LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[heartblock]

"Increases in flows have been observed on East Dulwich Grove, Burbage Road, Zenoria Street and Dovercourt Road, the largest of these being +27% on East Dulwich Grove (East). These increases are higher than those recorded in March 2020 at the same sites."

Traffic is down by 8% across the UK so a 12% decrees overall is really 4%.

So a 4% drop (which includes closed roads) and a 28% rise on EDG - while traffic down everywhere due to the pandemic.

Mmmhhhh I will stick to LTNs certainly not resulting in less traffic and pollution overall, even using Southwark's published data.

[goldilocks]

@Heartblock - you've quoted the June data again there.

The September data has an additional count point (one that they could compare as have had previous counts) outside the Tessa Jowell Health Centre and by the Charter sports pitch. This is showing a fall in traffic - either 20% or 3% depending on whether the comparison is January or September and they've used the lowest increase in the report as a prudent basis!

The increase on EDG is right next to Lordship lane, which was always going to be the case as traffic can no longer cut down the side streets to avoid the junction, but in terms of actual volumes going along the main amount of EDG between Melbourne Grove and Townley Road, then traffic has fallen. So not a '28% increase on East Dulwich Grove at all.

[Northern Star]

Edited to say I found the data!

[heartblock]

Taken directly from report - yes they contradict themselves several times

September 2021 Flow Change ? Cars/LGVs

 The map to the right outlines changes in counts of cars and LGVs (combined) compared to pre-implementation, at sites where data has been collected in September 2021.

 Increases in flows have been observed on East Dulwich Grove and Burbage Road, the largest of these being +25% on East Dulwich Grove near Lordship Lane. These increases are similar to those recorded in June 2021 at the same sites. However the site further west on East Dulwich Grove near the Tessa Jowell Centre, shows a slight decrease.

 The decreases in flows on internal roads remain similar to those recorded in June 2021. Turney Road West and East were previously mis-referenced, an error which has been corrected in this report.

 Lordship Lane near Townley Road has recorded a slight increase (+4%) in flows, whilst further south at Court Lane, it has recorded a slight decrease in flows (-6%), reflecting the same trend recorded in June 2021. Negligible changes are recorded on Barry Road and Underhill Road.

 Note that overall traffic levels in Southwark were down 7% in September 2021 vs. September 2019.

[goldilocks]

So that backs up what I just said - your previous comments were taken from the wrong section. The September data shows a fall in traffic on the main section of East Dulwich Grove between MG and Townley when compared to pre the measures being implemented.

There has not been an increase on the whole of East Dulwich Grove.

[heartblock]

Where is the pollution (air quality data) for September for ED Grove?

[heartblock]

Traffic doesn't disappear from ED Grove halfway..that if it is 25% up on one section it doesn't just disappear in the middle section - it might slow down and idle. This is why the count is so dubious. Explain - where do those extra 1000 cars go?

[Rockets]

A couple of points to note from the latest "data" .

Firstly, have they adjusted the base figures on the basis of the error on Turney that was uncovered? Am I right in thinking that they are still claiming a 10% reduction in the overall traffic in the June number - which is the pre-Turney error number is it not - have they not run the numbers to adjust for the significant Turney Road error?

Secondly, having had a quick flick through the 118 page document it seems clear that traffic has increased on all of the roads bar those that are closed - which is common sense. I wonder what happens to the overall traffic numbers when you remove the closed roads from the dataset - what this is clearly saying is that LTNs only achieve one thing - displacement?

What the figures don't show is traffic speed as that is the measure of congestion and the council will have that data. The best we can do is look at the bus journey times - the council is claiming positive progression as things aren't as bad in terms of bus journey times as they were in June but look at upward trend in longer bus journey times on pretty much all routes since the restrictions lifted earlier this year - bus journey times are getting longer again which suggest more congestion. That is a worrying trend and undermines the council's "Pravda-esque" dressing up of the figures.

Nice to see that Underhill data is included now which shows that traffic has increased along that displacement route but the overall challenge with the document is there is zero consistency in the dataset - in some they go back as far as 2017 as the base, others 2019 - interesting that the biggest displacement routes like Croxted and Underhill are some that use the oldest datasets as the base.

Also, HGV numbers seem to be up across the whole area - what is driving this?

Overall, the document does little to address the concerns of many that the LTNs are not delivering as advertised. of course, the pro-LTN lobby will wave this around as proof they are working but again, once you start scratching beneath the surface all is not well but the council is trying to dress this up as some sort of victory when it is anything but.

You have to commend the council on their efforts to manipulate the narrative on this - it's a fantastic example of how to try to hoodwink the electorate!

[KidKruger]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Traffic doesn't disappear from ED Grove

> halfway..that if it is 25% up on one section it

> doesn't just disappear in the middle section - it

> might slow down and idle. This is why the count is

> so dubious. Explain - where do those extra 1000

> cars go?

