Rockets

I think the LibDems are taking a pragmatic approach to the LTNs. They knocked on our door at the weekend (as did Labour) and I asked them about their approach as it was unclear to me if they were supportive or not of the LTNs in Dulwich and they made it clear that they believe, for example, that the LTNs in Borough are working and the ones in Dulwich are not (and much of this is down to the availability of other travel options in some parts of the Borough - the old PTAL Achilles heal of the ones in Dulwich) and that they would work to revise/remove the LTNs in Dulwich as a result. It is clear that the Lib Dems are targeting not only Dulwich but other wards in Southwark - they are going after Labour in those wards areas where Labour have managed to alienate/annoy large swathes of the electorate - the in-filling in Peckham came up as did the gentrification of Elephant and Castle. Their mantra seems clear - they feel they are the only ones who can disrupt the Labour machine in Southwark and the only ones who will be able to affect change. The Lib Dems seem very confident (based on the feedback they said they were receiving going door-to-door across the area) and Labour seemed to realise they are out come May in some Dulwich wards. In fact, Labour seemed more concerned whether these local issues would impact my national voting intentions after I made it clear I would be voting against Labour in the May elections on the basis of their handling of local issues. From body language alone it seemed both Labour and Lib Dems had been hearing a similar story to mine on much of their door knocking on streets local to ours - Labour looked brow-beaten and the Lib Dems excited!

march46 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You see that @heartblock, other people see the > huge increase (7 times) in children using Calton > to safely get to school. But is this sufficient to justify the damage being done elsewhere? Are you suggesting that all of those children were being driven before? And can you clarify the 7x - it's all well and good throwing x's around but if the base was tiny then a 7x increase still makes it a small number. I know the council loves to throw an x into their documents but it means nothing without the baseline. I spend a lot of time on Calton during the day and yes, there is a plethora of kids on bikes at drop-off and pick-up (and this is a good thing) but then, for the rest of the day you see the occasional Uber bike and the member of the lycra racing club heading out for a lunch-break cycle - yes on the boundary roads being impacted by the displacement heavy traffic is a constant with peaks of nose-to-tail at rush-hour times. Again, can that be justified? It seems to be that the negatives far outweigh the positives.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can't even agree with this Rockets - i don't think > 'its clear they're manipulating data for their own > advantage' - i can't get past that its just > general underwhelming levels of competence in > terms of being able to arrange the process by > which it all needs to be shared. > > I share your frustration, but not your conspiracy > theories. I have written to Cllr Rose and > requested the data be shared though. You'll be > unsurprised to hear that I haven't had a response > . They have clearly manipulated data and the whole process. Let's look at the manipulation, or incompetence, rap sheet: - The manipulation of the original OHS process where the council allowed vested-interest lobby groups like the LCC to dominated the discussion - The use of Covid "social distancing measures" to allow them to circumvent the results of the OHS consultation to force the LTN measures through - The council putting monitoring strips in on only the closed roads in the first instance - The council then being forced to expand monitoring but they omitted key displacement routes like Underhill Road only to add them a long time after the monitoring started - The council then moving some of the monitoring strips from original locations (like the one near Court Lane on Lordship Lane that moved down near Melford after some months) to give them more advantageous results - The repeated claims that emergency services had been consulted and were supportive of the closures when the exaqct opposite was true - The lack of any sort of public debate or forum in the initial stages due to Covid - Once they finally gave in and organised some resident calls (like the Melbourne Grove one) they manipulated those calls to "randomly" select residents to speak who just happened to be the people behind groups like Clean Air for Dulwich and EDSTN lobby group and gave them a platform at the expense of others. They clearly changed their tactics after the first Zoom call which I believe was the Dulwich Hill ward call where they lost control of the narrative as most on the call were against the measures - The muting of chat functions on wider council calls - The blatant manipulation of the "consultation" process from the initial plans to only consult within the LTN area (which they relented on following constituent pressure) to the conclusions they reached despite an overwhelming majority of respondents saying they did not want the measures - The extension of the deadline for the initial consultation to allow Labour councillors to go door-to-door touting flawed data to try to influence the result (which of course failed spectacularly) - The presentation of flawed, incomplete or carefully selected data in relation to the LTN monitoring in the Streetspace materials - The complete omission of the at least 7% reduction in traffic across the whole of Southwark in their monitoring data (bar a brief mention in the opening blah blah blah) - The use of 3rd party cycling data from "independent" sources within the monitoring process - those independent sources are believed to be Anna Goodman, who data was torn apart upon close analysis. The same Anna Goodman who publishes paper after paper with Rachel Aldred lauding the greatness of LTNs and is seen as part of the pro-cycle lobby. So they can hardly claim that cycling data was independent. - The continued presentation of data in Streetspace flyers that stimulates more questions than answers as it desperately tries to paint a picture of positivity around the LTNs And these are just the examples that spring to mind and I am sure there are plenty of others. One of two could be put down to "oversights" or incompetence but the weight of examples suggests the council has been willingly trying to manipulate the process to their advantage from the outset. And by the looks of the latest Streetspace flyer they are continuing to do so.

