LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[exdulwicher]

So a couple of pages ago, Rockets asked about this report from One Ealing:

https://oneealing.co.uk/co2-and-costs-analysis/?fbclid=IwAR2erTIY7FRPFoJQDYRs1tkRAJjPztnF_iO35HyQxD8UgQd1L1V1qCENfLw

which was based on "analysis" of some traffic count figures in a Sustrans report:

https://livewestealing.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Live-West-Ealing_LTN_Engagement-Report_28072020.pdf

The figure they base it on is one diagram of a map showing traffic counts of vehicles per day - that in itself isn't great as it doesn't tell the reader if it was just taken over one day or an average of readings over several days/weeks etc nor does it indicate if that number is good/bad/indifferent. It also doesn't differentiate between types of journey or vehicle - for instance no mention of delivery vans vs private cars etc.

That's not really the end of the world for the Sustrans report which is simply the findings of some survey work - again the methodology highlights how few people actually respond to things like this because it mentions in the Executive Summary on Page 3 that 2500 surveys were sent out and they had 129 respondents and 60 people attended the two workshops they did (no indication if that 60 were in the original pool of 129). But 129 respondents out of 2500 surveys is a fraction over 5%. To be fair, that's about standard for postal surveys, they a very poor way of judging things.

But the analysis starts by saying that 13621 vehicles made journeys in the north of the LTN area. That's wrong because those figures on the arrows add up to 12509 journeys north/east and 13223 journeys south/west (and again, no indication if that is people leaving the area at the start of the day and returning at the end).

So the start figure is wrong. The multiplication by 300 (to assume a daily journey minus holidays / weekends) is incredibly broad at best and again takes no account of type of journey (commute to work, school drop off, leisure...?)

It's then extrapolated out further to look at the whole LTN, not the northern bit which the Sustrans report focuses on and a set of calculations from each internal zone to each external zone done using, I assume, some sort of mapping software which has given distances of each section of road. That's given a before / after set of distances which has again been extrapolated out to show supposed extra mileage, rather ignoring the entire point of an LTN. And the supposed extra mileage has again been extrapolated using a generic figure of mpg to show increased fuel usage.

Sorry but it's almost meaningless. It starts off with a wrong figure which in itself is of questionable origin, extrapolates again and again with no regard for journey type, modal shift (ie more walking and cycling, less driving due to the LTN) and then bases it on so many assumptions that it's near meaningless.

It does look nice though, it looks like lots of figures and you can always bamboozle with lots of figures. It's why raw data is rarely given out because frankly it just confuses most people or it gets used to hide things! I can see why they've chosen that report as well - it's an effort to turn the findings from what is fairly obviously a pro-LTN report into something that can be used against it so politically, it's not a bad choice. Rather cynical perhaps but the purpose is to be able to turn to Sustrans and say "aha, these LTNs you're so fond of - look at the extra pollution you're causing!"

The report isn't even designed with traffic counts in mind, it's the findings from a survey about "traffic" so trying to use it to then look at mileage is a long shot at best.

[slarti b]

@exD You commented about the One Ealing analysis

"Sorry but it's almost meaningless. It starts off with a wrong figure which in itself is of questionable origin, extrapolates again and again with no regard for journey type, modal shift (ie more walking and cycling, less driving due to the LTN) and then bases it on so many assumptions that it's near meaningless...It does look nice though, it looks like lots of figures and you can always bamboozle with lots of figures"

Much of your criticism should be more correctly aimed at the Sustrans report, presumably paid for by the council, to justify their LTN. Lets look at the biggest bamboozling figure, very prominent in the Sustrans Report "Nearly 60% of residents think there are too many cars travelling through the area" . This is of course utter rubbish. It seems that at most 75(seventy five) people agreed with that statement, not all of of whom lived in the consultation area. There were 2,500 households in the consultation area and at least 1,300 in the area covered by the map. That suggests there is only 1 resident every 17 houses (based on map); a strange, vacant area of London?

