LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[legalalien]

Minor Traffic Schemes Batch 2 now published, think the only local one is an experimental TMO to put a permeable closure on Gilkes (where the current temporary closure is) https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50026422

[exdulwicher]

But Ex- do you really believe the numbers being presented? A 22% drop in traffic on Lordship Lane - really????.

That?s a huge drop that I don?t think anyone who spends any time on Lordship Lane is seeing. And if traffic has dropped so much why are bus journey times along Lordship Lane increasing?

Why has the council moved the monitoring strips from close to Court Lane (which were there around Oct/Nov last year) to close to Milford Road for the review?

BTW, from your expertise below what speed do monitoring strips become useless? Is it 5mph?

The graphic that Rah3 posted the other day (I've tried to link it again below) state that the 22% decrease figure was from the Court Lane end of LL which is probably as a result of Court Lane now longer being an access road from the Village (other than for residents, perhaps a few people parking on Court Lane / Eynella for the park and so on). Bear in mind that the figure generated from tube counters is for that section of road, not "all of Lordship Lane"

The figure from EDG at the LL end is a 26% increase, an extra 2400 vehicles per day compared to same period in 2019. Clearly, it's not ALL displaced traffic - the maths of the reductions elsewhere simply don't add up to it ALL shifting to EDG.

As an initial test of the LTN though, I'd say that's overall quite positive although it now needs some work to reduce traffic along EDG. The major problem is the EDG/LL junction area, that whole lot needs a complete overhaul but that would cost millions and take a very long time of major disruption - my guess is it's one of those things that'll be put off indefinitely either due to funding or the fact that no-one is prepared to face the year of roadworks and associated chaos. There are easier shorter term measures like restricting parking along there, adding in a pop-up cycle lane and so on, all of which would help to alleviate congestion.

Counters - the accuracy varies a bit, generally the accepted error margin is about 10% although often it's a lot lower that that. A dual hose system can determine speed quite well. When a car passes over it you get F/F...R/R pulse readings and since it knows that the hoses are x distance apart, measuring the speed is easy. You can get an idea of vehicle length too from the time difference between the front and rear wheels although where it sometimes gets confused is lorries with multi-axle trailers. That said, as a general rule, the tube counters aren't suitable for larger roads with heavy traffic although they'll cope with buses. If a car stops over it though with the tubes between front and rear wheels, the longer pause can sometimes confuse it but the time gaps between pulses are pretty easy to identify. If you're getting a lot of that, you probably need to move the counter to somewhere with slightly freer flow of traffic and/or back it up with manual counts, video counts etc.

As to why the council moved them - that's what they do. The whole point of those things is they're cheap and portable and don't need thousands of them across the neighbourhood, they can move them round, a week here, a week there and it'll give the same trend comparisons. You don't need to know to the last % point the exact numbers of cars, bikes, buses, trucks on every stretch of road on every day of the year.

https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?5,file=396982

[Earl Aelfheah]

Summary graphics attached. 24,000 fewer vehicles across the whole area. 3,400 more cycles a day.

[malumbu]

Rocks - you asked about nudge. Nudge is exactly that, as I expect you know, pushing people towards better choices. The nudge on emissions could include - if you walk a mile to the local shop, not only will you be saving money on using your car, but this is also good for your health and others.

LTNs are not a nudge but a kick up the backside.

The Heathrow study is interesting as this showed that despite what many said with regards to the environment and emissions, when push came to shove they wouldn't change their behaviour. Hence the need for a big stick and/or carrot.

Good examples of nudge: A text reminding you to pay your bills or fine "95% of people pay their bills/fine on time" So it is cool to do that.

And the classic the spot on the urinals - men naturally aim at this as a target which reduces them weeing on the floor of the toilets.

Very much encouraging/praising good behaviour

[Lebanums]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> Lebanums Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I don't believe the answer is to make it

> difficult for private car ownership. Make other

> options more

> > attractive. There is no longer direct access to

> a train station for those of us who live away

> from

> > LL or on the Peckham Rye side. The request to

> extend the 63 to Honor Oak Park has been

> requested

> > for years, but nothing has happened, there is no

> longer access to Peckham Rye. What are we

> supposed

> > to do?

