slarti b

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: You've linked to a post in which you admit you don't actually know what the figure refers to. As mentioned in my previous post, any uncertainty comes from how Southwark is reporting the figures, they have calculation errors and are unclear on the bases of some of some of their data. There are also small inconsistencies between the raw survey data on their web site and the annual reports. Anyway, the figure of the 47% increase came from the map in Soutwark's Annual monitoring Report 2017/18. The narrative says "Traffic" in Dulwich Village increased from 10,290 (Sep 2017) to 14,745 (Sep 2018). This is actually an increase of 43.3% but you would need to query Southwark as to the discrepancy. It is also unclear whether the figure of 14,745 includes cycles. Looking at Southwark's report for 2016\2017 this shows a decrease of 33% based on the figures of 10,290 (Sep 2017) vs 15,283 (Sep 2016). Southwark's report for 2015\16 doesn't actually show any figures but from the Soutwark web site Traffic map we can see a figure of 15,055 motor Vehicles at DV in Sep 2015 So, to summarise the figures for DV Sep 2015 15,055 Motor vehicles only Sep 2016 14,822 Motor vehicles only Sep 2017 10,290 Motor vehicles only Sep 2018 14,745 Motor Vehicles and maybe bikes as well? As you can see, the "47% increase" (or maybe 43%) was because of the big dip in traffic in Sep 2017 when Southwark was rebuildng the junction; it does not represent the massive increase in traffic alleged by Councillors and it shows that C'llor Simmons claim is false. The OneDulwich web site has a nice graphic showing this as well, see https://www.onedulwich.uk/traffic-movements The local C'llors were repeatedly challenged on the 47% increase and repeatedly claimed they were on a like for like basis, ie the base figures were not when the jucntion was being worked on. Either they were lying or they are naive, totally incompetent and unable to read their own Council's reports, even when they had the data pointed out to them. Look at the thread with C'llor McAsh /forum/read.php?5,1932267,page=21 Anyway, now I have again provided the numbers (previously given in this and other threads) and shown the response from Councillors I am looking forward, not very hopefully, to an apology.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > You've linked to a post in which you admit you don't actually know what the figure refers to. No you are wrong. The only uncertainty was the council's presentation and a couple of minor errors Southwark made. I was quoting the raw data; when I get back form work I will dig out the data in the published reports. Will you apologise if I can quote from Southwark published reports showing that those figures are correct?

dupe post

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > Okay - so give them. Don't just call anything you don't want to hear lies or fake news. You're saying an elected official lied to the community. Identify what was said, identify what is correct,and show it's a lie. See my post from April. Figures are Southwark's own ones. /forum/read.php?5,2092625,2110963#msg-2110963 Councillors continually denied the base figure was during the junction remodelling, even though they were told where the figures came from . It would be nice for them to admit they were misleading people but I don't expect that to happen. Enough for you?

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Has anyone else heard shouting that has gone on,seemingly all night in ED? Probably DogKennelhillbilly haveing a late night rant :-)

While cycling into work this morning I noticed a team spray-cleaning the painted flowers off the DV junction. In these days of reduced budgets it is a shame teh council is having to use scarce funds in this way. I hope they send the bill to the "Friends of Margy Plaza" group.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Unfortunately we are in a one-party state here" > A statement of fact. Our ward Councillors are Labour, the leader of the local group of wards is Labour, the cabinet member responsible for deciding teh schemes is Labour, the Council leader is Labour and our Local MP is Labour. I have seen no scrutiny of or challenges to the current "Covid" traffic measures from within this Labour apparatus.

exdulwicher Wrote: > Councillors deal with a huge range of issues across their constituencies, they cannot be experts in social care, > traffic, law and order schools, pollution, building controls and all the other countless issues / complaints / >comments that cross their desks from constituents. ExD, I was responding to DogKennel guy who was suggesting that people had to be qualified traffic management experts to comment on the OHS or Covid proposals. Thank you for supporting my response. > Their job is to collate it all, direct it to the right department in the council or Government where there ARE > experts (either in-house or contracted in) who can deal with it in the appropriate manner. That is an interesting point. The council "expert" who has been the public face of OHS and the "Covid" measures does not seem to be providing the objective, professional advice I would expect. This is concerning. btw I have asked you a couple of times in teh past for the names of the main roads along which the council wish to divert the traffic displaced by the current and planned road closures. I may have missed your answer, if so apologies. And by the way, vague references ot traffic evaporation are not an answer!!

