Rockets

The Jan 19 East Dulwich Grove Central data, the council website, the disappearing data, the "new data", the new conclusions..a thread... Draw your own conclusions....this council is an utter omnishambles....

This is interesting. Is anyone else surprised given all the fanfare from Mr Norman et al that this isn't as impressive as you would have expected? Breaking 2018 Boris bike hires numbers with two weeks to go doesn't suggest as many people are using them as they touted.

It's going to be very interesting to see what happens to traffic flow numbers when the council reduces the operating hours. If modal shift has taken place then there should not be a huge increase. If all the LTNs have done is displace traffic elsewhere then you would expect an increase.

Ha ha... it doesn't seem the council is even sure themselves whether they collected the data or not...on one page of the report it says they didn't, on another it says it did. You'd expect more clarity and consistency and attention to detail from the council wouldn't you....it may not be a smoking gun but the gun has definitely been loaded don't you agree? It is an amazing coincidence don't you think that the numbers that we are arguing about, and the numbers that the council isn't sure whether they collected or not, are the ones showing the biggest increase in numbers that allows you to claim what a rip roaring success the LTNs are on your street? Funny that....

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For those unable to find the table that shows no > ACTUAL measurement in Sept 2019 on ED Grove > Central - which is the only 'count' used as a > baseline to show the magical decrease of 20% - so > the figure is just made up. So not scrabbling > around at all, no need as table is published. > If you want to believe a made-up number then fine, > personally I would much rather Southwark measures > pollution on ED Grove - which it either hasn't so > far, or it has and is not publishing. > Where is the air quality data? That is the > question all those who support road closures > should be asking - rather than gaslighting their > neighbours - maybe start supporting us on boundary > roads who have to put up with extra traffic and > pollution - why do you care so little about us? Heartblock - and there it is - the smoking gun. Despite the claims from Goldilocks to the contrary it is clear no data was ever collected for Sep 19 by the council. They took the Jan 19 numbers and magically added 3,000 or so journeys to arrive at the Sept 19 figure. They then suddenly decided to begin monitoring at the ED Central location and got figures that showed an increase on the Jan 19 figures - one wonders if this was the trigger for the ghost Sep 19 figures after the MG residents complained they didn't want the changes to the road layout Southwark suggested. The only way Southwark could justify no change would be that they could demonstrate that the MG closures were working as is and, magically, those numbers appeared......call me a cynic but I smell a rat! ;-) They are taking everyone for a ride.....and when people on here suggest we should not be analysing the data for holes I laugh to myself quite heartily at the idea that we should all just go about our business and turn a blind eye to corruption and manipulation of the democratic process. Imagine if everyone just turned a blind eye - (on a different scale obviously but...) they'd be no Watergate, No Cash for Questions, No Tory party parties - hell we would all probably think that Chernobyl was an unexplained freakish act of nature! Our council and councillors are supposed to be accountable to their constituents and at the moment Southwark and our local councillors are treating us with utter contempt and lying to us and refusing to engage with us because they are terrified of what we have uncovered as they know their process and output in relation to LTNs is as flawed at the LTNs themselves. They got away with it for years over things like the CPZs but now they have a problem on their hands as everyone is aware of the issues around the LTNs and it appears far more people in the area hate them than like them and we are months away from a council vote where a few hundred votes against them ends their political careers - particularly problematic for any of them that harbour desires to progress within the Labour party.

Goldilocks - absolutely it is too many. As a resident of that road do you believe it was nearly 4,000 cars a day - that seems an awfully high number? Are we to believe that Melbourne Grove had one third of the traffic Lordship Lane central is currently experiencing or half of the traffic going through the DV junction? It was busy and a cut-through but not that busy w. I have always said that I thought that Melbourne Grove was a justified closure because it was a cut-through but what I was hoping for was that those benefitting most from it might show a bit of community spirit for those living with the displacement - there seems to be way too much "I am alright Jack so it's all great" grandstanding going on at the moment.

Jenijenjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I repeat, they are not moving in an upward > trajectory. Let readers of the forum decide for > themselves > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/77415/B > us-Journey-Times_Dulwich-Streetspace_Sept-2021.pdf > > > BTW your snideness and mythologising is not doing > you any favours. They are moving in an upward trajectory - how do you explain the lift at the far right of the tables for most of the bus times......?

