LTN Discussion

[heartblock]

I watched children playing cricket on the sports area 2 metres away from very busy traffic on EDGrove midday this week. All that green-washing about school routes and excuses to keep roads closed is a joke.

[Earl Aelfheah]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> 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.

And this is the problem. There isn't any data which would convince those who are opposed to LTNs on principle. It's become an article of faith for some.

Interseting that there is both more congestion and higher speeds btw. How's that work?

[Earl Aelfheah]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> 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?

I regularly cross East Dulwich Grove at the junction of Melbourne Grove and traffic appears noticeably down to me. But others will disagree. Which is why it's better to look at actual vehicle counts than perception.

[heartblock]

I?m not opposed to LTNs ?on principle? but I have not seen any published evidence that they reduce car use or pollution in this area and the fuzzy data, although flawed and with dubious use of statistical methodology- shows that traffic on my road, outside my flat has risen by over 20% ... as observed. The only fundamentalists here are the individuals that cling onto the failed LTNs in this area, in the hope those impacted by more pollution just go away and shut-up, so people on quiet closed roads, can enjoy the rise in house prices and freedom from the rif-raf.

Next move will be gated communities USA style.

[Earl Aelfheah]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> I?m not opposed to LTNs ?on principle? but I have

> not seen any published evidence that they reduce

> car use or pollution in this area and the fuzzy

> data, although flawed and with dubious use of

> statistical methodology- shows that traffic on my

> road, outside my flat has risen by over 20% ... as

> observed. The only fundamentalists here are the

> individuals that cling onto the failed LTNs in

> this area, in the hope those impacted by more

> pollution just go away and shut-up, so people on

> quiet closed roads, can enjoy the rise in house

> prices and freedom from the rif-raf.

> Next move will be gated communities USA style.

Failed how? They've reduce car use across the wider area, to the benefit of the vast majority of people locally. They've increased active travel, particularly the number of children walking and cycling to school. You reject the data, deny the existence of peer reviewed research on LTNs generally, and talk about gated communities? It's absolutely clear that there is no evidence that you would accept that does not fit your pre-existing view.

[Earl Aelfheah]

BTW, the data is not fuzzy, nor is the methodology. You can see when the baseline data was collected and the location it was collected for EDG here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/77419/FAQ-and-data-collection-methodology_Dulwich-Streetspace_Sept-2021.pdf

The only reason it may appear 'fuzzy' to those who taking this thread as their main source of information, is because you're misrepresenting what the council has said regarding the data collected.

[Earl Aelfheah]

alice Wrote:

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

> One day we will look back incredulous that traffic

> was moved from the richest, greenest part of town

> to create arid dead villages in the centre of a

> major city.

I love the idea that we need more traffic in order for places to feel verdant and alive. Do you want more traffic or less traffic, I'm confused.

[Mrs D]

Goldilocks - it?s amazing that school holidays has such an impact on traffic, but I guess makes sense as less school drop off and parents also not going to work.

It?s a shame though for the other two locations on EDG that traffic is up in general. I live outside of the affected zone but sometimes bike (and drive) through the village and biked on EDG yesterday. EDG wasn?t a pleasant biking experience for me.

>

> @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.

[heartblock]

?Traffic has been rising across Southwark since the end of the 2021 COVID-19 lockdown, and was at 92% of pre-COVID levels in November 2021 at count points in the north of the borough, and above pre-COVID levels on the TfL network near Dulwich.? Direct from Southwark Council heatmap info. Doesn?t appear to support the myth that LTNs have reduced traffic across the Dulwich area... if it says above .... that?s ABOVE...

[heartblock]

Road traffic in London dropped by 18% from pre-Covid levels...so 92% also signifies a rise......it should be nearer 85% if the general traffic drop is considered.

LTNs only reduce traffic on closed roads, evaporation is a fundamentalist myth. No study shows a drop in pollution and traffic out-side of the general drop in traffic due to Covid-19. There is absolutely no evidence of any drop in NOx and PM2 due to any LTN intervention.

Walking is still the most 'active' type of travel, cycling has declined since the height of the quiet Covid Summer and buses have been cut, with longer journeys at peak times on residential main roads.

Fail.

