Rockets

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > > You've linked to a post in which you admit you > don't actually know what the figure refers to. > > No you are wrong. The only uncertainty was the > council's presentation and a couple of minor > errors Southwark made. I was quoting the raw data; > when I get back form work I will dig out the data > in the published reports. > > Will you apologise if I can quote from Southwark > published reports showing that those figures are > correct? Slarti - those figures are correct - I remember reading them in the Southwark report - I believe it was the same one in which the council admitted that after their first "improvements" to the DV junction (designed to improve pollution) there was a "moderate" increase in pollution. I don't know about you but DKHB doesn't seem like the apologetic type so let's see what happens when you find the report....;-) I think Southwark have been keen to bury the smoking gun which is why it is so hard to find on their site now.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Abe_froeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > In about 18 months there will be a ballot that > the > > council won't be able to ignore. > > > > 2,200 votes is more than enough to displace all > > three of the goose green incumbents. > > > Only if all those who signed the petition lived in > the Goose Green Ward. Are the councillors prepared to roll that dice though....that will be key? We know from the OneDulwich supporter map that there are a lot of supporters throughout East Dulwich. There is a lot riding on the council elections politically and they are being positioned as a bell-weather for how much Keir Starmer has managed to drag the Labour party out of the mess Corbyn left them in so taking a pounding in council elections will not be a good look at all. There is also the mayoral election next year too - lose that and lose a lot of traditionally safe seats at council level and Keir finds himself in a bit of a pickle. I reckon the council abandons the next phase of planned closures, sees out the 6 month trails of those that are in place and then removes a lot of the closures to try and save face.

Is it a very small zone around East Dulwich station that is two hours because the restrictions that I saw on East Dulwich Grove are definitely all day? The Stradella Road, Half Moon Lane, Winterbrook etc. restrictions (the roads closest to the shops and station in Herne Hill) are 2 hours only - or at least they were the last time I was there a couple of weeks ago.

A quote from that article - does it sound familiar....find and replace Hackney with Dulwich....? Former Liberal Democrat London Assembly and 2019 general election candidate Ben Mathis spent last Sunday removing anti-LTN graffiti from roads in Clapton. ?While I personally think that feeling is being channelled against the wrong measures, I totally get it,? he says. ?People in Hackney are so used to being ignored ? scrutiny of the council from within is all but non-existent, consultations are routinely ignored."

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > "Unfortunately we are in a one-party state > here" > > > A statement of fact. Our ward Councillors are > Labour, the leader of the local group of wards is > Labour, the cabinet member responsible for > deciding teh schemes is Labour, the Council leader > is Labour and our Local MP is Labour. > > I have seen no scrutiny of or challenges to the > current "Covid" traffic measures from within this > Labour apparatus. Slarti b - your are absolutely right. There has not been a local single councillor who has done anything other than tow the party line or grandstand on this issue. Before Covid Cllr McAsh was going door to door lobbying residents of Melbourne Grove and surrounding streets for the need to close Melbourne Grove because of the closure to DV (he posted images of his flyers on his twitter feed for those naysayers who will say prove it!!! ;-)) - he knew there was going to be a problem and instead of questioning it on behalf of his constituents (as many of us were urging) he gleefully went along with it. And don't get me started on Cllr Newens.....she was tweeting just yesterday that "there is absolutely no doubt #dulwichmodalshift is real" but she does admit, ahem," that more needs to be done to reduce congestion". It's all a bit Comical Ali....

