LTN Discussion

[legalalien]

This. Things are worse for those who walk and use public transport but don?t drive. I?m tempted to have more delivered as walking is less pleasant (now not pleasant at all a lot of the time).

Artemis Wrote:

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

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> > You should try walking down ED Grove at 8:00am

> in

> > the morning - stationary traffic all the way

> down

> > the road, cyclists and scooters on the pavement

> -

> > just an unpleasant walk now, used to love my

> walk

> > to Herne Hill station - now some mornings I

> feel

> > very asthmatic. So many school kids walking to

> > school in this pollution too. I can't

> understand

> > what this Council is thinking, it's obviously

> > diverting traffic onto other roads.

> > Road pricing yes, better local public transport

> > yes, but making dirty air ghettos - no!

>

> Yes. Yet again and again we are told that the

> LTNs have made walking ?easier? and ?better?. I

> never found any difficulty walking around the area

> (if I go for a ?leisure? or ?exercise? walk, I

> would choose a park - if I need to get anywhere

> for practical reasons, it?s very difficult to

> limit the journey to one of the LTN roads as

> everything ?useful? (shops, medical centres,

> public transport) inevitably involves going on or

> via a road that now has more traffic. Therefore,

> walking it smellier, more unhealthy and worse. In

> my view.

[KidKruger]

That?s a fair summary of situation on CP Rd actually 👍🏼

ed26 Wrote:

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

> Ha. I'll try not to get sucked in.

>

> But.... as I have seen on CPR....

>

> Driving - obvious. It's far busier than it used to

> be. There's always been a bit of congestion around

> the nursery but it's the streams of cars that is

> the problem. When 10 vehicles going one way come

> across 10 vehicles going the other way and one is

> a bit too wide or one driver refuses to pull in a

> bit (I've never understood that) then it all

> grinds to a halt.

>

> Cyclists - it's got busier due to the Spine route

> and people returning to work in the City. I guess

> many of these are just passing through and not

> local residents but they weave in and out of the

> waiting traffic, cycling on the wrong side of the

> road when there's traffic coming down the other

> way, and try to squeeze through gaps while the

> cars are trying to manoeuvre into spaces to let

> traffic pass the other way. So the LTN has made it

> more dangerous for those cyclists.

>

> Pedestrians - it's just not as nice walking up CPR

> as it used to be. Maybe I'm comparing a cold

> grotty winter day with a lovely spring morning but

> it's just not a pleasant experience walking up a

> road next to gridlocked traffic with cars belching

> out fumes and builders shouting obscenities at

> each other and blasting their horns. Makes me want

> to drive.

>

> I know we need to do something to reduce

> unnecessary car journeys but this isn't it. It's

> just funnelling traffic that didn't previously

> need to be on CPR onto CPR and p*ssing everyone

> off.

[Rockets]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> "we have evidence in the form of traffic data -

> which shows traffic is significantly reduced for

> the largest section, between Melbourne Grove and

> Townley (where the Charter school, health centre

> and Dutch Estate is)"

>

> Evidence - mmhhh nope I live in that area and it

> is definitely worse, so the 'data' is not correct

> for 'that' section. You have got it wrong anyway -

> Charter/Health Centre is in the old Dulwich Hosp

> site and isn't at Townley - that central stretch

> is about 10 metres and doesn't include Townley or

> the Dutch estate.

>

> Alleyn's is at Townley - so you really don't know

> the area very well at all - do you?

>

> Try living here in the same flat for 35 years and

> you might have a bit more knowledge of this road.

Heartblock - most of the pro-LTN lobby don't look beyond the "everything is awesome" headlines they are spoonfed by the council and they regurgitate it without actually checking for thenselves.

I started taking a closer look at the "methodology" that the council shared to support the figures they published and it makes for fascinating reading. To say it is a flawed piece of research is an understatement.

