slarti b

Our councillors are claiming that the traffic chaos we have been encountering locally since the road closures and other restictions were implemented are nothing to do with the closures. They claim that congestion is instead the result of an increase in traffic compared to pre-lockdown. However, The data I have seen from DfT (covering UK) and TfL ( for London) suggests that traffic volumes are actually still below pre-lock down levels. If so, this undermines the councillors claims. Can anyone give me a link to any hard data (not opinion articles) on traffic volumes pre and post lockdown? In particular the source of the COuncillor's claims?

FairTgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For anyone who has not seen it - Cllr McAsh posted this on his blog today. https://www.jamesmcash.com/blog/faqs->on-goose-green-ltn-measures It is good to know that at least one of the local councillors is listening to their constituents and thinking a bit more deeply about the implications of these road closures. However there is a major flaw in the his analysis. He quotes from a Guardian article viz. "congestion in London has risen dramatically. On one day in September, it was 53% higher than the previous year." to claim that traffic has increased so more LTN's are needed. This interpretation is not correct, indeed it is significanlty flawed. The measure of congestion used by Waze for this statistic is journey time NOT traffic volumes. So what this is saying is that journeys are taking a lot longer. Other studies, eg DoT and TfL, show that traffic is still below pre-lockdown levels. If so, what this means is that the congestion is caused, not by extra traffic, but by the road closures themselves. And, as the Guardian article shows, this actually increase pollution on the roads affected by the displaced traffic. So, ironically, it seems that LTN's and road closure are actually increasing pollution, which groups like OneDulwich and many posters on here have been saying for months.

Decimilisation in the UK is a lot older that the EU. The florin (2 shillings) was introduced as a first step to this as a tenth of a pound in...1849! Metric measurements were legalised in 1896 and a draft bill in 1910 proposed compulsory metrification but was dropped due apparently to "war and depression"

@Spartacus Imagine the cost of replacing every road sign in the UK from miles to km Interesting that the distance markers on motorways, the labels on the side\centrl barrier which you will be asked for in event of accident or breakdown, show the disctance in kiometres from the start of the motorway ;-)

rahrahrah Wrote: > There are currently no roads that motor vehicles can't use. There are a small number of streets > which are filtered - you can still drive a car own them, just not cut through. What do you mean by "cut through"? And, as a genuine question I am asking not about teh current situation as what your vision is for the future, eg would you like to see closures on all side roads\residential roads so cars can use only "main" roads ( except for eg access or deliveries) We have already had a couple of posts today from CJRLawrence suggesting she would liek to ban cars completely but I assume that is an extreme view?

Can any of the pro closure people, Rahrah,Northern, CJR Laurance, tell me which roads in the local area you believe cars and other motor vehciles should be allowed to use, and any conditions on that use, eg delivery or access only, not during school hours etc?

exdulwicher Wrote: Back on page 41, I posted a link to a meta-analysis study which had looked at 60 traffic > reduction schemes worldwide to assess various measures and outcomes. Obviously very few people actually bothered > reading the thing and someone asked about overall reduction - I copied and pasted an extract from > the report which stated a MEDIAN (not a maximum) outcome across all these various schemes ExDulwicher, The original study , which I think dates from 1998, make interesting reading, though I confess I have not yet read the whole document. However, from what i have seen the figures quoted for "average " traffic reductions are highly flawed and the statistics are far from "scientific". To be frank it seems to be a biased study designed to support the authors pre concieved opinions and it stinks. You asked about flaws and bias in this study - the statistics quoted calculate the % changes based on the road closed rather than the wider area. Very nerdy but this is a highly subjective choice that favours the author's premise rather than an objective evaluation of the consequences of road closures. The choice of this demonstrates this is a biased polemical article rather than an unbiased scientific analysis. - in calculating the "average" traffic reduction the authors double or treble counted examples that favoured their premise, eg Nurnberg (but see below), eg A13 repeated 3 times for a 1 day, pre-advertised closure, Partingdale Lane etc etc - in many of the samples used, the "study" assumed there were no alternative routes that needed monitoring - some of the examples used in calculations were totally incorrect, eg we have the double counted examples of Nurnberg showing reductions of 146% ( yes really) and 86% but from a follow on article it seems the traffic over the wider area actually increased. - the calculations of the mean and median had no weightings based on on size or length of study. I am surprised by the prominence given to this study. Can you tell me whether the study itself and more specifically the statistical results were peer reviewed? If so, please provide a reference The meta-analysis used data going back over 50 years and was originally published over 20 years ago and from from my review the conclusions it draws seem highly flawed. Can you provide an up-to-date, peer reviewed, fully objective study that shows when and under what circumstances evaporation occurs.

