Rockets

Yes Legal - the stats being presented by the council are just the headline summaries and Cllr Williams has promised to release the supporting data so people can properly understand what has been measured, where and when and compared against (depsite Cllr Williams' assurances some months ago that it would be shared it has yet to materialise). People, understandably, want to look at the data - especially in light of some of the "oversights" that have been uncovered (like the Turney Road mistake). Let's hope this all gets shared with the September analysis rather than just the redacted/incomplete/summary headlines versions that have been shared previously.

Yes the actual numbers make for scary reading because they are comparing vehicle movements during Nov2020 and April 2021 (so not even like to like in terms of weather): Their analysis shows (and this is based on totals for all streets): In the North Peckham trial they claim there has been a -4% decrease on weekdays and 17% increase on weekends in traffic on the closed streets and boundary roads In the East Faraday trial they claim there has been a 3% increase on weekdays and a 31% increase on weekends in traffic on the closed streets and boundary roads In the Brunswick Park they claim a 2% increase on weekdays and a 13% increase on weekends in traffic on the closed streets and boundary roads It makes Southwark's claims of a 16% reduction in traffic across the whole Dulwich area even more fanciful in light of these numbers. I will be interested to see what the Guy's Trust says as they were very clear from the outset that they would only support if there were tangible benefits. Of course, there have been increases in cycling but at what cost?

I wonder whether the council will be updating the reports Cllr McAsh linked to now the Turney Road "mistake" has been identified and whether that will be included in the September data that is released? Cllr McAsh - BTW I think the leaf clearing may have been done by a change of wind direction as when I walked down there today it now seems to be massing further towards Colwell Road.

Oh no....is this from one of the hire companies who are licensed to offer the service? I really think e-scooters will be a short-lived experiment that was doomed to fail from the start.

Interesting that the report calls out the potential displacement (and then goes on to stress it does not impact one group more than others). Is it a case, I wonder, whether the council is getting their defence in early by suggesting the displacement doesn't impact one particular group or another and that the displacement is shared by all (who live on boundary roads)! What is very clear is that this report highlights what we are seeing in Dulwich yet the council's data fails to highlight that there are significant increases of traffic on boundary roads. I also love the way they refer to the traffic increases as slight......the devil is in the detail and all that. Here are some choice cuts: On weekdays, the largest decrease in traffic was on Dalwood Street (-83%) and the largest increase was on Southampton Way (+26%). At the weekend, St Giles Road also experienced an increase in traffic (+65%), whereas Dalwood Street had the biggest decrease (-79%) Please see below Fig 1. On weekdays, Fenham Road (-79%) had been recorded a highest decrease in traffic volumes in weekday, followed by Marmont Road (south of Goldsmith) (-74%) whereas Naylor Road (+109%) and Commercial Way (+54%) saw an increase in traffic volumes in weekday In term of traffic volumes, East Faraday had the highest traffic volume increase (31%) at the weekend, followed by North Peckham (17%) and Brunswick Park (13%). If those types of increases are being felt in the areas with higher PTAL scores than Dulwich it doesn't take a genius to work out that maybe the council's manipulation of/errors with/oversight in counting the figures in Dulwich may actually be much much farther away from the truth. It's becoming clearer and clearer everyday that LTNs cause significant displacement and increases in pollution associated with it.

That's very interesting because that scheme is in an area with high PTAL scores - just the type of area Southwark recommended for LTNs. Is this the one where the Guys Trust insisted on thorough and transparent monitoring and analysis?

My offer would be DTNs - Displaced Traffic Neighbourhoods.....

The fact the ULEZ will deliver ?600m less is actually great news because it means that TFLs modelling on tbe number of higher polluting vehicles coming into London was wrong. It's bad news of course for TFL as that was a revenue plug they desperately need. It is also amazing that just one month after spending hundred of millions rolling out the ULEZ scheme TFL is basically admitting it probably wasn't needed or the threat of it alone has delivered the desired effect. I wonder if, again, TFL has modelled something that just wasn't actually happening in reality and got things very wrong. I don't know about anyone else but it seems a bit rich to use one of your own schemes that you are solely responsible for as an example of why you can't make the books add up and one of the reasons why you need more money from central government. Isn't this the point the Tories are trying to make about mismanagement at TFL?

Did they? Or was that another modelling/mathematical "mistake"?

Malumbu - you do realize don't you that you could always find quiet routes before LTNs? My route to Hammersmith used to take me along lots of quiet backstreets (in fact the busiest point was the Battersea Park roundabout) and the council didn't have to close roads, and the associated negative impacts, to allow me to do that. There even used to be a great website that would plot routes that used backstreets to get around London.

Northern - check out their note. ED NAGAIUTB posted it earlier today on this thread. It clearly says that the landlord, residents and council have all contributed to their demise and they call out the road closures as one of the factors. One wonders what will go in it?s place - another artisan coffee shop or two I wonder? It increasingly looks like the road closures are starting to take their toll. Remind me again, beyond a few children cycling to school, what are the actual benefits of these LTNs because with every passing day it seems there fewer and fewer?

Indeed but don't expect any noise from our council or councillors to tell Sadiq not to make the cuts to TFL - they will be forced to toe the party line and will stay silent even though it would impact their constituents. Of course, if the mayor was not Labour you would not be hearing the end of this. Gotta love party-politics hey! ;-)

Cllr McAsh - there has been some clearing of leaves on the affected part of Lordship Lane so thank you for escalating. It looks like some clearing has been done as it is not as bad as it was before (it may also be that more leaves have fallen since any clearing was done) - it is certainly much better than it was.

And one of the findings from the Dulwich LTN review was that bus services are being impacted on some routes - it's all a very vicious circle.

