Rockets

Ha ha...it's a question....sometimes answering simple questions seems to be the hardest thing for the pro-lobby! ;-)

Northern - do you agree then that it was wrong of the council to release interim data, extend the deadline for the review and then go knocking door to door with said interim data to try influence people's input?

And is there anyone on the pro-LTN side who thinks traffic is down 22% on Lordship Lane as the council claims? If so, why is it that the councils same data shows bus journey times increasing....it makes no sense at all....

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On the April point they did seem to indicate that > there would be more data for May and June coming > soon so that will be helpful to understand what is > a trend vs anomaly. > > I'd also agree that more granularity of data would > be helpful - I'd like to see the directional > traffic counts rather than in total and would > agree that weekday vs weekend would also be > helpful. > > The questions were supposed to be split by area > though - East Dulwich, then the village and then > champion hill so the fact that Tom of Denmark Hill > spoke at the end was because he was one of the > questionners from that area. The assumption that > only negative views can be genuine does reflect > your views rather than people being an obvious > plant. I think we also need to see the data from all the strips that were placed in other parts of certain roads before the review data period. What happened to all the info gathered in Oct/Nov 2020?

rjsmall Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does the report include which roads are defined as > External Roads and which are Internal Roads and > whether the "specific" roads were defined before > the data was gathered or afterwards > > It is a shame that they didn't have any counters > for Lordship Lane near the Grove Tavern and also > the South Circular along Dulwich Common as they > are roads that would be expected to pick up > displaced traffic. > > Is there a link for the full report? RJsmall - there was a counter on Lordship Lane near the Grove Tavern and the council say it recorded a 22% decrease in traffic.....no I don't believe it either. The counter is near Melford Road so would be in the stationery traffic zone and there is some debate that the strips can't monitor traffic that is crawling and council's know this and out strips close to congestion when they want to record low numbers. There was originally a set of strips near the Court Lane but they were moved ahead of the review to closer to Grove Tavern.....read into that what you will. Interestingly there is also a set of strips close to Townley on Lordship Lane and no data from that one has been shared.

Rahx3 do you really believe that traffic on Lordship Lane has decreased by 22%?

LTN BooHoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > They are out again today...there is a group > > congregating outside Saucy with Charlie now. > It's > > almost as if they are concerned about > > something..... > > Global warming? Our climate emergency? Inactivity? > Obesity? Pollution? Our children?s future? The > fact that we have built our lives around the motor > vehicle and if we have any decency we will > acknowledge that we must seek alternatives? > > I know, none of the above. Let?s just carry on as > we were. Have a nice day. I am pretty sure that is not their concern....these are politicians trying to manipulate the result of the review. It's so brazen it just shows how out of control they are.

They are out again today...there is a group congregating outside Saucy with Charlie now. It's almost as if they are concerned about something.....

I think it's pretty clear the councillors must be pretty concerned that the review is going against them. It's a bit naughty to extend the consultation and then mobilise a door-to-door campaign trying to get people to respond....not sure that is entirely playing by the rules. Looks like a desperate attempt to get people to try and turn things their way. One wonders what they have seen from the analysis of the review thus far...it must be going against them. This lot are so dodgy.

Something isn't adding up on these numbers when you look at the detail. So Lordship Lane has seen a supposed 22% decrease in traffic yet bus journey times along Lordship Lane are now longer than they were. The devil is in the detail and all that...

The LTN survey being done on streets like Woodwarde was being conducted by lifelong Labour supporters who said they were going to take the input to Margy to get her to realise she would likely lose her seat in May based on the LTNs, such is the feeling of anger towards the council amongst many residents in the very area where Margy would be expecting support.

