Jump to content

LTN Discussion

Administrator

By Administrator
in Roads & Transport

 Share

Recommended Posts

goldilocks

goldilocks

Posted
Posted

I was pointing out the lack of factual accuracy in your 'low car ownership' comments. Yes - compared to a couple of wealthy streets, but not comparative to anywhere else.


Yes - ED Grove has congestion at peak times - but a lot of the time the road is totally empty. I'm struggling to remember a time when it wasn't congested at peak times and the monitoring data shows that traffic has fallen since the LTNs put in (i know you don't 'believe' this - but I can't do anything about that). Do I think that more needs to be done - yes, do i think that reopening all roads would change congestion on ED Grove - no, there would still be peak time traffic.


Also - the dutch estate isn't mostly empty of cars - the majority of the spaces are full at weekends or evenings and they have garages too. Its not public parking its just extensive free parking for residents.

goldilocks

goldilocks

Posted
Posted

Based on the September data, it doesn't. You are using the count near Lordship Lane and applying it to your flat. This is wrong.



heartblock Wrote:

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

> The section I live in - flats no private parking,

> not many gardens - Ed Grove East

> Southwark data shows an increase in traffic by

> 2867 cars/HGV a day.

>

> Well done Southwark!

DuncanW

DuncanW

Posted
Posted

Raeburn Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Waltham Forest's LTN led to a significant

> increase

> > in car ownership within it's boundaries.....

>

> Curious, where are you reading this? And what is a

> significant increase?

>

> I'm using google, but can't find anything that

> remotely supports this, but points to the

> opposite.


At best: "Now, it couldn't be mistaken attribution of causation

Born of a coincidental (temporal) correlation"

Dogkennelhillbilly

Dogkennelhillbilly

Posted
Posted

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Estate agent - "Fox Lane is a sought-after road

> currently falling within the ltn (Low Traffic

> Neighbourhood Scheme)."

>

> Ka-ching!


Christ, if we're going to use estate agents' advertising as proof of anything... 🤣

exdulwicher

exdulwicher

Posted
Posted
If Councils and LTN supporters can use 'modelling' to prove LTNs work


Slightly pedantically, modelling doesn't prove things work. Modelling produces a forecast of how the transport system is likely to operate in a new situation, a source of insight to help understand / prepare for the new situation.*


However, once the "new situation" is in place, you then need data to prove the outcomes. The modelling is usually pretty accurate and it helps a lot that LTNs are nothing new, they've been done for decades so the outcomes and the inputs required are all pretty well understood.


*"new situation" includes:

opening / modifying / closing a road or roads

changing parking provisions

opening / modifying / closing a public transport service

opening / modifying / closing a site (like closing down an old school or opening a new shopping centre)

and so on

heartblock

heartblock

Posted
Posted

Measurement near EDG nursery shows an extra 2867 cars a day - seems pretty Central to me. the amazing reduction the Council is so proud of is a reduction of 52 cars per day using a made up number as a baseline - still 11442 cars a day in Sept so 11007 cars a day or 11442 cars a day. You think that's ok?


You do know 'Central' was sort of made up by Southwark - because if they measured the whole of ED Grove there is an increase and they also wanted to make up a 'new' number as an excuse to keep Melbourne closed.


OK - bored now. It doesn't matter - Southwark is going to make these permanent - vote wisely.

goldilocks

goldilocks

Posted
Posted

Measurement near the ED nursery (private nursery that chooses to use the front garden nearest the road for play areas for its youngest children whilst prioritising the owner's SUV parking at the rear)is higher yes.


Central isn't made up - it has actual traffic counts - details in the latest report.



It doesn't support your argument so you're trying to claim it doesn't exist.

Rockets

Rockets

Posted
Posted

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> Oh - so you're ignoring the 'central' counts - eg

> the ones closest to your house?

>

> Ok...

>

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Nope it's Sept data - EDG East

> > Jan 2019 - 8140

> > Sept 2021 - 11007

> >

> > Gilkes Crescent - 0


Speaking of which I am still in search for some answers to the questions I posed on this mysterious "central" count, can anyone provide any answers - Cllr McAsh didn't.


1) Where is the Jan 19 data from (for what purposes was it collected and from which point was it collected as it is not the same location as the Sept 21 monitoring point)?

2) Where is the Sept 21 monitoring point?

3) What methodology was used to arrive at the Sept 21 figure?

4) Why does the EDG Central chart say: the Pre-implementation data for Jan 2019 has been adjusted to September 2019 levels to ensure compatibility and what adjustment took place and why? That suggests to me that the September 2019 figures were modelled.

5) Why was the decision taken to add the EDG Central monitoring point in Sept 21? What, or who, prompted that so late in the process?

6) When was the Sep 21 monitoring captured - was it at the beginning of the month before the private schools went back or at the end of the month during the fuel crisis?