I

Maybe the 1000 mysteriously vanishing cars all turn North up Melbourne Rd ?

Oh?..

[Rockets]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> heartblock Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Traffic doesn't disappear from ED Grove

> > halfway..that if it is 25% up on one section it

> > doesn't just disappear in the middle section -

> it

> > might slow down and idle. This is why the count

> is

> > so dubious. Explain - where do those extra 1000

> > cars go?

> I

> Maybe the 1000 mysteriously vanishing cars all

> turn North up Melbourne Rd ?

> Oh?..

Didn't they evaporate?

This is my point on traffic speed - as someone on here far more knowledgeable than me explained - slow moving traffic may not register on the monitoring strips so that could explain where the 1,000 cars have gone - they are crawling along at the end of the road and so aren't triggering the strips.

This may explain why HGVs are showing such an increase across the area as I suspect they will trigger strips however fast they are moving due to their weight.

Can anyone confirm if that is the case?

[goldilocks]

No heartblock - it doesn't disappear.

The point was that by only comparing the traffic at the lordship lane end of EDG it was never a true reflection of the whole street.

Whilst it doesn't disappear, historically not all traffic joined EDG from Lordship lane. It could join from MG either side, Derwent or Elsie. None of which would have been included in the 'pre' monitoring from that site. Therefore the 'pre' number was understated for the majority of EDG. This number was actually available as the TJ Health Centre has been a DFT and Southwark monitoring site point for years.

By comparing the traffic outside the health centre pre and post intervention, its possible to see that the traffic has fallen in this section - possibly by as much as 20%

So thats a 20% fall on EDG outside the school and health centre.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Traffic doesn't disappear from ED Grove

> halfway..that if it is 25% up on one section it

> doesn't just disappear in the middle section - it

> might slow down and idle. This is why the count is

> so dubious. Explain - where do those extra 1000

> cars go?

[Jenijenjen]

?Traffic doesn't disappear from ED Grove halfway..that if it is 25% up on one section it doesn't just disappear in the middle section - it might slow down and idle. This is why the count is so dubious. Explain - where do those extra 1000 cars go??

Given that previously a lot of EDG traffic would turn into Melbourne, Derwent etc, or join EDG from these roads, now those options are not available it?s perfectly logical that just the section leading into LL would see a higher increase.

Far from pointing to the count being dubious, it indicates trends that might be expected.

[goldilocks]

Or there are large construction projects like the Charter School East Dulwich which are ongoing and result in lots of HGVs in the area? Also the development in the village at Gilkes Place.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> KidKruger Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > heartblock Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Traffic doesn't disappear from ED Grove

> > > halfway..that if it is 25% up on one section

> it

> > > doesn't just disappear in the middle section

> -

> > it

> > > might slow down and idle. This is why the

> count

> > is

> > > so dubious. Explain - where do those extra

> 1000

> > > cars go?

> > I

> > Maybe the 1000 mysteriously vanishing cars all

> > turn North up Melbourne Rd ?

> > Oh?..

>

> Didn't they evaporate?

>

> This is my point on traffic speed - as someone on

> here far more knowledgeable than me explained -

> slow moving traffic may not register on the

> monitoring strips so that could explain where the

> 1,000 cars have gone - they are crawling along at

> the end of the road and so aren't triggering the

> strips.

>

> This may explain why HGVs are showing such an

> increase across the area as I suspect they will

> trigger strips however fast they are moving due to

> their weight.

>

> Can anyone confirm if that is the case?

[goldilocks]

This - but also that as well as traffic not turning off EDG down those streets, it is also not joining it from them!

Jenijenjen Wrote:

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

> ?Traffic doesn't disappear from ED Grove

> halfway..that if it is 25% up on one section it

> doesn't just disappear in the middle section - it

> might slow down and idle. This is why the count is

> so dubious. Explain - where do those extra 1000

> cars go??

>

> Given that previously a lot of EDG traffic would

> turn into Melbourne, Derwent etc, now those

> options are not available it?s perfectly logical

> that just the section leading into LL would see a

> higher increase.

[Jenijenjen]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> This - but also that as well as traffic not

> turning off EDG down those streets, it is also not

> joining it from them!

>

> Jenijenjen Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > ?Traffic doesn't disappear from ED Grove

> > halfway..that if it is 25% up on one section it

> > doesn't just disappear in the middle section -

> it

> > might slow down and idle. This is why the count

> is

> > so dubious. Explain - where do those extra 1000

> > cars go??

> >

> > Given that previously a lot of EDG traffic

> would

> > turn into Melbourne, Derwent etc, now those

> > options are not available it?s perfectly

> logical

> > that just the section leading into LL would see

> a

> > higher increase.