The Sustrans report purports to be a report of "engagement and codesign activities with the local community". If they engaged with 60 people and received feedback from 100 local residents in an area with 2,500 households they have clearly failed in their objective but nowhere is this stated.

"starts with...figure of dubious origin" etc ? Well that figure is what the Sustrans report is using. If Sustrans provided more information about the data, split in the way you suggest that would be great. Indeed, if they provided the raw data the analysis might be better. But Sustrans have not, so OneEaling have had to work with what the council saw fit to publish.

"based on so many assumptions" Yes, and they state their assumptions (including modal shift figures provided by Council) . If these are wrong then provide better ones. But it is a lot better than just ignoring the impact of the proposed changes.

And this leads us on to the biggest, the huge Elephant in the room. Despite your snide dismissal of their analysis (not "analysis") One Ealing have actually carried out an analysis!! They have looked at the the proposed LTN and said these are the implications in terms of increased miles travelled and CO2 emissions. Has the council or Sustrans done this? if not why not.

I, and others, have previously asked you which are the main roads the council wish to divert traffic onto as part of the OHS scheme, now implemented under the cover of Covid. Has the council carried out any modelling or analysis of this? Your response seems to have been, well it doesn't matter it will sort itself out. It does matter and it won't sort itself out.

I must also take issue with your patronising comment It's why raw data is rarely given out because frankly it just confuses most people or it gets used to hide things

The second part of your statement contradicts the first. From my experience with Southwark, refusing to provide raw data is used to hide errors from and promote misleading information to the local community. Without chasing down the underlying data we would not have been able to expose the misleading claims of a 47% increase in traffic through the DV junction. Without access to the raw traffic counts we would not have shown that Southwark's claimed increase in traffic on Calton Ave was based on an error which had been flagged in the raw data but ignored by the council officers.

In fact in both these cases Southwark's traffic engineer defended the incorrect and misleading claims. If we cannot rely on council officers the public needs to see that raw data so they can find out the truth.

[heartblock]

Hopefully, the current court case about pollution on a residential main road, being part of the cause of a child?s death, will concentrate the mind of Southwark Council. They should be measuring the pollution on residential ?main? roads, where traffic from historically lower traffic roads has been diverted and now idles twice a day during the times children and parents walk their children to school.

[legalalien]

Yes, I imagine a number of councils will be watching this with interest. As it's a coroner's inquiry / inquest I don't think there will be a judgment on the law but from the arguments reported in the Times it seems to have been suggested that Lewisham should have declared a "public health emergency" given high levels of NO2. Not sure what the significance of that would be..

[DulwichCentral]

I've noticed people here accusing the council of using Covid as an excuse to implement traffic measures as if its some kind of conspiracy theory. Slarti above 'says under the cover of Covid'.

But there's a climate crisis too which the council and government have to act upon. So even when Covid is hopefully over, and people return to public transport (hopefully less cars on the roads) we still have to reduce emissions. I see lots of people have taken up cycling in lockdown and now have safe routes to get across the area. Covid or not - that needs to stay in place - and more needs to be done to reduce cars and make main roads safer too.

[Rockets]

Has anyone else noticed that the congestion problems are back with vengeance now the Lockdown 2 has come to an end - Lordship Lane south towards the Grove Tavern was terrible last night?

Ex- many thanks for taking a look at that - as I suspected much both sides of the debate are doing is based on their own interpretation of data which is why we must all force the council to do actual monitoring and supply the raw data.

I read with interest your comment: It also doesn't differentiate between types of journey or vehicle - for instance no mention of delivery vans vs private cars etc.

I noticed Cllr Burgess said on the ED LTN meeting that they would be using Waze data for their modelling (in lieu of raw data) - does Waze allow for any differentiation between vehicle type as Waze is very popular amongst delivery drivers and Uber drivers? So I am not at all convinced the council using Waze as the basis of their monitoring for these projects is a wise approach.