> >

>

> Sadly you do have to have harsher measures to

> discourage drivers as for many this is what it

> takes to reduce the number of journeys. That's

> not to say improved public transport, safer

> walking and cycling aren't important, or that

> current measures are perfect (not commenting on

> the current LTN).

>

> In 2017 the nudge unit aka Behavioural Insights

> Team did some work with the Heathrow estates team

> (Heathrow is like a town in its own right and

> there are a wide number of businesses that go

> beyond aviation). You have a fairly well defined

> shift pattern, but most commute in a single

> occupancy vehicle. Interventions included making

> car sharing more convenient, but in terms of pick

> ups but going as far as whether you drove with the

> radio on, and what station.

>

> Results were pretty disappointing. "A range of

> light touch interventions were trialled, and many

> of them did not yield a significant effect. This

> highlights the complex challenge of increasing

> sustainable travel of staff, using low cost

> behavioural measures"

>

> Discouraging driving can be seen as financial

> incentives to those reducing their carbon

> footprint/pollution emissions in paying less to

> the government than currently through vehicle

> excise duty (road user charging). There could be

> sweeteners/rewards but not sure who should pay for

> these, as those who don't drive would essentially

> be subsidising this.

>

> It's a long and detailed report but here is one of

> the interesting conclusions:

>

> The divergence between stated preferences and

> observed behaviour

>

> This project provided further evidence of the gap

> between attitudes and observed behaviours and

> should reaffirm to practitioners that they should

> not to take self-reported opinions, especially

> those

> reported to employers, at face value when devising

> transport interventions. The gap between stated

> preferences and observed behaviour is a

> well-documented phenomenon which was reaffirmed

> by

> this project the magnitude of difference surprised

> us.

>

> Despite nearly the majority of drivers expressing

> that they would car share if they could find

> someone with a similar shift pattern who lives

> near them, registration rates for the car sharing

> scheme were unexpectedly low.

>

> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen

> t/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5863

> 76/sustainable-travel-evaluation-of-low-cost-workp

> lace-interventions.pdf

>

> Interventions included a free bus pass, but this

> had limited uptake, and few continued to use the

> bus after the offer ended.

I can only speak from my own experience but I've had to use my car more since the measures were put in place. Living on the Peckham Rye side of ED, I am no longer able to get to a station in good time, meaning I use my car instead. It takes me double the time to get to work on PT than driving. After an already long day, I'm not going to add time to my journey.

Both myself and my partner have a car which we need for getting to work. We work in different directions, not in the city. We would love to get rid of one on them. Lockdown and wfh have made us believe we can do that, but when we are all back in the office, I'm not sure if it will be possible. We are holding on to them for now.

I never got my drivers license until I was in my 30s on moving to ED. Walking and using PT to get around ED is fine, but going further is an issue.

I have also experienced with friends and neighbours that we have become more aware of our green spaces, and we need to look after our world, mindsets are changing. I believe that improving networks will change habits. I hope I'm not being too optimistic.

[Rockets]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> But Ex- do you really believe the numbers being

> presented? A 22% drop in traffic on Lordship Lane

> - really????.

>

> That?s a huge drop that I don?t think anyone who

> spends any time on Lordship Lane is seeing. And if

> traffic has dropped so much why are bus journey

> times along Lordship Lane increasing?

>

> Why has the council moved the monitoring strips

> from close to Court Lane (which were there around

> Oct/Nov last year) to close to Milford Road for

> the review?

>

> BTW, from your expertise below what speed do

> monitoring strips become useless? Is it 5mph?

