Rockets

Ooops, sorry admin time for us to self police again....I can confirm they did talk about LTNs but I couldn't hear what they were saying... They were surveying numerous leaflets from opposition parties which mentioned LTNs!

He was part of a group of councillors in Signoria in Dulwich earlier today enjoying a hearty lunch talking very loudly about their strategic plans to use their "database" to target "weak" Labour voters to get out and vote. Apparently, if they get exit polls in any given ward on polling day that shows they are struggling they will send groups of councillors/supporters to knock on doors of "weak" supporters within the ward to implore them to get out and vote.

They reference removing the LTN measures "in Dulwich" but the leaflet is from the candidates for the Dulwich Village ward so the map is focussed on that ward only.

Interesting to see the Lib Dem leaflet drop at our house today and them definitively say that they would work to remove the LTN measures in Dulwich Village - as one of their many pledges.

Given Labour have abandoned any mention of the LTNs in the their campaign leaflets (certainly in my ward), seemingly pretending they don't exist. I am not sure what the thinking is here - it actually looks very odd that they refuse to mention them when it is front and centre of every other party's campaigning and has been a huge part of Labour's term of office in our local wards and the biggest talking point. If they are re-elected does this mean they can't claim to have a mandate to roll more of them out? Anyone have any guesses what their strategy is here - are they hoping people have forgotten about the LTNs or are they desperately trying to distance themselves from them? I am in the Village Ward so have only seen the local candidates' leaflets - is it the same in other wards?

Bit late to this but my fav route was (quiet and quite pleasant): DKH Ruskin Park Loughborough Junction Loughborough Road Sidney Road Kimberley Road Union Road Stewarts Road Battersea Park Albert Bridge Kings Road Hortensia Road Brompton Cemetery Lillie Road North End Road Star Road

I have always struggled with the position of many on the pro-LTN lobby about the use of EVs (which I hasten to add seems to have been adopted by the council - I suspect due to the lobbying influence exerted by some during OHS and LTN discussions with vested-interest groups). If the objective really is to reduce emissions and pollution, as we are all led to believe it is, then EVs have to be part of the solution surely - for every diesel or petrol car removed (even if it is replaced by an EV) then that has to be an emissions-win surely? Not unless your objective is not to reduce emissions but to reduce the number of vehicles. A bit like the lack of infrastructure investment to support modal shift the council seems very unwilling to try and make EV ownership more accessible to a broader number of people - a bit like cargo bike storage it seems you can only really own an EV if you have a driveway and somewhere to recharge your car. It always seems alien to me how the council and Mayor laud their transition to EV for their vehicles yet do little to embrace and encourage private ownership of EVs.

I hope your wife is ok - I wonder if this is the same group that has been stealing phones in the Dulwich area?

Waseley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So Mr/Mrs Rockets. You are against all Low > Traffic Neighborhoods. So you should not vote > Tory as this is their policy. The assumption is > therefore that you supported the status quo where > car was king. We'll I'm not with you on this but > I appreciate your honesty. Waseley - rather than trying to push the "petrolhead" narrative (I know it is the go-to position from the pro-LTN handbook) why don't you read what I have actually posted both on that message and previous messages? I said I am not pro-LTN and my position is not the Tory position of pull them out - my position is more Lib Dem (as in LTNs make sense in some areas and not in others - I personally was amazed when the Soho LTN was withdrawn as there it made perfect sense). I actually agree with the council's own initial assessment that LTNs won't work in areas with low PTAL scores - which is why I am objecting to the LTNs in Dulwich - because the moment you put them in you create more problems than they solve and, guess what, despite the protestations from the pro-LTN lobby this is exactly what is happening. I also think the council have completely overlooked any other modal shift infrastructure initiatives and have put all of their eggs in LTNs. I think they could have done a lot more to improve cycle and walking infrastructure as other boroughs have successfully done but Southwark have been sleeping at the wheel and thought LTNs were the only thing they needed to implement.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can't speak for Rockets, but data turned into > statistical analysis is always manipulated, my > question is why use a baseline that is post -LTN > implementation rather than pre? If LTNs work and > reduce traffic, congestion at peak times and > pollution I'm all for them, but I have found no > convincing research and locally have witnessed the > opposite effect. I very much suspect because if they used the Jan 19 pre-Champion Hill LTN data their Dulwich LTN report would need to conclude that EDG Central traffic increased post Melbourne Grove LTN implementation - and that would be the truth getting in the way of their "good" story. Look what happens when you remove the Sep 19 figures from the council's monitoring data: Jan 19: 12408 Sep 21: 12675 Oct 21: 12016 Nov 21: 12421 Dec 21: 10,74 Jan 22: 12414 In real terms (when you consider the overall reduction in traffic is anywhere from 10% - 15%) traffic has actually increased significantly on EDG (and most other roads monitored during the LTN monitoring). But this is what LTNs do - they push more traffic down fewer roads. It is also interesting looking at the Champion Hill report (and I think this goes some way to explain why the council refuses to monitor Underhill Road) but LTN reports tend to focus on the roads immediately adjacent to the LTNs - remember the whole argument about Aldred et al not analysing "boundary roads"? One trend that was seen in the much-heralded Waltham Forest LTNs was that displacement impacted roads up to 3.1 miles away but by trying to contain monitoring to the immediate area allows the council's to try and paint a rosier picture. In the Champion Hill report you can see this in action as it clearly shows a substantial increase in traffic along EDG Central but it is dismissed as not being caused by the LTN - without any rational as it why that might be.