Does anyone know if the council has applied the 12% they estimate traffic has been down over lockdown to these numbers?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Rockets - I stopped discussing Rachel Aldred?s > credentials with you, when you refused to even > accept a simple fact about how many papers she?s > published. All the research on active travel and > traffic reduction measures points to the same > sorts of solutions. Yet you dismiss it all as > biased. TFL?s data has been manipulated. Southwark > are suspect. It does feel like an irretrievable > case of confirmation bias and a bit of a waste of > time debating. > > To answer your question - yes, I can believe that > traffic across the area is generally down and that > cycling is up. I know a lot of people who are > walking or cycling to local clubs / kids > activities etc, when before they would have > driven. A lot more families are walking to school. > I include myself in this. My behaviour has changed > as a result of the LTN schemes. It?s not in anyway > surprising to me - It?s what?s happened everywhere > restrictions on car use have been put in place. > > That doesn?t mean that traffic won?t have > increased on some streets however. As I have said > many times, that needs to be identified through > monitoring (not anecdote), and mitigated. But the > idea that allowing cars to cut through side roads > will ensure ?clean air for all?, is obviously > ridiculous. It will only ensure more cars, less > active travel and dirty air everywhere. You weren't actually arguing with me over the number of papers she had published, that was someone else! If you refuse to answer whether you think she has a conflict of interest maybe you can answer the other question I just posed. Do you think traffic is down 22% on Lordship Lane. BTW the monitoring strips on Lordship Lane were first put in on the library side of LL at the Court Lane junction late last year yet have been moved to the junction of Melford Road for the review data that has just been published. I am now convinced they did this because traffic is queuing at Melford daily. Interestingly the strips on Eynella are flush to the traffic lights.

Legal it is. And council's know this and move monitoring strips closer to the source of congestion to alter traffic counts. So given the Lordship Lane counter is close to Grove Tavern this would tally. There is no way that Lordship Lane has seen a 22% drop in traffic and anyone who spends any time on it can see it with their own eyes. I have touted that 22% reduction to friends of mine who are very pro-LTNs and even they think the council is having a laugh with that number in particular. The council also seems to be very selective on the comparison month. Monitoring was put in on Lordship Lane at the end of 2020 so why focus on April only? I suspect an FOI might be needed to unearth the raw data. Also, what is the difference between an active travel monitor and traffic count data being cited for cycling - wild fluctuations between the two. Also under Carlton cycles is refers to 5+98 - did someone leave part of the secret algorithm used in situ on the page....;-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I see "interim" the monitoring data has been > > published by the council.....should make some > > interesting weekend reading. > > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/i > > > > mproving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review > > > > I think even the most ardent supporter of the > LTNs > > might even be tempted to question the council's > > numbers......Lordship Lane traffic down 22% and > > Croxted Road traffic down 14% > > apparently........... > > > > And apparently traffic on internal roads around > > the whole of East Dulwich is down 79%.... > > > > Cycling is up (not surprisingly) but the claim > of > > an increase of 1,160 cycles per day along > > Calton/Dulwich Village probably needs closer > > scrutiny as it seems very high. > > > > What is the council smoking.......? > > Do you question the fact that cycling is up and > traffic is down, or just the degree to which this > is true? > > You appear to have now accepted that removing cars > from some areas does encourage cycling > (?unsurprisingly?). Progress of sorts Rahx3 - yes I am questioning the numbers. Let me ask you this do you really that think traffic on Lordship Lane is down 22? I know you won't give a straight answer (I am still awaiting a response to my question on Rachel Aldred and the clear conflict of interest) but no-one could really assert that traffic is down significantly on Lordship Lane or that 1,100 more cycle journeys are happening on Calton every day - wasn't the cycle count by Goodman about 300 and those numbers were counting back and forth journeys as children were taken to and from school? That's some increase from those figures. It appears there is something odd going on here (not surprisingly). Ex- perhaps you can take a look. BTW Ex- what impact does stationery traffic have on monitoring strips? I did hear that councils move them to places where there is queueing traffic so they are not triggered if they want lower numbers.

I see "interim" the monitoring data has been published by the council.....should make some interesting weekend reading. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review I think even the most ardent supporter of the LTNs might even be tempted to question the council's numbers......Lordship Lane traffic down 22% and Croxted Road traffic down 14% apparently........... And apparently traffic on internal roads around the whole of East Dulwich is down 79%.... Cycling is up (not surprisingly) but the claim of an increase of 1,160 cycles per day along Calton/Dulwich Village probably needs closer scrutiny as it seems very high. What is the council smoking.......?

