slarti b2

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not sure 200% plus is the right figure The Council claimed 301% increase to Sep 2020 and 231% increase to Apr 2021. Its all in the OneDulwich Report > The 8% they raise in this 'paper' is also undoubtedly massively understated The 8% is from the Southwark council pre-streetspace monitoring counts, ie chosen precisely as a baseline, but suppressed becuase it didn't give the resultSouthwark wanted. What is the problem with using it? You seem to support Southwark in choosing an innacurate, unreliable estimate at the worst part of the year for cycling btw, OneDulwich could have used the Dept for Transport raw count figures for Sep 18 as a comaprison; those show a decrease in cycling after the road closure. But presumably the chose the average adjusted figure to be balanced. > One Dulwich lie and use half truths to perpetuate a narrative of fear to stoke up support. Oh dear, you really don't like being faced with proper analyisys based on open access information do you? Apart from this excellent report OneDulwich have preduced a series of reports analysing the data highlighting the errors and manipulation used by Southwark and our COuncillors. - the "47 increase" in traffic through Dulwich Village, using a fraudulent baseline - the massive increase in traffic along Calton Avenue, based on an obvious error - the "huge support" in OHS phase 2 for closing the junction, but only if you dont count those respondents who didn't want to close the junction. And this was a tiny survey with very few residents, apart from Calton Avenue, responding - the biased consultations with leading quesions. You ask whether Southwark Council is "evil", those are your words not mine. How would you describe a public body and its officers (who I would assume should be objective) that is consistently and repeatedly publishing biased deceitful and misleading information in support of their policies?

@DKHB My sympathies to the people of Aleppo and Pyongyang. But that doesn't detract from the fact that Southwark Council officers who, as public servants I have always assumed would\should provide objective advice, are consistently maniupulating data to support their political masters. And there is no effective scrutiny or opposition because the machinery of local government, and our puppet MP, is controlled by one party, Labour.

northernmonkey Wrote: So - I cracked and read this 'report'. Following my earlier response to you I have now read through that OneDulwich Report in more detail. Well researched and balanced though I think it pulls it punches a bit. The main issue that strikes me is, not the fact that Southwark's claims of a 231% increase are desparately over inflated, but that Southwark council officers seem to be manipulating and deliberately suppressing data to support Councillor's political agenda and mislead residents. The fact that Soutwark published these misleading statistics just before the end of the Dulwich Streetspace consultation period (presumably to avoid scrutiny?) then encouraged respondents to revise previous responses in the light of the so called success of the road closures is absolutely outrageous. This confirms a pattern of deceit by Southwark's Highways department which is surely not fit for purpose. Equally at fault are the councillors who willingly promulgate these false statistics. Sadly we appear to live in a one party state with no effective scrutiny or opposition to our local (Labour) councillors, the (Labour) cabinet and our (Labour) MP who seems to be a glove puppet for the (Labour) councillors.

rahrahrah Wrote: Just having a quick look at that ?report? by One Dulwich and it?s pretty clear that they?re straining every sinue to discredit data that they complain they haven?t even seen. I wouldn?t besurprised if the Council data is a bit iffy to be honest. But I would also put money on it being more reliable than anything from One Dulwich (who?s even in their best efforts to undermine the claim of an increase in active travel, conclude there has been an 8% increase in cycling). If LTNs don?t reduce car use or increase active travel, why do even their most vocal opponents only find evidence that they do? RahRah. You are now sounding desperate, and, quite frankly, pathetic in your attempts to disparage a well researched report just because you don't like the conclusions. I have read the report and OneDulwich are using Southwark Council's own pre-closure monitoring figures (supported by Dept for Transport counts) to evaluate the effect of the closures, ie they are just doing what Southwark promised but hasn't done. I don't think they are "straining every sinue" (sic); though it looks as though they have had to dig deep since Southwark have done their best to avoid publicising the figures and certainly ignored them in their own report. As for accuracy, it looks as though Southwark doesn't even know whether its baseline count figure is from Nov or Dec and has admitted the cycle count figure is an estimate. Combine that with comparing a cycle count for November (or December) with September and April makes Soutwarks claims of huge cycling increases pretty unconvincing and unreliable don't you think? If the closure of Calton\DV junction has increased cycling along Calton Avenue by 8% then fine, lets acknowledge that but don't pretend it is an increase of 231% as the council has done. And of course, that 8% inrcease may have resulted from cyclists who have diverted from East Dulwich Grove because of the increased traffic volumes and congestion. And then lets consider whether any small increase in cycling outweighs the huge increase in congestion and pollution on the boundary roads. You seem happy to accept that Southwarks Council's data may be "a bit iffy". Southark now have a proven track record of using erroneous and misleading data to support their pre-determined "data driven" conclusions. Do you really believe that is the best way to impose decisions that can adversely impact so many people? Finally, please dont confuse "active travel" with cycling. Per Soutwark's own figures cycling is a small minority (round 10%?) of active travel. There can be a big % increase in cycling with only a small % increase in active travel. Likewise, an increase in active travel does not mean a similar increase in cycling.