>

> The graphic that Rah3 posted the other day (I've

> tried to link it again below) state that the 22%

> decrease figure was from the Court Lane end of LL

> which is probably as a result of Court Lane now

> longer being an access road from the Village

> (other than for residents, perhaps a few people

> parking on Court Lane / Eynella for the park and

> so on). Bear in mind that the figure generated

> from tube counters is for that section of road,

> not "all of Lordship Lane"

>

> The figure from EDG at the LL end is a 26%

> increase, an extra 2400 vehicles per day compared

> to same period in 2019. Clearly, it's not ALL

> displaced traffic - the maths of the reductions

> elsewhere simply don't add up to it ALL shifting

> to EDG.

>

> As an initial test of the LTN though, I'd say

> that's overall quite positive although it now

> needs some work to reduce traffic along EDG. The

> major problem is the EDG/LL junction area, that

> whole lot needs a complete overhaul but that would

> cost millions and take a very long time of major

> disruption - my guess is it's one of those things

> that'll be put off indefinitely either due to

> funding or the fact that no-one is prepared to

> face the year of roadworks and associated chaos.

> There are easier shorter term measures like

> restricting parking along there, adding in a

> pop-up cycle lane and so on, all of which would

> help to alleviate congestion.

>

> Counters - the accuracy varies a bit, generally

> the accepted error margin is about 10% although

> often it's a lot lower that that. A dual hose

> system can determine speed quite well. When a car

> passes over it you get F/F...R/R pulse readings

> and since it knows that the hoses are x distance

> apart, measuring the speed is easy. You can get an

> idea of vehicle length too from the time

> difference between the front and rear wheels

> although where it sometimes gets confused is

> lorries with multi-axle trailers. That said, as a

> general rule, the tube counters aren't suitable

> for larger roads with heavy traffic although

> they'll cope with buses. If a car stops over it

> though with the tubes between front and rear

> wheels, the longer pause can sometimes confuse it

> but the time gaps between pulses are pretty easy

> to identify. If you're getting a lot of that, you

> probably need to move the counter to somewhere

> with slightly freer flow of traffic and/or back it

> up with manual counts, video counts etc.

>

> As to why the council moved them - that's what

> they do. The whole point of those things is

> they're cheap and portable and don't need

> thousands of them across the neighbourhood, they

> can move them round, a week here, a week there and

> it'll give the same trend comparisons. You don't

> need to know to the last % point the exact numbers

> of cars, bikes, buses, trucks on every stretch of

> road on every day of the year.

>

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

> 5,file=396982

But they moved them on Lordship Lane south from the Court Lane junction to very close to the junction of Melford Road for the review period which is probably the slowest moving part of Lordship Lane due to the queueing traffic trying to turn right onto the A205 - that doesn't make sense does it - unless you are trying to skew the results? Every morning and evening the traffic is tailing back to pretty much Court Lane. I would love to see the stats from the monitoring strips they had in close to Court Lane for a couple of months in October/November as I very much suspect they do not show a 22% decrease in traffic.

[Rockets]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> Rocks - you asked about nudge. Nudge is exactly

> that, as I expect you know, pushing people towards

> better choices. The nudge on emissions could

> include - if you walk a mile to the local shop,

> not only will you be saving money on using your

> car, but this is also good for your health and

> others.

>

> LTNs are not a nudge but a kick up the backside.

>

> The Heathrow study is interesting as this showed

> that despite what many said with regards to the

> environment and emissions, when push came to shove

> they wouldn't change their behaviour. Hence the

> need for a big stick and/or carrot.

>

> Good examples of nudge: A text reminding you to

> pay your bills or fine "95% of people pay their

> bills/fine on time" So it is cool to do that.

>

> And the classic the spot on the urinals - men

> naturally aim at this as a target which reduces

> them weeing on the floor of the toilets.

>

> Very much encouraging/praising good behaviour

I understand nudge tactics but I was wondering whether there are there any examples of LTNs working - anywhere? Waltham Forest is always thrown around as a great example of them working but speak to anyone who lives around there and they tell you they are anything but successful (except if you live on the closed off streets) so I am wondering if you have any examples of where they have worked?

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Summary graphics attached. 24,000 fewer vehicles

> across the whole area. 3,400 more cycles a day.