I would love to know how the council have arrived at their Sept 19 total. I wonder if the massive jump from Jan 19 to Sept 19 was by adding the supposed 3000 cars a day going along Melbourne Grove. I must admit 3,000 seems awfully high - that nearly half the numbers they were claiming were going through the DV junction everyday. But I love how some are championing that one section's EDG Central supposed "reduction" as a victory for the scheme. Wasn't it Cllr McAsh who said that if there wasn't a reduction on all roads then the scheme could not be considered a success - all we have to do is look at the EG South and East sections to determine whether his bar has been met....which it hasn.'t.

Jenijenjen - welcome to the course. You are our first patient....take a seat....;-) Take a look at all of the journey times from July of this year when lockdown lifted - pretty much all of them, bar Dulwich Village and Red Post Hill, are moving in an upward (slower) trend are they not? Many are now rising above the baseline average journey time and some peaking above the upper threshold of the average journey time. The trajectory suggests they would keep rising - but I very much suspect this latest work from home initiative will see them peaking and maybe dropping again but that is only because of the WFH directive.

AndrewC - are you actually looking at the data or just taking the councils propaganda and repeating it verbatim? Look at the charts for most bus journey times, what's happening to tbe charts towards the right hand side? Most are on an upward trend aren't they? What does that mean? It means that since lifting of lockdown bus journey times are getting slower....why might that be? Honestly, it's like dealing with brainwashed cult members....I might start a pro-LTN supporter intervention course to try and pull some of you back from the abyss....;-)

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sure, how easy to come up with pro LTN stats while > sitting in a comfy chair in a quiet house on a > recently closed road. > > Entirely different perspective when living on a > boundery road where all your traffic is now > redirected. > > Just because you don't see something anymore it > doesn't mean it stopped existing. Exactly this. No coincidence that so many who are so vocal in their support live on the closed roads. Goes some way to explain why so many object to what the council have done because they live with the fallout whilst tbe residents of roads like Melbourne live the "success" and come on here to herald the scheme as being great because their lives are made better on their tiny patch. Meanwhile they turn a blind eye to what is happening, quite literally, around the corner of their own street because of the measures that make their street "great". Modern socialism is really quite disappointing.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've been through this several times above, but > its a site that had previous counts already. In > addition to the council ones that they used, there > were also DFT manual counts at that site so the > numbers can also be corroborated for > reasonableness. > > The site is 'new' for September and October > because it wasn't included in the previous > monitoring for the Streetspace programme of > monitoring. Not necessarily that it had never > been a monitoring site before now. > > The monitoring shows a 20% year on year fall in > all traffic on the central section of East Dulwich > Grove which is great news for people attending the > Health Centre, children walking to the charter > school ED and those using the new MUGA. > > Obviously though, as you have so clearly > documented, even a 20% fall as compared to pre > pandemic figures isn't enough and so more is > needed on East Dulwich Grove to deter driving. > I'd like to see parking removed, more space for > cycling and an extension to the CPZ hours to cover > 8-6 rather than 8:30-6:30 with enforcement of the > zone to stop school drop offs. I think that these > things would help. > > > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ... central 'This is a new site for data > > collection, having started in September 2021' - > so > > where is that pre-LTN data from...hmmmmmmm? Why wasnt it monitored before Sept 21? Surely if the council had monitoring done there previously it would make sense to monitor during the LTN phase? This is why people are so sceptical, nothing the council is doing makes any sense. Like adding one set of October numbers in a report focussed on Sept. Do they know what they are doing?

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Out of interest Goldilocks how is it that you have > the October data? Are > you involved with the council, is the council > making it available to a select group, or is it > publicly available and you could send us all a > link? > > I say that as I?ve been keen all along for the > council to make raw data available to all at the > same time and without curation. I?m as much > concerned about process as outcome as process > issues apply to a much wider range of things. Maybe there is some truth to the rumours that selective briefings from the council have been given to pro-LTN groups.

I am still not buying it I afraid - way too many holes in the council's data and way too many if, buts, maybes and asterisks on how they compared different data sets recorded on different dates in different years. Look at the Turney Road debacle or the detailed analysis of cycling figures put out by the council. It remains a "decrease" for many of us until the council provides some clarity, some more details on methodology and timings of monitoring etc - which, of course, they have promised but failed to deliver. I presume they are briefing you, and the other residents on Melbourne Grove on this, seeing as you have something of the inside scoop ;-)! The point remains - you are celebrating one section of one road that you happen to live on/near that has experienced a "decrease". Shame for those sections either side of yours hey....

So what you, and the council are saying then, is that 3,000 cars a day were going down Melbourne Grove/Derwent and now aren't and that is why there is a "decrease" on EDG Central?

