LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Rockets]

Rahx3??your timing is perfect.here?s some data analysis of council numbers?..what do you think of this?..is the increase 231% or just 8%?.?

https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/has-cycling-on-calton-avenue-gone-up-by-231

Is the council trying to manipulate the numbers they publish to influence public opinion?.like they did with the 47% increase in traffic at the DV junction during OHS?.looks like they might have dropped another smoking gun at the scene of the crime!

[Earl Aelfheah]

So as I say. People who don?t want restrictions on car movements, will rubbish any and all data (and it does all point in the same direction) without offering any counter evidence.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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 be surprised 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?

[first mate]

Is pointing out key data that was promised is missing really "straining every sinew"?

[heartblock]

Active travel (cycling and walking) increased in all London boroughs and car use decreased in all London Boroughs during lockdown and the mid point of the pandemic - it was not dependent on LTNs.

The increase in cycling when separated from walking was relatively small.

The small increases in cycling are now having a downward trend.

Car use has now increased, nearly back to pre-pandemic levels.

As someone who travels by PT and walking as my main modes of transport and as someone who teaches cardiorespiratory health, I would love not just my road, but all roads to have far less car pollution and preferably none.

The best way to achieve this is decent, cheap, reliable and end-to-end public transport.

Dulwich has one of the worst PTAL ratings in London.

LTNs are a waste of time and money, there is absolutely no data that proves that closing roads reduces pollution and shifts people to cycling in any significant number to make a dent in pollution levels.

Meanwhile residential roads such as Croxted and ED Grove suffer.

[Rockets]

Covid was the catalyst for the increase in active travel not LTNs. As Heartblock says all LTNs have done is shift pollution from one area to another and have been a ludicrous vanity project built upon the back of aggressive lobbying from the cycle lobby.

The council appears to be doing everything in their power to create the impression that LTNs have been the magic bullet to solve all the problems. The reason they chose to use the baseline from 2018 rather than the surveys done right before the LTNs went in is so transparent - perhaps they will explain their rationale.

Surely the council could finally organise a public meeting for us all to have our say - seems to be no reason why public meetings can't start again now?

[northernmonkey]

Is this what the 'falls in cycling' narrative is based on?

Its obviously a "difficult to draw clear conclusions from" data set. The effects of lockdown on how many people will cycle into central london (which is predominantly where these counts are), also school holidays look to induce a dip in cycling too.

It will be interesting to see what happens through September / October as more employers are having at least some hybrid office / wfh model, if not fully back in the office.

[legalalien]

Ironically, I imagine that by withholding the data the Council is increasing the likelihood of court action by One Dulwich and an associated disclosure exercise, which would likely require disclosure of a lot more than just the raw data.

first mate Wrote:

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

> Is pointing out key data that was promised is

> missing really "straining every sinew"?

[northernmonkey]

I also have no idea why on earth they haven't released subsequent data, having shared the first trance and committed to sharing more. Its unhelpful for everyone involved in these discussions.

[Metallic]

We are all talking on part knowledge. The sad fact is that all our experiences and opinions are based on what we read in this part disclosure, what we gleaned from people who went to different meetings, and yes, anecdotes. I read tweets that say the traffic is awful at such and such place, then immediately someone says no it wasn't when I was there. legalalien is right, Southwark will have to disclose all the material they have not released as promised.

Meanwhile, the great noise of banging about in Calton Avenue has begun, no traffic management plan in effect and living where I live can hear all the work starting up. No free passage for the lorries to go through on the original route because the junction is closed. DulwichCentral, what is going to happen next to our once lovely area?

[Rockets]

Metallic - what will happen next is whatever the council wants to happen. They seem hell bent on ignoring and depositioning any opinion or view that differs from their own!

[Spartacus]

Rockets and what ever happens next to the councillors depends on how they treat their voters.

Especially as "They seem hell bent on ignoring and depositioning any opinion or view that differs from their own!"

May isn't that far away after all ...🤔

[Metallic]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Metallic - what will happen next is whatever the

> council wants to happen. They seem hell bent on

> ignoring and depositioning any opinion or view

> that differs from their own!

We will have to see!

Following the 'war' on the many twitter accounts going for it on both sides. And Dulwich people are supposed to be so nice............

[legalalien]

Reading through some of the papers for next Tuesday?s Cabinet meeting, noted this in the revenue monitoring report.

?Since the introduction of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) in some parts of the borough, and based on the financial information available to date, the department is projecting a net additional income of ?3m at this time and this is reflected in table 1. The final net additional income from LTNs will be transferred to an earmarked reserve for reinvestment in locally important schemes including highways, transport, school streets, healthy streets and with the aim of tackling the climate emergency. Recognising the new nature of this income stream, the position will be need to be closely monitored throughout the remainder of the year.?