Unfortunately I suspect the TFL cutting services is another move in the political football games between the Tories and Sadiq over TFL funding - and, as usual, it is the people of London who end up suffering.

Given the better grasp of calculator use by the opposition groups it probably explains why Southwark refuses to release the raw data (despite promises from Cllr Williams that they would do so). I wonder if he has looked at the numbers and realised that the council's review conclusions were a work of fiction. He is obviously concerned the raw data does not stand up to scrutiny. Southwark appear to be trying to bury the data from which they drew their conclusions. If Turney Road is indicative of the council's data analysis skills you can understand why. I do wonder whether the raw data shows an overall increase in traffic throughout the area.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > oimissus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > malumbu - I've seen you frequently ask people for > solutions, and yet every time they do just that, > you criticize them. > > You actually seem to want everyone to stop > criticizing the council and then just shut up. > Which sounds pretty much like what the council > want residents to do as well. > > ----------------------------- > > You've missed my points. Firstly that the default > position of many is to blame everything on > Southwark. > > Secondly that even with the best will in the world > they do not have the powers to compel either the > schools or parents to reduce the school run. > > If anything you should be feeling sorry for local > authorities who have been given the job by central > government to sort out air quality without the > funding or powers. A cop out, the point I have > made during various central government > consultations. Most of government effors is going > on big ticket interventions - Clean Air Zones and > the like working with the big metropolitan areas > where, for example, you have greater control over > public transport, such as Manchester, Birmingham, > and to a lesser extent GLA/TfL (they don't like > Mayor Khan). But little at the borough level. > > I was always disappointed in the lack of publicity > at borough level. But even where this was good, > such as Croydon, still had little impact. > https://lovecleanair.org/what-can-i-do/projects/cl > ean-air-4-croydon-schools/#.YZVJth3Leos > > I've also raised a couple of times where > Southwark's interventions a few years ago led to > more traffic passing a Lewisham primary. But not > one of you, not one of you, showed any empathy. > Which suggests a narrow perspective. > > I could go on about what I have done personally > and collectively to support sustainable travel to > school, but this is not my moral high ground > thread. And I reached out in the past as in the > late noughties I got very obsessed over a planning > matter and a local authority, which took over my > life, so have been in a similar space. Why do they need powers? Surely a dialogue with schools and some brainstorming of ideas would not go a miss? Ideas like the gamification of the school journey would be easy to do, easy to implement and far more effective than the short-sighted self-interest lobby group influenced ideas that are the LTNs. Southwark and our councillors are collectively responsible for the LTNs so they deserve the blame if they fail to deliver. I find one of the most frustrating things is that Southwark will never admit they got something wrong - it's one of the less pleasant traits of the left which is also adopted by our government. I don't think anyone feels sorry for local authorities - especially not after the way our local authority has acted around LTNs - I feel sorry for their constituents who are having to live with the negative impacts of their nonsense ideas. And Malumbu - you are the great question asker and pointer of fingers but very rarely do you ever respond to any questions put to you. Maybe this is why many don't engage in dialogue with you because it's all a little bit one-sided.

If that Turney Road error is as bad as it looks then does anyone have any faith in the council's claim that there has been an area-wide reduction in traffic? When those corrected figures are added into the report it must now be getting close to no reduction in area-wide traffic. On the basis of the multitude of oversights, errors, the lack of raw data being shared by the council then this must be called-in for further scrutiny - it's an utter shambles and it appears they are just trying to bury the actual facts to save face and avoid having to admit the LTN policy has been a disaster.

I hope you make a speedy recovery.

Malumbu - I am being critical of Southwark because they need to be called out for their inaction. Thus far, the council seems to think dealing with the climate emergency means listening to Southwark Cyclists and putting in a load of LTN roadblocks. It has to do more and we should all be challenging them to do so. Things like this would be easy to implemented and a good way to spend the public purse - why should the council not be leading the initiative on things like this? It seems to me that this would be a low cost initiative that has an immediate positive impact. To me it seems like they loaded all of their eggs into the LTN basket and sat back doing nothing else for the last 18 months - a case of poor window-dressing in my eyes.

Cllr McAsh - it is particularly bad just along the road from Mrs Robinson before you get to Melbourne Grove - that is your ward isn't it? I was merely bringing it to your attention as it has been getting progressively worse over the last few weeks and if it rains at any point it will become a significant slip hazard - in places the leaf collection is shin deep. Thanks Nigello for flagging where this type of thing can be reported. According to the leafing schedule it looks like parts of Lordship Lane have already been done, others are due to be done this week or the week of Nov 29th. I have reported it in the hope it can be expedited although I have to say reporting things like missed bin collections seems to disappear into a black hole and nothing done about it. And Cllr McAsh I can attest that Cllr Browning is very responsive but I am now living in the Village Ward and the councillors here are, ahem, less responsive....;-)

Cllr Mcash - is it the council's responsibility for sweeping the pavements? The depth of leaves at the end of Lordship Lane as you head towards Townley Road is getting ludicrous - if it rains the leave mulch will be ankle deep and a significant slip hazard. Is there anything you can do?

Imagine is you incentivised the school run for kids by encouraging them to walk or cycle - I reckon you would see a 75% decrease in car journeys to school. Probably really cheap to rollout and maintain and something everyone could get behind. I just wish our council would show some lateral thinking about how to address the challenges Dulwich faces.

There are some tremendous examples of proper nudge initiatives at work (like the one HP linked to)..... I really like this one...so simple yet so clever.

It's a complex issue and one that is becoming more complex after the council's policy to sell off a lot of council sites to private property developers over the last 10 years or so (much of it because the running costs had become too high as buildings aged and fell into disrepair). Much of the re-development of Elephant and Castle has come at the cost of council homes so the council has to find new places to build homes to replace those lost.