My interest was peaked to look beyond the headlines because the methodology document stated that the pre-scheme data collection was done out of school holidays yet it didn't make the same claim for the post-scheme data collection and I wondered whether the council had been fudging the results in their favour by comparing school holiday flows with non-school holiday flows.

I am still working through it but if anyone wants my initial headline assessment PM me and I will happily share the key slides that I think pose more questions than provide answers and maybe someone else can take a look and see if they are seeing the same things I am.

[Rockets]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> That?s a fair summary of situation on CP Rd

> actually 👍🏼

>

> ed26 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Ha. I'll try not to get sucked in.

> >

> > But.... as I have seen on CPR....

> >

> > Driving - obvious. It's far busier than it used

> to

> > be. There's always been a bit of congestion

> around

> > the nursery but it's the streams of cars that

> is

> > the problem. When 10 vehicles going one way

> come

> > across 10 vehicles going the other way and one

> is

> > a bit too wide or one driver refuses to pull in

> a

> > bit (I've never understood that) then it all

> > grinds to a halt.

> >

> > Cyclists - it's got busier due to the Spine

> route

> > and people returning to work in the City. I

> guess

> > many of these are just passing through and not

> > local residents but they weave in and out of

> the

> > waiting traffic, cycling on the wrong side of

> the

> > road when there's traffic coming down the other

> > way, and try to squeeze through gaps while the

> > cars are trying to manoeuvre into spaces to let

> > traffic pass the other way. So the LTN has made

> it

> > more dangerous for those cyclists.

> >

> > Pedestrians - it's just not as nice walking up

> CPR

> > as it used to be. Maybe I'm comparing a cold

> > grotty winter day with a lovely spring morning

> but

> > it's just not a pleasant experience walking up

> a

> > road next to gridlocked traffic with cars

> belching

> > out fumes and builders shouting obscenities at

> > each other and blasting their horns. Makes me

> want

> > to drive.

> >

> > I know we need to do something to reduce

> > unnecessary car journeys but this isn't it.

> It's

> > just funnelling traffic that didn't previously

> > need to be on CPR onto CPR and p*ssing everyone

> > off.

But hang on, the council's data shows that this cannot possibly be happening, absolutely definitely not happening and even if it is the EDG Central made up numbers make all of the collateral damage across the rest of Dulwich more than worth it.....;-)

[legalalien]

Compulsory reading - council?s vision for its transport policy going forward and its plan to revamp its Movement Plan which is the agreed document that informs detailed transport decisions going forward. No surprises, they are quite keen on a relatively car free future (while noting that a lot depends on central government giving TfL lots of dosh for public transport).

It?s on the agenda for next week?s cabinet meeting (1 February), the deadline for public questions at that cabinet meeting is tomorrow (Wednesday)

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s104619/Report%20Movement%20Plan%20update.pdf

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s104619/Report%20Movement%20Plan%20update.pdf

The monitoring report looks interesting. Particularly like that the only metric used to assess whether everyone is satisfied with their local area as a place to live, is how many people live within 400m of the strategic cycle network! Not planning to read the whole thing in detail - first impression is it?s a real mix of generic UK data, material cut and pasted from various central sources, a few specific bits of local data (lots on PCNs) and some notes where things aren?t being measured.

(Anyone interested in reading the docs - suggest you save them locally, they?ll probably be taken off the website once they realise people are reading them, based on past experience...)

[goldilocks]

Oh look you're doing it again Rockets

'I think that there's a problem because it suits my narrative, I haven't actually worked out if there is a problem and at this stage I just have questions, but i thought I'd throw some mud around because there are enough people on here who will repeat it as fact'

You raise a question as to whether data was collected either both within or both outside school holidays. Rather than finding out, you thought you'd just suggest it in a way that indicates you know the answer. Its clear you don't.

The data is difficult to get hold of, its not presented well, the comms have been ineffective and insufficient. Does this mean any of it is wrong? no!