That is awful - I hope they are all ok and these idiots are identified.

Chick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There have been prosecutions for being drunk on an > escooter resulting a driving ban. The German police had rich pickings in Munich around Oktoberfest in 2019 - hundreds lost their licences as few realised that being drunk on an e-scooter resulted in a driving ban. Perhaps this is also a great way to help reduce car usage! ;-)

It seems that all the trials are plagued by some of the same recurring issues (accidents involving injuries, scooter dumping and littering and bad/irresponsible riding - although it seems only the Germans cite drunk-riding as an issue!) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50189279 https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20210630-france-to-crack-down-on-e-scooters-after-two-riders-knock-down-and-kill-woman

I am not sure it is even a case of getting used to it - they are inherently unstable due to the standing position and London roads are anything but smooth and I think the combination of the two is very dangerous. The issue with private e-scooters is that you cannot regulate their speed and some of them (we will all have seen them often going faster than cars) go ludicrously fast. Some companies even offer to retrofit e-scooters to make them go faster. In Germany they have had real problems with e-scooter accidents and a lot of Germans lost their driving licences after being caught being drunk in charge of an e-scooter (which appears to be a big problem in a lot of areas that have rolled them out)! In Germany there has been a lobby calling for e-scooter training to be made compulsory for anyone who wants to rent one and that wearing a helmet when riding one should be a legal requirement. It's clear they offer a very attractive solution to transportation problems but it's not as if they don't present a huge number of new issues.

I know the other thread has been locked but interesting that the East Dulwich Grove Residents Association did their own research, via a 3rd party, to poll residents on their views on the closures. I am also aware something similar has been done on roads like Beauval, Woodwarde, Dovercourt and, again, the results are overwhelming against the closures. The fact residents are having to do this suggests that there is zero confidence that the council are going to be fair and transparent with their review.

But ex- wouldn't it be nice if the council put as much effort into trying to change the mush larger sources of emissions and pollution beyond cars - they seem to be focussing an unprecented level of energy and attention on the private car and private car owner when much bigger issues remain - 79% of the problem comes from buildings. We had another leaflet drop through the door today (it's almost daily the local printers must be loving this). This time from the coalition4dulwich lobbying to keep the changes and build on them. I did laugh as the leaflet says that Dulwich was chosen for these measures for a number of reasons and lists them but the authors probably don't realise that many of the reasons they have cited are the reasons previously cited by Southwark as reasons NOT to have LTNs....;-) #doyourresearch.......

They also missed their cycle hangar target significantly - only installing 55 of the targeted 100 for the year. It's incredible that they suggest they have met targets on the basis of anecdotal evidence like social media - not sure that stands up to scientific scrutiny. It seems, per the thread with Cllr McAsh on the monitoring data, that this council is really struggling to get the one thing they promised and the one thing we all need....actual data. Now I wonder yhy that might be? Also very interesting to read that Cllr McAsh says an independent analyst will be reviewing the monitoring data - I wonder who that analyst is.

Cllr McAsh - why has the data not been made available - the council has the data? Data was promised as part of the review yet none has been forthcoming and the review is due to close within days - can you share what has gone wrong?

Redpost - keep it civil. I was merely pointing out that your aggressive assertion that it was more fiction was incorrect on your part. You know that we were referring to Southwark as a whole (as the report to which we were first referring) and you know that stretches to central London don?t you? You are also aware that Lordship Lane and other roads in the area are major bus routes? I disagree with your assumption that UK wide data is more relevant than London data - I would be interested to hear why you think that is the case. As you have looked at the report you will no doubt have seen the chart above the one on ?central London. It refers to NO2 sources in outer London. Again 50% of emissions are from road transport of which 20% are from TFL buses - maybe those green line buses are a little more prevalent all over London than you believe. Granted you may not see many taxis but that still accounts for 4% of NO2 emmissions in outer London and I would not consider Southwark outer London - there are plenty of taxis in the north of our borough. So maybe you can now agree that there is far more fact in my assertions than fiction. I won?t hold my breath for an apology?.;-)