But does anyone actually believe this to be a true reflection of what is actually going on - it's simply not borne out by what the majority of people are seeing and experiencing in the area? The data is also incomplete (many roads that have had monitoring in place are missing) and massively selective.

I think trust in the council (unless you are a pro-LTN headbanger) is at an all-time low and no-one believes anything they put out or say anymore.

At what point will they have a proper public meeting to meet local residents face-to-face to discuss this or are they always now going to hide behind on-line meetings? I very much suspect the CPZ meeting held at the library a couple of years ago has scarred the council for life (huge numbers of people turning up to tell them they didn't agree with them) and they are terrified of actually having to meet their constituents now!!! ;-)

[gm99]

(Deleted)

[Metallic]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> How much of a difference do you really think a

> 'green bus on a circuit' would make. Lets assume

> you have 2 of them and they seat say 20

> passengers. Lets also be generous and say that

> they take 20 single occupant vehicles off the road

> each. Given the area people seem to want covered

> (east dulwich to west dulwich) i've allowed an

> optimistic hour for a circuit. Thats between

> 40-60 cars overall removed from the roads by this.

> Its hardly going to result in safe walking and

> cycling routes.

>

> So - we've got Metallic who is suggesting

> reopening everywhere and putting in place a

> community bus (funding tbc)

> Spartacus - remove everything and wait for ULEZ

> (note even TFL thinks that 80% of cars are

> currently already ULEZ compliant)

>

> Anything else?

Yes. Anyone who lives in a permanent LTN to give up their car. How d'ya like them apples?

[Otto2]

Rockets Wrote:

...

I was wondering

> whether there are there any examples of LTNs

> working - anywhere? Waltham Forest is always

> thrown around as a great example of them working

> but speak to anyone who lives around there and

> they tell you they are anything but successful

> (except if you live on the closed off streets) so

> I am wondering if you have any examples of where

> they have worked?

Hi Rockets -

Here is a report that outlines substantial air quality improvements in Waltham Forest.

https://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/sites/default/files/WalthamForest_Kings%20Report_310718.pdf

[exdulwicher]

I understand nudge tactics but I was wondering whether there are there any examples of LTNs working - anywhere? Waltham Forest is always thrown around as a great example of them working but speak to anyone who lives around there and they tell you they are anything but successful (except if you live on the closed off streets) so I am wondering if you have any examples of where they have worked?

https://londonlivingstreets.com/2021/07/15/impact-of-2020-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-in-london-initial-traffic-counts-now-in-from-4-london-boroughs/

What is your definition of "worked"?

Broadly speaking, vehicle traffic drops, active travel increases. Surely that means that it's working?

[DulwichCentral]

@Rockets you have spent the last year (??) inventing conspiracy theories accusing the council of withholding information. Now they've released data you say 'it's simply not borne out by what the majority of people are seeing and experiencing'.

One Dulwich recently slated the review process as flawed because it's about 'feelings' or 'perception' rather than data. So which do you prefer? Perception? Data? Or data you agree with according to your perception? ;)

[Rockets]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> I understand nudge tactics but I was wondering

> whether there are there any examples of LTNs

> working - anywhere? Waltham Forest is always

> thrown around as a great example of them working

> but speak to anyone who lives around there and

> they tell you they are anything but successful

> (except if you live on the closed off streets) so

> I am wondering if you have any examples of where

> they have worked?

>

> https://londonlivingstreets.com/2021/07/15/impact-

> of-2020-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-in-london-initi

> al-traffic-counts-now-in-from-4-london-boroughs/

>

> What is your definition of "worked"?

> Broadly speaking, vehicle traffic drops, active

> travel increases. Surely that means that it's

> working?

But Ex- that article you link to is very much part of the problems - it proves nothing because it is based on the numbers many of us are questioning - the "interim" results from the council. This is the problem many of us have with this process - the incomplete (flawed) data from the council is being presented as proof these measures are working by all of the usual lobby groups - yet, you may have noticed, that the monitoring is flawed. Labour councillors are knocking on people's doors sharing this report as proof their measures are working but as you know, it is anything but.