Rockets Wrote:

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

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> > "we have evidence in the form of traffic data -

> > which shows traffic is significantly reduced

> for

> > the largest section, between Melbourne Grove

> and

> > Townley (where the Charter school, health

> centre

> > and Dutch Estate is)"

> >

> > Evidence - mmhhh nope I live in that area and

> it

> > is definitely worse, so the 'data' is not

> correct

> > for 'that' section. You have got it wrong anyway

> -

> > Charter/Health Centre is in the old Dulwich

> Hosp

> > site and isn't at Townley - that central

> stretch

> > is about 10 metres and doesn't include Townley

> or

> > the Dutch estate.

> >

> > Alleyn's is at Townley - so you really don't

> know

> > the area very well at all - do you?

> >

> > Try living here in the same flat for 35 years

> and

> > you might have a bit more knowledge of this

> road.

>

> Heartblock - most of the pro-LTN lobby don't look

> beyond the "everything is awesome" headlines they

> are spoonfed by the council and they regurgitate

> it without actually checking for thenselves.

>

> I started taking a closer look at the

> "methodology" that the council shared to support

> the figures they published and it makes for

> fascinating reading. To say it is a flawed piece

> of research is an understatement.

>

> My interest was peaked to look beyond the

> headlines because the methodology document stated

> that the pre-scheme data collection was done out

> of school holidays yet it didn't make the same

> claim for the post-scheme data collection and I

> wondered whether the council had been fudging the

> results in their favour by comparing school

> holiday flows with non-school holiday flows.

>

> I am still working through it but if anyone wants

> my initial headline assessment PM me and I will

> happily share the key slides that I think pose

> more questions than provide answers and maybe

> someone else can take a look and see if they are

> seeing the same things I am.

[Earl Aelfheah]

We don't need to guess about the impacts. There is data. It shows traffic down across the area (both inside the LTNs and on boundary roads), walking and cycling up and road accidents down. It also shows traffic on main roads trending down month on month. With the ULEZ also coming in to force, I suspect we'll see improvements in levels of pollution over time too. But none of it will make any difference to those who want to open up side roads to though traffic. Still, see you in another 100 pages of unsubstantiated nonsense.

[Rockets]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> Oh look you're doing it again Rockets

>

> 'I think that there's a problem because it suits

> my narrative, I haven't actually worked out if

> there is a problem and at this stage I just have

> questions, but i thought I'd throw some mud around

> because there are enough people on here who will

> repeat it as fact'

>

> You raise a question as to whether data was

> collected either both within or both outside

> school holidays. Rather than finding out, you

> thought you'd just suggest it in a way that

> indicates you know the answer. Its clear you

> don't.

>

> The data is difficult to get hold of, its not

> presented well, the comms have been ineffective

> and insufficient. Does this mean any of it is

> wrong? no!

>

>

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > heartblock Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > "we have evidence in the form of traffic data

> -

> > > which shows traffic is significantly reduced

> > for

> > > the largest section, between Melbourne Grove

> > and

> > > Townley (where the Charter school, health

> > centre

> > > and Dutch Estate is)"

> > >

> > > Evidence - mmhhh nope I live in that area and

> > it

> > > is definitely worse, so the 'data' is not

> > correct

> > > for 'that' section. You have got it wrong

> anyway

> > -

> > > Charter/Health Centre is in the old Dulwich

> > Hosp

> > > site and isn't at Townley - that central

> > stretch

> > > is about 10 metres and doesn't include

> Townley

> > or

> > > the Dutch estate.

> > >

> > > Alleyn's is at Townley - so you really don't

> > know

> > > the area very well at all - do you?

> > >

> > > Try living here in the same flat for 35 years

> > and

> > > you might have a bit more knowledge of this

> > road.

> >

> > Heartblock - most of the pro-LTN lobby don't

> look

> > beyond the "everything is awesome" headlines

> they

> > are spoonfed by the council and they

> regurgitate

> > it without actually checking for thenselves.