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets - very few cars cutting down MG to go to > eg Grove Vale would have historically gone on EDG > at all. > > The central section of EDG was understated by > assuming that the count data from near to Lordship > applied to the whole section. That counter would > not include any cars driving south along the now > filtered roads and turning right to go west on > EDG. > > The EDG monitoring site outside the health centre > was a location that was monitored at various > points pre the Dulwich "healthy streets" > initiative. It has also been a location for DFT > manual counts too so can corroborate the > reasonableness of the data via that publicly > available set. So why then does it say that the EDG Central site is a new monitoring site for Sep 21 - your position is somewhat undermined by the council's own document....which says: This is a new site for data collection, having started in September 2021? Also the point that Jenijenjen made is baseless as well because if there had been a monitoring point there those cars turning down Melbourne Grove from EDG would have been counted already before turning. No matter where you suggest the traffic is coming from the "reduction" in the EDG Central section does not look at all accurate given the increase in the two sections of road book-ending it. Or are you trying to claim over 3,000 cars a day were going down Melbourne Grove?

I am not sure it does as how do you then account for the 500 or so vehicles that are disappearing along the section from LL to the Central monitoring point every day - there is no longer anywhere for them to go so why are those numbers so different in the Sep 21 numbers? Also it does state in the report that the EDG Central monitoring site was new for Sep 21 so how did they get the data from Jan 19 and Sep 19 to deliver the "reduction". Also the below doesn't stack up because of the position of the Central monitoring point because the cars turning onto Melbourne Grove from EDG heading east would have already passed the threshold. Before LTNs > 100 cars travel east from Townley Road > 20 of these cars turn into Melbourne Grove > 80 cars travel along eastern end EDG to LL > > After LTNs > 100 cars travel east from Townley Road > None of these cars can turn into Melbourne Grove > so 100 cars travel on eastern section of EDG

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just in case anyone is reading this at face value > - this is an incorrect summary . It is nothing to > do with adjusted monitoring data. > > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > And for all the people in the room the claimed > > reduction in that section is only because the > > council "adjusted" their Jan 19 monitoring data > to > > create a number for Sept 19 - they magically > > increased the number of car journeys from > 12,408 > > in Jan 19 to 15,316 on Sep 19. Without that > magic > > formula applied that section still shows an > > increase comparing actual data (albeit from Jan > > instead of September). > > > > Does anyone know what Cllr Rose's secret sauce > is > > for the calculations? > > > > The fact the council claim a 28% increase on > the > > EDG East section, a -17% decrease on the > Central > > section and a 17% increase in the South section > > should be ringing alarm bells - those > monitoring > > sites are within a few hundred yards of each > other > > and the fact they "adjusted" the central one > > probably provides people with the answer they > > need. > > > > Unless, does someone have an explanation for > the > > discrepancy rather than just doing the "well > > people of EDG Central section our 100 yard > section > > of road was a success at least"! But why then is the East Dulwich Grove Central section the only to include both a Jan 19 and Sept 19 set of numbers? And why then does it say: *Pre-implementation data for January 2019 has been adjusted to September 2019 levels to ensure comparability" Whilst all of the other slides says: *Pre-implementation data has been adjusted to September 2019 levels to ensure comparability

And for all the people in the room the claimed reduction in that section is only because the council "adjusted" their Jan 19 monitoring data to create a number for Sept 19 - they magically increased the number of car journeys from 12,408 in Jan 19 to 15,316 on Sep 19. Without that magic formula applied that section still shows an increase comparing actual data (albeit from Jan instead of September). Does anyone know what Cllr Rose's secret sauce is for the calculations? The fact the council claim a 28% increase on the EDG East section, a -17% decrease on the Central section and a 17% increase in the South section should be ringing alarm bells - those monitoring sites are within a few hundred yards of each other and the fact they "adjusted" the central one probably provides people with the answer they need. Unless, does someone have an explanation for the discrepancy rather than just doing the "well people of EDG Central section our 100 yard section of road was a success at least"!

