LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[heartblock]

Not really an accurate account of anything I have written - but that's to be expected. Always the person attacked - never an answer about the actual data.

[Earl Aelfheah]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> No .... she does not have 25 ?peer reviewed?

> papers. Yes I am going but cannot deal with

> inaccurate scientific academic reporting. There

> are articles and there are peer reviewed articles,

> I speak as a scientist with many international

> peer reviewed papers. Also I have never been paid

> or employed by the organisation paying for the

> research, unlike Rachel.

🤔

[Earl Aelfheah]

On the actual data - does it show a reduction in vehicles travelling last the school both on EDG and Melbourne Grove South, or not? Last week you were claiming the opposite and using it as an argument for why the LTNs should be removed. Happy to discuss the data too, but only in the context and with an acknowledgment of the wider body of evidence. I?m not going to get in to conspiracy theories that seem to suggest that the count data has been faked.

[legalalien]

Absolutely right, but it?s reasonable to expect compliance with the associated safeguards laid down in the legislation / regulations. For example, a max 18 month period (I?m not convinced by the two successive ETROs at Champion Hill), appropriate pre implementation consultation with emergency services, and proper well thought out consultation before things are made permanent with all voices given an equal chance to be heard. There seems to have been something of a move from public meetings to small group meetings with individual residents associations and I?m not sure I like it.

And the point made above stands - surely the input from the school and issues around the school gate should have been picked up in the detailed consultation before the October order was made? They?re revoking it before it has even been implemented, and we?re back to yet another temporary order (at a further cost of ?5k). It doesn?t exactly inspire confidence.

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> How much longer can they use the cover of Covid

> for the experimental/temporary TOs - it seems

> ludicrous they can still invoke them two years on

> - will this ability to avoid talking to residents

> continue forever - is this not a classic example

> of a council abusing the powers given to them in a

> time of emergency?

>

> Experimental Traffic Orders can be put in at any

> time. Section 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act

> 1984.

> It's not an abuse of power at all, it's

> specifically within legislation.

>

> It's actually a far better way of doing things

> than endless rounds of consultations and what ifs

> and modelling and "well we think x.." and then

> spending ??? rebuilding an entire junction.

>

> Get on and do it, monitor it, decide if it has or

> hasn't had the desired effect and then either

> remove it, adjust it or make it permanent. Answers

> via a mix of consultations and real life "we can

> see what is happening and why".

[heartblock]

An accurate account - there are not 25 peer reviewed articles and the conclusions of car use reduction is based on car ownership reduction inside closed roads, active travel increases based on 'interviews' - which is unscientific in my critique of both the methology, statistical analysis and conclusion in the articles widely flouted.

In the same way the SatNav caused more traffic on side roads argument is incorrect as the increase in traffic on side roads data was actually because the way the traffic was collected and counted was changed - this has been admitted by TFL, yet the SatNav argument therefore wrong - even so I still see this incorrect data on Twitter almost constantly as the rationale for closed roads.

Some of her published work is paid for by TFL. Those are 'facts' and a critique of both the people holding this work up as proof and some of the conclusions made by the authors but not of Rachel herself.

If you write research papers and publish you expect critique - it's part of the modern process to 'test' data for 'rigour' before any implementation and the issue is that this standard is not applied for these emergency road closures.

[eastdulwichhenry]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> This bit of that order speaks volumes:

>

> Overall the response from the consultation

> regarding the measures on

> Melbourne Grove North, Derwent Grove, Elsie Road

> and Tintagel Crescent

> showed a preference for the measures to be

> removed. However, the

> measures were popular with those who were

> residents of the filtered streets.

>

> I wonder how much pressure was exerted by those

> same residents on the filtered streets to not move

> forward with the revised measures? Is the

> Melbourne Grove Resident's Association now

> rivalling Southwark Cyclists for airtime and

> influence with the council?

I don't live in the Melbourne Grove area at all, but I do use it as a daily thoroughfare for walking and cycling so obviously I'm very glad that the strange decision to scrap the Melbourne Grove south closure has been reversed. So pinning the blame for this on NIMBYs in Melbourne Grove is wide of the mark.

As for why certain objections were listened to and others were not, that should be very obvious. There is a London-wide policy of taking measures to reduce car usage, so objections to the LTN because it restricts people's ability to drive around are obviously not something that can be taken seriously given the council and the assembly's policy. The objections to reopening Melbourne Grove south, however, were taken seriously (much to my surprise, I have to say) because the council's original decision to reopen that road was based on objectives that aren't consistent with the overall goal.

[EDAus]

Ashbourne Grove has become the driveway to Melbourne Grove South, we have had an increase in traffic, speeding and pollution - all the multiple cars, vans and delivery trucks.