> >

> > I started taking a closer look at the

> > "methodology" that the council shared to

> support

> > the figures they published and it makes for

> > fascinating reading. To say it is a flawed

> piece

> > of research is an understatement.

> >

> > My interest was peaked to look beyond the

> > headlines because the methodology document

> stated

> > that the pre-scheme data collection was done

> out

> > of school holidays yet it didn't make the same

> > claim for the post-scheme data collection and I

> > wondered whether the council had been fudging

> the

> > results in their favour by comparing school

> > holiday flows with non-school holiday flows.

> >

> > I am still working through it but if anyone

> wants

> > my initial headline assessment PM me and I will

> > happily share the key slides that I think pose

> > more questions than provide answers and maybe

> > someone else can take a look and see if they

> are

> > seeing the same things I am.

Goldilocks - do share with me how you suggest we find out. The information on the council's own methodology report on Page 5 quite clearly states:

When Was Pre-Scheme Data Collected?

? The data used to understand traffic prior to the Streetspace scheme was mostly collected

by the Council for studies prior to 2020 with some additional collection in June 2020. This

data collection all took place outside school holidays.

? Where multiple data sets at a location were collected prior to scheme implementation, the

most recent data collected prior to March 2021 was used to have a pre-scheme dataset

unimpacted by COVID-19 where possible.

When Was Post-Scheme Data Collected?

? Data for after the implementation of the Streetspace schemes was collected in September

2020, and then either continuously or in tranches in 2021.

? On key external roads data has been collected continuously throughout 2021, on other

roads data has been collected for all weeks in March, April, June and September 2021.

? The time periods during which the data in the report were collected are shown overleaf.

So, it's clear that the Pre-Scheme data was collected out of school holidays yet it is not clear when the Post Scheme Data was collected. You would expect the same caveat to be applied if it was the case in both pre- and post-?

Surely, would you not agree that if the Post-Scheme Data was collected in school holidays then that would have a significant impact on the monitoring report?

[goldilocks]

I would suggest that you get in touch with your local councilor to ask - or that you email Cllr Rose and cc officers for info - I understand that monitoring data is available on the link shared but similarly struggle to isolate the right counts so don't doubt that there is a difficulty with accessibility. The last sentence 'the time periods during which the data in the report were collected are shown overleaf' indicates its available though.

However - this is not the same as 'there are problems with the data - which is what you stated but clearly don't 'know'

Yes - it would be an issue if it compared holiday and not - but as you don't know - suggesting there are 'real problems with the data' is a stretch given what you actually know.

[dougiefreeman]

Good luck emailing Cllr Rose. Doesn't respond to anything.

[Rockets]

Goldilocks - the councillors do not respond to anything LTN related. Do you have any other ideas how we can get these questions answered?

Here's another pearl I found from my review of the methodology report which I think is quite shocking: the post-scheme figures have not been adjusted to reflect the general Covid reduction in traffic across Southwark so pre-scheme numbers are being compared with post-scheme numbers that have reduced significantly due to the Covid-induced reduction in driving across the borough:

See Page 18 of the council's presentation where it states:

Post-implementation data has not been adjusted in relation to COVID-19, although context

on how traffic levels have changed throughout the pandemic is provided in reporting.

Any comments on that?

[Metallic]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> What policies do they have that show they?re

> ?centrist? @heartblock?

>

> The only policies they suggested were fighting to

> remove LTNs and fixing the postal service

> (something that they had no remit over).

>

> There is nothing to suggest that they are ?Tory

> light? so let?s not pretend that in voting for

> them you won?t be voting for Conservative

> councillors - they are part of the local

> association with all that entails

Maybe you should keep out of Dulwich Village Ward politics as I don't believe you live in it?

[Metallic]

march46 Wrote:

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

> When was traffic on East Dulwich Grove at 8am ever

> not bad Heartblock? You paint a picture that it

> was so much better before, but I remember very

> clearly it always being bad.