Looks like Southwark councillors are, amongst others, coming under pressure on their failure to adequately meet the demand for cycle hangers and storage. Their lack of investment in the most basic of infrastructure to support modal shift has been really quite shocking - keen to close the roads, less keen to put facilities in place for those who don't own a huge house with a side-return and place to easily store a bike... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60835416

I think it is incumbent on everyone, for or against the measures, to challenge the council to share data that makes it crystal clear what is happening rather than dealing in half-truths and being deliberately obtuse with the data that they present to residents as fact. It is clear they are manipulating the data for their own advantage and we should all be very concerned by this - it's a very worrying trend. Is it not about time there was a public meeting on this where they share the data - they seem to have manipulated the pandemic to ensure they don't actually have to arrange any public meetings about anything anymore. Wasn't the last one they had that abomination of a meeting at the library to talk about the CPZs?

And still no response from Rahx3.....what a surprise! Speaking of propaganda the latest Streetspace Update dropped through our door today and the council still are touting their "reduction" % for Dulwich with no reference to the fact that it doesn't take any consideration for the area-wide reduction in traffic due to the pandemic. What is does say, interestingly, is that the council now has a full year of data showing that traffic on main roads is "still below the pre-pandemic level" - but they do not give a % figure. This is very telling as I suspect, given the way the council spins things to their advantage, that traffic on main roads will be only just below the pre-pandemic levels and I bet you that won't include any of the area-wide reduction in traffic so in reality traffic may have increased on the main roads taking the brunt of the displacement. Has the council shared the figure they tease people with in their Streetspace document?

Dougie it seems to be the modus operandi of many of the pro-LTN supporters on this thread - they don't ever respond to questions, especially those questions based on fact - they deal only in mistruths peddled by the council to support their argument and don't take time to actually analyse the council's data. It seems many are happy to be an organ of the LTN's are awesome propaganda and are happy to prop-up the narrative that LTNs have been a success when it is clear they have been anything but.

Rahx3 - you're flogging a dead horse and you are wrong. It doesn't matter how many times you say it you're wrong - the EDG Central numbers are modelled. You also seem reluctant to address my questions - one wonders why that might be....;-) Here is is, again, in case you missed it..... Here's a question for you - you claim traffic is down by 12% on all monitoring sites. Given Southwark-wide traffic is down by at least 7% as a result of the pandemic and that 7% has not been modelled into the council's report do you think that 12% figure can legitimately be claimed to be as a result of the LTNs? In fact, I bet if you factor in the 7% pandemic reduction in traffic and then remove the modelled data for EDG Central (which alleges a drop of around 3,000 vehicles) then you'll be getting very close to either no change or an increase in comparative overall traffic. Any thoughts on that?

