LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Jenijenjen]

No most are not on an upward trend. Whilst some showed a steep upward trend in July which could have occurred for all manner of reasons, with the exception of Croxted Road northbound they had normalised by August/September.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/77415/Bus-Journey-Times_Dulwich-Streetspace_Sept-2021.pdf

[goldilocks]

And again - as I've said many times. I have no idea what adjustments the council have done to the data (because I'm not the council) - but before commenting on how great the numbers are I did some research and corroborated with the DFT count from exactly the same place. So even if the September number is adjusted (but not sure whether it is or not - that wording is the same throughout so it might just be a carry through footer) then its supported by other data too.

Link here:

https:/https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/manualcountpoints/47606/roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/manualcountpoints/47606

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Because I read the small print. As someone once

> said to me - do your own research.

[Rockets]

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.

[Jenijenjen]

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/Bus-Journey-Times_Dulwich-Streetspace_Sept-2021.pdf

BTW your snideness and mythologising is not doing you any favours.

[legalalien]

Surely the chart to look at re buses is the one showing changes at peak times when the timed closures are in effect, since this is when the problem congestion /biggest delays occur? If you have to travel to work, school etc during the peak and your journey is made problematically longer, it doesn?t help you if this is averaged out by slightly faster times over the rest of the day. The peak chart is expressed in standard deviation terms, you can see there?s an increase of more than 1SD on Dulwich Common, Croxted at both am and pm peaks and also on EDG, Grove Vale, Red Post Hill at the pm peak, but as its just ?more than? it?s hard to get an idea of the scale of the delay, I think?

[Jenijenjen]

Data would have been collected in the same way before installation of LTNs so I don?t see what difference that would make.

[ab29]

Anyone saying the bus service is unaffected by LTN / improving clearly doesn't use it and probably has never done so.

[Jenijenjen]

Here we go again, the implication that anyone who criticises the arguments put forward by those opposed to LTNs are elitist and/or living within one of the closed roads. Speaking personally, walking and public transport, including buses, is my only means of travel

[ab29]

This my experience - living on a main road and using nr 40 and 176 during rush hours. Data presented by the council does not match reality.

[heartblock]

Yawn... table showing counts - no count in Sept 19 on ED Grove Central - so a made up number. If you are going to plaster a 20% decrease on a new count of a long road all over the show - just to prove that closing Melbourne Grove is great for all of us - don't make up Sept 2019 data and use that as your pre-LTN baseline.

Also weirdly - don't add 300 more cars to the actual count in Jan 2019 from your previous published measure in Jan 2019 which was also kinda, sorta..nearly near central ED Grove either.

On this made-up number in Sept 2019- which had never been considered before, the 24hr restriction on Melbourne Grove was kept in place to make the MG residents 'happy' - nothing to do with hard data. Why was this new count made-up for this last consultation? Is it because the Council were going to only have timed restrictions on that section of MG near so called ED G Central - were Southwark more concerned about losing votes on MG than the pollution and traffic on ED Grove - do votes matter more than children lungs? Apparently so.

Weird that made up numbers give a decrease of 20% and actual counts an increase of at least 25% of course that translates to 1000+cars more on ED Grove - I see the HGV has gone through the roof - again, there was not much work on Charter School in Sept as kids at school, so don't keep going on about more building work - it is diverted traffic from nice leafy roads.

I can walk faster than the 37 bus down ED Grove - before the LTN I used to occasionally catch it if I was running late or the trains from Herne Hill were messed up, but not now, the bus time app hasn't been adjusted for the idling traffic down ED Grove.

I do hope you all had a listen to WHY IS ANTI-ROADS CAMPAIGNER JOHN STEWART AGAINST LTNS? https://www.the-spokesmen.com/johnstewartltns/

[heartblock]

LTNs distract from having real policies that lower car use - it is a distraction and a barrier to real change.

It will be used as an excuse not to have road pricing and mandatory change from carbon fuels. Those in leafy quiet roads will have no reason to ever support real changes.

Closed roads give the impression that climate change is being tackled - with very little cost or inconvenience to those who benefit - in most cases a very white, wealthy, car owning cohort. That is why Johnson's man has pushed this idea - quite why Labour cannot see it for what it is - is beyond me.

[legalalien]

Jenijenjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Data would have been collected in the same way

> before installation of LTNs so I don?t see what

> difference that would make.

Is that directed at my comment? If so I don?t understand your point. What I?m saying is that because most of the closures are timed, the traffic and bus delays caused by them occur only during the closure periods, so it would be useful to know what the additional delays during those periods is. There is one map/chart aiming to show that but it doesn?t tell you the actual delays being caused. It would be interesting to know whether it?s two minutes or twenty two (I?m exaggerating obviously).

ETA - should have said, on some roads only during the closure periods, and on other roads (e.g. Dulwich Village) immediately before and after the closure periods

[goldilocks]

Again - you're wrong about the Charter school and building works. The MUGA was being finalised throughout September and I think into October - there were frequently heavy vehicles turning. The construction management plan specifies that they enter from the West of East Dulwich Grove too I think.

The previous January count published was not in the central section - there is a handy dot on a map to help you with this!

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yawn... table showing counts - no count in Sept 19

> on ED Grove Central - so a made up number. If you

> are going to plaster a 20% decrease on a new count

> of a long road all over the show - just to prove

> that closing Melbourne Grove is great for all of

> us - don't make up Sept 2019 data and use that as

> your pre-LTN baseline.

>

> Also weirdly - don't add 300 more cars to the

> actual count in Jan 2019 from your previous

> published measure in Jan 2019 which was also

> kinda, sorta..nearly near central ED Grove

> either.