I am definitely not pro-LTN. I think LTN's are a lobby-group influenced sledge-hammer to crack a nut that do more harm than good. You have to ask yourself some questions: - why did the council decide to add EDG Central midway through the LTN monitoring process? Who lobbied them to do it? - why did the council choose to use the Sep 19 "data" rather than the Jan 19 data in their LTN report? - why does the council steadfastly refuse to provide monitoring for Underhill Road - one of the main displacement routes for traffic? - why when the elected local councillors stated that only if every road saw a reduction in traffic could the LTNs be considered a success are the same councillors now happy for 3 of the 9 monitored roads to register an increase in traffic? - why has the council not accounted for the overall reduction in vehicle use since the pandemic in any of their LTN monitoring reports. Surely the post LTN monitoring is getting a 10-15% head-start which has nothing to do with LTNs? And so the list goes on...it's hardly hyperbole.....it doesn't take a genius to work out what is going on here. Many are more than happy to turn a blind eye to it (usually those who they live on one of the roads benefitting from the closures!)

To be honest, I am not convinced you have provided anything other than more fuel to our fire! The Champion Hill displacement issue being the latest case in point which does look like the major cause of the 15,000 peak that the council (and you) insist on referring to to help justify the closure of Melbourne Grove. The mistake the council made was creating the new EDG Central monitoring as it was clear it was nothing more than a trojan horse to help maintain the Melbourne Grove closer at the behest of the residents and numerous pro-LTN lobby groups based there. Some of us think the LTN monitoring information is being manipulated by the council and given the weight of evidence you keep presenting to us as you try to defend it, it becomes clearer and clearer every day that it is being manipulated. On that subject of wilful manipulation, can anyone guess when the Champion Hill closure went in....yup, you've guessed it February 2019!!!!? Here's a snippet on it on the Southwark Cyclist's website: Southwark Council installed a one way filter in February 2019, preventing motor vehicles from using Champion Hill to drive from Dog Kennel Hill to Denmark Hill. The council monitored the area until September 2019 and prepared a report. Now, can anyone guess why the council chose the Sept 19 figures for EDG Central rather than the January 19 ones? Hmmmm......it's interesting that both the council and Southwark Cyclists go to great lengths to claim that the increases in traffic on EDG may not be from the Champion Hill but "other external" factors but provided no suggestions for what they might be. Yet the council's own report on the Champion Hill closures shows that there was only one road that had "notable increases" in traffic in both directions when comparing pre- and post-closure of Champion Hill and that was what is now EDG Central (Denmark Hill, Champion Park and Dog Kennel Hill all had notable increases but only in one direction). Displacement occurs across a wide are when these LTNs are thrown in and there are always more losers than winners unfortunately.

It seems to have been significant enough for the council to, repeatedly, state that there was no monitoring in place on East Dulwich Grove Central prior to Sept 21 - seems odd if there is only a 14 metre discrepancy - they moved the strips on Lordship Lane about 200 metres from Court Lane to Melford Road without any caveats being applied to the reporting. And remember the council don't even mention that it might have been in a slightly different location - they say........No data collected for East Dulwich Grove Central prior to September 2021....that's pretty definitive. Does anyone know why they might be saying that yet using Sept 19 data as proof that there has been a reduction in traffic? My personal theory is that they are making things up as they go along, someone used the Sept 19 numbers in the LTN wrap-up report, the council published it and then upon further review someone has found something that makes them think they can't/should not be using it/claiming it. It seems that whatever they did it gave them 3,000 more vehicle journeys between the Jan 19 and Sept 19 numbers and using the Sept 19 numbers gave them a "reduction" that would not have been there had they used the Jan 19 figures. It's clear the council has been manipulating the figures and reporting to their advantage throughout this whole process and they still have a third of the roads monitored showing an increase in vehicles compared to pre-Covid - not what they promised from the scheme at all.