Pravda, sorry the Steetspace December update, dropped through our door today as well.....cleverly disguised as a piece of junk mail I opened it to read with interest that we were too late to make comments. Luckily I had heeded One Dulwich's warnings of these council underhand tactics and registered my objections - one wonders how many didn't and were denied their chance to have their say by council manipulation/incompetence.... Rest assured people of Dulwich this has nothing to do with Helen Hayes celebrating the fact that there were fewer objections submitted ahead of the last deadline....as she is using this as a bar for success on the LTNs she will no doubt be overjoyed that the council have skewed the process once again this time round! Unfortunately for many councillors May is not a long way away and people have long memories and their ability to meddle in the democratic processes may be coming to an end at the council elections. Let's hope we get some opposition in place to ensure the incumbents at Tooley Street can't ignore their constituents any longer as time and time again the council are abusing their (almost) one-party state and corrupting the system for their own ends.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Because large scale building works won't result in > an increase of HGVs? But look at the data Goldilocks - the only roads that registered a reduction in HGV traffic were Turney Road East (but not West), Court Lane, Calton, Melbourne Grove north and south. Now you would expect Court Lane and Calton to increase given the works at Gilkes Place and on Court Lane but they registered decreases which suggest the new building works are not impacting the figures yet and I can assure you there is a massive increase in HGV journeys around on those roads at the moment. There is something odd going on and I think the HGV numbers are a better measure of what is actually happening. Surely someone like Ex- can confirm whether HGVs are a better bar on monitoring strips in congested/crawling traffic? The increases in HGVs are areawide and not limited to those areas with the major building works. And remember TFL has been saying that there has been a pronounced decrease in HGV journeys (central London cordon -35%, inner London cordon -10%, outer London -3%) over the last few years.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Traffic doesn't disappear from ED Grove > > halfway..that if it is 25% up on one section it > > doesn't just disappear in the middle section - > it > > might slow down and idle. This is why the count > is > > so dubious. Explain - where do those extra 1000 > > cars go? > I > Maybe the 1000 mysteriously vanishing cars all > turn North up Melbourne Rd ? > Oh?.. Didn't they evaporate? This is my point on traffic speed - as someone on here far more knowledgeable than me explained - slow moving traffic may not register on the monitoring strips so that could explain where the 1,000 cars have gone - they are crawling along at the end of the road and so aren't triggering the strips. This may explain why HGVs are showing such an increase across the area as I suspect they will trigger strips however fast they are moving due to their weight. Can anyone confirm if that is the case?

Malumbu - the guy got a load of points on his licence and we got a promise from the police who dealt with the incident that they would stalk him to get him on something that took him over his points limit so he would lose his licence. The guy was living with his parents and when the police turned up at his house his mum was claiming that he wouldn't do something like that the policeman took her outside to show her the car with a missing rear windscreen and three big dents in it and her mood changed so I suspect the points were the least of his worries! But it was ludicrous that someone could deliberately drive into three people and not even get a ban - but that's the legal system for you.

A couple of points to note from the latest "data" . Firstly, have they adjusted the base figures on the basis of the error on Turney that was uncovered? Am I right in thinking that they are still claiming a 10% reduction in the overall traffic in the June number - which is the pre-Turney error number is it not - have they not run the numbers to adjust for the significant Turney Road error? Secondly, having had a quick flick through the 118 page document it seems clear that traffic has increased on all of the roads bar those that are closed - which is common sense. I wonder what happens to the overall traffic numbers when you remove the closed roads from the dataset - what this is clearly saying is that LTNs only achieve one thing - displacement? What the figures don't show is traffic speed as that is the measure of congestion and the council will have that data. The best we can do is look at the bus journey times - the council is claiming positive progression as things aren't as bad in terms of bus journey times as they were in June but look at upward trend in longer bus journey times on pretty much all routes since the restrictions lifted earlier this year - bus journey times are getting longer again which suggest more congestion. That is a worrying trend and undermines the council's "Pravda-esque" dressing up of the figures. Nice to see that Underhill data is included now which shows that traffic has increased along that displacement route but the overall challenge with the document is there is zero consistency in the dataset - in some they go back as far as 2017 as the base, others 2019 - interesting that the biggest displacement routes like Croxted and Underhill are some that use the oldest datasets as the base. Also, HGV numbers seem to be up across the whole area - what is driving this? Overall, the document does little to address the concerns of many that the LTNs are not delivering as advertised. of course, the pro-LTN lobby will wave this around as proof they are working but again, once you start scratching beneath the surface all is not well but the council is trying to dress this up as some sort of victory when it is anything but. You have to commend the council on their efforts to manipulate the narrative on this - it's a fantastic example of how to try to hoodwink the electorate!

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The latest data shows a further fall in traffic. > Across all count sites traffic has decreased by > 12% compared to before the scheme. > > Of course, it will make no difference to those > opposed, but encouraging for anyone interested in > the reality of what?s happening. Where is this data coming from - who is claiming a 12% reduction?