LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[slarti b2]

@DKHB

My sympathies to the people of Aleppo and Pyongyang.

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

[alice]

The LTNs have not worked. Southwark is not listening. Does this thread have any purpose?

[heartblock]

I think you are right on this one Alice.

[heartblock]

But I suppose I live in hope that there is some honesty on this thread and someone just admits that although ED Grove, LL, Croxted were all busy roads, they are now much worse due to the LTNs. While their road is now gated, so quiet and with less traffic, with the consequence that their house price has increased and they of course they can still drive on boundary roads.

So they have no issue with others having a worse experience and probable worse psychological and physical health outcomes due to increased stress and increased pollution both noise and particulates/NOx, because their life is now much nicer.

I would respect this honesty far more than the trolling, sealioning and accusations of lying.

[northernmonkey]

I'm not sure 200% plus is the right figure - but your approach of 'southwark are evil because they have deliberately tried to mislead people' is laughable in the face of your support for One Dulwich.

The 8% they raise in this 'paper' is also undoubtedly massively understated - but obviously chosen for effect and the hope that people will read the headline and move on.

One Dulwich lie and use half truths to perpetuate a narrative of fear to stoke up support.

slarti b2 Wrote:

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

> northernmonkey Wrote:

> So - I cracked and read this 'report'.

>

> Following my earlier response to you I have now

> read through that OneDulwich Report in more

> detail. Well researched and balanced though I

> think it pulls it punches a bit. The main issue

> that strikes me is, not the fact that Southwark's

> claims of a 231% increase are desparately over

> inflated, but that Southwark council officers seem

> to be manipulating and deliberately suppressing

> data to support Councillor's political agenda and

> mislead residents.

>

> The fact that Soutwark published these misleading

> statistics just before the end of the Dulwich

> Streetspace consultation period (presumably to

> avoid scrutiny?) then encouraged respondents to

> revise previous responses in the light of the so

> called success of the road closures is absolutely

> outrageous.

>

> This confirms a pattern of deceit by Southwark's

> Highways department which is surely not fit for

> purpose. Equally at fault are the councillors who

> willingly promulgate these false statistics.

>

> Sadly we appear to live in a one party state with

> no effective scrutiny or opposition to our local

> (Labour) councillors, the (Labour) cabinet and our

> (Labour) MP who seems to be a glove puppet for the

> (Labour) councillors.

[northernmonkey]

And on the 'accusations of lying' re East Dulwich Grove.

Heartblock made statements that 'since schools went back the traffic is much worse than it was last academic year and now its congested for 2+ hours in the morning and evening and also that in the evening it can extend from 3:15-7pm. So thats over 6 hours of gridlock being claimed.

Photographic evidence and video evidence shows this isn't the case.

[Chris_1]

I haven?t dug into every single datapoint presented by the council, but as a Croxted Road resident I did look in detail at our numbers. The council report said traffic was down - off the top of my head I believe -14%, compared to baseline -12%.

We couldn?t understand this given what we were seeing every morning. Fortunately there is extensive TfL data available because of the traffic lights (SCOOT system - isn?t it funny the things you end up learning about).

I think they had examined traffic in both directions, over the entire day. This technically does look at our road but, timed restrictions only apply one way (Northbound) and are timed (AM/PM), so by not looking at these specific circumstances an accurate picture is avoided.

Maybe that?s important for comparability elsewhere in the report, or maybe it?s a tactic to window dress the numbers. My hunch is the latter but maybe I?m a pessimist.

If we look at the morning session (7-10am) northbound, using TFL data, where there?s like 5+ years of daily history?

You can see an INCREASE in traffic volume on weekdays -

For (maybe Feb was flat, can?t remember) Feb/Mar/Apr/May, despite lockdown measures impacting early on? and against borough wide traffic which was down.

TfL congestion measures also exploded higher, from ~5-10%, on this specific route into the junction - eg the PRECISE problem area, up to around 40%.

This is massively significant because the TfL data starts at 7am, vs times

Restrictions at 8am, so these numbers are understating the true impact (cause no congestion 7-8am skews the numbers downward).

This data set also avoids baseline selection issues because it?s comprehensive since 2016 ish.

So, the consultation report comprehensively fails to properly analyse our problem. And this is just for one street. Maybe it?s all ?bad luck?, but how can it be trusted for any other street?

[northernmonkey]

I do agree that some of the analysis for the streets where there were one way restrictions wasn't helpful - i would have liked to see directional analysis as this would have been much more useful and given a truer picture.

