LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[SE22_2020er]

James James James - what on earth do you think you're doing - are you mad?! Just because schools have broken up and you've got a few free minutes on your hands - don't get involved!!!

There are several different people (I resist the urge to write "oddballs") who have posted over 1000 times on this thread alone. They have somehow managed to keep this "conversation" going for 283 pages and I fear that they're just getting going! They will ensnare you, twist your words and their tenacity knows no bounds.

Honestly - for your own mental health stay away and let the madness continue unabated.

Escape whilst you still have the chance - or at least ask to meet them face-to-face and watch as they drift into the shadows! :-)

[Rockets]

Legal I believe the EDG Central data from Jan 19 was from a different location (has the council clarified where it was?) and then was "adjusted" to create Sept 19 numbers. That adjustment seems to have been adding MG numbers to EDG numbers to create a much bigger number of cars to deliver a "reduction" in numbers compared to new Sept 21 data from the new site on EDG Central that had not been previously monitored.

But it looks like this is based on modelling rather than actual data as the council charts clearly show no data was collected at the EDG Central point in Sept 19 and there is a disclaimer to that effect on the EDG Central slide.

If you use the Jan 19 figures alone from the old monitoring point then there has been no reduction.

The creation of the EDG Central monitoring point seems to have only been done to create the narrative for the U-turn as it seems odd adding it in so late into the process and going to such an effort to create the Sept 19 figures.

I don?t think the council has done this anywhere else have they?

Perhaps Cllr McAsh or one of the council's spokespeople from Melbourne Grove would like to clarify as it is beyond confusing...;-)

[Rockets]

SE22_2020er Wrote:

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

> James James James - what on earth do you think

> you're doing - are you mad?! Just because schools

> have broken up and you've got a few free minutes

> on your hands - don't get involved!!!

>

> There are several different people (I resist the

> urge to write "oddballs") who have posted over

> 1000 times on this thread alone. They have

> somehow managed to keep this "conversation" going

> for 283 pages and I fear that they're just getting

> going! They will ensnare you, twist your words

> and their tenacity knows no bounds.

>

> Honestly - for your own mental health stay away

> and let the madness continue unabated.

>

> Escape whilst you still have the chance - or at

> least ask to meet them face-to-face and watch as

> they drift into the shadows! :-)

Proof is you ever needed it that some members of the pro-LTN lobby don?t want the council engaging with anyone other than themselves??.

#manyatruewordsaidinjest

P.S. One Dulwich, the Dulwich Alliance and the Melbourne Grove traders would happily jump at the opportunity to meet face to face?.they have all asked numerous times but any time a councillor goes to that area they apparently get whisked into pro-LTN supporting houses along Melbourne Grove.

[SE22_2020er]

Rockets - you really are a very funny person (and if you don?t mind me saying, a little odd :-) ). I assume you see the irony in what you write.

Now that this thread really has just become a parody of itself, fingers crossed it will collapse under the weight of its own self importance.

Happy Christmas everyone

[CPR Dave]

This thread is just getting started now that the councillors are here to tell the truth...

[Penguin68]

Without (I hope) getting this lounged - both sets of advocates write as if 'truth' in this context, is both an absolute and something which can be objectively assessed. It isn't and it can't.

As regards statistical analysis - the data simply doesn't exist to allow a 'scientific' approach - measurements were not consistent for location, timing or time - nor have raw data (hole counts) ever been fully published. And much of the 'analysis' and 'argument' (and I may be using those terms quite wrongly) has been based on qualitative and not quantitative data.

The 'experiment' of the LTNs was never an experiment which fitted any scientific description of what a 'true' experiment could be like - there has not been, for instance, any predeclared and planned (and matched) control area against which the experiment could be judged; and an experiment in road adjustment - in part at least to achieve lower pollution levels - was started during an abnormal pandemic and took place at the same time as a major other adjustment (ULEZ expansion) designed to achieve the same end (except both were maybe more about revenue generation than was admitted at the time). It is thus, and always was, impossible to judge the air quality impact of the LTNs objectively.

These hundreds of pages thus mainly reflect irreconcilable views where posters pray-in-aid those elements of analysis which fit their preconceptions, dismissing those that don't as irrelevant or 'wrong'. Both groups are equally as right, or as wrong, as the other. There are precious few posters (who have gone this distance) who can be described (old, traditional meaning) as disinterested. And many who have very clear axes to grind.

[legalalien]

Thanks Penguin68. I think you are probably right

But the thread is still useful to keep people up to speed on developments, given the poor state of council engagement / notification of what is planned / going on. I think so, anyway.

[first mate]

Legal, agree. We need to keep this thread open for now.