For example, no monitoring data has been released for any site east of Lordship Lane. Underhill, for example, has been soaking up a lot of the displacement and yet no monitoring has been shared for that displacement route. Just look at page 15 of the report the council put out - huge parts of the area (many of which are soaking up the displacement) the council have decided not to share any data from.

Surely, given your professional credentials, in these circumstances you can agree that this data is incomplete and therefore cannot be taken as proof of anything (and probably should never have been shared in its current form). It's a bit like being on a listing ship and looking at the port side and saying everything is fine when the starboard side is holed below the waterline and taking on water.

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> @Rockets you have spent the last year (??)

> inventing conspiracy theories accusing the council

> of withholding information. Now they've released

> data you say 'it's simply not borne out by what

> the majority of people are seeing and

> experiencing'.

>

> One Dulwich recently slated the review process as

> flawed because it's about 'feelings' or

> 'perception' rather than data. So which do you

> prefer? Perception? Data? Or data you agree with

> according to your perception? ;)

DC not conspiracy theories - just pointing out how the council is manipulating the process to their advantage. Trust me, if this was another party doing this I bet you'd be screaming more loudly than I am! Just because their findings validates your position doesn't mean you should not scrutinise them and challenge the way the council came to them - if it's LTNs this week it will be something you care about next week.

I challenge anyone to tell me that traffic is down 22% on Lordship Lane by the junction of Grove Tavern - that's just not the case - not even close and why have the council not shared the data from the monitoring strips that were in near the Court Lane junction in October and November?

At the end of the day what I say or you say won't make the slightest bit of difference but there are a lot of people who feel the same way as me and it was interesting that One Dulwich shared the research they did from going door to door on the roads within the closure area and 80% of the people they spoke to wanted them removed.

It's going to be very interesting to see how the council manages the review feedback process because if those numbers are seen in the submissions from locals they will have to find a lot of Southwark Cyclists to balance it back in their favour and then, perhaps more importantly, will local councillors want to continue on their current path when they realise that the majority of the Southwark Cyclists can't be counted on for votes in May.....time will tell.

[exdulwicher]

But @Rockets, this is what has been asked for! Right from the moment the first planter was put in, the modus operandi of all these One... groups is the same. Demand data of all types. Interim data, initial data, monitoring data, pollution data.

(it's quite ironic that the more militant minded of the anti-folk then go round cutting traffic count cables specifically to disrupt the data gathering but we'll skip over that for now...)

When data is given, especially interim data, it'll be rubbished as incomplete, inaccurate, biased, faked and the demands to see the raw data (like WTF are they going to do with the download from a traffic count machine...?!). When the final report is produced, it'll be claimed that it's the follow on from an incomplete initial report. Repeat ad infinitum.

Every piece of data that is produced is fought over to the nth degree, questioning it's veracity - wrong location, wrong time of day/week/month... If it came from Location X, they'll demand it from Location Y. When the data is positive (it usually is, the basic principles are all the same), the claim is then made that they don't need data to see what's happening on their own street. Muddy the waters, obfuscate, produce your own "survey" which shows the opposite, claim the council are manipulating things.

You literally cannot win. Nothing will ever be good enough, every bit of data produced will be discarded with a request for ever more esoteric and specific monitoring.

DC not conspiracy theories - just pointing out how the council is manipulating the process to their advantage.

Sweeping generalisation but councils are usually not competent enough to do conspiracy theories or manipulation. ;-)

One of the amusing things about conspiracy theories is that they almost always imply or require a massive amount of cover up from thousands of people.

Face it, Matt Hancock couldn't even have a quiet shag in his own office without it becoming public knowledge; the idea that there is some kind of mass secret collusion of council officials, external contractors, DfT, transport experts and so on to hide the truth, manipulate data and so on is far-fetched in the extreme!

it was interesting that One Dulwich shared the research they did from going door to door on the roads within the closure area and 80% of the people they spoke to wanted them removed.