Croxted is an issue, I had hoped that the lights phasing would help but not sure if it has. I don't travel along Croxted daily though so can't comment. Unlike East Dulwich Grove where I travel pretty much every day, often multiple times.

[Chris_1]

I should add as well, their bus time analysis again attempted to downplay the issue, focusing on average all day times - admittedly still showing a statistically significant set of delays? but ignoring peak times - you know - when people actually want to get places? and where the data is MUCH worse.

The council knows about everything I?ve outlined above. Let?s hope they pay attention.

Re: the lights, yes I was hopeful too. There appeared to be improvement in June. Unfortunately this has not carried to September and schools returning. I wonder if June was assisted by older teenagers being out on exam leave, because unfortunately we are very much back to square one at the moment.

[first mate]

Slarti b has done a great job of casting doubt on Southwark's statistical 'argument' in favour of LTNs, and you do not seem to have a response based on very much that is concrete, instead seeking to challenge the integrity of those holding different views to your own.

On the note of peddling lies and half-truths- where has Slarti said 'Southwark are evil'?

No doubt Heartblock can also produce photos and video evidence to support his/her case.

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> I'm not sure 200% plus is the right figure - but

> your approach of 'southwark are evil because they

> have deliberately tried to mislead people' is

> laughable in the face of your support for One

> Dulwich.

>

> The 8% they raise in this 'paper' is also

> undoubtedly massively understated - but obviously

> chosen for effect and the hope that people will

> read the headline and move on.

>

> One Dulwich lie and use half truths to perpetuate

> a narrative of fear to stoke up support.

>

>

>

> slarti b2 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > northernmonkey Wrote:

> > So - I cracked and read this 'report'.

> >

> > Following my earlier response to you I have now

> > read through that OneDulwich Report in more

> > detail. Well researched and balanced though I

> > think it pulls it punches a bit. The main

> issue

> > that strikes me is, not the fact that

> Southwark's

> > claims of a 231% increase are desparately over

> > inflated, but that Southwark council officers

> seem

> > to be manipulating and deliberately suppressing

> > data to support Councillor's political agenda

> and

> > mislead residents.

> >

> > The fact that Soutwark published these

> misleading

> > statistics just before the end of the Dulwich

> > Streetspace consultation period (presumably to

> > avoid scrutiny?) then encouraged respondents to

> > revise previous responses in the light of the

> so

> > called success of the road closures is

> absolutely

> > outrageous.

> >

> > This confirms a pattern of deceit by

> Southwark's

> > Highways department which is surely not fit for

> > purpose. Equally at fault are the councillors

> who

> > willingly promulgate these false statistics.

> >

> > Sadly we appear to live in a one party state

> with

> > no effective scrutiny or opposition to our

> local

> > (Labour) councillors, the (Labour) cabinet and

> our

> > (Labour) MP who seems to be a glove puppet for

> the

> > (Labour) councillors.

[northernmonkey]

If Heartblock can produce any evidence throughout the period they claim then that would be interesting. I'm sure they can provide one photo of queueing traffic but that really isn't the same of the 4-7 hours they are publicly stating.

Time stamped photos or a time lapse of the rush hour would be great though!

[northernmonkey]

For example this morning at 8:06 there was virtually no traffic

[northernmonkey]

Though by 8:33 there was a queue

[northernmonkey]

So based on today it would seem that there is a 30-40 minute period where it is busy in the mornings. I don't doubt that its possible that there was a day where it was busy for longer but I do doubt that this has been a trend and magically the day I look in response to these claims is an anomaly.

[first mate]

The first photo is not accessible at all ( sorry, cannot open it) but the second shows quite a queue. Why quibble about exact times? You have evidenced significant traffic buildup, right next to a school and health centre. What we need is videos or photo evidence taken over a number of months at various times.

[Spartacus]

I've now got a vision of you two standing near each other taking photos and nodding to each other without actually knowing who each of you is ...

Go ahead say hello and see what happens 😃

[northernmonkey]

9:01 completely clear

The first was a video, obviously not supported showing empty roads at 8:06. It?s a shame as video is much better as cant be manipulated in the same way to pick a gap in traffic

[northernmonkey]

Why quibble over times? Well because 30 mins is different from 2 plus hours.