[CPR Dave]

Even if evaporation does happen in some LTNs the councils data shows that it has jot happened in Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove (East).

Those areas now have worse traffic than we had before Covid. There is onyy one explanation for that.

[KidKruger]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> KidKruger Wrote:

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

> -----

> > 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.

>

> And this is the problem. There isn't any data

> which would convince those who are opposed to LTNs

> on principle. It's become an article of faith for

> some.

>

> Interseting that there is both more congestion and

> higher speeds btw. How's that work?

Who said anything works ?

More traffic isn?t always jammed is it ? You get a build-up, a frantic release, tempers fraying, horns blaring, etc.

I don?t need to explain this really do I, it?s obvious to anyone.

But top marks for trying to find some kind of semantic deficiency, to prove your view !

[first mate]

But it is not "opposed in principle"- that is your negative spin, it is simply stating the blindingly obvious, that currently LTNs in this area, in the way they have been implemented, are not working as well as was hoped and for some have made congestion and pollution very much worse.

[CPR Dave]

"more congestion and higher speeds" just confirms the abject failure of this so-called "Low Traffic" neighbourhood.

[goldilocks]

Traffic outside your flat has fallen by 19% as per the data sheet that you quoted.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> I?m not opposed to LTNs ?on principle? but I have

> not seen any published evidence that they reduce

> car use or pollution in this area and the fuzzy

> data, although flawed and with dubious use of

> statistical methodology- shows that traffic on my

> road, outside my flat has risen by over 20% ... as

> observed. The only fundamentalists here are the

> individuals that cling onto the failed LTNs in

> this area, in the hope those impacted by more

> pollution just go away and shut-up, so people on

> quiet closed roads, can enjoy the rise in house

> prices and freedom from the rif-raf.

> Next move will be gated communities USA style.

[Bicknell]

see what local electn candidates say about dulwich ltns

https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/where-do-local-candidates-stand-on-the-dulwich-ltns

[Waseley]

A summary is that the local Torries failed to address the need to radically reduce private car use, or acknowledge that it was their PM that introduced the concept, including the rapid role out.

Not sure what the Lib Dems stand for.

Greens make good points but again the failure is with central government, the Tories having been in power for 12 years, but we are now in the world of gesture politics.

I expect Labour saw this as a single issue, and it is obvious what their position is.

[heartblock]

I think I'm living rent free in a certain posters head... but anyway, my flat isn't near Melbourne Grove where the EDG central counter is and something cannot fall by 19% when there is no previous data.

Thanks for the info Bicknell - Lib Dem or Green for me then in Goose Green....I think Lib Dem based on this statement

"We are concerned that the measures are not providing an overall benefit to the area and are instead leading to longer car journeys as people navigate the road restrictions, and pollution being moved from one part of the area to another, as seen through the unacceptable levels of congestion on Croxted Road and East Dulwich Grove, for example. As your councillors, we would fight to remove the current LTN measures in Dulwich and replace them with alternative, fairer and evidence-led ways of tackling congestion and pollution which would be co-created with residents and local businesses. We would want to see an independent third party conduct a fair and comprehensive consultation as to what those measures should be, which puts residents at the heart of decision making on this issue.?'

[goldilocks]

Just a reminder of the sections of EDG that have been posted about and tie into the council's data. Its important because things are being stated as fact here that aren't facts at all.

East Dulwich Grove East - section between Lordship Lane and Melbourne Grove. This is the section where traffic has increased as those turning towards DKH can no longer cut down Melbourne, Derwent or Elsie and instead have to stay on EDG.

EDG Central - the section between Townley Road and Melbourne Grove (so this includes the Dutch Estate, the Charter School and the Health Centre). This is the section where traffic has FALLEN. Based on actual counts from September 2019 111,505 vehicles a week, January 2022 (after lifting of wfh direction and with schools in) 89,815.

EDG South - This is the section from Townley Road across to RedPost Hill - latest data shows a 4.8% increase here.

[Rockets]

Goldilocks - no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true - there was no actual count on EDG Central in Sept 2019 - those figures were modelled. So, in fact, are the only thing not based on fact.....

Let me explain to you what the council has done.....they have taken the Sep 19 modelled numbers as the baseline for EDG Central pre-Covid levels but look the Sept 19 modelled figures jumped massively for some, unexplained, reason.