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So - I cracked and read this 'report'. The crux of it seems to be that One Dulwich don't agree with the baseline > selected. They think that June should have been used and then compared to a completely different month (April) to >show that cycling has increased, albeit less than the council claimed. Well, if I have understood the Report correctly, the reason for suggesting the June 2020 figure as the baseline is because it was commissioned by the council just before Calton was closed in order to to provide direct before and after comparison of the effect of the closure. Wonder why Soutwark didn't use it? You are concerned about comparing June with September. But SOuthwark seem quite happy to compare Nov 2018 with Sep 2020 and April 2021. Do you think that is a fair comparison? > The confusing thing is that there is a Sept 2018 figure that could have been used as a baseline and then compared to September 2020 (ie comparing September with September), but funnily enough this hasn't been used as the report headline. This comparison would have shown an increase in cycling in the region of 35%. Well, even 35% is a lot, lot less than the 231% claimed by the council isn't it? But I had a look at that Sept 2018 figures which is from a DfT traffic count mentioned in the report, see https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/manualcountpoints/801350 I think the Dept for Transport figures are actually adjusted to a March base so are, if anything, overstimating the increase. And the DfT has an estimated cycle figure for March 2019 of 847, which would give an increase of around 22% (before adjusting for seasonality). Still way, way below what the council is claiming All this confirms that there are lie, damned lies and Southwark Council traffic reports. Anyway, off to work now, will look at report in more detail later.

@DuncanW Have you had time to process how a large percent increase in cycling ( if it actually happened)results in a small increase in active travel?

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So... Dulwich active travel levels are already super-high, probably couldn't get higher - they're > at the maxiimum basically. But also... cycle journeys had a boom in the first lockdown, and that has now all but evaporated. > Might take me a little while to process that. Why? Cycling journeys are a very small proportion of active travel journeys, less than 10% according to TfL. So a big increase in cycling can lead to small increase in active travel.

SpringTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I just picked this up, sorry if a re-post: https://edbusinesses.eventbrite.co.uk/ Presumably this is to do with the Dulwich Streetspace review? The Council has given the impression that they have been consulting with local businesses to find out how the road closures are affecting them but I may be wrong. I have heard that businesses in Dulwich Village have been hit really badly, footfall has dropped massively as people avoid that area because of the road closures and fear of being fined. Probably the same in East Dulwich. However, highly unlikley that the Council or COuncillors will listen to anything they are told.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The 37 and P4 will never be good as long as so many cars are in their way. Reducing the number of > private cars and vans is a precondition for improving public transport. So, diverting cars onto the boundary roads such as EDG, Half Moon Lane, SOuth Circular etc is not going to help the P$ and 37 is it? Similalry with buses going down Croxted Road and Lordship Lane.

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I'm calculating if the turnout for this stupid Festival, continues apace, it will be costing us tax payers approximately ?25 a "ticket" for a vanity project started by two people who took a profit and moved to Sussex as soon as their house value went up You could also mention the former chair of the Calton Ave RA who helped rewrite Southwark's presentation for the OHS consultation during the secret meeting with our local councillors. Took advantage of Calton becomning a gated community to sell up and move away.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I think the council misjudged the sentiment amongst those living within the LTNs. I think the council, advised by our local councillors, completely ignored the local residents and instead listened to a small minority of shadowy, overlapping activist groups who claimed to represent "the community". When surveys of local residents associations showed that an overwhelming majority opposed the current measures our Councillors response was, not to listen to their constituents, but to stick their fingers in their ears. Or in the case of C'llor Leeming send them aggressive and abusive emails ( see Private Eye!).

@Exdulwicher. A couple of days ago you objected to the description of the measures at Dulwich Village/Calton Ave Junction as "Road Closures". You complained this is misleading and they are in fact "permeable filters". Well I took some photos and, as you can see, it looks like Southwark COuncil seem to think they are indeed road closures (most of these signs have been there over a year). Personally, unless you are a cycling activist or a traffic engineer, I think the phrase permeable filters is much more misleading. During the OHS consultation last year several of my neighbours thought it meant that residensts could drive through, especially in the context of the residents permits the council was proposing at the time. I think the description "cycle only access" would be much clearer, what do you think?