>

> On this made-up number in Sept 2019- which had

> never been considered before, the 24hr restriction

> on Melbourne Grove was kept in place to make the

> MG residents 'happy' - nothing to do with hard

> data. Why was this new count made-up for this last

> consultation? Is it because the Council were going

> to only have timed restrictions on that section of

> MG near so called ED G Central - were Southwark

> more concerned about losing votes on MG than the

> pollution and traffic on ED Grove - do votes

> matter more than children lungs? Apparently so.

>

> Weird that made up numbers give a decrease of 20%

> and actual counts an increase of at least 25% of

> course that translates to 1000+cars more on ED

> Grove - I see the HGV has gone through the roof -

> again, there was not much work on Charter School

> in Sept as kids at school, so don't keep going on

> about more building work - it is diverted traffic

> from nice leafy roads.

>

> I can walk faster than the 37 bus down ED Grove -

> before the LTN I used to occasionally catch it if

> I was running late or the trains from Herne Hill

> were messed up, but not now, the bus time app

> hasn't been adjusted for the idling traffic down

> ED Grove.

>

> I do hope you all had a listen to WHY IS

> ANTI-ROADS CAMPAIGNER JOHN STEWART AGAINST LTNS?

> https://www.the-spokesmen.com/johnstewartltns/

[Rockets]

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.

[Rockets]

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......?

[goldilocks]

Well at least we are conceding that 3000 vehicles a day is far too high for a small road with a school entrance on it. Baby steps...

[Rockets]

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.

[heartblock]

So even the January 2019 count wrong as not on ED G Central- thanks Goldilocks (so no pre-LTN Central EDG data at all!) - do look at the published count tables by the way - you also might see a big, big. big hole in the Council's conclusions.

So adding 3000 cars onto one of the most polluted school roads in ED is a baby step and fine for you?

Well I do know my neighbour with a new baby in a garden less flat on ED Grove was in tears at the traffic and pollution on ED Grove. I met her on her walk to her Mum's house to drop of baby so she could get the bus to her cleaning job and the air was awful.

Baby steps - yep ok.

[heartblock]

As I said - it's all a distraction to stop us all demanding real political will to reduce dependency on fossil fuels and cars - because those Conglomerate Companies give a lot of money to the Tory party...so LTNs - perfect, nobody has to give up anything.

Job done!

[ed_pete]

Anyone looked at the Air Quality Assessment - it's quite a dense document.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/77414/Air-Quality-modelling-report_June-2021_Dulwich-Streetspace.pdf

A couple of interesting observations.

Firstly one of a means of monitoring air quality is using diffusion tubes (apparently). While some are located in the local area (map is on page 14) none are located on East Dulwich Grove at all. The closest is one on Townley Road near Allyens.

Page 31 talks about pollutant levels around the local schools. Comparing 2019 with 2021 the reports conclusion is:

"Using the EPUK IAQM significance criteria matrix reproduced in Table 4.1, the impact of the

scheme at all school locations, for all pollutants, is classed as Negligible."

This is repeated in the conclusion along with the overall assessment:

"Using the EPUK IAQM significance criteria, the predicted changes in concentrations at school

locations in the scheme area are classed as Negligible. In addition, for the majority of building

fa?ade locations along scheme roads the predicted changes in concentrations are classed as

Negligible."

One the StreetSpace objectives ( https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review?chapter=2 ) is "Improving air quality and reduce pollution and noise levels" .

The report would indicate that the scheme has failed on the first two points so far.

[goldilocks]

Still no - you're conflating two separate points again.

The previous monitoring reports did not include any data for the central point. The new September monitoring report does include new data for an ATC count outside the health centre from September (but not earlier in the post streetspace period) and also for October.

The comparator numbers are to my understanding, taken from earlier routine monitoring at the exact same point that the council was doing at certain intervals.

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So even the January 2019 count wrong as not on ED

> G Central- thanks Goldilocks (so no pre-LTN

> Central EDG data at all!) - do look at the

> published count tables by the way - you also might

> see a big, big. big hole in the Council's

> conclusions.

>

> So adding 3000 cars onto one of the most polluted

> school roads in ED is a baby step and fine for

> you?

>

> Well I do know my neighbour with a new baby in a

> garden less flat on ED Grove was in tears at the

> traffic and pollution on ED Grove. I met her on

> her walk to her Mum's house to drop of baby so she

> could get the bus to her cleaning job and the air

> was awful.

> Baby steps - yep ok.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As I said - it's all a distraction to stop us all

> demanding real political will to reduce dependency

> on fossil fuels and cars - because those

> Conglomerate Companies give a lot of money to the

> Tory party...so LTNs - perfect, nobody has to give

> up anything.

> Job done!

Literally conspiracy theory. 🥇🥇🥇 Just waiting to hear the full details of how Bilderberg Group, 7 foot lizards and a sex den under a pizza shop are responsible for some roads in an obscure suburb of London being closed to cars at some times of day. Wake up, sheeple!

[Earl Aelfheah]

People scouring the data for anything that backs up their view, whilst completely ignoring the big picture. It's an example of confirmation bias in the extreme. The facts are that traffic is down. Active travel is up. Not just inside the LTNs but across the wider area.

[Jenijenjen]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> People scouring the data for anything that backs

> up their view, whilst completely ignoring the big

> picture. It's an example of confirmation bias in

> the extreme. The facts are that traffic is down.

> Active travel is up. Not just inside the LTNs but

> across the wider area.

This absolutely. Thank you

[march46]

In case anyone didn?t receive the newsletter (mine was delayed in the post til recently) I see it?s available online now

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/77726/Dulwich-Newsletter-6-PRINT.pdf