[slarti b]

@Rockets you commented I noticed Cllr Burgess said on the ED LTN meeting that they would be using Waze data for their modelling (in lieu of raw data)

The Waze data I have seen so far has been published by TfL and relates to congestion, ie delays to journeys NOT traffic volumes. This needs to be used very carefully, eg Waze reported very high congestion (130% ?) in early September when schools returned. This figure was used by pro-closure supporters to claim that traffic volumes had increased by 130% so more closures were needed. This was of course rubbish; what it actually showed was that, despite trafic volumes being lower than pre-Covid, the road closures had increased congestion and journey time.

[legalalien]

Has anyone else noticed an increase in the number of black cabs in the area? On the outward leg of my morning run I noticed 7 today, it was sufficiently unusual to be noticeable. It was during the DV closure window and I do wonder whether people may be switching to black cabs as they are allowed through the timed gates. I have known parents in the past to put children into Ubers for the school run (having a regular agreement with the Uber driver), I can imagine some might well switch to a black cab option. Or maybe it?s an anomaly!

[rch]

Apologies, I?m trying to work out which Sustrans report you guys are referring to... the November 2015 Sustrans Dulwich Quietway ?consultation? was incredibly flawed:-

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/quietway-in-dulwich/supporting_documents/Dulwich%20Quietway%20Community%20Engagement%20Report%202.pdf

This led to the implementation of the current flawed junction scheme connecting Dulwich Village/Calton/Court Lane which, in my opinion, triggered the campaign for the current closure of the junction, which had been rejected back in 2006/07.

I attended two of the public meetings back in 2015, which were quite shocking to observe, as it was blatantly clear what would happen if the proposed flawed junction scheme was implemented.

[exdulwicher]

I noticed Cllr Burgess said on the ED LTN meeting that they would be using Waze data for their modelling (in lieu of raw data) - does Waze allow for any differentiation between vehicle type as Waze is very popular amongst delivery drivers and Uber drivers? So I am not at all convinced the council using Waze as the basis of their monitoring for these projects is a wise approach.

Waze is a subsidiary of Google - most of the time (whether you know it or not), the "Google Maps" app that you open on your phone and pop in your destination is getting its info from Waze.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waze

The actual Waze app just has slightly different functionality / look & feel etc but its all cross-referenced.

[legalalien]

I imagine they get the Waze data through TfL as part of the TfL / Waze collaboration

https://www.transport-network.co.uk/New-Waze-of-working/15802

[malumbu]

rch Wrote:

->

> This led to the implementation of the current flawed junction scheme connecting Dulwich

Village/Calton/Court Lane which, in my opinion, triggered the campaign for the current closure of the junction, which had been rejected back in

2006/07.

Interested in the 'flawed junction' design. As an occasional driver I'd avoided using that to get into the village during peak times. As a cyclist using it daily I wrote to Southwark in the 90s on two issues, the need for a crossing by the school and changing the priorities as traffic from Carlton Avenue which didn't have the right of way tended to block the route making it even worse for Court Lane. So you may as well formalise that rather than sitting in traffic grumping at selfish drivers blocking your right of way. Southwark wrote back saying they were not changing things so it was nice to see the crossing installed in much later years, and then finally the change of priorities.

Just asking as was curious about the comment on flawed design. I had nothing to do with the closure but you probably know my views on that.

[Rockets]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> rch Wrote:

> ->

> > This led to the implementation of the current

> flawed junction scheme connecting Dulwich

> Village/Calton/Court Lane which, in my opinion,

> triggered the campaign for the current closure of

> the junction, which had been rejected back in

> 2006/07.

>

> Interested in the 'flawed junction' design. As an

> occasional driver I'd avoided using that to get

> into the village during peak times. As a cyclist

> using it daily I wrote to Southwark in the 90s on

> two issues, the need for a crossing by the school

> and changing the priorities as traffic from

> Carlton Avenue which didn't have the right of way

> tended to block the route making it even worse for

> Court Lane. So you may as well formalise that

> rather than sitting in traffic grumping at selfish

> drivers blocking your right of way. Southwark

> wrote back saying they were not changing things so

> it was nice to see the crossing installed in much

> later years, and then finally the change of

> priorities.