The residents of Ashbourne Grove were promised our views and concerns would be considered when the proposals were reviewed, this seemed fair as we were the ones adversely affected.

What happened? When Councillor Rose visited Melbourne Grove South she was taken into a pro-barrier house and other residents were stopped from approaching her ? how is this is fair and transparent?

Low traffic neighbourhoods do work but not the way they are being implemented in East Dulwich.

If Melbourne Grove South want their barrier and the council are serious about climate change and active travel, they need to remove all the parking between Tell and Ashbourne Grove. That section of road should be reclaimed and made into a bike shed and a community garden with a bike track through it. Strangely that option has been soundly rejected by the ?local? residents every time it has been raised.

[heartblock]

Exactly EDAus, when people accuse us of opposing because we are ?car drivers who don?t care about pollution? , it is absolutely gaslighting. Most of my neighbours do not own a car and I have driven 3-4 times this year, my partner not at all. We walk, take the bus, tube and train. Why do we oppose - because we are now living with an increase in traffic and have suffered an increase in pollution both noise and air quality.

I agree take all the parking away from closed roads and turn into public garden areas for us all to have access to. Why will that not happen -because as you say, the people on Melbourne who have ran the close our road campaign are car owners and drive their cars around. They do not want to give up a parking space but are very happy to drive on your and my road.

If traffic had decreased why would I oppose? I would support. I?m sure you feel the same.

Certain objections were listened to (Melbourne Grove) and others were not (EDGrove and Ashbourne Grove) this much is true.

[Metallic]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> This bit of that order speaks volumes:

>

> Overall the response from the consultation

> regarding the measures on

> Melbourne Grove North, Derwent Grove, Elsie Road

> and Tintagel Crescent

> showed a preference for the measures to be

> removed. However, the

> measures were popular with those who were

> residents of the filtered streets.

>

> I wonder how much pressure was exerted by those

> same residents on the filtered streets to not move

> forward with the revised measures? Is the

> Melbourne Grove Resident's Association now

> rivalling Southwark Cyclists for airtime and

> influence with the council?

>

> How much longer can they use the cover of Covid

> for the experimental/temporary TOs - it seems

> ludicrous they can still invoke them two years on

> - will this ability to avoid talking to residents

> continue forever - is this not a classic example

> of a council abusing the powers given to them in a

> time of emergency?

Monkey business, I read the numbers and a few rule the many. Anything to help old James hang on to his ward, so what will happen in Dulwich Village Ward to help Councillors Newens and Leeming? We are SICK of this in my road. Minority views rule. Until the elections maybe?

[geh]

absolutely lets do this, then we can all truly share the benefits

EDAus Wrote:

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

> Ashbourne Grove has become the driveway to

> Melbourne Grove South, we have had an increase in

> traffic, speeding and pollution - all the multiple

> cars, vans and delivery trucks.

>

> The residents of Ashbourne Grove were promised our

> views and concerns would be considered when the

> proposals were reviewed, this seemed fair as we

> were the ones adversely affected.

>

> What happened? When Councillor Rose visited

> Melbourne Grove South she was taken into a

> pro-barrier house and other residents were stopped

> from approaching her ? how is this is fair and

> transparent?

>

> Low traffic neighbourhoods do work but not the way

> they are being implemented in East Dulwich.

>

> If Melbourne Grove South want their barrier and

> the council are serious about climate change and

> active travel, they need to remove all the parking

> between Tell and Ashbourne Grove. That section of

> road should be reclaimed and made into a bike shed

> and a community garden with a bike track through

> it. Strangely that option has been soundly

> rejected by the ?local? residents every time it

> has been raised.

[legalalien]

Why not all the way up to chesterfield - otherwise chesterfield will get the traffic?

[Rockets]

EDAus Wrote:

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

> Ashbourne Grove has become the driveway to

> Melbourne Grove South, we have had an increase in

> traffic, speeding and pollution - all the multiple

> cars, vans and delivery trucks.

>

> The residents of Ashbourne Grove were promised our

> views and concerns would be considered when the

> proposals were reviewed, this seemed fair as we

> were the ones adversely affected.

>

> What happened? When Councillor Rose visited

> Melbourne Grove South she was taken into a

> pro-barrier house and other residents were stopped

> from approaching her ? how is this is fair and

> transparent?

>

> Low traffic neighbourhoods do work but not the way

> they are being implemented in East Dulwich.

>

> If Melbourne Grove South want their barrier and

> the council are serious about climate change and

> active travel, they need to remove all the parking

> between Tell and Ashbourne Grove. That section of

> road should be reclaimed and made into a bike shed

> and a community garden with a bike track through

> it. Strangely that option has been soundly

> rejected by the ?local? residents every time it

> has been raised.

