Rockets

At last! He should have done this ages ago instead of wasting millions on ludicrous schemes like the LTNs that just make the problems worse. I hope the scheme is means tested so everyone pays the "same". It does look like a bit of a kite-flying exercise and the real story is the clean-air charge - which also is very welcome. Looks like the Clean Air Charge will also prompt a discussion about what councils are doing to encourage and embrace clean-air vehicles and infrastructure as such a move will be the catalyst to get people to look at electric.

It's the ding ding of impatient cycling children and their parents approaching at speed from behind you on pavements and when there isn't a car in sight on the closed roads that really annoys. Ding ding....bike coming through....move out of my way IMMEDIATELY....the problem is the actions of a few tarnishes the perception of everyone else.

Legal - I appreciate you coming to my defence!!! ;-) It was very similar to that one but to another level of granularity that showed postcode by postcode within the WF LTNs. Similar rocketing upward curve mind you. Whomever tweeted the one I saw was using it to dispel Aldred's conclusions that the WF LTN had reduced car ownership - it hadn't, the reverse had actually happened. To be fair to the protagonist they did say that there was rapid gentrification of the closed off roads that drove house prices up and more people/families with cars moved in.

Ex- what I continually marvel at is how often people say - look, here's the facts to back up the council's conclusions and when you take a closer look at said documents it actually massively undermines the results they have come to. Can anyone explain why the "When Was The Pre-scheme Data Collected" specifically say: call out that "This data collection all took place outside school holidays" yet that isn't called out at all in the "When Was The Post-Scheme Data Collected". In fact there is no mention of school holidays in the latter - so, are we to presume some data may have been collected during school holidays - or is this another infamous council LTN oversight.......? I will bet you my bike that the "independent party" who supplied the video of the cyclists was none other than Anna Goodman for her report she created here: https://www.transportforqualityoflife.com/u/files/1_DulwichReport_FINAL2.pdf. Surely if Systra want us to take their report seriously they should be telling us where that data, that they used to formulate some of their findings came from?

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1) Where is the Jan 19 data from (for what > purposes was it collected and from which point was > it collected as it is not the same location as the > Sept 21 monitoring point)? > 2) Where is the Sept 21 monitoring point? > 3) What methodology was used to arrive at the Sept > 21 figure? > 4) Why does the EDG Central chart say: the > Pre-implementation data for Jan 2019 has been > adjusted to September 2019 levels to ensure > compatibility and what adjustment took place and > why? That suggests to me that the September 2019 > figures were modelled. > 5) Why was the decision taken to add the EDG > Central monitoring point in Sept 21? What, or who, > prompted that so late in the process? > 6) When was the Sep 21 monitoring captured - was > it at the beginning of the month before the > private schools went back or at the end of the > month during the fuel crisis? > > It's all in the Streetspace reports. > Overall review page: > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/i > mproving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review > Section on > monitoring:https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport- > and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulw > ich-review?chapter=4 > > There's a LOT in there - methodology, basic > explanations of timings and data, locations of > counters and so on but it's worth sitting down > when you've got some free time to read it > carefully and in context. Ex- and when you do bury down into that you realise it should probably be classified as a work of fiction! Look: When Was Pre-Scheme Data Collected? ? The data used to understand traffic prior to the Streetspace scheme was mostly collected by the Council for studies prior to 2020 with some additional collection in June 2020. This data collection all took place outside school holidays. ? Where multiple data sets at a location were collected prior to scheme implementation, the most recent data collected prior to March 2021 was used to have a pre-scheme dataset unimpacted by COVID-19 where possible. When Was Post-Scheme Data Collected? ? Data for after the implementation of the Streetspace schemes was collected in September 2020, and then either continuously or in tranches in 2021. ? On key external roads data has been collected continuously throughout 2021, on other roads data has been collected for all weeks in March, April, June and September 2021. ? The time periods during which the data in the report were collected are shown overleaf. Notice how the post scheme data collection fails to mention (as the pre-scheme does) that the numbers were collected outside of school holidays. Surely if you call that out in the pre-scheme collection you need to in the post scheme collection - unless, of course, the data collection happened during the school holidays. And this made me chuckle as well: What is cycling demographic data and how has it been used? ? Cycling demographic data has been collated via manual observation of video footage of people cycling through the junction of Calton Avenue / Dulwich Village, completed by an independent party. So the people responsible for the report didn't actually collate the cycling demographic data themselves it was completed by an "independent party". I can see how that discussion went down: hey, pro-cycle lobby group you know that video you have of lots of people cycling through Calton Avenue can we use it for Southwark's independent third-party report on how successful the LTNs have been........;-) Anyone want to take a guess on the source of that video?