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They do, and one of our councillors went back to > the officer to find out more: > > "Posted by jamesmcash May 04, 07:18PM > > Hi all > > I have checked and apparently the baseline > measurements were carried out from 28th September > to 16th October 2015, when there were no road > works. > ... > > " > Posted by jamesmcash May 16, 04:04PM > > Hi all > > Regarding the DV figures - as I have said already, > my understanding is that the figures are not from > a period when there were road works. If you think > that that is untrue then I suggest you lodge a > complaint with the council. > > ..." The telling thing in Cllr McAsh's second reply is his use of "my understanding" a classic political back-step when you have dug a little deeper and realised there's something fishy going on and you really don't want to be associated with it in case it blows up.....I remember that thread as he went from definitive, to let me ask, to apparently, taking a detour via my understanding and then finally parking on raise a complaint.....read into that what you will. The data that Slarti b highlights was published in one of the council's own reports and it was only when someone went digging to find it were they able to expose the lie that was being used as the basis for the original consultation. What the numbers actually showed was that traffic numbers had been steadily declining over the preceding years (not dramatically as probably needed but downwards anyway) and the 47% increase was an anomaly created after the removal of the DV junction roadworks which had caused a 50% drop in vehicles through the junction (if I remember rightly the post roadworks figures were actually lower than the pre-roadworks figures). Thank goodness people are doing some due diligence to try to ensure the council are presenting accurate facts and stats and not lies that fit the narrative they want to peddle. It does make me laugh how so many on here who are pro-closures heckle and deposition everything that is presented to them in a style that is indicative of those who lack a proper counter argument. So much of this has been about balancing the discussion and giving a voice to those who have been ignored and have been suspicious of the council's motives, methods and execution. I love the fact that One Dulwich, the petitions and the discussions on here are rattling the cages of those who had carte blanche for so long. At last the playing field is starting to be levelled and more and more people are becoming aware of, and having an opinion on, what is happening in their local area - democracy in action if you ever saw it!

micromacromonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > But it's not impressive is it - and remember > that > > was the very best case scenario taken from > reports > > extolling the virtues of LTNs - because from > the > > DV junction alone (if you apply the 11% stat) > 6200 > > cars will have to find another route. That's a > > minimum of 6200 vehicles driving down roads > they > > previously didn't drive down - which goes some > way > > to explain why EDG and Lordship Lane are so > much > > more congested now. > > > > You see the problem now? The displacement roads > > can't cope with the displacement so it won't > get > > better. When the council shuts Townley for > periods > > of the day then another east/west route across > the > > area gets closed and the problem is > exacerbated. > > > > The people on the displacement roads can "sit > > tight" forever as it won't ever get any better > on > > their roads. > > It's not a zero-sum game. The idea is that car > journeys disappear, not that they get displaced to > somewhere else. This mode will be replaced by > walking, cycling and public transport, or just by > not doing the journey in the first place. But they don't do they - even the pro-closure lobby talks about traffic evaporation - suggesting it condenses elsewhere. Traffic doesn't just disappear because you close some roads (a small percentage of it might do - that's the 11% as kids cycle to school or clubs, or people walk to the shops who used to drive) but there are still journeys that are being done in cars because not every journey can be done on foot, bike or public transport. The pro-closures lobby seems to have come to a bizarre conclusion that the all the people in cars in Dulwich are just locals driving within a one mile radius on a journey that can be walked or cycled. If that was the case then yes we could solve all the problems but I suspect the reality is very different from that.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?The displacement roads can't cope with the > displacement so it won't get better.? > > That's assuming the same number of people continue > to use their cars when the whole aim is that > people get out of their cars for short journeys > and walk/cycle more. I?m a non driver myself but I > know a few people who are walking now instead of > driving and it would be interesting to learn of > others who are making the same lifestyle changes. Yes everyone, myself included, is doing more but you would expect those people who move to walking or cycling to be factored into the 11% figure. The council is targeting a 50% reduction which is probably a more realistic figure to ensure no negative displacement but I am not sure there are any LTNs or closures anywhere in the world that have delivered anywhere close to that number - so it makes you wonder what else they would have to do to reach it as these closures won't do it. Remember, even when public transport was running effectively Dulwich suffers from a lack of good public transport options (especially going East/West) which is why, I suspect, so many people have and use cars.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "which goes some way to explain why EDG and > Lordship Lane are so much more congested now..." > > Except there's no data to show this, and just a > bunch of mixed anecdotal reports (of which mine is > one). It's interesting that you want some things > to be believed as fact without data because it > suits you, and other things which don't suit you > shouldn't be believed without data (and if it > exists, you simply disagree with it or call it a > lie). That's right - there is no data to show this as the council wasn't monitoring the displacement roads. Thanks for bringing this back to my original point so elegantly for me! ;-)

micromacromonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 11%? That's a pretty impressive result for any > intervention like this. Crack on. > > And those who live on the currently (extra) > polluted streets have the most to gain from all > this, so yes they need to sit tight and wait for > it to improve. But it's not impressive is it - and remember that was the very best case scenario taken from reports extolling the virtues of LTNs - because from the DV junction alone (if you apply the 11% stat) 6200 cars will have to find another route. That's a minimum of 6200 vehicles driving down roads they previously didn't drive down - which goes some way to explain why EDG and Lordship Lane are so much more congested now. You see the problem now? The displacement roads can't cope with the displacement so it won't get better. When the council shuts Townley for periods of the day then another east/west route across the area gets closed and the problem is exacerbated. The people on the displacement roads can "sit tight" forever as it won't ever get any better on their roads.

micromacromonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ab29 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > micromacromonkey Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > first mate Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > > > > > > > http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDispl > > > > > > > > > > ay.aspx?id=500000049 > > > > > > > > 2069 now > > > > > > 2069 people who don't realise that driving to > > the > > > shops down the street of your choice is not a > > > fundamental human right. > > > > > > I don't drive - I don't even have a driving > > licence. I signed the petition because I think > it > > is not fair to treat people living on the > streets > > that take the extra traffic now with > significantly > > more noise and pollution - do you? > > That would not be a valid reason to sign the > petition though. This whole thing is being done as > a nudge tactic to get people out of their cars. > For this to happen, the situation has to be > annoying enough for people to decide to take an > alternative form of transport instead, or perhaps > travel at a different time (or just not make the > journey at all if it's not necessary). That's the > phase we're in now. Temporarily raised pollution > on some streets is 'collateral damage' I guess, > although of course it's not a welcome situation. > > The BEST way to achieve the stated aim would be to > apply statutory restrictions such as are currently > applied in Mexico City, and have also been applied > in Paris (based on pollution levels I think). In > this model you get to drive your car every other > day. I imagine that the naysayers here would be > horrified by this option also. A nudge tactic that in the absolute best-case scenario delivers an 11% drop in car use - but you have to add the caveat that the 11% drop was achieved in the non-Covid world when public transport was a viable alternative. But let's be generous and say an 11% drop - 7,000 cars a day used the DV junction before the closures - so it doesn't take a mathematical genius to work out why there is so much more congestion on the displacement roads. Now throw in the cars that used Melbourne Grove and then prepare yourself for the timed closures of Townley and the closures of Burbage etc. Do you see the problem here? The nudge tactic is fundamentally flawed if all you can get is 11% and even more flawed when you carpet-bomb the closures on a whole area - remember the 11% stats were taken from trials that were done in isolation. So what you're saying to those people who live on, get educated on or use the displacement roads is that you're "collateral damage" - take one for the team, it'll settle down at some point....we hope....