Damn, I must have been out, that would have been an interesting conversation... ;-)

And obviously not at all biased, no leading questions at all.

[LTN BooHoo]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> But @Rockets, this is what has been asked for!

> Right from the moment the first planter was put

> in, the modus operandi of all these One... groups

> is the same. Demand data of all types. Interim

> data, initial data, monitoring data, pollution

> data.

>

> (it's quite ironic that the more militant minded

> of the anti-folk then go round cutting traffic

> count cables specifically to disrupt the data

> gathering but we'll skip over that for now...)

>

> When data is given, especially interim data, it'll

> be rubbished as incomplete, inaccurate, biased,

> faked and the demands to see the raw data (like

> WTF are they going to do with the download from a

> traffic count machine...?!). When the final report

> is produced, it'll be claimed that it's the follow

> on from an incomplete initial report. Repeat ad

> infinitum.

>

> Every piece of data that is produced is fought

> over to the nth degree, questioning it's veracity

> - wrong location, wrong time of day/week/month...

> If it came from Location X, they'll demand it from

> Location Y. When the data is positive (it usually

> is, the basic principles are all the same), the

> claim is then made that they don't need data to

> see what's happening on their own street. Muddy

> the waters, obfuscate, produce your own "survey"

> which shows the opposite, claim the council are

> manipulating things.

>

> You literally cannot win. Nothing will ever be

> good enough, every bit of data produced will be

> discarded with a request for ever more esoteric

> and specific monitoring.

>

>

> DC not conspiracy theories - just pointing out how

> the council is manipulating the process to their

> advantage.

>

> Sweeping generalisation but councils are usually

> not competent enough to do conspiracy theories or

> manipulation. ;-)

> One of the amusing things about conspiracy

> theories is that they almost always imply or

> require a massive amount of cover up from

> thousands of people.

>

> Face it, Matt Hancock couldn't even have a quiet

> shag in his own office without it becoming public

> knowledge; the idea that there is some kind of

> mass secret collusion of council officials,

> external contractors, DfT, transport experts and

> so on to hide the truth, manipulate data and so on

> is far-fetched in the extreme!

>

>

> it was interesting that One Dulwich shared the

> research they did from going door to door on the

> roads within the closure area and 80% of the

> people they spoke to wanted them removed.

>

> Damn, I must have been out, that would have been

> an interesting conversation... ;-)

> And obviously not at all biased, no leading

> questions at all.

>

>

You are brilliant! Wonderful response to the slightly unhinged accusations of conspiracy theories.

[alice]

Patting each other on the back May feel good but is not going to change the fact that LTNs are finished in DV.

[Rockets]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> But @Rockets, this is what has been asked for!

> Right from the moment the first planter was put

> in, the modus operandi of all these One... groups

> is the same. Demand data of all types. Interim

> data, initial data, monitoring data, pollution

> data.

>

> (it's quite ironic that the more militant minded

> of the anti-folk then go round cutting traffic

> count cables specifically to disrupt the data

> gathering but we'll skip over that for now...)

>

> When data is given, especially interim data, it'll

> be rubbished as incomplete, inaccurate, biased,

> faked and the demands to see the raw data (like

> WTF are they going to do with the download from a

> traffic count machine...?!). When the final report

> is produced, it'll be claimed that it's the follow

> on from an incomplete initial report. Repeat ad

> infinitum.

>

> Every piece of data that is produced is fought

> over to the nth degree, questioning it's veracity

> - wrong location, wrong time of day/week/month...

> If it came from Location X, they'll demand it from

> Location Y. When the data is positive (it usually

> is, the basic principles are all the same), the

> claim is then made that they don't need data to

> see what's happening on their own street. Muddy

> the waters, obfuscate, produce your own "survey"

> which shows the opposite, claim the council are

> manipulating things.

>

> You literally cannot win. Nothing will ever be

> good enough, every bit of data produced will be

> discarded with a request for ever more esoteric

> and specific monitoring.