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The proposals on the One Dulwich website say 'we have drafted this proposal without expert advice > from a traffic engineer' - is that untrue then? The website is correct. The plan was drawn up without expert advice from a traffic engineer. It is based on a proposal for a Low Traffic Neighbourhood in what is now called area B that we first put forward 4 or 5 years ago as part of the QW7 consultation. We adapted it and proposed it in response to the OHS consultation earlier this year, again without expert advice from a traffic engineer. We have been trying for several months to have meaningful discussions with council officers, ie a qualified traffic engineer, about the technical aspects of the scheme but have not yet succeeded. As you know, OneDulwich now has over 1,500 supporters amongst whom are many professionals, including people with specialist knowledge of traffic management. They have occassionally helped by answering questions or raising queries about aspects of the scheme. Hope this answers your question.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Let's also ground this discussion on the fact the > council lied..." > > Why ground the discussion in a lie? The council, and specifically councillors, made a main plank of the OHS presentations that traffic had increased by 47% on a like for like basis. This was a lie. They, C'llor Simmons in particular, said that traffic had increased so much that, if it had been at 2018 levels they would not have put Quietway 7 through DV junction. This was also a lie. I have the figiures to support this, if you disagree with my comments please give me your figures.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- What I like is the prospect of OneDulwich - entirely unqualified in traffic management and > environmental monitoring - bickering over pollution measurement methodologies. The OHS agenda and the subsequent so called "Covid" measures have been driven by the local councillors. Do they have any qualifications in traffic management, or indeed related disciplines such as engineering? From linkedin they seem to be a Digital Content consultant (whatever?) and a sugar trader. AS for the council officer who has been key in the helping the councillors with OHS and the so-called Covid changes: he has based the justification for teh closures on a 47% increase in traffic through the DV junction. This figure is totally misleading, with base figures taken during re-building work on the DV junction in Sep 2017. He has also defended the strange traffic stats for Calton Avenue, used to support the DV junction closure, whilst unable to explain the discrepancies with the earlier TfL survey. If he is qualified in traffic management why is he behaving in this way? I do find it odd that his email signature has no details of his professional qualifications but I will be happy to hear what they are. Onedulwich has supporters who are engineers and professionals used to assessing figures (eg I studied Maths and Statistics and have worked analysing numbers for many years) and we also have an experienced traffic engineer for advice. We may not all be qualified in traffic management but we are able to recognize when people are trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

@Exdulwicher you seem to be accusing OneDulwich of "Taken a leaf out of Government's books. Discredit the figures you don't like, argue about how the figures are measured, change the method half way through... Government did it with Covid deaths..." Remember that a major argument in the OHS consultations was that traffic through the DV junction had increased by 47%? This was as credible as Johnson's claim that the UK's track and trace system is world beating. Remember C'llor Simmons saying in the OHS presentations that, if Southwark had know the traffic figures would be the ones they recorded in 2018 they would not have put Quietway 7 though DV? That was either complete ignorance or a blatant lie. Equivalent to Govt twisting of Covid death figures Remember the figures in Soutwark's so-called evidence pack showing a huge increase in traffic along Calton avenue (despite it being contradicted by TfL survey) that was due to a failure in the measuring of the base data - making it as reliable as Govt figures on number of tests carried out. It is Southwark Council and the local councillors who are following this rotten Tory government's abuse of statistic, not those who are making valid queries. Unfortunately we are in a one-party state here. The councillors, cabinet members and local MP are all from the same party with every reason to support each other but no incentive to question or challenge. Not a party political point btw, I suspect the same would happen if the controlling party was Tory or Lib Dem as well. But it still stinks.

I don't think private e-scooters are allowed on public roads or pavements though this may change. However, I think rental e-scooters are now legal.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > An 11% reduction in car usage in one fell swoop would be a huge achievement. It just goes to show > how many of those journeys weren't critical. The figure of 11% evaporation comes from a 20 year old study using highly subjective data, dubious methodology and some very, very dodgy statistics. Even the authors admit some of their working data (eg evaporation of 149%) was incorrect and\or unreliable. But even taking their dodgy figures as correct, that still leaves 89% of traffic to be displaced. Where will it go?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I haven't got time to look through it right now, so can't tell you whether or not it shows an increase. Rahrah.. I was thinking of the TfL data for London which shows a reduction in "Private Transport" trips (Car\taxi\motor bike) between 2000 and 2018 of 9% in absolute terms and from 48% to 37% in mode share. So completely opposite to the 36% increase you mention for the whole of UK. You link to the DoT data of traffic flow (ie vehicle Km's) by borough. For Southwark, this shows an even bigger reduction of 20% in traffic flow between 2000 and 2018. So, both the TfL data for London and the DoT data for Southwark are showing absolute and relative decreases in car traffic. Please stop scaremongering with irrelevant and misleading statistics.