I find it really odd that some posters declare they want it lounged. If they view it as so unimportant why continue to read and contribute?

[ab29]

Implementing a dubious scheme and claiming impossible to prove benefits - at the expense of thousands of people - is clearly wrong. I hope it will be challanged at court and removed. And I hope all councillors who backed it up and ignored genuine concerns of those affected by it will be voted out.

[first mate]

Earlier in this thread Cllr Mc Ash was adamant that no figures had been adjusted. Hmmm. I wonder if he can tell us more?

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Legal I believe the EDG Central data from Jan 19

> was from a different location (has the council

> clarified where it was?) and then was "adjusted"

> to create Sept 19 numbers. That adjustment seems

> to have been adding MG numbers to EDG numbers to

> create a much bigger number of cars to deliver a

> "reduction" in numbers compared to new Sept 21

> data from the new site on EDG Central that had not

> been previously monitored.

>

> But it looks like this is based on modelling

> rather than actual data as the council charts

> clearly show no data was collected at the EDG

> Central point in Sept 19 and there is a disclaimer

> to that effect on the EDG Central slide.

>

> If you use the Jan 19 figures alone from the old

> monitoring point then there has been no

> reduction.

>

> The creation of the EDG Central monitoring point

> seems to have only been done to create the

> narrative for the U-turn as it seems odd adding it

> in so late into the process and going to such an

> effort to create the Sept 19 figures.

>

> I don?t think the council has done this anywhere

> else have they?

>

> Perhaps Cllr McAsh or one of the council's

> spokespeople from Melbourne Grove would like to

> clarify as it is beyond confusing...;-)

[Rockets]

A lot of data has been adjusted and the EDG Central chart carries the caveat that: Pre-implementation data for Jan 2019 has been adjusted to September 2019 levels to ensure compatibility

All the other charts say: Pre-implementation data has been adjusted to Sep19 levels to ensure compatibility

Now it might all be completely justifiable but the complete lack of communication and transparency from the council on this (unless you are some of the select insider groups being briefed on it) means there are questions that need to be answered.

I think it is why Cllr Williams promised to share the methodology and raw data - which of course has yet to happen.

[CPR Dave]

Is the undoctored January 2019 data actually available? I guess if they had just used that data instead there would be no reductions in traffic anywhere in EDG?

[CPR Dave]

And will they leave the strips in for January 2022 so that they can compare apples with apples? Doubt it, but let's see.

[goldilocks]

The word 'believe' is doing some heavy lifting there Rockets. Even you yourself later say that it might not be the case and note (correctly) that it would be helpful to have the raw data.

It is my understanding that the comparable data is from the same site and not adjusted. But rather than stating that the conclusions must be wrong, perhaps you could wait for the data.

I agree though that its really unhelpful to not release it all at the same time, not least cos it gives oxygen to your conspiracy views which really isn't helpful.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Legal I believe the EDG Central data from Jan 19

> was from a different location (has the council

> clarified where it was?) and then was "adjusted"

> to create Sept 19 numbers. That adjustment seems

> to have been adding MG numbers to EDG numbers to

> create a much bigger number of cars to deliver a

> "reduction" in numbers compared to new Sept 21

> data from the new site on EDG Central that had not

> been previously monitored.

>

> But it looks like this is based on modelling

> rather than actual data as the council charts

> clearly show no data was collected at the EDG

> Central point in Sept 19 and there is a disclaimer

> to that effect on the EDG Central slide.

>

> If you use the Jan 19 figures alone from the old

> monitoring point then there has been no

> reduction.

>

> The creation of the EDG Central monitoring point

> seems to have only been done to create the

> narrative for the U-turn as it seems odd adding it

> in so late into the process and going to such an

> effort to create the Sept 19 figures.

>

> I don?t think the council has done this anywhere

> else have they?

>

> Perhaps Cllr McAsh or one of the council's

> spokespeople from Melbourne Grove would like to

> clarify as it is beyond confusing...;-)

[Rockets]

I say "beleive" you say "understanding" - you see nobody knows and by releasing the reports without the back-up detail the council has just allowed us all to come to our own conclusions as they have not provided the transparency to back up their report.

I did read somewhere that the Jan 19 site is in a different location to the Sep21 location, perhaps Cllr McAsh could confirm.

It would also be good to get some clarity on how the Jan 19 and Sep19 figures were arrived at - what is modelling, what is actual data from comparable locations as by adding that additional site in Sept21 there may be an element of double-dipping going on in the conclusions.

[redpost]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> I say "beleive" you say "understanding" - you see

> nobody knows and by releasing the reports without

> the back-up detail the council has just allowed us

> all to come to our own conclusions as they have

> not provided the transparency to back up their

> report.