>

>

> DC not conspiracy theories - just pointing out how

> the council is manipulating the process to their

> advantage.

>

> Sweeping generalisation but councils are usually

> not competent enough to do conspiracy theories or

> manipulation. ;-)

> One of the amusing things about conspiracy

> theories is that they almost always imply or

> require a massive amount of cover up from

> thousands of people.

>

> Face it, Matt Hancock couldn't even have a quiet

> shag in his own office without it becoming public

> knowledge; the idea that there is some kind of

> mass secret collusion of council officials,

> external contractors, DfT, transport experts and

> so on to hide the truth, manipulate data and so on

> is far-fetched in the extreme!

>

>

> it was interesting that One Dulwich shared the

> research they did from going door to door on the

> roads within the closure area and 80% of the

> people they spoke to wanted them removed.

>

> Damn, I must have been out, that would have been

> an interesting conversation... ;-)

> And obviously not at all biased, no leading

> questions at all.

>

>

Give us complete data, give us data that measures impact on ALL displacement routes. This is not complete data. It refers to Dulwich area-wide reductions in traffic but that's not true is it? Why? Because huge parts of the data is missing. It doesn't measure anything east of Lordship Lane - only a fool would think this is an accurate reflection of the impact of the LTNs.

Without the full picture this report is completely irrelevant yet it is being positioned as proof it's working. I remind you Labour councillors are knocking on people's doors telling them its working on the basis of this incomplete data. That's wrong on so many levels but reflective of the underhand and, frankly, immoral tactics being used by people who are utterly convinced their way is the only way and are on some sort of righteous crusade.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I have absolutely no reason to think you?ll accept any data that does not show what you want it to. You?ve dismissed TfL data, freely available in it?s entirety. You?ve pretty much rubbished all the research on active travel. I could produce a glossy pamphlet with ?open everything to cars and the air will be clear and traffic a thing of the past? if you want 🤷 in fact I think One Dulwich already have some.

[Rockets]

Meanwhile on twitter.....: "Don't pay any attention to their incomplete data, instead pay attention to our incomplete data"!

[first mate]

Seems to cut both ways.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I have absolutely no reason to think you?ll accept

> any data that does not show what you want it to.

> You?ve dismissed TfL data, freely available in

> it?s entirety. You?ve pretty much rubbished all

> the research on active travel. I could produce a

> glossy pamphlet with ?open everything to cars and

> the air will be clear and traffic a thing of the

> past? if you want 🤷 in fact I think One

> Dulwich already have some.

[Abe_froeman]

What an appaling shambles that people trust the council so little, even if the data is full and complete and accurate.

This whole episode will be severely damaging for any future campaigns to implement active travel measures because a large number of people genuinely believe that the council are acting in an underhand way, or have been hoodwinked and bent over by lobbyists, or are telling us bare faced lies, and in some cases people believe there is out and out corruption at play

What a travesty that the council has damaged its relationship with residents so badly.

It will be very hard for them to rebuild that for future projects.

[SpringTime]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> What an appaling shambles that people trust the

> council so little, even if the data is full and

> complete and accurate.

>

> This whole episode will be severely damaging for

> any future campaigns to implement active travel

> measures because a large number of people

> genuinely believe that the council are acting in

> an underhand way, or have been hoodwinked and bent

> over by lobbyists, or are telling us bare faced

> lies, and in some cases people believe there is

> out and out corruption at play

>

> What a travesty that the council has damaged its

> relationship with residents so badly.

>

> It will be very hard for them to rebuild that for

> future projects.

It will be up to the Council to earn trust and respect again - but to do that they'll need to act fast and do something pretty seismic, even if they continue to do some good things (as they already do) in the meantime.

[Metallic]

I don't believe a word that is spun from the mouths of Cllr Rose and Cllr Simmons. Or Helen Hayes. Spinning is actually not being truthful. It will come out eventually and although this may be too late for the next elections - bar one of the Ward councillors (!) it will flash back to burn the fingers of @SouthwarkLabour.