>

> Just asking as was curious about the comment on

> flawed design. I had nothing to do with the

> closure but you probably know my views on that.

The council's own report concluded that the redesigned junction created more congestion and more pollution (both were based on actual data).

[rch]

It?s a looong story, mal. The original junction that you're referring to was pretty bad, but in 2006/07 residents campaigned to close the junction completely (as it is now), so I consulted with highway engineers. They advised not to close it, as traffic would severely displace (as it is now), so they came up with three different junction designs combined with pinch points on the side roads, in order to fluidly redirect the traffic as well as making cycling and walking through the junction easier.

The design that they most highly recommended was a double roundabout with cycle spaces around the edge, but also two other traffic light junctions.

Certain politicians refused to consult on the double roundabout, so we consulted on the preferred junction scheme which actually had funding, but then politicians pulled the plug when the consultation was highly successful... although we managed to get some of the pinch points implemented.

When the council administration changed in 2014, I tried the get the funding for the more popular junction scheme approved again, but rather than using internal council funding, the council applied for the government Quietway funding and then instructed Sustrans to conduct the consultation on the scheme that was implemented. But there are a lot of flaws in the scheme, which were causing problems (mostly with pedestrians), so there was another consultation... but rather than tweaking the flaws in the junction that were highlighted in the consultation, they closed the junction with more government funding.

[rch]

Just saw your reply Rockets. Yes, everyone knew that the new junction was a mess, but no one wants to use internal funding to tweak it, so we keep getting directed to different schemes funded by free government money.

I would be curious to see how the double roundabout scheme would work out... the Sustrans report that I posted above cites a triple roundabout scheme, but I?m not convinced with that alternative.

Bear in mind that I?m a dedicated pedestrian and highway geek... the council highway engineers spent years training me when I was a councillor, so I can tell you multiple stories about every junction in the area!

[exdulwicher]

The design that they most highly recommended was a double roundabout with cycle spaces around the edge, but also two other traffic light junctions.

Certain politicians refused to consult on the double roundabout, so we consulted on the preferred junction scheme which actually had funding, but then politicians pulled the plug when the consultation was highly successful... although we managed to get some of the pinch points implemented.

The timing of that coincided with the introduction of a double roundabout system on a fairly similar style of junction in a place called Poynton, southern suburbs of Manchester/Stockport. It generated a lot of press (both for and against) and its implementation was flawed for various reasons. Nice idea, it was supposed to be a flagship scheme but there are elements of the installation that are far from perfect, it got a lot of negativity and suddenly the idea was quietly abandoned by every other council who'd seen it initially and thought "ooh, we'll have some of that".

Search online for Poynton Shared Space, you can then choose whether you read the pro or anti articles depending on your point of view! Image of it in the link below.

https://images.app.goo.gl/qP4iLXXcfYRgXpjs7

It's actually quite a good argument for doing things on a trial basis - no-one can afford to dig all that lot up and start again so trialling DV with planters is far better than digging the whole thing up; you can at least get some useful info on outcomes (desired and undesired) and then adjust accordingly before putting the whole lot out to consultation to make permanent.

[Rockets]

Ex- might it also now be the case that we have a similar - Ooh, we'll have some of that....when it comes to LTNs too....;-) It seems similarly flawed, ill thought out and poorly implemented....do our councils ever learn? Much like an awful nightclub it won't be long before LTNs get a new name, such is their reputation.

[rch]

I can see where you?re coming from, ex, but comparing your photo and the Dulwich diagram, the dynamic looks completely different. The DV double roundabout accommodated 5 offset roads and 3 pedestrian crossings in a much smaller space.

The roundabout concept works really well in our area, possibly because both DV and ED were both converted from farmland... Calton Avenue was a plough track until the mid 1800s, it wasn?t even a through road. Also, the roads are frustratingly narrow, which creates other issues (long story, I can type for hours about how many times I tried to create cycle lanes in various roads). But the roundabout at the other end of DV works well and the Goose Green roundabout worked better until a councillor put a pedestrian crossing in the wrong location, thereby causing traffic backups that create other problems.