>

> You have your view, I have mine - they differ but

> thankfully we have evidence in the form of traffic

> data - which shows traffic is significantly

> reduced for the largest section, between Melbourne

> Grove and Townley (where the Charter school,

> health centre and Dutch Estate is).

On EDG between those two roads - where has the traffic from either end disappeared to? Simple question as I fully expect my road to get closed at some point instead of being the turning circle for people who don't believe the road signs. No traffic most of the day now even though Townley becomes open at some point. This is such a rubbish future.

[goldilocks]

If you applied that logic to the nth degree, then you'd lounge any references to Dulwich Village on this thread as its the East Dulwich Forum.

Also - maybe you should be less rude?

Metallic Wrote:

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

> northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> -----

> > What policies do they have that show they?re

> > ?centrist? @heartblock?

> >

> > The only policies they suggested were fighting

> to

> > remove LTNs and fixing the postal service

> > (something that they had no remit over).

> >

> > There is nothing to suggest that they are ?Tory

> > light? so let?s not pretend that in voting for

> > them you won?t be voting for Conservative

> > councillors - they are part of the local

> > association with all that entails

>

> Maybe you should keep out of Dulwich Village Ward

> politics as I don't believe you live in it?

[Rockets]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> If you applied that logic to the nth degree, then

> you'd lounge any references to Dulwich Village on

> this thread as its the East Dulwich Forum.

>

> Also - maybe you should be less rude?

>

>

> Metallic Wrote:

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

> -----

> > northernmonkey Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > What policies do they have that show they?re

> > > ?centrist? @heartblock?

> > >

> > > The only policies they suggested were

> fighting

> > to

> > > remove LTNs and fixing the postal service

> > > (something that they had no remit over).

> > >

> > > There is nothing to suggest that they are

> ?Tory

> > > light? so let?s not pretend that in voting

> for

> > > them you won?t be voting for Conservative

> > > councillors - they are part of the local

> > > association with all that entails

> >

> > Maybe you should keep out of Dulwich Village

> Ward

> > politics as I don't believe you live in it?

Goldilocks - you appear to have missed my question to you. I will paste it below so you can take a look and respond......

Here's another pearl I found from my review of the methodology report which I think is quite shocking: the post-scheme figures have not been adjusted to reflect the general Covid reduction in traffic across Southwark so pre-scheme numbers are being compared with post-scheme numbers that have reduced significantly due to the Covid-induced reduction in driving across the borough:

See Page 18 of the council's presentation where it states:

Post-implementation data has not been adjusted in relation to COVID-19, although context

on how traffic levels have changed throughout the pandemic is provided in reporting.

Any comments on that?

[goldilocks]

It seems pretty clear - no? Like you managed to find it even in your confused state?

The thing is - whatever adjustment factor they had applied, you'd have questioned. The fact that the data is unadjusted is clear (because you have quoted the bit where its stated) and the average figures for london also stated.

[CPR Dave]

It makes them look just as bent as the Tories / 10 Downing St in my view.

[Rockets]

So, on the basis of that, and on the basis that Southwark has quoted that traffic across Southwark has been down by 7% during the pandemic, the numbers quoted by the council in their summary infographic, and in the main report, are wrong aren't they?

Because they have not adjusted the pre-scheme figures on the basis of the 7% reduction in traffic during the Covid pandemic. They are not comparing like with like.

So traffic has not declined 4% on Lordship Lane near Court Lane - it has increased by 3%.

Likewise, it has not increased by 4% on Lordship Lane near Townley it has, in fact, increased by 11%.

Croxted Road the same - no longer a 7% decrease in traffic but no change

And so the list goes on......

The council are manipulating the figures to their own advantage and not levelling the playing field for a fair and balanced comparison.

Thoughts?

[KidKruger]

So you can reduce traffic in a road by making it an LTN.

But what about the other roads that have to soak up additional traffic which is trying to complete it's journey and cannot proceed through the LTNs - they see an increase (in some cases, substantial) in traffic. I'm not talking main arteries, they are chocka - it's other minor road routes that the displaced traffic now uses to try and make some progress.