Goldilocks - you really are the gift that keeps on giving - that TFL data merely goes to show how bad they are at estimating/modelling traffic levels. Look at what happens between estimated (which the majority of those years are) and actual traffic counts - how they inflate cyclist numbers and the number of car journeys and then how an actual count reduces the number of cycle journeys by half and the number of car journeys by about 20% - I think their methodology is making presumptions and assumptions that aren't actually happening in reality! Look at the difference between the 2016 Estimated count and the 2017 actual count.... That chart also highlights that car use has been declining over the last 15 years (which is counter to a lot of the arguments put forward by the pro-LTN lobby to justify closing roads - aren't we supposed to have seen a 10x increase in car-use?). Also, it also goes to show that cycling has been declining over the last 15 years too - another argument that the pro-LTN lobby won't agree with....

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!

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

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.

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!!! ;-).

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!

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.

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.

Errr, really....you honestly think that the council writing No data collected for East Dulwich Grove Central prior to September 2021 in their most recent report...is an error that was somehow missed in proof reading.....and you accuse us of conspiratorial theories.... The council has repeatedly stated that there was no actual monitoring at EDG Central prior to Sep 21 - they have been consistent with that. Just because you don't want to believe it's true doesn't mean it's not true. From day 1 the weight of evidence, from the council's own numerous reports, has shown that there was no data collected on EDG Central prior to September 21 - why do you think that is not true - what evidence based rational are you hanging it on? Look, we know that you desperately want "proof" that the LTN's are working but you really are fighting a losing battle. The EDG Central "reduction" you keep touting just goes to expose the folly of the council's approach. They have misled you and you continually use their data but the data actually does you a disservice as it is so easily dismissed as utter nonsense. The bottom-line is this (and this according to the council's own dashboard https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/traffic-data-analysis): 3 of the 9 monitored roads have seen an increase in traffic compared to pre-Covid levels.... That rises to 4 of 9 if you remove the council's modelled data for EDG and use Jan 19 as the base. If you then factor in, say a 15% reduction in overall traffic, then it hits about 7 of 9 of the roads monitored would have seen a net increase in traffic compared to pre-Covid levels. Doesn't look at all rosy does it? But this is the reality. Also, I note with interest that Underhill is no longer being monitored...one wonders why.......;-)

Errrm...except for this which appears as the last line on paragraph two here...https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/traffic-data-analysis ....No data collected for East Dulwich Grove Central prior to September 2021 So, where did they get the pre-Covid number of 15,000 vehicles on EDG Central...I tell you where - their modelled numbers....come on really, it's time to admit defeat...the numbers you tout for reductions on EDG Central are not fact but based on modelled data....modelling I hasten to add that worked wonderfully in favour of a reduction.... BTW which interactive map are you referring to.....?

Goldilocks - no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true - there was no actual count on EDG Central in Sept 2019 - those figures were modelled. So, in fact, are the only thing not based on fact..... Let me explain to you what the council has done.....they have taken the Sep 19 modelled numbers as the baseline for EDG Central pre-Covid levels but look the Sept 19 modelled figures jumped massively for some, unexplained, reason. 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 Notice in the graphs here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/traffic-data-analysis how the only one with no figures prior to Sept 2021 is EDG Central - why? Because there was no monitoring there before then. I think what is really shocking is that the council still has not factored in the overall reduction in traffic across the whole of the borough into their analysis so they are comparing a pre-Covid number with a post Covid number and not factoring in the fact that there are fewer vehicles on the road per se. The council estimated at least 7% less traffic across Southwark as a whole due to Covid so you start factoring that in and the results of the LTNs are actual like-for-like increases on many, if not most roads, in the area. How Cllr McAsh's words at the beginning of this about LTN's only being classed as a success if there are reductions on all roads are coming back to haunt him now!

All, please be careful. My wife had her phone stolen for the second time in about 8 months today at the junction of Dovercourt and Townley. She had noticed a group of three young boys on bikes (all three were black, between 12 and 15 years old, dressed in black hoodies, black trousers riding black bikes - they all dress identically and ride the same bikes to make it difficult to ID them) riding around Woodwarde. She turned down Dovercourt, thought they had cycled off and once she got to the bottom of the road took her phone out and one of the boys rode up behind her on the pavement and took it. When she called the police to report it they said they were aware of a gang targeting the Townley/Dovercourt/Woodwarde/Court Lane and there have been an increase in incidents reported in the last few days. Apparently this is the same group who were targeting Lordship Lane but have now moved to areas with less CCTV - there has been a 70% increase in reported crimes in that particular area and the majority are mobile phone thefts. The police know who they are and said one of them is 12 years old. Please be careful everyone - they are targeting women walking on their own using their phones.