James Barber Wrote: > So key is number not proportion - will be interested to see your stats. James, they are TfL figures not mine :-) Anyway the TfL figures cover the whole of London, are based on daily average number of trips and cover the period 2000-2018. During that time the population of London increased by 25% and the number of trips by 18.5%. In terms of absolute numbers, "Private transport" ie cars\taxis\motor bikes, reduced from 10.9m to 9.9m trips, a decrease of 9%. In terms of mode share, Private transport reduced from 47.8% to 36.9% of trips. To answer your question, the number of car trips in London has reduced on both an absolute and percentage share basis during the almost 20 year period, despite an 18.5% increase in trip numbers. So, when exDulwicher and Rahrah quote figures relating to the whole of the UK they are not relevant to London and misrepresent what is happening here. What is worrying is when our local councillors deliberately use highly misleading figures to claim a massive , but actually non-existent, increase in traffic flows. Even more worrying is that council officers collude in their deception.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @slartiB - Probably some good data here: > > https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/traffic-flows-borough > I have the data at home. As I pointed out above my recollection is that, for London, the proportion of trips by car has decreased over teh last 20 years. If so, the 36% increase quoted by eXD is alarmist and irrelevant for this thread.

exdulwicher Wrote ------------------------------------------------------- > > You wouldn't make a very good Daily Mail journalist or taxi driver would you?! ;-) Nor a local councillor or traffic officer quoting a 47% increase in traffic as justification for closing DV junction without mentioning that the base figure was when the junction in the middle of rebuilding works!! Interesting of course that Raharah has picked up on your irrelevant figure of a 36% increase which is the opposite of what is happening in London. ;-)

@ rahrahrah Do you have the equivalent figures for Southwark, or London?

@exdulwicher Thanks, I will have a closer look at the pollution stats. On the traffic increase stats, I think it is important in the context of this thread to quote stats taht are relevant to our area, or oas close as we can get. That means TFL & Southwark. To be frank I prefer TfL figures and analyis becuase they seem much more objective than Southwark.

@ Ex Dulwicher. i have the TFL report at home and will check this evening, plus the Southwark traffic reports as well. I am concerned that people cherry pick staistics such as a 36% increase in traffic and quote them out of context. Or in the case of the OHS consultation provide totally misleading statistics such as the 47% increase in ttraffci through DV. also, I think you are professionally involved in traffic, what do you think of teh reduction in p;ollution shown by the DoT figures over the last 20 years?

Yes, started working this morning.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Included in there is a stat that residential areas have seen a 36.4% increase in traffic since the > 1990s. Thanks for the link, there is some intersting stuff there, especially the table showing that pollution and CO2 emissions have fallen (up to 65% for NO) despite the overall increase in traffic. How relevant is this to Soutwark though, do you have the equivalent figures for London? From memory, I think the TFL figures show a reduction in car useage over the last 20 years rather than a 36.4% increase, despite a big increase in population. Can you comment on that?

Duplicate post!!!

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > if you want to reduce pollution, you have to reduce the number of car journeys. It has been shown time and time >again that when you make it more difficult to use the car for short journeys, the number of journeys reduces. But, during the OHS process the councillors claimed the problem was through traffic, not short journeys by local residents. This through traffic will just be displaced rather than evaporate. >I would also like to see more investment in alternatives - public transport, Agreed, but the councillors always dismiss this argument. It is much easier for them to close roads using undemocratic emergency powers based on misleading data, than working with TFL towards solving the real problem. > The idea that there is a 'war on the motorist', or that Southwark want to 'punish people who drive' is absurd Given the rehetoric from councillors and their supporters I disagree with you. The impression they are giving is that they want local residents to give up their cars and don't care about any inconvenience caused for local journeys. If the councillors are not waging war on local motorists why do they refuse to consider permit schemes for local residents?