Cross edit!

[goldilocks]

Because large scale building works won't result in an increase of HGVs?

[Rockets]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> Because large scale building works won't result in

> an increase of HGVs?

But look at the data Goldilocks - the only roads that registered a reduction in HGV traffic were Turney Road East (but not West), Court Lane, Calton, Melbourne Grove north and south.

Now you would expect Court Lane and Calton to increase given the works at Gilkes Place and on Court Lane but they registered decreases which suggest the new building works are not impacting the figures yet and I can assure you there is a massive increase in HGV journeys around on those roads at the moment.

There is something odd going on and I think the HGV numbers are a better measure of what is actually happening. Surely someone like Ex- can confirm whether HGVs are a better bar on monitoring strips in congested/crawling traffic?

The increases in HGVs are areawide and not limited to those areas with the major building works.

And remember TFL has been saying that there has been a pronounced decrease in HGV journeys (central London cordon -35%, inner London cordon -10%, outer London -3%) over the last few years.

[goldilocks]

The work on Gilkes only really picked up again in late September, so would expect an increase in the next round of monitoring.

The Charter works were ongoing through the period though and did result in lots of additional HGVs in the area. The MUGA was completed in around October I think from memory. So you'd expect an increase on EDG and some surrounding roads too as they obviously have to get there.

[heartblock]

Always a reason

Weather

Road Works

Building works

Burst pipe

Leaves

Snow

Yes life happens that is why a system needs alternate routes. It is obvious to all who live on ED Grove there has been a massive increase in all traffic - yet the closed road fundermenatilsts cannot just fess up and say

'yes your road IS busier and IS more polluted, but honestly I don't care'

I would have more respect for someone to say that (and some have to my face) than this continued gaslighting.

[goldilocks]

Just again for the people at the back.

Traffic on East Dulwich Grove fell on the section between Melbourne Grove and Townley Road by up to 20% when compared to before the measures were put in.

Your road is not busier, it is quieter.

[Rockets]

And for all the people in the room the claimed reduction in that section is only because the council "adjusted" their Jan 19 monitoring data to create a number for Sept 19 - they magically increased the number of car journeys from 12,408 in Jan 19 to 15,316 on Sep 19. Without that magic formula applied that section still shows an increase comparing actual data (albeit from Jan instead of September).

Does anyone know what Cllr Rose's secret sauce is for the calculations?

The fact the council claim a 28% increase on the EDG East section, a -17% decrease on the Central section and a 17% increase in the South section should be ringing alarm bells - those monitoring sites are within a few hundred yards of each other and the fact they "adjusted" the central one probably provides people with the answer they need.

Unless, does someone have an explanation for the discrepancy rather than just doing the "well people of EDG Central section our 100 yard section of road was a success at least"!

[Metallic]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> Just again for the people at the back.

>

> Traffic on East Dulwich Grove fell on the section

> between Melbourne Grove and Townley Road by up to

> 20% when compared to before the measures were put

> in.

>

> Your road is not busier, it is quieter.

So people used Thorncombe rd or Glengarry to get to the Alleyn's drop off? Someone suggested that route the other day, I distinctly recall seeing it. Meanwhile, in the real world, a hell of a lot of traffic is driving down EDG apart from that miracle piece.

[Northern Star]

I am confused Goldilocks. If I look at the traffic flow data, both East Dulwich Grove South and East are showing an increase (I think?) but not East Dulwich Grove Central(eg the middle bit). So what happens between ?East? and ?Central??? Where do the cars come from and disappear to?

I don?t live near this road or the other closed ones, I am just interested to understand the impact of the closures.

[Jenijenjen]

In very simple terms:

Before LTNs

100 cars travel east from Townley Road

20 of these cars turn into Melbourne Grove

80 cars travel along eastern end EDG to LL

After LTNs

100 cars travel east from Townley Road

None of these cars can turn into Melbourne Grove

so 100 cars travel on eastern section of EDG

There has been no increase in number of cars Townley Road to Melbourne Grove

But an increase of 20 cars I.e. 20% for the section of road from Melbourne to LL

Which explains an increase in only one section of the road

[goldilocks]

The comparators for the central section are real counts not adjusted figures.

Even if people scooted down hillsboro they wouldn't avoid it unless they were going back the same way. The count is further along.

The section by L Lane has increased as traffic can no longer cut through from the streets between EDG and Grove Vale.

However, the important point is that the previous 'pre number' understated the number for the central section of EDG as didn't take account of vehicles joining EDG from Derwent / melbourne / elsie etc.

Comparing an actual count now to an actual count pre the measures shows that traffic at the central section has fallen. It has still increased on the bit by Lordship as now has all the eastbound traffic plus that which may have previously cut up say Ashbourne / MG. The West Section has another point of entry /exit being Townley Road.