LTN Discussion

[Metallic]

DuncanW Wrote:

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

> The fire engine is at the DV end of Court Lane

> facing onto Calton Ave. There is no built out

> pavement there.

> Court Lane has double yellows on both sides at

> that end so looks more like it's illegally parked

> cars that have caused the problem.

>

> Unless there is something very odd about the

> perspective in the photo; as there is unrestricted

> parking a bit further back allowing for parking on

> both sides. But that predates the LTN, so not sure

> how that warrants the headline/angle of the

> story.

>

> The article states: The fire crew were hurtling

> towards an incident in Eynella Road on 11 April,

>

> That appliance is facing the opposite direction

> from Eynella. It's possible the driver overshot

> and was looking for a way back, but there are a

> further three or four right turns they would have

> gone past to rectify by this point.

Go and have a look - it doesn't have the problem any more.

[DuncanW]

I?m not sure what that means??

[Raeburn]

Quick look on Google street view/Apple Maps Look Around, you can find the site more clearly using details in 2nd pic - end of cemetery, high brick wall, lamp post etc.

The location is further along Court than the foreshortening in first pic makes it appear.

Both Street View and Look Around images are pre-LTN, and there?s no yellow lines either side at this point.

The narrow access problem existed long before 2020.

[Metallic]

It is double yellowed both sides and up to Dekker. What will all those drop off mums do now?

[legalalien]

Not just double yellowed but now has those blip things which should be more effective as no waiting to load/ unload. Good in principle(but they are horribly ugly and do add to the overall sense of decay of the area that has been created by so much signage, traffic lights with orange covers, mismatched street furniture and planters, planters that have weathered while there are signs on them and signs now removed, graffiti? if this closure stays I?m hoping it will be tidied up a bit, happy to pop down with a paint brush and some wood stain although my DIY skills are pretty limited?)

[goldilocks]

They do look ugly, but unfortunately needed if going to be successful at stopping drop offs.

Interesting point on the signage though - One Dulwich appear to be calling for more signs rather than fewer - and yet even with the many many signs, drivers are still missing or willfully ignoring the signage.

I'd understood that there was a codesign process scheduled in terms of the final version of the square and that the current landscaping is not what's intended.

[Lebanums]

There are parking spaces between the square of shame and Dekker. I used them the other week. I think the biggest challenge with the fire engine would have been the planters blocking off the square.

[goldilocks]

The DYL have been extended in the last week - since the 1Dulwich concerns about the fire engine not being able to easily return to its depot. The engine drivers specifically said they couldn't get through because of the parked cars. The gap in the planters is the equivalent of what was a whole lane, its not an access problem through the gap.

[legalalien]

My favourite sign is this one, which has been up for ages and relates to the previous redesign. In its current context I always think ?you?re not wrong there!?

They seem to have taken down the ugly blue streetspace ones (could have sworn they were there yesterday)

[Lebanums]

Thanks for the update Goldilocks, I guess I'll have to look for another space when going to DV, which is rarely.

[heartblock]

Oh look.....20% more traffic on East Dulwich Grove.... well obviously I wasn?t making it up!

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/traffic-data-analysis

Oh and also I was correct in this too ?No data collected for East Dulwich Grove Central prior to September 2021?

[ed_pete]

Yeah that -19% should be removed as there was no pre-covid level to compare to.

[goldilocks]

Whilst this is very tiresome to have to keep doing, no, Heartblock, you are not correct. There is a drop in traffic on the central section of EDG. Let me spell that out slightly more clearly.

Because of the traffic interventions that have been put in place, there is now less traffic on East Dulwich Grove than there was before. So everyone with the little green sign in their front garden is essentially asking for more traffic on their section of road.

Secondly - the 19% reduction is compared to something - the September 2019 count. When I last checked the interactive website then it was on there - so again, despite this being tiresome, yes it does exist and no you aren't right!

I'm now past the point where I think that any actual data would change your mind - however, the bit where you present things as fact is difficult to let slide, as people may not realise that your "facts" are not facts at all.

[dougiefreeman]

All you?re spelling out Goldilocks is that you don?t understand the data sitting in front of you.

Try again.

[goldilocks]

Dougie - try not to come on and mansplain.

I've even given sources - because unlike Heartblock I'm a fan of that

The data shared showed a fall on EDG Central - this is based on actual data, not made up.

[Northern Star]

Regarding East Dulwich Grove central count - previous council reports have pointed out that the September 19 count from a ?comparable location? looked a bit low compared to the same ?comparable location? in January 19 and therefore they used the January 19 data instead to be more conservative. I don?t know where the comparable location is (presumably close?) and why was there such big swing in the count between January and September 19?.

[heartblock]

?No data collected for East Dulwich Grove Central prior to September 2021? is quoted directly from the Southwark Council site. The webpage with this information on is in my post - so the source is given.

Constantly attacking me is tiresome.

[heartblock]

Direct from the latest StreetSpace Southwark Council.

[dougiefreeman]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> Dougie - try not to come on and mansplain.

>

> I've even given sources - because unlike

> Heartblock I'm a fan of that

>

> The data shared showed a fall on EDG Central -

> this is based on actual data, not made up.

There is no mansplaining in my post.

Plenty of it (and general condescension) in yours though which is just a bit odd given how misinformed you appear to be.

[goldilocks]

I think its just 'lazy' wording from the council though - like I say, there is data on the interactive map for September 2019 - which is the data that was referenced in the previous update too.

I think what it means is that there wasn't monitoring on that particular strip prior to September 2021, but the September 2019 data is very close by so its similar for comparison.

@Mrs D- the date of the January 2019 count included some days when the indi schools were still on Xmas holiday so the number would have been artificially deflated compared to average. The September 2019 number is the end of September so its normal term time traffic.

The fact that the comparison is September 2021 isn't fully helpful as the fuel crisis was starting to be felt at that point, and the January is after work from home but still quite close, so would still love to see the October / Nov / Dec data but if its in line with the other points then its interesting that traffic has decreased so substantially on that central section of East Dulwich Grove.

[alice]

There is too much fuzziness around available statistics to prove anything.

[ab29]

Anyone who actually lives in the area, especially on the roads impacted by the LTN can see an increase in traffic with their own eyes.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Oh look.....20% more traffic on East Dulwich

> Grove.... well obviously I wasn?t making it up!

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

> mproving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/tra

> ffic-data-analysis

>

> Oh and also I was correct in this too ?No data

> collected for East Dulwich Grove Central prior to

> September 2021?

[KidKruger]

Yep, I don?t need ?data? to recognise traffic increase in my road due to LTN spillage. Now a more dangerous road with frantic drivers and speeders noticeably worse than before. Don?t need to look at no binomial distribution.

[CPR Dave]

That Southwark data shows that in Goose Green ward the traffic has gone up massively. Its above pre covid levels here whereas everywhere else in London it is still down.

We warned time and again that LTNs displaced traffic and that it would be this side of Dulwich that would suffer it.

And the council data now proves those predictions right.

Remember when Mcash said if the LTNs don't work for everyone they would be removed? And now the data shows they only work for people West of Goose Green what has he done for his own constituents? Nothing at all.

[Earl Aelfheah]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Direct from the latest StreetSpace Southwark

> Council.

The dashboard contains data from 9 sites, where they've collected traffic data continuously from January 2021 to January 2022. It doesn't contain data from ED central prior to September 21. But if you look through the website you'll see that there is data which was collected in 2019. There is a full explanation of the methodology, including the location of data monitoring. See here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/77419/FAQ-and-data-collection-methodology_Dulwich-Streetspace_Sept-2021.pdf