And on the Waltham Forest increase of car ownership within the LTN I am trying to find it (I believe it was something Cllr Vincent Stops tweeted based on DVLA data for registered cars within the postcodes within the LTNs and that it was linked to the gentrification of the area on the basis of the LTNs).

Rockets

Rockets

Posted
Posted

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> Dulwich PT is not AMAZING - it is a very low PTAL

> score

>

> PTAL is a London system, it's not used elsewhere

> (or at least, not in anything like that form). In

> London, it's used mainly as an aid to planning

> developments. Areas with low PTAL are required to

> have more parking - it sort of accepts that as P/T

> isn't as good therefore more people will use

> private cars which is a bit of a catch-22 in

> itself since it entrenches car use.

>

> However the "not as good" is in comparison to high

> PTAL areas. You're comparing "leafy Dulwich" with

> central London! Of course in central London you're

> no more than a few minutes from a Tube or bus,

> you've got large terminus stations... In Dulwich,

> there are far fewer roads and a lot of green space

> - playing fields, the park etc where if you're in

> the middle of that, of course there's zero density

> of P/T!

>

> Whilst PTAL is a simple calculation (easily

> performed by a spreadsheet) that offers an obvious

> indication of the density of public transport

> provision in an area, it suffers three key

> problems:

>

> It does not take into account where services

> actually go to ? for example, a bus that runs

> every ten minutes to the bottom of the road is

> considered better than a bus that runs every

> twelve minutes to the city centre.

> The use of arbitrary cut-offs to exclude more

> distant service access points underestimates the

> ability to access locations just outside those

> cut-off distances. For example, a point 960m from

> King's Cross could have a PTAL of 6, whilst a

> point 961m from the same station could have a PTAL

> of 1 or 2.

> It does not take into account how crowded the

> services are. If you stand outside Victoria

> Station on a weekday rush hour (ignoring Covid for

> the moment), you're in a PTAL 6 zone. Try getting

> down onto the Circle or District Line platforms

> though!

>

> I do wish the same old "PTAL scores are really

> low" argument would die. It's low compared to high

> density P/T in central London. You will literally

> never replicate that in Dulwich, not without tens

> of billions of ?? investment in trams, a Tube line

> or two and some bus-only routes (the latter of

> which means closing some roads to cars and/or

> removing parking).

>

> There are more detailed models available -

> accessibility modelling gives you colour-coded

> maps of travel time door-to-door. You may have

> seen similar on (eg) Santander Cycles docking

> stations where it gives you a radius of where you

> can reach in 5 mins walking / 5 mins cycling etc.

> It's a more detailed version of that and also

> factors in Active Travel. PTAL only really

> half-acknowledges that in terms of assumed walking

> time to a Service Access Point (ie a bus stop /

> train station etc).


Ex- I admire your continued defence of PTALs as a measure of how well connected an area is but your argument is massively undermined by the fact that that is what Southwark (and other councils) use to determine how accessible any area is by public transport.


And I quote from Southwark's Dulwich Area Traffic Management Study April 2018:


PTAL is a measure of accessibility used by TfL based on distance and frequency of public transport. The areas with a high level of public transport accessibility usually score 5, 6a or 6b on the PTAL scale, whilst areas with very low levels of public transport accessibility will score 0, 1a or 1b.


The Dulwich area has a low level of public transport accessibility. Areas around the main stations only reach a PTAL 3 and The Village a PTAL 2 whilst the main commercial area around East Dulwich has a PTAL 3. Other parts of Dulwich, particularly those where schools are located have a level 2 of accessibility translating into a higher use of car and coach for pupils outside of Dulwich.

Dogkennelhillbilly

Dogkennelhillbilly

Posted
Posted

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Nope it's Sept data - EDG East

> Jan 2019 - 8140

> Sept 2021 - 11007

>

> Gilkes Crescent - 0


What date in January 2019?


What's Gilkes Crescent got to do with anything? It was closed to stop rat running years (decades?) before LTNs

Raeburn

Raeburn

Posted
Posted

Rockets Wrote:

> And on the Waltham Forest increase of car

> ownership within the LTN I am trying to find it (I

> believe it was something Cllr Vincent Stops

> tweeted based on DVLA data for registered cars

> within the postcodes within the LTNs and that it

> was linked to the gentrification of the area on

> the basis of the LTNs).


You might mean London Fields, and the stat which was posted and subsequently dismantled?

Bic Basher

Bic Basher

Posted
Posted

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> Bic Basher Wrote:

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

> -----

> > the 20mph speed limit in Southwark

> > first of all slowed bus journeys down...

> > It's common to wait over 20 minutes for a P4 to

> > Lewisham in Dulwich Common because the bus gets

> > stuck in the jam which was already bad before

> the

> > LTN, but is even worse now.

