LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[northernmonkey]

This is your regular reminder that the council monitoring data showed that traffic was down overall and down on the majority of boundary roads.

There is also a pretty significant case that the section of Ed grove where the most people live and the schools are also decreased as per the tweets shared above.

[Rockets]

And this is your regular reminder that the council's monitoring data was deliberately manipulated to try and create a positive outcome...and even after all of their tampering the results weren't close to what they had promised and were roundly torn apart on further analysis when people scratched beneath the propaganda....

[northernmonkey]

That is your view - but let?s remember you very confidently said there was no monitoring on under hill - whereas in effect there was.

We would all like more granularity eg directional and timed, but overall my sentence is factually correct

[Bicknell]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

>

> We would all like more granularity eg directional

> and timed, but overall my sentence is factually

> correct

council hasnt published raw data and methdolgy even tho it was promised

so we cant know if council claims are true

thats the problem

[heartblock]

If you look at the data that 'shows' that traffic was down on ED Grove it is based on an estimate for the baseline drawn from three year old data, it is data statistically manipulated by lobby groups for LTNs, promoted by an account that is one person living in an LTN.

It is a manual count across only two days (not specified so could be a Sunday, could be ?) and in June- Summer 2021 the tail end of lock-down.

Traffic was down across all London roads during the pandemic on average and bus journeys shorter except for boundary roads - where traffic, pollution increased and bus journey transit times along these roads (Croxted and ED Grove) increased by at least 20 mins down a road that is a 5 min drive.

There are no 'facts' there is data that is manipulated to support a point of view.

Medicine has been trying to be evidence based on double-blinded large studies, but during Covid it has been enlightening to also try a more evidence by experience mode and this led to proning patients and trying cheap drugs - saving many, many lives.

Experience of 35 years living, walking and using public transport on ED Grove shows me that after 5 LTNs being introduced, traffic and local air quality is worse and bus journey times much longer.

[northernmonkey]

Just unpicking that

The baseline used in the estimate was a DFT manual count. So a weekday and unlikely to be holidays.

The council data is based on the traffic count tubes isn?t it?

Which of these are problematic?

[heartblock]

No - the baseline for pre-LTN 2019 figure used was an estimate based on 2016 DFT data - source and count method not given. There was a pre LTNs number that was an actual count in 2019 - 9386, but they didn't use this as a baseline and chose to use the inflated estimate - choosing 16354 as a figure for the baseline - I wonder why?

The 2021 data was a 2 day manual count - no day of the week specified so could have been at the weekend and was not the traffic count tubes but was 13583

So if you use the manual counts and no estimate the traffic increased by 13583 - 9386 which is an extra 4197 vehicles a day, which is a 44% increase.

But they used an estimate for baseline and a count as the post LTN so they say a drop of 2771 - bad maths as this calculation gives a 2671 decrease - and declare a 17% reduction.

Rubbish research and terrible maths - But feel free to look at it yourself.

[Rockets]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> That is your view - but let?s remember you very

> confidently said there was no monitoring on under

> hill - whereas in effect there was.

>

> We would all like more granularity eg directional

> and timed, but overall my sentence is factually

> correct

Yes because that was an easy mistake to make given tbe Underhill numbers were pretty much an addendum to tbe overall report with absolutely no data to support where the number for Underhill had come from.

If I remember rightly, I will check tomorrow, the council just gave tbe figure (which was an increase if I remember rightly) separate to the rest of tbe monitoring data and didn't share any baseline data as they had for others.

Maybe that satiates the pro-LTN lobbyists who will blindly believe what the council tells them but for some of us it raises yet more questions.

One wonders why the council has yet to share the raw data they promised....another oversight perhaps or maybe they know they don't want any scrutiny on how they reached their conclusions?

[heartblock]

Pro -LTN research reminds me of climate change -denier research. It goes something like - oh there isn't an increase in pollution and traffic on high density ribbon roads due to a human intervention - see look at this 'data' we have gathered and manipulate to prove our theory. Oh I know that it looks like there is idling traffic but that's just a one off. Oh it's all going to evaporate soon...just wait...

Climate deniers - oh there isn't an increase in climate change due to human intervention - see look at this data ........... Oh I know it looks like the ice-caps are melting and Madagascar is on fire, but that's just a one off. It will all go back to normal soon - it's just a blip.

Very similar ignoring of the 'facts'

[malumbu]

Good reference to climate change denial. This surely also applies to many motorists who will either pretend that climate change doesn't exist, or don't consider that they have a part to play, and continue their usual behaviour,

I know that many of you active on this thread don't drive, or rarely drive; I'm referring to the majority of motorists.

[heartblock]

What is a motorist? Who are the many 'motorists'? Is that an LAS paramedic vehicle? Is that a single mum taking her kids to school and then dashing off to one of many cleaning jobs.