Weird logic and weird in actual practice.

It's like sh*tting in someone else's backyard and proclaiming how clean your yard is now that you've built a fence around it, or, more accurately, throwing the sh*t into another neighbourhood and proclaiming how improved all the measurements you're making in your area are now. - "yeah the air's clean here, see it worked..".

It feels like a small number of people felt they just had to take SOME kind of policy decision (and were obliged to some privileged people).

[heartblock]

yep.. although have you missed the best bit...apparently the *hit just evaporates.....you will now be told that, with 'evidence' about people getting rid of their toilets proving there is no s*it on your road. The sh*t you see and smell...is your imagination, because the data proves it.

[KidKruger]

Let?s

Trade

Neighbourhoods

[Bic Basher]

I'm not good with figures, but from my own eyes I've seen the substantial difference in traffic flows on LL and East Dulwich Grove since the LTN was introduced.

The only other solution I can see to resolve the traffic at the Court Lane end of LL is to remove the right turn into Dulwich Common which would allow traffic to flow down Lordship Lane, but it would mean drivers wanting to use the South Circular would have to take an alternative route either via Sydenham Hill to go back down LL to reach the Common or use East Dulwich Grove via Dulwich Village and College Road to reach the A205.

[legalalien]

Consultation on double yellow lines on Abbotswood a road in case anyone is interested. Closes 31 January.

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/abbotswoodroaddoubleyellowlines/

[redpost]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> goldilocks Wrote:

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

> -----

> > If you applied that logic to the nth degree,

> then

> > you'd lounge any references to Dulwich Village

> on

> > this thread as its the East Dulwich Forum.

> >

> > Also - maybe you should be less rude?

> >

> >

> > Metallic Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > northernmonkey Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > What policies do they have that show

> they?re

> > > > ?centrist? @heartblock?

> > > >

> > > > The only policies they suggested were

> > fighting

> > > to

> > > > remove LTNs and fixing the postal service

> > > > (something that they had no remit over).

> > > >

> > > > There is nothing to suggest that they are

> > ?Tory

> > > > light? so let?s not pretend that in voting

> > for

> > > > them you won?t be voting for Conservative

> > > > councillors - they are part of the local

> > > > association with all that entails

> > >

> > > Maybe you should keep out of Dulwich Village

> > Ward

> > > politics as I don't believe you live in it?

>

>

> Goldilocks - you appear to have missed my question

> to you. I will paste it below so you can take a

> look and respond......

>

>

> Here's another pearl I found from my review of the

> methodology report which I think is quite

> shocking: the post-scheme figures have not been

> adjusted to reflect the general Covid reduction in

> traffic across Southwark so pre-scheme numbers are

> being compared with post-scheme numbers that have

> reduced significantly due to the Covid-induced

> reduction in driving across the borough:

>

> See Page 18 of the council's presentation where it

> states:

>

> Post-implementation data has not been adjusted in

> relation to COVID-19, although context

> on how traffic levels have changed throughout the

> pandemic is provided in reporting.

>

> Any comments on that?

yes, traffic was actually up because of covid as people avoided public transport

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/15/road-congestion-levels-in-outer-london-higher-than-before-lockdown

it's not rocket science to understand car owners behaviour during a pandemic

[heartblock]

Outer London - so longer journeys one assumes and the Waze data does not measure the volume of traffic, and journey times. Article over a year long.

During lockdown and the easing after, my friend used to bring me food as she was a key-worker so out and about - and I cooked her meals to take home as she was working all day in PPE and completely destroyed every evening.

We sat outside 2 metres apart on a wall every 'rush-hour' after our exchange and cleansing of goods and we could hear ourselves and birds song. There was hardly any traffic on ED Grove at this time.

Now there is no birdsong to be heard and we cannot sit on that wall and hear ourselves speak.