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > usual naive reasoning yet again here: > > 1) any immediate 'before' monitoring would be > during the lockdown, so data would be utterly > useless anyway > 2) anyway, how do you know there is no before > monitoring? I thought only the court lane > illuminati had access to this data? > 3) 'before' can easily be extrapolated from > previous monitoring in any case with a known > variance (e.g. figures from 2y ago can be adjusted > upwards to account for general traffic increase > with a known error of +-10% say) > 4) data is available from smartphones (e.g. google > maps shows congestion levels) > > the traffic dept have software to do all of this, > it's scientific and it works, but hey what do they > know? > > > > Spartacus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > "the monitoring has been half-hearted at > best," > > > > > > How do you get to that conclusion? > > > > I suspect that because they have no base data > > taken from before the measures were implemented > so > > it appears that the council are really only > > playing lip service to monitoring and showing > the > > effects (good or bad) > > It's a bit like a recent tfl survey that said > the > > majority of (1000) people surveyed are happy > with > > LTNs that's almost as bad as the adverts for > hair > > products (78% of 128 women agree ....) sadly not > a > > conclusive survey. > > > > So the issue is a scheme rushed in too quickly, > > with no base data resulting in massive > resentment > > by those directly effected. > > > > If the council do a proper unbiased survey and > use > > pre and post implementation monitoring of > schemes > > then maybe, just maybe people might start to > trust > > them again. Let me correct you on a couple of things. Firstly, these closures were planned long before Covid and there was a "consultation" process in progress when the council used Covid as the trojan horse to get them in (remember they first pushed this on the basis of the need for social distancing -see Cllr McAsh posts on said subject). We know there was no "before" monitoring because the council admitted that they were only monitoring the closed roads (due to lack of budget) then found the budget to do it when people said...how are you going to monitor how successful it's been if you can't see if all that has happened is the traffic has been displaced. This monitoring went in a month or so after the closures happened and as lockdown began to lift. So they have no base - they can, however, tell you how quiet the closed roads are. "Before" can be easily extrapolated ONLY if they had been monitoring the roads where displacement has taken place but there is no sign they had been. In fact, people have asked repeatedly to see the modelling the council will have had to have done on displacement but nothing has been forthcoming. People are, quite rightly, asking why are they not sharing that info. Why? Because in all likelihood their modelling will have shown the impact on the displacement roads. But of course this is part of the plan (but no-one will ever admit this) - by closing some roads you make the displacement roads so unbearable that you hope people find another means of transport. But only 10% of people do. So I can guarantee you someone in the roads department said: "Hang on, this is going to cause chaos elsewhere - the displacement roads can handle the increase in traffic. Let's also remember the council uses monitoring to help them justify the closures so, in the DV area for example, they only have figures in the consultation documents for monitoring on the roads they wanted to close. If data is so readily available and accurate from smartphones (I am not convinced you can just go to Google and say please give me all of your users' data - you certainly can't do it with Apple) then why do the council rely so heavily on monitoring strips across the road? That in itself suggests that is still their preferred option for data collection. Why are they refusing to monitor pollution? Let's also ground this discussion on the fact the council lied about the increase in traffic through the DV junction to justify their original closure plan before Covid. The 47% increase in traffic flow through the junction was a stat that was, at best, utterly misleading, at worst the worst case of deliberately feeding the constituents completely erroneous data to try to build support for their plans. Not much of the above appears as na?ve reasoning to me....the only naivety has been on the part of the council who hoped people wouldn't start scratching beneath the surface or asking the difficult questions they don't want to answer.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ", it?s why 2200 people have signed the e-petition > on the council?s website" > > ...because a bunch of cabbies on Twitter who hate > Sadiq Khan and speed bumps have signed up to it. > They couldn't give a stuff about air pollution or > the quality of Dulwich residents' lives. But you don't know that for fact do you? I know plenty of people who have signed it and not one of them is a cabbie....I have heard school what's app groups have been distributing the link. The important thing is the council have to respond to the e-petition now it is over 500 signatures....so we wait to see how they decide to respond.... There's also 1500 people signed up for One Dulwich and One Dulwich publishes a map showing where those people are located in Dulwich - so I suggest they aren't cabbies (either that or a lot of cabbies live around here!!) ;-)

