

[dougiefreeman]

Yeah was going to say, I looked on that map also earlier in the year and there were definitely no 2019 data points.

These must have been added recently. Once again, digging beneath the surface reveals just how bogus these ?official? council data figures are.

[heartblock]

So the Champion Hill LTN went in - and there was a rise in traffic outlined thus "The most notable increases are observed along Grove Lane/Champion Park (northbound), Camberwell Grove (southbound), East Dulwich Grove (westbound)'. Which is this 2019 data (which was not on the map point in Feb2021 as there were only 4 data sets).

Now this 'Champion Hill' data is being used as the 'baseline'.... mmhhhhhhh

I think this makes all the data even more suspect to be honest - I would like to know the traffic count pre-Champion Hill LTN please and any LTN please. Not a count after an LTN went in!

[Rockets]

Dare I say it, but is the pre-Champion Hill number set the Jan 19 numbers?

[CPR Dave]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

>

> EDG South - This is the section from Townley Road

> across to RedPost Hill - latest data shows a 4.8%

> increase here.

What excuse have you got for this part?

[heartblock]

It is more like 15% rise from a pre-LTN baseline if Jan 2019 data is less than Sept 2019 data - as Sept 2019 is after CH LTN that increased traffic on ED Grove by 20%....

The data produced to convince us that LTNs work, has given even more evidence that they do not reduce traffic on ED Grove and evaporation is a myth - thanks Goldilocks...excellent work.

[legalalien]

Had a quick look at old forum posts to see whether any obvious ED traffic incidents that might have caused a spike in second week of Sept 2019. Only thing that stood out was Barry Road closure put in place the week before and due to last several weeks, which seemed to be dumping traffic onto LL and clogging up the GG roundabout, which could I guess encourage cars to turn up EDG and then Melbourne to get around if that was continuing?

https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,2058247

[Rockets]

The claimed numbers for Sep 19 always looked like an anomaly and it looks like there was some sort of problem that would have led to the increase - but so interesting the council chose to use that number rather than the Jan 19 number - which looks far more realistic (and consistent when compared to other numbers).

Be interesting to know why the Jan 19 numbers weren't added to the interactive map. I do wonder whether the council has chosen the Sep 19 numbers solely because it helps their narrative and has allowed them to try and convince people (especially their supporters on Melbourne Grove) that the measures are working.

As we can see from the below, strip out the bloated 15,000 for Sep 21 and EDG Central sees an increase in traffic compared to pre-Covid levels. That increase becomes even more pronounced and significant once you address the area-wide reductions in traffic.

Jan 19: 12408 *monitoring from a different, unspecified, location around EDG Central

Sep 19: 15316 *the modelled numbers that magically jump by nearly 3,000 to give the council the reduction you tout and now used as the baseline for pre-Covid traffic levels on EDG Central

Sep 21: 12675 the number quoted in the initial monitoring report but they now seem to be claiming 12,730

Oct 21: 12016

Nov 21: 12421

Dec 21: 10,746

Jan 22: 12414

The council seem to be trying to deliberately mislead people to fit their own agenda. Interestingly, I received the vote for Margy and Richard leaflet yesterday and, per other comments, was very surprised to see they made zero mention of LTNs - it's almost as if they are trying to pretend they aren't an issue in this election but accountability has never been a strongpoint for modern Labour!