But the road signs are very clear, they say "Road Closed" not "Road closed except for cyclists" which is a valid alternative. Doe sthis mean Soutwark have screwed up with the signs? Given their history it wouldn't suprise me And if the green signs are not official, who put them up and what is their legal status? If the council put them up do they have the authority to do this? Anyway, lets see how ExDulwicher, who I think is a traffic expert employed by a local authority, responds.

@ Exdulwicher Thank for responding to, though not answering, my question ;-). Anyway, responding to some of your points. "I've not answered because here is no one answer to "what roads should be used instead?". It depends on the journey. Start/end points, "ideal" route vs other options......" I accept that displacement will depend on many factors but, to my mind, that is not a valid reason for not doing some forecasting of what will happen. In particular where there is an obvious alternative route, eg DV\EDG rather than Calton surely that should be looked at? You do not need ot be a qualified traffic engineer to work out how the traffic flows will change. In seems to me highly irresponsible to say, as the councillors did with the OHS scheme which forms thr basis of these measures, "we are going to divert 7,000 vehicles a day onto 'main' roads" but not even attempt to establish which roads those are and what the effect will be on the inhabitanats of those roads. "One of the benefits of doing it this way with temporary measures and then just looking at what actually happens is you don't really need a huge amount of "before" data But if you want to see the effect on roads such as EDG surely you need "before data"? We are already seeing councillors, sorry posters such as KatyPoo, saying EDG was always this bad. But, conveniently they haven't actually measured how it was before? Sadly though, Southwark Councillors and officers have a track record of maniupulating traffic data so any figures they do produce will be questionable. It won't all be perfect but it's a lot better than building an entire new junction then coming back and redoing it 2 years later. Well , that is exactly what Southwark have done with the DV junction. They ignored residents who pointed out all the the issues, spent huge sums on teh remodelling which made thinsg worse and are now justifying the these new measures on the basis of lies about traffic volumes. However, what we are seeing here is not "temporary measures" From the tone of the councillors comms this is a back door way to implement the old OHS scheme with no scrutiny or consultation on the basis it will become permanent at the end of 18 months. I'm not a fan of weekend concerts and other assorted crap in Dulwich Square (or whatever its name is this week) by the way. It's a road and it's still used by pedestrians and cyclists; muppets doing the waltz there get right in the way! I think it is now Margy Newens plaza ;-). On a technical point can you help me. The official road signs say "Road Closed". My understanding is this for all vehicles including cyclists. They dont't say "Road closed except for cyclists" do they? There are the strange green signs saying access for pedestirans, scooters etc but, as far as I am aware they are not official and have no legal status. Indeed they are very confusing. What is the legal position here (not yet edited for spelling, sorry)

May be interesting to ask how long the new chairman and other members have belonged to the Dulwich Society.

peckhamside Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- "> I WILL NOT BE SIGNING As a cyclist I support these road closures. As do most cyclists I know." Up to you, but I am a cyclist and am opposed to these changes becuase they do not solve the problem, only move it elsewhere. A knee jerk reaction, using the excuse of Covid, which makes things worse for many people. Many of my friends are cyclists and have the same view. ">Traffic is terrible lately, but that is because too many people are making short journey" Not true in Dulwich. Much of teh traffic is through traffic or other traffic, delviveries, builders etc which cannot move to bikes. The traffic is terrible becuase the coucnil has closed roads and junctions and displaced traffic onto the few remaining though routes.

KatyKoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- "Clearly we will have to agree to disagree. But in answer to your questions those roads have had severe congestion on them for years, closing the junction will cause some displacement initially - nobody disputes that. From what I see daily the congestion on DV, EDG and LLane is levelling off to more or less what it was before the junction closure. The data will tell. I would like to see traffic reduced on those roads too even if it does settle to the same levels as before the closures. Townley road is at times worse - but more restrictions coming soon to sort that out. If you believe in data and evidence - we'll just have to wait and see what the traffic counts say." So you haven't answered my quesions have you, as brief reminder, 1) Are, DV, Calton, Court Lane Townly Rat runs, yes\no 2) which roads do you think the displaced traffic should use, please name them 3) Is it right to displace increase congestion and pollution and displace traffic onto the "main" roads - yes\no Question 2 is particularly important and supporters of these schemes, the councillors, posters on here like RaRa and ExDulwicher refuse to answer it. So come on, lets hear which roads should suffer increased congestion so we can have weekend concerts in Margy Plaza :-) In terms of data, you still haven't answered my earlier questions as to whether Southwark carried out traffic counts on Lordship Lane and EDG before they closed the DV junction. If they didn't, any comparison will be flawed. Additionally, as pointed out, any figures produced by the council will need to be fully scrutinised; the Councillors and Council officers lied about the alleged 47% increase in traffic during the OHS consultation and other figures they have published are wildly inaccurate.

I will respond to some of your points but then need to get on with work. You make the mistake of thinking that the answer to all the traffic problems is more cycling. It is not. Look at the TfL annual reports and you can see the effect is marginal. The key to reducing car useage is better public transport. And yes, if you make poorly thought through changes, closing roads to make some cycling easier without considering teh consequenses, you make congetsion, pollution and public transport worse. Go to EDG to DV and see. You mention alamrist statistics about car ownership in the UK, as have cycling advocates such as RaRa and ExdDulwicher in teh past. As I have explained to them this is a misleading diversion. As I mentioned to you, car useage in London and Soutwark has decreased significantly over the last 20 years despite increases in population ad journeys. Look at the relevant figures in the annual reports, if you look thtough my previous posts you will find references to them. in terms of working with residents, the phase 2 consultations were sparesely attended, there were about 200 repsonses, most of them on-line and the coucnil refuses to say where those repsondents came from. But they use this to justify the closre of DV junction. The phase 3 consultations were stage managed and based on an enormous lie, that action was needed because traffic at the DV junction had increased by a massive 47% and that vehicle traffic along Calton had increased by even more. Neither of those were true. The coucnillors consulted with groups supproting their plan but had little or no contatcs with, eg local RA's until the phase 3 "consultation" started. They are doing their best to misrepresent and ignore the biggest group reresenting local residents, OneDulwich. They work only with residents who support their own, blinkered views. Now, please answer my questions: - are Dulwich Village, Townley, Court Lane Calton "Rat runs"? - If you close those roads, which roads do you think the displaced traffic should use instead - Is it right to displace increase congestion and pollution and displace traffic onto the "main" roads which, in the case of Soutwark are oftern residential and shopping streets as well. Becuase that is the effect of these changes nd indeed the OHS scheme on which they were based. I look forward to your reply

KatyKoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- "Before I answer your questions maybe you could answer the question I asked first? Which way round would you do it? That is assuming you want to reduce motor traffic and pollution in Dulwich and elsewhere. If you were leader of Southwark Council what would you do? Genuinely interested to know. Apologies for delay in replying, was cooking dinner. In terms of your question, it is not an either or. First I would acknowledge that this is a London wide problem that can not be addressed by an individual Council making point decisions. Then, look at the background; despite a large increase in population and journeys over the last 20 years, both London and Southwark are showing absolute and relative decreases in car traffic. The big increase is in trips has been taken up public transport, cycling has increased but is still a very small proportion of journeys and will not take up the slack. Furthermore the ULEZ will be extended to South Circ in Oct 2021 [?] which will reduce pollution and probably also a certain amount of traffic. I would analyse the traffic to find out what it is doing and where it is going, people commuting to Southwark or passing through, parents taking children to school and, if so, where they are coming from, people who need cars for work, deliveries, carers, builders, repairers etc. I would also accept that a large proportion of those journeys will not "evaporate" if roads are closed. The oft quoted 11% is a very flawed figure but, even if accepted, still leaves a large amount of existing traffic that will be displaced onto other roads. So, within that context things that could be done include: 1) Improve public transport. Dulwich has very PTAL scores and this is likely to prove the most effective way of encouraging people to stop using their cars, if they are able to make that choice. Unfortunately, whenever this is raised the local Councillors complain they can't control it directly so don't consider it as an option. As council leader I would work with TfL to try and achieve that. 2) Travel to school Set up school streets and LTN's to encourage children (or rather their parents) to walk\cycle to school rather than drive. However this is not a panacea, it does not stop parents driving as close as possible, parking and then walking the last 100 metres. These only need to be for limited school hours, eg 7.30- 9.00, 3.00 - 4.30 pm as I would recognise traffic being displaced Within Dulwich there is a wider problem that schools are the local industry and this brings significant extra traffic, both from pupils and staff. This is specially true of the Private schools who have a catchment area across much of South, and even North London and a high proportion of pupils coming by car. So, as well as the carrot of school streets I would consider if there are any sticks. Witholding planning permission for expansion ( though that bird has rather flown), introducing CPZ's so staff and pupils are discouraged from travelling by car, for state schools making a condition of entry that parenst do not bring children by car (may be difficult to enforce legally but worth a try!) 3) LTN's Generally I would be cautious about these, one person's LTN is another persons' gated community. If the traffic previously going through the area is merely diverted onto surrounding "main" streets this is just moving the problem, increasing congestion and making pollution worse on the "main "streets. 4) Cleaner travel As council leader this is not fully within my control but anything I could do to encourage greener travel options, eg electric vehicle, bikes,scooters delivery vans etc. Maybe work with major on-line providers and delivery companies, DHL, Amazon, Post Office etc, to encourage them to move to electric vans by providing better recharging facilities etc? 5) Improving cycling facilities This is a nice to have but is not likely to have a major impact in terms of reducing traffic. On the other hand, if implemented poorly, it is likely to actually increase congestion and pollution. 6) Edited to add that I would also work with local residents and RA's, listen to and respect their opinions and knowledge of the local traffic patterns. I would make sure any data and statistics used to inform my decisions are accurate and have not been manipulated to support a particular viewpoint. Finally what I would NOT do is impose a large number of point road closures while ignoring the impact on the local residents and the wider community and in particular those who have the misfortune to live on the "main" roads onto which the traffic is displaced.

KatyKoo "I would imagine Council / Tfl have baseline data for these roads as they are bus routes." So that sounds like,despite promising they would carry out full monitoring of the effect of the DV junction closre, the Council did not monitor those roads onto which traffic would be displaced. If not why not? The problem is which way round do you do it if you want to reduce car usage and pollution (particularly short car journeys that could be walked or cycled)? Do you close residential rat-runs first , then tackle main roads with wider interventions like ULEZ, cycle lanes and improved public transport... or do you close main roads first?? Can't see how that would work other than to push even more traffic onto residential roads. As the council explained during the OHS consultation, the traffic they wished to divert onto main roads such as EDG and Lordship Lane, about 7,000 vehicles a day, was through traffic. This traffic is highly unlikely to evaporate so Southwark should have considered the impact. You seem to suggest that roads such as Dulwich Village, Court Lane Towley Road and Calton Avenue are "rat runs" Is that correct? Not sure why you are suggesting closing main roads, is this the council's next secret step?