>

> Any evidence for the claim that buses have been

> delayed by 20mph speed limits in Southwark? It's

> not like they were usually hammering up to 30mph

> in the 500 yards between bus stops.

>

> If P4 buses were getting stuck in "the jam" (which

> one?), that would delay them but wouldn't affect

> the interval at which they arrived at any stop.

> The P4 does run at 20 minute intervals at some

> points in the day...



The P4 only runs every 20 minutes during early mornings before the traffic starts It otherwise runs every 12-15 minutes. Maybe because you're in your LTN enclave that you don't see the disruption it causes to people like me who happen to live in social housing affected by Southwark's answer to the Berlin Wall?

heartblock

heartblock

Posted
Posted

They don't care about Social Housing Bic....apparently we are all living in mansions...as long as they - who incidentally do not say where they live, so one can only assume Court, Calton, Melbourne, Gilkes..(which by the way was closed not because of rat-running, but as a temporary order because Southwark messed up some speed humps) - and so I suppose that we on ED Grove are rats as we take up the traffic, so you don't have to..


There is a reason that clean air campaigner Rosamund Kissi-Debrah is anti-LTNs after her daughter died due to asthma exacerbated by a peak in air quality on the South Circular.


Is it because she is too lazy to walk? Is it because she loves her car?


Well - let's consider? What event would concentrate one's mind to the truth - possibly the death of one's child - rather than the glee of a quiet road and the congratulations of Simon Still and some other white men that one's bicycle can be ridden without any inconvenience down some very leafy roads to a nice cafe on the square of shame to watch some Morris dancing.

Dogkennelhillbilly

Dogkennelhillbilly

Posted
Posted

I'm touched you're taking such an interest in my home address, but I'm going to have to disappoint you by telling you your assumptions are completely wrong. Considering the small but hyperactive number of headcases, vandals and oddballs that are going around smashing things up and pursuing hate campaigns against people on Twitter, I think anyone would be mad to give away too many identifying details on here.


As for LTNs being Southwark's answer to the Berlin Wall... thousand people were murdered by the troops of Stalinist East Germany trying to cross the border. I await Godwin's Law reaching its natural conclusion on this one...

heartblock

heartblock

Posted
Posted

Well I suppose Southwark seems to be pretty care-free about demolishing estates, cutting down trees and building on green spaces, so yes I agree not a Stalinist endeavour, but certainly not a socialist-green one either.


Maybe when they stop demolishing buildings, stop building on green spaces in deprived areas and actually carry out some actual policy that does positively impact the poorest in this borough rather than the wealthiest both myself and Bic might have a little more faith.


I'm not sure you are so important that someone is going to search every household on the road you live, but it is interesting how all of the pro-LTN crowd do not say where they live - whereas us lot on ribbon-boundary roads are quite happy to put a poster or placard up and say we live in ED Grove, near Charter and in a flat, despite my neighbour having someone come on her property and up to her front door to vandalise a placard on her property - there are some oddballs indeed.

Bic Basher

Bic Basher

Posted
Posted

This is what you get when a party has too much power with the opposition having so little pressure for the administration to change their mind.


The Berlin Wall is of course an exaggeration, but the point is that the LTN continues to benefit those with more money and affluent housing than those who live on the border like me where social housing has been built. That's why I consider it to be a method of dividing people into those who benefit from quieter roads and the rest of us with little money who have to put up with added pollution and traffic.


It shouldn't come as a surprise though. Over 30 years ago, the P4 bus used to run along Court Lane and the posh residents stuck their nose up, so the council installed road humps, so the once useful bus which was a nice short cut from the Village to LL had to run along Dulwich Village and Dulwich Common instead, alas it's been stuck in traffic ever since.

heartblock

heartblock

Posted
Posted

Why are main roads not the object of reducing pollution in Southwark - considering the GSTT (Guys and St. Thomas) report that states.


"Annual averages for PM2.5, PM10, and NO2 show that people in Lambeth and Southwark are exposed to more air pollution along the main roads"


They also reported that the North of the borough was more polluted than the South - so why where leafy streets in Dulwich chosen? Seems to be very little to do with the most polluted streets in the Borough.


And yes - there are accounts of people on closed roads who have complained of a sense of isolation and difficulty in accessing transport. I think for the less mobile and elderly, this is an issue.

On boundary roads our issue is the noise and air pollution -it wasn't great before and Southwark have made it worse.

Dogkennelhillbilly

Dogkennelhillbilly

Posted
Posted

heartblock Wrote:

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

>

> I'm not sure you are so important that someone is

> going to search every household on the road you

> live,


I don't think so either, thankfully, but from the behaviour of some councillors recently and some lunatics harassing Council employees, it seems the bar for being attacked and harassed online is pretty low these days. If you think that someone's opinion is determined by where they live and you want to see everything through that lens - up to you, friend.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...