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > These are questions you need to ask the council on > their monitoring - no idea how i'd have this > information. Though re question 4 I'd put money on > the fact that its because that statement exists > elsewhere in the report and its been erroneously > copied across. On Point 4 it doesn't exist anywhere else in the report - it is the only slide that has that caveat added to it. What is clearly suggests is that the Sept 19 figures were modelled by adding some secret sauce to the Jan 19 figures (which were taken from a different location on EDG) and it is the secret sauce that delivers an increased between Jan 19 and Sep 19 which then gives the "reduction" in Sep 21. Jan 19: 12,408 total vehicles Sep 19: (secret sauce numbers): 15,316 total vehicles Sep 21: 12,675 total vehicles I am using the total vehicle numbers because I cannot be bothered to unwrap the different vehicle types. I did ask Cllr McAsh to provide some detail when he started giving his explanation for the figures but, as yet, no response has been forthcoming. Also as an aside, very interestingly and something that I had failed to realise, but the council does not seperate cars and LGVs from their analysis but lumps them together. I wonder why they are doing that, especially when TFL goes to great lengths to break them out?

Goldilocks - there are many unanswered questions on that particular section of monitoring. Can you help shed any light perhaps? I will pose these questions again: 1) Where is the Jan 19 data from (for what purposes was it collected and from which point was it collected as it is not the same location as the Sept 21 monitoring point)? 2) Where is the Sept 21 monitoring point? 3) What methodology was used to arrive at the Sept 21 figure? 4) Why does the EDG Central chart say: the Pre-implementation data for Jan 2019 has been adjusted to September 2019 levels to ensure compatibility and what adjustment took place and why? That suggests to me that the September 2019 figures were modelled. 5) Why was the decision taken to add the EDG Central monitoring point in Sept 21? What, or who, prompted that so late in the process? 6) When was the Sep 21 monitoring captured - was it at the beginning of the month before the private schools went back or at the end of the month during the fuel crisis?

Our kids got their Christmas issue of the Week Junior today - no sign of the ones from the beginning of December mind you of the Jan 8th issue. Royal Mail - extending that Christmas spirit well into the New Year!

Raeburn - I still hold-out I saw an analysis of increase in car ownership within the Waltham Forest LTN based on DVLA registrations, and as I stated at the time some were suggesting it could be linked to the gentrification of the area post LTN installation. If I find that post I will be sure to share it with you but I didn't make it up - so, no, I won't be correcting my post on the basis of analysis by Rachel Aldred (which is clear what you are basing your assumptions on - but do feel free to correct me if you're not). It is interesting isn't it that a basic Google search on Waltham Forest LTN car ownership leads you to the inevitable SEO optimised Rachel Aldred and Anna Goodman articles on how wonderful the LTN in Waltham Forest is - which in itself is quite telling but I suspect that's a discussion for another day and I don't want to trigger an accusation of deflection from you! ;-)

Raeburn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But Rockets, you were happy to post complete > disinformation about an LTN on the other side of > London? No I didn't. I posted on the basis of something I had seen saying that the Waltham Forest LTN had led to an increase of car ownership within the LTN - you countered to say that was proven to be fake but you didn't provide anything to back up your claim. Feel free to send your proof and let's analyse it. More than happy to stand corrected if you can correct me...... What is clear is that amongst the pro-LTN lobbyists and the pro-LTN councillors there is a feeling that non "side-roads" are the place you send displaced traffic and are the collateral damage for a few residents to live on closed roads. Do you think that is fair Raeburn - I don't and I think it is reflective that LTNs don't work as they were first intended - to reduce traffic and pollution for everyone - and the pro-LTN lobbyists have had to change their tune significantly to change the narrative?

What frustrates me is when you see people cycling on pavements on roads like Court Lane that have, ostensibly, been closed to traffic. The number of times I have been walking down Court Lane or only for a little cyclist to start ringing their bell to encourage me to move to one side as they and one of their parents cycle down the pavement.

And it seems to be considered by the council and pro-LTN lobbyists in the mayor's office as one of the absorption routes for the LTN displacement. The way groups of pro-LTN supporters and councillors, most who don't live anywhere near a main road, are happy to suggest roads such as the A205, Lordship Lane, Croxted and EDG etc are designed for the traffic is criminal. It was a subtle, yet very concerning and dangerous, narrative change once they release all the LTNs did was displace traffic. https://twitter.com/RM_Leeming/status/1437743945992347654?t=ZkHdu-uN2-qCHoinga2oiw&s=19 I think Cllr Leeming and then Urbane Cyclists' posts sums things up here as to the views of many on that side of the fence.....