>

> I did read somewhere that the Jan 19 site is in a

> different location to the Sep21 location, perhaps

> Cllr McAsh could confirm.

>

> It would also be good to get some clarity on how

> the Jan 19 and Sep19 figures were arrived at -

> what is modelling, what is actual data from

> comparable locations as by adding that additional

> site in Sept21 there may be an element of

> double-dipping going on in the conclusions.

Why don't you do something positive and submit an FOI request instead of endlessly complaining on this forum?

[first mate]

Why do you feel so strongly that the issue should not be aired and pursued on this forum? Again, you are not obliged to read or contribute?

[dougiefreeman]

redpost Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I say "beleive" you say "understanding" - you

> see

> > nobody knows and by releasing the reports

> without

> > the back-up detail the council has just allowed

> us

> > all to come to our own conclusions as they have

> > not provided the transparency to back up their

> > report.

> >

> > I did read somewhere that the Jan 19 site is in

> a

> > different location to the Sep21 location,

> perhaps

> > Cllr McAsh could confirm.

> >

> > It would also be good to get some clarity on

> how

> > the Jan 19 and Sep19 figures were arrived at -

> > what is modelling, what is actual data from

> > comparable locations as by adding that

> additional

> > site in Sept21 there may be an element of

> > double-dipping going on in the conclusions.

>

> Why don't you do something positive and submit an

> FOI request instead of endlessly complaining on

> this forum?

Translation

?Oh you are a nuisance with your continual questions and scrutiny. Do please go away so we can enjoy Christmas in our lovely quiet gated communities without your valid points constantly making us feel guilty about it all the time...?

[spider69]

Is it possible for someone to answer this question.

I have a blue badge and need to up my walking rate due to illness. My question is

Can I turn right out of Dulwich Park passing through the village towards Redpost Hill or do I have to abide by the timings that could produce a fine.

Not sure of the exact times perhaps someone could help with this.

Many thanks

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

redpost Wrote:

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

> Why don't you do something positive and submit an

> FOI request instead of endlessly complaining on

> this forum?

There is no need to do that - the raw data and detail on the methodology and analysis is all freely available on the council website already! This whole "we need more data" talking point is a load of old tut.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review?chapter=4

[legalalien]

Spider69 the adjusted arrangements haven?t come into force yet, you can?t drive that route between 8 and 10am or 3-6pm on Monday to Friday ( I think including public holidays that fall Monday to Friday).

There is a plan to exempt all Blue badge holders who are Southwark residents, again I?m not sure that has happened yet, if you haven?t been asked to register I would assume not.

?We currently have Blue Badge exemptions to the camera-controlled closures, which we're planning to extend to all Southwark resident Blue Badge holders across all Streetspace areas. ?

[Rockets]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> redpost Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Why don't you do something positive and submit

> an

> > FOI request instead of endlessly complaining on

> > this forum?

>

> There is no need to do that - the raw data and

> detail on the methodology and analysis is all

> freely available on the council website already!

> This whole "we need more data" talking point is a

> load of old tut.

> https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/i

> mproving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review?

> chapter=4

But it's not is it....look just three or messages earlier there's a debate going on between myself and Goldilocks as we try to unravel what has been done with the EDG Central numbers - no-one can work it out.

Given you are so enlightened by the info shared by the council perhaps you can tell us how the council has gathered the EDG Central data?

........nope didn't think so, this is why the council, none other than the council leader, promised to share the raw data and methodology because without it you can't make sense on how they arrived at their numbers. Nothing has been shared.

It seems the only people happy with the level of detail shared are those whose agendas are validated by them.

"Hurrah, victory is ours - who cares where the numbers came from or whether they are accurate."

[Metallic]

spider69 Wrote:

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

> Is it possible for someone to answer this

> question.

>

> I have a blue badge and need to up my walking rate

> due to illness. My question is

>

> Can I turn right out of Dulwich Park passing

> through the village towards Redpost Hill or do I

> have to abide by the timings that could produce a

> fine.

>

> Not sure of the exact times perhaps someone could

> help with this.

>

> Many thanks

If you are a Southwark resident i believe the Council has given all blue badge holders the right to pass through the cameras. But ask your councillor to check in case legalalien is right - I thought this permission had been granted.

[spider69]

Thanks all for the answer, much appreciated.

[legalalien]

I?m just thinking that as the blue badge is (I think?) issued to a person not a vehicle, you?d have to register a particular vehicle with Southwark to get the exemption. I just checked and for the congestion charge, for example, you have to separately register a vehicle to take advantage of the exemption.