East Dulwich Grove has always been busy for a 30 min or so stretch in the rush hour especially during term time and is always worse at the beginning of term for some reason (new parents trying it out before realising its a really bad way to get there?).

first mate Wrote:

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

> The first photo is not accessible at all ( sorry,

> cannot open it) but the second shows quite a

> queue. Why quibble about exact times? You have

> evidenced significant traffic buildup, right next

> to a school and health centre. What we need is

> videos or photo evidence taken over a number of

> months at various times.

[slarti b2]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> I'm not sure 200% plus is the right figure

The Council claimed 301% increase to Sep 2020 and 231% increase to Apr 2021. Its all in the OneDulwich Report

> The 8% they raise in this 'paper' is also undoubtedly massively understated

The 8% is from the Southwark council pre-streetspace monitoring counts, ie chosen precisely as a baseline, but suppressed becuase it didn't give the resultSouthwark wanted. What is the problem with using it? You seem to support Southwark in choosing an innacurate, unreliable estimate at the worst part of the year for cycling

btw, OneDulwich could have used the Dept for Transport raw count figures for Sep 18 as a comaprison; those show a decrease in cycling after the road closure. But presumably the chose the average adjusted figure to be balanced.

> One Dulwich lie and use half truths to perpetuate a narrative of fear to stoke up support.

Oh dear, you really don't like being faced with proper analyisys based on open access information do you?

Apart from this excellent report OneDulwich have preduced a series of reports analysing the data highlighting the errors and manipulation used by Southwark and our COuncillors.

- the "47 increase" in traffic through Dulwich Village, using a fraudulent baseline

- the massive increase in traffic along Calton Avenue, based on an obvious error

- the "huge support" in OHS phase 2 for closing the junction, but only if you dont count those respondents who didn't want to close the junction. And this was a tiny survey with very few residents, apart from Calton Avenue, responding

- the biased consultations with leading quesions.

You ask whether Southwark Council is "evil", those are your words not mine. How would you describe a public body and its officers (who I would assume should be objective) that is consistently and repeatedly publishing biased deceitful and misleading information in support of their policies?

[first mate]

🤣

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> I've now got a vision of you two standing near

> each other taking photos and nodding to each other

> without actually knowing who each of you is ...

>

> Go ahead say hello and see what happens 😃

[northernmonkey]

I can only assume with analysis like this that you contributed to the documents One Dulwich produced! If the September figure was chosen as a baseline and compared with Sept post measures, from memory it would produce something in the region of a 35% increase in cycling.

Thanks for entirely proving my point about the tactical manipulation of data by One Dulwich to suit their narrative.

Just for info - i'm as unimpressed by Southwark's inability to produce data that is robust and produced on a timely basis as everyone else.

slarti b2 Wrote:

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

> northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I'm not sure 200% plus is the right figure

> The Council claimed 301% increase to Sep 2020 and

> 231% increase to Apr 2021. Its all in the

> OneDulwich Report

>

> > The 8% they raise in this 'paper' is also

> undoubtedly massively understated

> The 8% is from the Southwark council

> pre-streetspace monitoring counts, ie chosen

> precisely as a baseline, but suppressed becuase it

> didn't give the resultSouthwark wanted. What is

> the problem with using it? You seem to support

> Southwark in choosing an innacurate, unreliable

> estimate at the worst part of the year for

> cycling

>

> btw, OneDulwich could have used the Dept for

> Transport raw count figures for Sep 18 as a

> comaprison; those show a decrease in cycling after

> the road closure. But presumably the chose the

> average adjusted figure to be balanced.

>

> > One Dulwich lie and use half truths to

> perpetuate a narrative of fear to stoke up

> support.

> Oh dear, you really don't like being faced with

> proper analyisys based on open access information

> do you?

> Apart from this excellent report OneDulwich have

> preduced a series of reports analysing the data

> highlighting the errors and manipulation used by

> Southwark and our COuncillors.

> - the "47 increase" in traffic through Dulwich

> Village, using a fraudulent baseline

> - the massive increase in traffic along Calton

> Avenue, based on an obvious error

> - the "huge support" in OHS phase 2 for closing

> the junction, but only if you dont count those

> respondents who didn't want to close the

> junction. And this was a tiny survey with very

> few residents, apart from Calton Avenue,

> responding

> - the biased consultations with leading quesions.

>

> You ask whether Southwark Council is "evil",

> those are your words not mine. How would you

> describe a public body and its officers (who I

> would assume should be objective) that is

> consistently and repeatedly publishing biased

> deceitful and misleading information in support of

> their policies?