Interesting piece on LBC on LTNs in Lambeth...sounds all too familiar ..https://twitter.com/CllrTimBriggs/status/1481970816279629824?t=3H8S0ObEfK-t_mNyGG0RIA&s=19

DKHB - who has been harassing council employees?

Let's run a competition - who has the earliest post-marked piece of mail dropping through their door in January?! Redjam - 28 November definitely takes the lead I suspect!

Yes it would be nice if we saw some definitive action from our councillors and MP - they have been window-dressing and photo-opping this for too long now and we are suffering. Back in June Helen Hayes seemed to concede defeat by suggesting, that after meetings with Royal Mail and Ofcom, only stronger regulation would fix the problem: https://www.helenhayes.org.uk/royal_mail_0621 Which makes me think the flyer is more an effort to be seen to try to do something rather than actually doing something and the last time we got a flyer it was about saving the Dulwich Village ATM and that turned into a Private Eye worthy photo op disaster for our local councillors......

Do you have it - it was a chart showing a significant increase in registered vehicles within an LTN comparing pre- and post-LTN numbers. Glad to hear I didn't imagine it!

Perhaps our councillors might want to give us an update on what is going on and when it is going to be resolved. We got more post posted this week but nothing from the masses of missing post from December. I think it is laughable that we received a leaflet from our councillors asking for our experiences: they have been trying to resolve this for 3 years, why leaflet everyone - you know what the problems are.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwich PT is not AMAZING - it is a very low PTAL > score > > PTAL is a London system, it's not used elsewhere > (or at least, not in anything like that form). In > London, it's used mainly as an aid to planning > developments. Areas with low PTAL are required to > have more parking - it sort of accepts that as P/T > isn't as good therefore more people will use > private cars which is a bit of a catch-22 in > itself since it entrenches car use. > > However the "not as good" is in comparison to high > PTAL areas. You're comparing "leafy Dulwich" with > central London! Of course in central London you're > no more than a few minutes from a Tube or bus, > you've got large terminus stations... In Dulwich, > there are far fewer roads and a lot of green space > - playing fields, the park etc where if you're in > the middle of that, of course there's zero density > of P/T! > > Whilst PTAL is a simple calculation (easily > performed by a spreadsheet) that offers an obvious > indication of the density of public transport > provision in an area, it suffers three key > problems: > > It does not take into account where services > actually go to ? for example, a bus that runs > every ten minutes to the bottom of the road is > considered better than a bus that runs every > twelve minutes to the city centre. > The use of arbitrary cut-offs to exclude more > distant service access points underestimates the > ability to access locations just outside those > cut-off distances. For example, a point 960m from > King's Cross could have a PTAL of 6, whilst a > point 961m from the same station could have a PTAL > of 1 or 2. > It does not take into account how crowded the > services are. If you stand outside Victoria > Station on a weekday rush hour (ignoring Covid for > the moment), you're in a PTAL 6 zone. Try getting > down onto the Circle or District Line platforms > though! > > I do wish the same old "PTAL scores are really > low" argument would die. It's low compared to high > density P/T in central London. You will literally > never replicate that in Dulwich, not without tens > of billions of ?? investment in trams, a Tube line > or two and some bus-only routes (the latter of > which means closing some roads to cars and/or > removing parking). > > There are more detailed models available - > accessibility modelling gives you colour-coded > maps of travel time door-to-door. You may have > seen similar on (eg) Santander Cycles docking > stations where it gives you a radius of where you > can reach in 5 mins walking / 5 mins cycling etc. > It's a more detailed version of that and also > factors in Active Travel. PTAL only really > half-acknowledges that in terms of assumed walking > time to a Service Access Point (ie a bus stop / > train station etc). Ex- I admire your continued defence of PTALs as a measure of how well connected an area is but your argument is massively undermined by the fact that that is what Southwark (and other councils) use to determine how accessible any area is by public transport. And I quote from Southwark's Dulwich Area Traffic Management Study April 2018: PTAL is a measure of accessibility used by TfL based on distance and frequency of public transport. The areas with a high level of public transport accessibility usually score 5, 6a or 6b on the PTAL scale, whilst areas with very low levels of public transport accessibility will score 0, 1a or 1b. The Dulwich area has a low level of public transport accessibility. Areas around the main stations only reach a PTAL 3 and The Village a PTAL 2 whilst the main commercial area around East Dulwich has a PTAL 3. Other parts of Dulwich, particularly those where schools are located have a level 2 of accessibility translating into a higher use of car and coach for pupils outside of Dulwich.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh - so you're ignoring the 'central' counts - eg > the ones closest to your house? > > Ok... > > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Nope it's Sept data - EDG East > > Jan 2019 - 8140 > > Sept 2021 - 11007 > > > > Gilkes Crescent - 0 Speaking of which I am still in search for some answers to the questions I posed on this mysterious "central" count, can anyone provide any answers - Cllr McAsh didn't. 1) Where is the Jan 19 data from (for what purposes was it collected and from which point was it collected as it is not the same location as the Sept 21 monitoring point)? 2) Where is the Sept 21 monitoring point? 3) What methodology was used to arrive at the Sept 21 figure? 4) Why does the EDG Central chart say: the Pre-implementation data for Jan 2019 has been adjusted to September 2019 levels to ensure compatibility and what adjustment took place and why? That suggests to me that the September 2019 figures were modelled. 5) Why was the decision taken to add the EDG Central monitoring point in Sept 21? What, or who, prompted that so late in the process? 6) When was the Sep 21 monitoring captured - was it at the beginning of the month before the private schools went back or at the end of the month during the fuel crisis? And on the Waltham Forest increase of car ownership within the LTN I am trying to find it (I believe it was something Cllr Vincent Stops tweeted based on DVLA data for registered cars within the postcodes within the LTNs and that it was linked to the gentrification of the area on the basis of the LTNs).

kissthisguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The thing about accusations about concern trolling > is that it's impossible to prove. What I'd like to > see (and I think is more materially relevant) is > declarations of vehicle ownership (number of > vehicles, size, type) by those campaigning for > LTNs. There should be declarations from > policymakers too. Waltham Forest's LTN led to a significant increase in car ownership within it's boundaries.....

DKHB - surely the concern trolling can also be applied to those from parts of the pro-LTN cycle lobby who are using this as part of their on-going war on cars who try to suggest that electric vehicles should not be considered as a potential solution to the pollution problem? I think back to the lobbying efforts of Southwark council done by the LCC and supporters around OHS where they made it very clear that electric should not be considered part of the solution.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Today London is on a high pollution alert - > what > > does this mean? > > Maybe it means on high pollution days in a climate > emergency private car movements should be > prohibited for most people. We should be > maintaining the basic minimum quality for > breathable air for our kids and triageing road > space allocation for those who really, really need > it. > > Retention or removal of one LTN won't solve > London's air quality but heartblock is right to > point to the micro problem on EDG (which existed > before LTNs). There is one microsolution that > would have a big impact on this road: stop the > parents of the private schools located on it from > driving their kids to and from the campus. DKHB - the repeated mistake many on the pro-LTN side make is to focus, almost exclusively, on the problem being the private car - it's not, it's much bigger than that. Would you suggest on days like this to prohibit the use of delivery vehicles, HGVs or PHV as well? Private car ownership and use has been declining (slowly) over the years in London and the increase in traffic is in deliveries and PHVs. As Heartblock rightly points out many people who champion LTNs are often the ones creating demand for delivery services etc that negates any positive impact of the LTNs.

Heartblock - yes today is a stark reminder how we all need to do what we can to address the issues. I was reading Ex-Dulwicher's input and the notion that we need more interventions but I suggest we might need to start looking at different interventions as it is clear that the current approach is not having the desired effect and I am not sure throwing in more of the same will do anything other than make the problems even worse. The numbers from TFLs own report are damning - that two years of intervention has done nothing to change the outlook - they got seduced by the idea that modal shift was happening in 2020 when, in fact, that was a positive, but very short-term, outcome of the pandemic that has completely evaporated when life began to return to normal.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At least we didn?t have that Philip Normal chap > who has just resigned as a Lambeth councillor. > > https://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2022/01/philip-normal- > resigns-as-lambeth-councillor-after-shocking-socia > l-media-posts-revealed/amp/. The Oval ward has an > LTN, but is now down two out of three councillors > as apparently one of the others is missing in > action. > > New cycle hangar going in on Cornflower Terrace: > > https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetai > ls.aspx?Id=7540 Did no one in the Labour Party do any due diligence on the social feeds of their candidates? Those tweets from Philip Normal are disgraceful- and it?s not just one or two. On the Tory candidates it is interesting, but not surprising, they are running on an anti-LTN agenda. One Dulwich has stated from the beginning that they were not politically motivated and I always wondered why Dulwich Alliance came to fruition and I wonder whether Clive wanted to launch a political career. It?s going to be very interesting to see what happens between now and May.