This holier than thou attitude doesn't help. Big business and huge corporations are the world's polluters - but hey, let's do a Boris and blame the people rather than the real reasons for climate change and pollution - corporate greed.

[Rockets]

Malumbu - aren't you a motorist too? Don't you have a very old car you use very infrequently?

[rachp]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Pro -LTN research reminds me of climate change

> -denier research. It goes something like - oh

> there isn't an increase in pollution and traffic

> on high density ribbon roads due to a human

> intervention - see look at this 'data' we have

> gathered and manipulate to prove our theory. Oh I

> know that it looks like there is idling traffic

> but that's just a one off. Oh it's all going to

> evaporate soon...just wait...

>

> Climate deniers - oh there isn't an increase in

> climate change due to human intervention - see

> look at this data ........... Oh I know it looks

> like the ice-caps are melting and Madagascar is on

> fire, but that's just a one off. It will all go

> back to normal soon - it's just a blip.

>

> Very similar ignoring of the 'facts'

This is just human beings- human beings pay attention and give credence to evidence that backs up their current world view- whatever that might be.

[heartblock]

[Rockets]

Heartblock that is a superb video that really highlights the massive flaws in the ludicrous LTN programmes that many on here have been highlighting since day one of this debacle - it was destined to fail as the maths just don't work. Remember the council reckoned 7000 cars a day used the DV junction - the most any LTN has reduced car use is 10% so even if those heady numbers (which came from the LTN lobby so are probably greatly exaggerated) were achieved over 6000 cars a day would be needing to find a new longer route. Throw in the fact that 68% of local journeys were already done on foot and bike and you can see why LTNs were destined to fail in Dulwich. It also begs the question why the council were so convinced they would work - maybe they couldn't cut through and see past the lobbying they were on tbe receiving end of from groups like the LCC.

Maybe someone like Malumbu or DC can take a look and give us their thoughts (I know it's unlikely as most on the pro-LTN crowd like to ask, not answer, questions! ;-))?

[malumbu]

No not really, not getting into this game. You well know that I believe that we need hard measures, others are better placed to work out what is best. They've been restricting access to many roads ever since I've lived in London, and it has affected my behaviour as it will others.

And on Climate Change, just putting the blame on corporations wont sort stuff out, personal responsibility just as important. Although agree with the sentiments about the PM. Hope all active on this site sign the petition - see the thread https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,2242072

[legalalien]

Missing the point but that Vision On theme brings back memories.

I am still of the view that doing nothing is better than doing something counterproductive, even if that is a bit politically unpalatable. If councils don?t have the capacity/ power to deal with climate issues, better to hold up their hands and say that (and not set

themselves unattainable targets) than pretend they can achieve lots with the limited tools they have at their disposal.

[Rockets]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> No not really, not getting into this game. You

> well know that I believe that we need hard

> measures, others are better placed to work out

> what is best. They've been restricting access to

> many roads ever since I've lived in London, and it

> has affected my behaviour as it will others.

>

> And on Climate Change, just putting the blame on

> corporations wont sort stuff out, personal

> responsibility just as important. Although agree

> with the sentiments about the PM. Hope all active

> on this site sign the petition - see the thread

> https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?

> 5,2242072

Of course not.....you only want to challenge but aren't happy to be challenged and when you are you recoil and refuse to engage or respond - you've done it consistently since the outset of this discussion....typical of so many on the pro-LTN side...it's because you don't have a rational argument to counter the questions asked of you - it's all so one-sided - a bit like the LTNs - our way or the highway.

[Nigello]

limited tools - ha, that could be read in a way it wasn't meant here!

[heartblock]

How many times on here and Twitter I am asked what should be put in place to tackle climate change rather than LTNs (which looking at the evidence, I strongly believe contribute to MORE pollution due to idling traffic and longer journeys - hence why I am against them), to then give a list, with explanations - to the have a pile on of reply such as.

Well that is dictatorship!

That can only come from central Government!

Too expensive!

Unrealistic!

It's the same old argument = LTNs are better than nothing ... No so untrue. Something that actually causes MORE pollution is not better than nothing. An intervention that makes something worse is not better than nothing.

And almost all the people I know who want LTNs removed have alternative solutions that would help.

[DulwichCentral]

With respect Heartblock - I may have missed your suggestions / alternatives to LTNs to reduce motor traffic. I am genuinely interested to know what they are? Would you mind posting again?

[Rockets]

DC - oh my and so it continues "show me your solutions" - how many times do we have to return to this - maybe someone should pin a new thread on the forum saying - these are our ideas so there can be no confusion!!! ;-)

Anyway I promised I would come back to you on the issue of Underhill and I looked at the data again (thanks for calling me out on it as it's actually a lot worse than I remembered).