And it makes zero sense only monitoring the closed roads....it?s a given traffic will decrease on the closed roads. They must think people are stupid.....for too long they have been treating people as exactly that....weaving a false and misleading narrative to justify their plans and zero accountability when thing don?t work.....remember their first meddling with the DV Junction led to an increase in pollution (from their own report)...the exact opposite of what they were trying to achieve. So yes, the monitoring has been half-hearted at best and the more people scratch beneath the surface the more frustrated they get - it?s why 1500 people have signed up to support One Dulwich, it?s why 2200 people have signed the e-petition on the council?s website to pull all the road closures out everywhere. The council have created this rod for their own backs with pathetic communication and their continued silence let?s the dissenting voices grow louder and larger in number every day. There is rule of communications, if you don?t speak then someone else will fill the void for you and that?s when you lose control. The council has lost control of this narrative and is backing themselves into a corner. The closures were rushed, poorly planned, poorly implemented and ultimately with fail in their stated goals.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What I like is the prospect of OneDulwich - > entirely unqualified in traffic management and > environmental monitoring - bickering over > pollution measurement methodologies. But would you not agree that you would expect the council to have been monitoring traffic on the displacement roads and, given their desire to cut pollution, that pollution monitoring should have been a prerequisite? Or do they know that the results will show......

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not really - a couple of weeks seems long enough > to show the detrimental impact on neighbouring > areas. Rather than persevering, other approaches > might be tested. For example, moving the planters > to the middle of the Melbourne Grove roads > allowing customer parking for the shops at one > end, making the roads one way, adding "give > priority" narrowing, or putting things back as > they were and seeing the CPZ's impact. Use the > time to experiment and evaluate rather than > persist with one hamfisted measure. > > Two weeks is nowhere near enough. You need 6 > months minimum to get meaningful data, work out > the medium-term trends and extrapolate from > there. > > Especially at this time when people could be > self-isolating for 2 weeks, schools have only just > gone back, there's a marked difference in "normal" > commuting patterns. Takes a while for all that to > work through the system. > > The absolute worst thing that could be done now is > taking them up again, that would just be a total > waste of time and money and wouldn't give any > meaningful information. But are they really interested in meaningful data - the monitoring has been half-hearted at best, It's as if they don't feel the need to provide any proof anything will have actually worked. Surely you need to have established the base before analysing the impact? The council did not do that and have only started monitoring sometime after the closures went in.

Street Sounds Electro series per chance?! There's a throwback to my misspent youth!

Ex- my pleasure. Finding anything on the SOuthwark website is a nightmare and they have this really annoying habit (I think it might be deliberate) of moving the materials so old bookmarks and links don't work anymore making harvesting any of the previously published info really difficult to find. Dogkennelhillbilly - what data would that be? Remember the only data the council was collecting for the first couple of months after the DV closure was on the streets that had been closed - those were the only streets they put monitoring in on (and then someone cut them all in an act of childish petulance). So their desire was to come to the conclusion that "hurrah, traffic has stopped using the closed streets - success, put up the bunting". Meanwhile on the displacement streets traffic is a lot worse but they had zero data collection in place. They rectified that glaring (and quite obviously deliberate) error a couple of months after the DV closure after people rightly questioned what they were doing - but putting monitoring in after the displacement has happened can't prove anything as there is no base to compare it against. And the council refuses to put pollution monitoring in place - why, because they know they are causing an increase in pollution with these closures. Per the OneDulwich email update last night after their second meeting with Helen Hayes: ? the Council is not monitoring air quality, so cannot assess the effect of the current trials (we didn?t agree with her view [Helen Hayes] that you can work out pollution levels from traffic volumes). Do you now understand why people don't trust the council to do the right thing in these situations - because they lie, fudge and try to skew everything for their own benefit?

I will save you the effort ;- ) as the council identified which streets the cars entered and exited on within a very small area i.e. Court Lane, Burbage Road etc - there was no data to show where the traffic was heading. We are nearly 3 months into the DV road closures and nothing is changing - I know the council has said they need to give it six months. Interesting though that they didn't give the first phase 6 months to bed in before activating the second phase....