There are other advantages that would have worked out well and it would have been much more cost effective as TfL?s traffic lights cost a fortune and take forever to reprogram.

But, even the traffic light junction that we finally agreed and consulted on would have worked much better than the defective junction that exists now.

Just to add... ironically, as a pedestrian, I really hate walking into Dulwich Village now as I?m constantly dodging cyclists and e-scooters and other pedestrians walking four abreast. So, in my opinion, if the DV junction stays closed, there?s going to have to be some kind of logic incorporated into the layout. There are also a lot of weird displacement problems at my end of Melbourne South caused by the barriers at the top of the road, which is another discussion.

Basically, from my perspective, I wouldn?t call them ?Healthy? streets. I?m personally not against cycling and I like the idea of balancing various forms of active travel, but there needs to be a lot more creative thinking.

And the bottom line is that if you really want to get people out of their cars, you need to improve public transportation in our area. Full stop.

[Rockets]

Which brings us back to the key issue here: PTAL scores in Dulwich are poor so the council can block as many roads as they like but people will still drive (even if it means delays and detours) as car ownership is high because public transport remains poor. LTNs don't solve the problem, they actually create a bigger problem - they merely push them further down the road and some of us have been saying this for a very long time.

And it leads to the daily congestion we see all over the area - here's tonight's traffic jam on Lordship Lane heading towards Grove Tavern which, despite what some councillors say about traffic being no heavier, is like this nightly since the LTNs went in.

[Raeburn]

But that jam went all the way into Forest Hill? I walked from Overhill Rd bus stop (100m from Court Lane) to Forest Hill Sainsbury?s at 19.30, I kept same pace as vehicles in the jam the whole way. Perhaps there are works beyond?

Not sure what your point is, but your evidence undermines any reasonable discussion. Stop wilfully misrepresenting what?s really going on.

[rch]

Yep.

Edited to clarify that I was saying yep to Rockets post.

[Rockets]

Raeburn Wrote:

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

> But that jam went all the way into Forest Hill? I

> walked from Overhill Rd bus stop (100m from Court

> Lane) to Forest Hill Sainsbury?s at 19.30, I kept

> same pace as vehicles in the jam the whole way.

> Perhaps there are works beyond?

>

> Not sure what your point is, but your evidence

> undermines any reasonable discussion. Stop

> wilfully misrepresenting what?s really going on.

I think my point is quite clear. Let me spell it out for you: the traffic congestion on that section of Lordship Lane has been horrendous since the LTNs went in as the LTNs close two of 4 routes east/west across Dulwich. Does that help clarify things for you?

It is like that every night along the southern part of Lordship Lane. Hardly wilful misrepresentation - go walk up there yourself every night and see what you see. And just for the record I did not throw a log in the road around the corner to cause the tailback so I can get the picture!

Out of interest Raeburn, what do you think is going on?

[Raeburn]

If the LTN was causing the congestion you have posted, surely the peak traffic heading away should be more free-flowing? The jam extended from your photo to Forest Hill, away from Court Lane.

I said in my post, possibly the congestion was caused by something in/beyond Forest Hill - my speculation - and probably compounded by people leaving London on a Friday evening.

[ali2007]

No Raeburn - exactly as Rocket said. LL is standstill traffic EVERY night. I live close-by and can?t really leave my house from about 4pm unless I want to spend an hour in traffic. It?s dreadful. But don?t worry about me because I don?t live in Dulwich Village (who represent the small minority who are genuinely enjoying ?healthy streets?)

all the traffic now sits on roads close to me so my kids can inhale everyone?s pollution instead ;-)

Oh and forget trying to get to our elderly mother in law in HH - if she falls over she?ll just have to suck it up and wait.

[Dulwichgirl82]

As above the traffic on LL is terrible, this is likely related to those being unable to go to the village/HH and beyond via court lane and turney road, so all having head along LL to S circular.

Agree ali2007 other kids are just inhaling the fumes now.