But Heartblock...never let the truth get in the way of a good story hey...it amazes me when some on the pro-side post things that just validate what we are saying - perhaps they are actually double-agents..... Rahx3 - any response to my question on the 7% area wide reduction...or is that another case of not letting the truth get in the way of a good story too.......?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Btw, I just noticed that Rockets claimed the > traffic count data published was ?modelled? and > not based on actual vehicle counts. That?s not > true. Rahx3 - sorry, you're wrong - it is very much true. Take a look at the monitoring report and methodology, it's there in black and white - the EDG Central "reduction" numbers are modelled. Here's a question for you - you claim traffic is down by 12% on all monitoring sites. Given Southwark-wide traffic is down by at least 7% as a result of the pandemic and that 7% has not been modelled into the council's report do you think that 12% figure can legitimately be claimed to be as a result of the LTNs? In fact, I bet if you factor in the 7% pandemic reduction in traffic and then remove the modelled data for EDG Central (which alleges a drop of around 3,000 vehicles) then you'll be getting very close to either no change or an increase in comparative overall traffic. Any thoughts on that?

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But to follow up on penguins point > > They can't tell what sort of engine the vehicle is > using > If 100 hybrids or electric go over it on battery > power for example, it still counts then as cars > and therefore the calculated figures will be > inaccurate. > > Therefore "guestimated" figures based solely on > volume not engine type are at best misleading at > wirst just completely wrong. The strips also struggle when cars move slowly over them which is why those wanting to demonstrate a reduction in vehicles tend to place them close to congestion points. The council has never properly explained, ahem, why they moved the strips from Lordship Lane near the Court Lane junction down to close to Melford Road.....one does have to wonder why that might have been....;-)

Would funding for this not come from the cash-cow, sorry cash-pile Southwark has accumulated from the LTN cameras in the Village? If so, could that be what Cllr Leeming is referring to and .....'ing about in his missive - he does love a bit of trolling!? ;-)

If they are this is a good thing as, even with those islands, it is tough to cross the road there. Are they going to be able to do anything about the EDG and LL junction (which is a lot worse since the LTNs went in) and the Grove Tavern junction - which has always been hellish to try and cross?

Sorry, am I missing something or have other posts been deleted - are the councillors going to put a crossing in around the Court Lane junction?

There have certainly been rumours that many of the lobby groups are the same small group of people creating multiple accounts to suggest broad support for their initiatives. Something has happened to act as the catalyst for CAD to refuse the funding they were awarded in 2020. I wonder if the council did some due diligence and realised much of the funding was going to the same people under different group names - now that might warrant a council investigation about fraudulent applications! BTW on a potentially linked subject, that stage managed call the councillors held for the Melbourne Grove closures where they only took comments and questions from some from the street residents group- was it recorded and is there a link to it anywhere?

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?ve attached a screenshot of the twitter post. > > Kissthisguy that?s true, you could probably add > Safe Routes to Schools to the potential overlap > list as well. I?m not sure what the legalities are > as opposed to the ?right thing to do? > considerations. Something to idly ponder. > > > > CPR Dave Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > LA, does that mean that they admit that they > > applied for funding and that they were awarded > > funding and then decided they didn't want it > after > > all, but only once t was too late for someone > else > > to be granted that money, or possibly that they > > never applied for it but the council > embarrassed > > them by awarding them some money anyway? > > > > It doesn't make much sense or seem equitable > > whichever way it is looked at tbh Not buying point 1 at all, that reads like a smokescreen. I think point 2 is far more interesting - I think the truth behind their decision not to take it is hidden somewhere in point 2. I wonder what links they really have to the council or Labour party. Or is there something else that made them refuse the funding - did any other of the groups that lobby for LTNs submit funding applications at that time - EDSTN, Mums for Lungs etc? A lot of pro-LTN supporters question who is behind One Dulwich etc maybe it's time to turn the spotlight on some of the "local" pro-LTN lobby groups. Helen Pickering's testimony to Southwark Cyclists looks well orchestrated and coordinated.

Per CPR's point, if CAD applied for funding in 2020 and were awarded it yet decided not to accept it I wonder what the catalyst for turning it down was? The fact they are making a point now of saying they are not funded by Southwark could it be that someone involved in the group would have been precluded from receiving council funding money? The plot thickens.....