KatyKoo Wrote: "The next phase of measures are planned to go in in October - Townley Road will have Timed Restrictions to reduce traffic at peak hours. This should discourage rat-running. The Council predicted that further measures would be needed on Townley Road and Dulwich Village after putting the filters in at the Village junction. All boundary roads are being monitored so that will provide the evidence." What this actually means is more traffic being diverted onto the main roads, ie Lordship Lane East Dulwich Grove, Half Moon lane etc. Though at the moment the timed closures affect only Northbound traffic on Townley. You say that the boundary roads, ie EDG, Lordhip Lane etc are being monitored. Were they monitored before the road closure at the DV junction? My memory is that the they were not but happy to be corrected.

I took my kids to Crystal Palace in the evenings. The perimeter road is wide and quiet and there are a couple of carparks which used to be empty later on. That was 8 years ago so not sure if anything has changed.

Spartacus Wrote: > They are strong at NOT consulting with all > stakeholders ! To be fair, the Council and Councillors ARE strong at consulting with people who agree with them ;-)

Very disappointing. The tube map on page 20, showing the big white empty space in SE London, pretty much sums it up. ALso disappointing is the section on buses. Great that they are electifying them but I saw nothing about increasing frequency or rationalisation or improvement of services. Interesting fact for DKBilly, they want to spen money on more "stabling" fro Elizabeth line; I thught horse drawn trains were a bit old school :-)

Interesting post from Lewisham about the inevitable knock-on effect of recent LTN's, diverting traffic from wealthy areas onto "main" roads occuied by the less affluent. The author is "Local cyclist, environmentalist and Labour member" https://onelewisham.co.uk/2020/09/28/the-ltn-and-the-horrified-cyclist/

The latest I hear is that Southwark are planning to install benches at the temporary Road Closures of DV as a way of "slowing down cyclists". Can anyone on here with links to our local councillors confirm or deny that? The ostensible reason for the temporary road closures was to provide more space for social distancing due to Covid, though this was of course underminded by the irresponsible holding of concerts at the junction. I cannot see how installing benches is consistent with that objective. Also, given the changes are temporary road closures why is the council planning to put benches on teh carriageway?

@Rockets The council tried to change the signs to green "Road Open to" Out of interest are the green signs legal? My understanding is that any non-standard road traffic signs have to be approved by the Dept of Transport but I am happy to be corrected. If so, have the grren signs been approved? Like the painted flowers, which had to be spray cleaned, it seems the council is happy to spend money to support the Margy Plaza vanity project while at the same time pleading poverty when local resident suggest improvements to their ill thought out schemes.

@rahrah You say "The roads are filtered, not closed. They can be used by cars, vans etc. for access. Bikes, scooters, pedestrians etc can pass through, large vehicles cannot." Is this your definition of a "permeable filter" or "permeable closure"? That is not the case at the DV junction and not the way these terms are used in the Southwark documents

You can try teh Soutwark Maps Page at https://geo.southwark.gov.uk/connect/analyst/mobile/#/main it is slow, not very intuitive and has only partial information but better than nothing. In "Map COnfiguration" box on top right Select "Soutwark Highways" and you can then select eg NO2 or traffic counts to see on map. Not a lot of NO2 counts in East Dulwich, except for a cluster round Goosed Green Primary School. Southwark seem to make it as difficult as possible to get access to underlying data, from my experience this is becuase they dont want people querying their own messaging or spin. You can also try TfL and DoT, they have a much better "open data" policy and you can see the undelying data, assumptions, locations etc without havoing to put in an FoI request as you do with Southwark :-( TfL and DoT will generally cover only roads for which they are responsible. Sorry I donty have time to give you links but try googling, eg TfL air quality monitoring. or try https://data.london.gov.uk/ There is also the Kings Air Quality study https://www.londonair.org.uk/LondonAir/Default.aspx This, I think, extrapolates from fixed readings (TfL montoring sites?) to provide estimates across whole of London. However, the actual monitoring sites are pretty spreadh out with none in Southwark SOuth of Camberwell New Road. Hope this helps Several edits to add stuff I keep remembering!

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Totally agree that Ed grove needs a cycle lane One issue is that EDG is one of the "Main roads" along which the Council wants to divert traffic. Putting in a cycle lane runs the risk of making the existing congestion even worse and further slowing the 37 bus.