[Siduhe]

I will add my own observation of driving down EDG at around 3pm yesterday for the first time in ages.

Before anyone has me down as some kind of tin-foil hat wearing LTN denier, I posted pretty extensively when the Court Lane LTN went in and it had a significant adverse impact on the roads I live and cycle on (Underhill, Melford, Wood Vale) - I thought then and I still think that the way that Southwark has gone about the implementation and the lengths it is going to justify is pretty appalling in terms of process and engagement. But I did come on here about four months ago and say - actually, traffic has really dropped off and it's better to walk and cycle than it was. Jury's still out if that is more about the epic Thames Water works which are still ongoing, but I'm more than willing to say that it could well be the impact of the Court Lane LTN. So consider me in the cautiously optimistic camp as regards the Court Lane LTN.

The same cannot be said of EDG. I was genuinely shocked at the weight of queueing, static traffic - bumper to bumper at 3pm yesterday. Didn't seem to be particularly made up of school run parents vs other kinds of traffic but this is probably the first time I've driven down EDG in 18 months as opposed to crossing it on a bike, so for me the impact was really in my face and a massive change from what I have seen in the past.

I don't understand how anyone can seriously say that - even if that only lasts for a couple of hours - it isn't a serious adverse impact on the people who live and work on EDG. By all means come on here and say you think that overall the benefit to other areas of the LTNs is worth the damage and adverse impact on EDG - I don't agree but I understand how some people can take that position. But continually posting that it's not that bad really doesn't seem to have much empathy or understanding of how much of a change in patterns there appears to have been.

[slarti b2]

@Northernmonkey

All the data is in the OneDulwich report or the links they provide; as I said they are very open so people like you and me can comment on it. How unlike Southwark council.

And I repeat my question that you have not answered; How would you describe a public body and its officers (who I would assume should be objective) that is consistently and repeatedly publishing biased deceitful and misleading information in support of their policies?

[northernmonkey]

I have a photo from 3:15 showing East Dulwich Grove with only 2 cars near the lights at the village going westbound. Seems to be randomly huge though so won't upload to the forum.

No one is doubting there are busy spells - i am doubting that they last 'only 2 hours' though. But rather than just arguing I'm providing evidence throughout a period. I'm obviously not going to do this daily - this type of analysis is what the council should be doing. Overall counts aren't helpful, we need directional info, as well as details on the timing of the flow and the congestion.

Siduhe Wrote:

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

> I will add my own observation of driving down EDG

> at around 3pm yesterday for the first time in

> ages.

>

> Before anyone has me down as some kind of tin-foil

> hat wearing LTN denier, I posted pretty

> extensively when the Court Lane LTN went in and it

> had a significant adverse impact on the roads I

> live and cycle on (Underhill, Melford, Wood Vale)

> - I thought then and I still think that the way

> that Southwark has gone about the implementation

> and the lengths it is going to justify is pretty

> appalling in terms of process and engagement. But

> I did come on here about four months ago and say -

> actually, traffic has really dropped off and it's

> better to walk and cycle than it was. Jury's

> still out if that is more about the epic Thames

> Water works which are still ongoing, but I'm more

> than willing to say that it could well be the

> impact of the Court Lane LTN. So consider me in

> the cautiously optimistic camp as regards the

> Court Lane LTN.

>

> The same cannot be said of EDG. I was genuinely

> shocked at the weight of queueing, static traffic

> - bumper to bumper at 3pm yesterday. Didn't seem

> to be particularly made up of school run parents

> vs other kinds of traffic but this is probably the

> first time I've driven down EDG in 18 months as

> opposed to crossing it on a bike, so for me the

> impact was really in my face and a massive change

> from what I have seen in the past.

>

> I don't understand how anyone can seriously say

> that - even if that only lasts for a couple of

> hours - it isn't a serious adverse impact on the

> people who live and work on EDG. By all means

> come on here and say you think that overall the

> benefit to other areas of the LTNs is worth the

> damage and adverse impact on EDG - I don't agree

> but I understand how some people can take that

> position. But continually posting that it's not

> that bad really doesn't seem to have much empathy

> or understanding of how much of a change in

> patterns there appears to have been.

[first mate]

Northernmonkey said:

"If the September figure was chosen as a baseline and compared with Sept post measures, from memory it would produce something in the region of a 35% increase in cycling".

Weasel words NM. Phrases like "from memory" or "something in the region of" are not useful or convincing.