It's all a bit incestuous isn't it...the person who set up CAD advising Southwark Cyclists on how to lobby. No doubt then lobbying the council and then receiving funding from the council for said lobbying.....it's a virtuous cycle of self justification...no wonder CAD is trying to distance themselves from the perception they have received funding from the council. I love the bit where CAD states get to know your councillors...invite your councillors for coffee.... It appears they are no more than a funded council propaganda tool to try and convince residents that LTNs are a good thing/working.

march46 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Traffic is down 12% and cycling up 61% - the > schemes aren?t perfect but those are positive > results. But that 12% has nothing to do with the LTNs does it? Because traffic across the whole borough was down by at least 7% according to the council's own estimations due to the pandemic yet they didn't factor that into their LTN traffic monitoring results at all - bar the very briefest of mentions in one of the opening paragraphs. Why, because they are trying to polish a turd and convince people the LTNs have had a positive effect when the exact opposite is true? And the 61% increase in cycling....based, in part, on, ahem, "independent" cycle counts by a pro-cycle lobbyist done at the height of the lockdown that were then used by the council in their analysis.....and to be honest a 61% increase is not enough to justify the disruption the measures have caused....if you're not doubling or quadrupling the numbers then you can't consider it success. Remember the cycle czar claiming cycling increasing 10x during lockdown....our measures couldn't even reach 1x...just 0.6x.....thats failure.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ps - gotta love google - looks as though ?500 was > awarded in 2020/21 round. > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/12226/S > outh-NsF-Decision-Award-Tables-2020-21.pdf I knew their Twitter bio claim was somewhat misleading.... interesting that they feel the need to make that claim (even though it is not entirely truthful!) - it makes you wonder how close they are to the council and whether they are a shill for the LTNs.

Goldilocks - they have certainly applied for funding from Southwark in the past - it was referenced in the link Legal posted. I am pretty sure they got that funding from that 2020 application - does someone know whether they did or not? If so, their claim of not being funded by Southwark council may need to change to not "currently" being funded by Southwark council. Also, to be fair, being funded by the council is a very specific use of wording as being funded implies something very different to receiving funding from the council....;-) I wonder if they have added that disclaimer to their twitter bio because people are questioning whether they are just a shill for the council?

I think the council would suggest this is budget to further the interests of locals and local interest groups but there is certainly a fine line they are walking when it comes to pro-LTN lobby groups and their funding. Didn't the money for the Party in the Square come from this fund and they have certainly funded activities for Clean Air For Dulwich who are one of the main pro-LTN lobby groups in the area - that's when it starts to get a bit messy, when council money is being used for groups to run events and activities that support divisive council initiatives like LTNs? Especially if you refuse to fund initiatives put forward by the other side of the argument which appears to have happened in this case - (even if you are eliminating their proposal on the basis of a technicality).

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does anyone disagree..?promote the awareness of > the need to adapt zero or low pollution means of > transport (electric / hybrid vehicles and cycles) > and to use public transport more? how does this > then become fraud and an anti-LTN group - that is > a leap by the Village Cllrs? You forgot to add anti-democracy - which is an accusation Cllr Leeming threw at them too!

This is exactly my point - Cllr Leeming seems keen to point out the technical flaws in the submission whilst diverting attention from/ignoring whether the submission had any merits. I am sure it isn't the first submission made by members of the public that fell short of what was required in terms of a technicality but I wonder if it is the first such submission where people weren't asked to correct those technicalities? Is the unmentioned technicality that it wasn't submitted by a group that the council has a cozy relationship with and uses as part of the lobbying process for its policies? Remember when people have challenged the council before on why certain groups/ideas get funding they have always responded that those were the only groups to submit for funding as part of the process. What is the council's track record when it comes to rejecting funding outright as they have seem to have done this time?

According to the screenshot Cllr Leeming posted the EDF post was made on Oct 4th on the dearly departed Our Healthy Streets thread. I would be interested to know why the councillors believe this is fraud - that is a strong accusation and suggests someone was going to mis-appropriate the funds or are they suggesting fraud because it used the same name as another twitter campaign group? Or is this the usual sensationalist echo-chamber twitter nonsense we have seen time and time again from our councillors? Clean Air for Dulwich also posted something about it but not sure they can claim a new anti-LTN group if this is linked to the post in Oct Bottom-line is the council and councillors have created a monster of a mess with the LTNs and they are under massive pressure with the elections fast approaching.