In the 4 page Data Collection report Underhill is not mentioned once:

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101513/Appendix%20C%204%20-%20Dulwich%20Streetspace%20data%20collection%20timings.pdf

In the 105 pages of monitoring data Underhill is not mentioned once:

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101512/Appendix%20C%203%20-%20Dulwich%20Streetspace%20traffic%20flow%20analysis.pdf

In the 67 page main report Underhill gets mentioned once on Page 34

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101511/Appendix%20C%202%20-%20Dulwich%20Streetspace%20main%20report.pdf

And on page 34 the slide says (under the title of Further Count Sites):

"A check has also been performed on streets east of Lordship Lane between Dulwich and Peckham.

The changes in total numbers of motor vehicles on Barry Road and Underhill Road from data

recorded prior to implementation, and pre-COVID with data collected in June 2021 is shown in the

table below."

They determined that Underhill saw a 3% increase and Barry Road an 11% decrease (that 11% decrease figure is significant in the overall scheme of things).

A bit odd don't you think that the same level of detail is not provided for Barry Road or Underhill Road as all of the other roads and maybe you can have a guess as to how the council defines a "check"? Surely they should define what that is?

Let me explain to you why the council did that - because they were not monitoring Underhill from the outset which is ludicrous when it was one of the main displacement routes - don't you think? They didn't want to monitor it as they knew that's where the traffic was going.

So, perhaps, you can agree that the claim of just a 3% increase in traffic on Underhill may not be entirely accurate. There are plenty of people on here who witnessed first hand what happened to Underhill and traffic increased by more than 3% on that route and I believe if a true reflection of the increase was included in the overall monitoring report there would be no area-wide decrease in traffic - thereby damning the LTNs as a complete failure.

Please do take the time to respond as I would be interested in whether this changes your perspective at all and whether you think a single figure of 3% increase could really be an accurate figure for Underhill given the lack of supporting data shared by the council on that road? It is a bit odd don't you think that there is lots of detail to support other roads yet none to support Underhill? Do you have any idea how the council determined the 3% figure?

[eastdulwichhenry]

I know many here don't agree with LTNs at all and I'll probably get flamed for this, but personally I am concerned about the reopening of Melbourne Grove south to all traffic outside of core hours, in the new Southwark proposals. It seems like this will turn this residential road back into a rat run between LL and EDG, except during the narrow window of time when the bus gate will be in operation. I don't live on Melbourne Grove or any road around it myself, but I walk up and down it frequently from the railway station to Lordship Lane south.

The council's own memo says "In July local councils were given new government guidance not to remove schemes unless they are demonstrably not meeting their objectives to support active travel", yet here they are removing a part of the scheme that has actively helped many of us in moving from car use to walking, by removing the clear route along the whole of Melbourne Grove.

Is anyone objecting to the reopening of Melbourne Grove, or is it a fait accompli?

[redpost]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> With respect Heartblock - I may have missed your

> suggestions / alternatives to LTNs to reduce motor

> traffic. I am genuinely interested to know what

> they are? Would you mind posting again?

Going through 256 pages of this thread, the only alternative put forward by pro carbon lobby is vague handwaving.

The fact is, many studies around the world have proved that reducing road space, reduces the convenience of driving and nudges people out of cars. It takes time for attitudes and behaviour to change, but it does change.

[Rockets]

Redpost - firstly trying to paint everyone who is anti-LTN as pro-carbon is as ludicrous as it is utterly predictable and demonstrates how having a rational debate with many on the issues is a fruitless task as they put their own prejudices ahead of pragmatic discussion.

That being said, handwaving is a very good way to describe the LTNs - just the difference being that that particular handwaving exercise is actually doing more harm than good and making pollution worse. I am glad I am on the side of the debate that is challenging the council on this and not just rolling over and pretending everything is great - no-one should be turning a blind eye to the reality of the LTNs.

There is no proof that LTNs are delivering or have delivered the things you claim anywhere in the world and I suspect these "many studies" you refer to are sponsored reports by the pro-LTN lobby.

It's clear from the council's own report that the LTNs in Dulwich are not delivering against the intended aims and I am afraid that is irrefutable.

Can you just help me pull out the upside from the rogue's gallery of LTN failure below (all of which is taken from the council's own report)?

Really as yourself if the below is really worth it to sustain an 8% increase in children/parents cycling to school within the Dulwich Village triangle?

- No reduction in pollution (in fact increases in areas such as East Dulwich Grove)

- 10% decrease in car journeys (although data collection and analysis from the council is dodgy to say the least and it is unlikely any reduction has been observed)

Decreases in traffic on closed roads but increases in traffic on boundary roads (Burbage, EDG, Lordship Lane and Underhill taking the brunt )

School journeys have seen a 6% shift from car use but some of the shift to cycling and scooting has been at the expense of walking

Bus journey times have increased on many key routes such as EDG, South circular and Croxted