Jan 19: 12408 *monitoring from a different, unspecified, location around EDG Central

Sep 19: 15316 *the modelled numbers that magically jump by nearly 3,000 to give the council the reduction you tout and now used as the baseline for pre-Covid traffic levels on EDG Central

Sep 21: 12675 the number quoted in the initial monitoring report but they now seem to be claiming 12,730

Oct 21: 12016

Nov 21: 12421

Dec 21: 10,746

Jan 22: 12414

Notice in the graphs here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/traffic-data-analysis how the only one with no figures prior to Sept 2021 is EDG Central - why? Because there was no monitoring there before then.

I think what is really shocking is that the council still has not factored in the overall reduction in traffic across the whole of the borough into their analysis so they are comparing a pre-Covid number with a post Covid number and not factoring in the fact that there are fewer vehicles on the road per se. The council estimated at least 7% less traffic across Southwark as a whole due to Covid so you start factoring that in and the results of the LTNs are actual like-for-like increases on many, if not most roads, in the area.

How Cllr McAsh's words at the beginning of this about LTN's only being classed as a success if there are reductions on all roads are coming back to haunt him now!

[goldilocks]

Rockets - there is an actual date of the count on the interactive map - nothing to indicate that it is modelled at all.

[Rockets]

Errrm...except for this which appears as the last line on paragraph two here...https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/traffic-data-analysis

....No data collected for East Dulwich Grove Central prior to September 2021

So, where did they get the pre-Covid number of 15,000 vehicles on EDG Central...I tell you where - their modelled numbers....come on really, it's time to admit defeat...the numbers you tout for reductions on EDG Central are not fact but based on modelled data....modelling I hasten to add that worked wonderfully in favour of a reduction....

BTW which interactive map are you referring to.....?

[goldilocks]

I know - that comment isn't very useful - because i don't think its true, but not sure that their proof reading is awesome! Anyway the link to the interactive map is below, its been available throughout the process, but data seems to be uploaded sporadically (suspect its a resource thing)

https://geo.southwark.gov.uk/connect/analyst/mobile/#/main

The link to it was on the summary page of the Dulwich Streetspace page.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/dulwich-review?chapter=2&article

[Rockets]

Errr, really....you honestly think that the council writing No data collected for East Dulwich Grove Central prior to September 2021 in their most recent report...is an error that was somehow missed in proof reading.....and you accuse us of conspiratorial theories....

The council has repeatedly stated that there was no actual monitoring at EDG Central prior to Sep 21 - they have been consistent with that.

Just because you don't want to believe it's true doesn't mean it's not true.

From day 1 the weight of evidence, from the council's own numerous reports, has shown that there was no data collected on EDG Central prior to September 21 - why do you think that is not true - what evidence based rational are you hanging it on?

Look, we know that you desperately want "proof" that the LTN's are working but you really are fighting a losing battle.

The EDG Central "reduction" you keep touting just goes to expose the folly of the council's approach. They have misled you and you continually use their data but the data actually does you a disservice as it is so easily dismissed as utter nonsense.

The bottom-line is this (and this according to the council's own dashboard https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/traffic-data-analysis):

3 of the 9 monitored roads have seen an increase in traffic compared to pre-Covid levels....

That rises to 4 of 9 if you remove the council's modelled data for EDG and use Jan 19 as the base.

If you then factor in, say a 15% reduction in overall traffic, then it hits about 7 of 9 of the roads monitored would have seen a net increase in traffic compared to pre-Covid levels.

Doesn't look at all rosy does it? But this is the reality.

Also, I note with interest that Underhill is no longer being monitored...one wonders why.......;-)

[goldilocks]

Have you looked at the map i linked to as it seems that you've said the same thing again.

There is data for September 2019 on the mapping. Its a dot, you click it, there is data.

Even with the net fall in overall traffic (which is debatable in areas like this) then EDG central still has less traffic than it did.

Edited to add data:

For anyone else unable to find the data:

September 2019 at East Dulwich Grove Central (so between MG and Townley) - 7 day average 15,929

Sept 21 at ED Grove central - 12,730

Oct 21: 12,016

Nov 21: 12,421

Dec 21: 10,746

Jan 22: 12,411