Full report at https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101231/Report%20Revenue%20monitor.pdf

Reading the report as a whole it?s definitely the case that the Council is in need of additional income. Interesting read as to where the problem areas are.

ETA for anyone interested in the state of council finances the capital report is also interesting.

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101232/Report%20Capital%20Monitor.pdf. There?s a section on transport etc, looks like they have some TfL funding for cycle parking and have a plan for 50 lamp OST chargers. How to fund necessary housing improvements and new homes promised without unsustainable external borrowing looks like the big challenge.

[northernmonkey]

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.

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%.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Rahx3??your timing is perfect.here?s some data

> analysis of council numbers?..what do you think of

> this?..is the increase 231% or just 8%?.?

>

> https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/has-cycling-on-calt

> on-avenue-gone-up-by-231

>

> Is the council trying to manipulate the numbers

> they publish to influence public opinion?.like

> they did with the 47% increase in traffic at the

> DV junction during OHS?.looks like they might have

> dropped another smoking gun at the scene of the

> crime!

ven't looked into

[legalalien]

Northernmonkey - I guess because in order to be able to attribute an increase to the LTN (rather than other factors) you need to have a baseline as close as possible to before the date that the LTN goes in?

I had another question about cycle counts. The LTNs move motor traffic from some streets to others; and similarly move cycles from some streets to others ie existing cyclists presumably, where they can, move from busy streets to now quiet streets. So you?d expect some of the increase on eg Calton to be cycles that previously used say Gilkes or EDG (and a corresponding decrease in cycles on those roads depending where the counter is), so presumably discerning whether there?s an overall increase or decrease in cyclists(rather than an increase or decrease on a particular route) would, in circumstances where there are only a small number of counters, be better done by something like a survey of residents rather than a count?

[northernmonkey]

So the survey that was done was 'has cycling increased on Calton Ave'. Unequivocally that is the case. Even One Dulwich's attempts to discredit come up with a (smaller) increase in cycling.

Regardless of whether it has shifted (and thats where the demographic data was particularly helpful in Anna Goodman's report), it can be seen that reducing or removing motor traffic substantially increases willingness to cycle.

As has mentioned so many times, cycling has really remained virtually static in London for a number of years - a September to September comparison is likely to be more robust than a closer comparison of different months. I do know that the Goodman Study compared the weather on the days of the counts so as to ensure that they were broadly similar though.

[Peckham Park]

It?s ridiculous to conflate any increase or decrease in cycling with the Dulwich Village or Melbourne Grove LTN. As a cyclist I will use normal roads, cycle highways, or cycle lanes. The issue is the increase or decrease in car traffic on surrounding streets. As a cyclist the LTNs have made other roads much more dangerous for me, as stopped traffic is much more dangerous and also polluting to cycle through than free flowing traffic.

[Glemham]

scrawford Wrote:

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

> It?s ridiculous to conflate any increase or

> decrease in cycling with the Dulwich Village or

> Melbourne Grove LTN. As a cyclist I will use

> normal roads, cycle highways, or cycle lanes. The

> issue is the increase or decrease in car traffic

> on surrounding streets. As a cyclist the LTNs have

> made other roads much more dangerous for me, as

> stopped traffic is much more dangerous and also

> polluting to cycle through than free flowing

> traffic.

Thank you scrawford for making this point, as a cyclist, which cuts through all the hot air on this thread and, for me, sums up the opposition to LTNs.

[northernmonkey]

It is true - 'as a cyclist' you will use normal roads. Would you let your small children? The idea of creating safer cycle spaces is just that - they are safer for a much wider range of people than just those with a propensity to cycle (typically male 20s to late 40s)

[slarti b2]

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.

[Abe_froeman]

I wouldn't let my children cycle through the East Dulwich LTNs, no.

Firstly they don't actually go anywhere and secondly at either end of all of them there are now very busy main roads blocked with traffic and angry bus and lorry drivers

[march46]

Amazing to see this

[Metallic]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> I wouldn't let my children cycle through the East

> Dulwich LTNs, no.

>

> Firstly they don't actually go anywhere and

> secondly at either end of all of them there are

> now very busy main roads blocked with traffic and

> angry bus and lorry drivers

And little LTN dwellers chalking on the road. Ah sweet.

[macutd]

Yes, as a cyclist I agree with Abe_froeman. The roads are very dangerous now especially for cyclists. The pollution is awful except for smug residents on the roads now blocked off to everyone else.