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's a huge difference in cycling across to > Hammersmith in the cold vs cycling under 3 miles > to school. You'd be surprised at how little kids > complain - where mine have complained it has been > things like cold fingers and has been fixed with > warmer gloves. > > Anyway - its these short journeys at peak times > that need to stop most urgently and they're the > most easily replaced by walking / scooting or > cycling and in many cases are actually quicker > than getting in and out of the car and finding a > parking spot. Yes there is but I think you would be surprised how many people drop their children to school on their way to work - and I suspect many of those do not work within a couple of miles. I agree that we need to stop the short journeys but during the council's data collection for their consultation process they identified the number of journeys through certain junctions but not where they were going. The first evidence seems to be that the closures are not having the desired effect as people are still sitting in traffic in the Dulwich hotspots which suggests their journeys may not have been easily transferable to other modes. The 11% rule seems to be applying across Dulwich at the moment and it's not enough to have a positive impact due to displacement and congestion it causes elsewhere.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Cars use roads because that is what they were > built for, pavements are for for people." > > Roads have been around much longer than cars! Most > of East Dulwich's roads were built decades before > the Model T was even invented. The Plough was a > coaching inn. Traffic patterns have changed > radically since then, but also in the last ten > years. Uber, Amazon and their imitators have > radically increased the number of journeys being > taken. It hasn't "always been this way so shut > up". > > What we are seeing right now in London is the > consequence of trying to move millions of vehicles > along streets not designed for the density of > population or car ownership, and with too many > people focusing on whether they're ENTITLED to > drive along a street whenever they want instead of > whether they OUGHT to. And that's why we are > ending up with hard rules. What we are seeing now in Dulwich is the consequence of trying to squeeze more traffic down already crowded roads by closing a load of other roads.

Effra, it?s best not to! The guy on the bike is a superstar and always brings a smile to our faces - our kids think he is brilliant!

BellendenBear Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Metallic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It occurred to me last week that many of the > > cycling families taking their children to > school > > won't have time to do it when they have to > start > > their own work commute again. It will be back > to > > unwilling nannies and au pairs round in > SE21/SE22 > > until it gets too wet and cold, and dark. > > We cycle our kids to school. If/when we have to go > back to the office this will still be the best way > to get kids to school and on to work. I realise > this isn?t the same for everyone. It has been > lovely to see more families cycling during the > last few weeks. I don?t know whether this is > because of the road closures or people taking up > cycling when roads were quieter or both. Either > way I really hope it continues. For me the biggest > consideration for continuing to cycle with kids > through winter isn?t the weather but safety when > it gets dark. > > It seems to be in everyone?s interest, including > those who really have no other option than to > drive, if more people feel able to cycle safety. > It would be great if this discussion could focus > more on how this can be achieved and the role that > we can all play in this as well as our local > leaders. So far there seems to be a lot of ranting > that the current changes don?t work with no > alternatives being put forward. I say this as a > car owner and commuter cyclist (non-Lycra > wearing). I think there were a multitude of factors at play with the uptake of cycling. I think the key one was that as people were working from home they wanted a way to do exercise with other family members. It was no coincidence that cycle sales went through the roof when the lockdown was first started - there were definitely more people out on bikes, especially families. Kids were at home being schooled and parents weren?t under pressure to get the children to school and then get to their office. I do wonder how many people choose the car over public transport to shoehorn getting children to school. i.e. the car becomes the convenient transport choice. I also think seasonal factors are huge. We were lucky that the lockdown hit during the unseasonably warm spring and hot summer. We all love cycling in fine weather but the moment the weather turns inclement far fewer people want to take to the streets - it?s why you couldn?t get a bike service for love nor money during early lockdown as everyone was taking their bikes to the bike repair shops after a winter of not being used. As someone who used to do a daily commute to Hammersmith I would notice how many fewer cyclists would be on the road when it got to October/November and through the winter and often when I was unable to feel my feet or hands I would look longingly into warm cars and question my own cycling sanity!

1849 people have signed that petition now.....people in Dulwich seem to be mobilising (not in their cars I hasten to add) as we know lots of people who have forwarded the link and details to all their friends locally - it seems to be hitting a chord.

Wow, over 1300 signatures now....the council has to respond as they are now under real pressure as those numbers show what the sentiment towards these closures is.