It seems a few are trying to protect their gains at the cost of everyone else. It's shameful that this is allowed to happen under Labour's watch.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I?m sorry Heartblock, but I am just not going to let you get away with that again. When I pointed out that Rachel Aldred was a serious academic with more than 25 peer reviewed papers, you claimed that ??there are articles and there are peer reviewed articles? and then went on the say ??I have never been paid or employed by the organisation paying for the research, unlike Rachel.?

You?ve made a big show of your status as a scientist, mocking others for their lack of analytical rigour. I don?t think it is right for you to keep doubling down on your denial of Professor Alfred?s output (which I linked to earlier I. The thread and is there for anyone to see), or the inference that her funding is somehow dodgy.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@heartblock

Just to remind you. Rockets, claiming that cycling in London has been in decline over recent years 🙄, said:

??Rather than Wikipedia or (ahem, cycle lobbyist) Rachel Aldred I am sourcing my (up-to-date) info from TFL.?

I pointed out in response, that ?Rachel Aldred is a Professor in Transport at the University of Westminster with over 25 peer reviewed papers.?

Rockets continued to question her credibility and to make insinuations regarding her funding, and then said:

??I can't stand another discussion on what awaiting peer review means.....?

I repeated that:

?She has over 25 peer reviewed papers. They're not 'awaiting peer review'.?

And then you chipped in with:

?No .... she does not have 25 ?peer reviewed? papers? I cannot deal with inaccurate scientific academic reporting. There are articles and there are peer reviewed articles, I speak as a scientist with many international peer reviewed papers. Also I have never been paid or employed by the organisation paying for the research, unlike Rachel.?

Rockets is Rockets. But you claim to be an academic. You?ve made a big show of your status as a scientist, mocking others for their lack of analytical rigour. I don?t think it is right for you to keep doubling down on minimising Professor Alfred?s output, or the inference that her funding is somehow dodgy.

You?re now trying to pretend that the claim was that Professor Aldred has published 25 peer reviewed papers specifically on LTNs. It?s not very subtle. This is not what was claimed. You were denying her academic output in an attempt to undermine her credibility, along with Rockets.

[malumbu]

I've met her - virtually - at an on line symposium. She came across as genuine and well informed. I am a scientist but not the same level of expertise as her, although I expect that I know more about emissions and pollution/carbon emissions than most on this forum. There was a question about the general response on LTNs and the reaction - being on Twitter she had obviously been trolled. Do read and find out more about her.

[heartblock]

Shall we keep on topic about local LTNs? Maybe someone could explain the EDAus why their road is now the driveway and parking area for Melbourne's Waitrose and Ocado deliveries?

[Rockets]

Rockets is Rockets...ha ha not sure quite how to take that....

Anyway, what many people struggle with in respect to Rachel Aldred is that she led policy for the London Cycling Campaign, which has been instrumental to lobbying councils for LTNs, and now writes research reports, many of which are funded by TFL or organisations set up by TFL, that tell everyone how good LTNs are.

That is a glaring and obvious conflict of interest.

[eastdulwichlocal99]

I'm not entirely sure why an Ocado driver would park on Ashbourne for delivery into Melbourne... That's quite a trek to deliver the food and wine..

Pretty sure that traffic volumes in the Melbourne - Ashbourne - Chesterfield triangle have decreased as a result of the LTN.

The only drivers that would possibly use Ashbourne as a 'driveway' for Melbourne 'South' would be those driving north up Lordship Lane having cut onto Melbourne from Lordship Lane opposite the Harris school. I am guessing most savvy drivers and Sat Navs would avoid this. As a result of closures on Melbourne 'North', Derwent & Elsie all north to south traffic from Dog Kennel Hill now goes via Lordship Lane. I don't believe that Ashbourne is suffering - the whole residential area is benefitting.

[legalalien]

I walk that way quite a lot and there does seem to be more traffic on Ashbourne, would be useful to monitor it.

Map on my iPad has its own unique version of the closures - see attached. Seems to think Calton/ court / DV is open as well.

[Earl Aelfheah]

cidolphus Wrote:

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

> @rahrahrah

> Considering that your source article (Wikipedia)

> was created by none other than Rachel Aldred

> herself then it lack as certain credibility.

>

> She is quite clearly a lady with a certain agenda.

I have no idea what this means. What Wikipedia article?

[Earl Aelfheah]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Shall we keep on topic about local LTNs? Maybe

> someone could explain the EDAus why their road is

> now the driveway and parking area for Melbourne's

> Waitrose and Ocado deliveries?

Perhaps you should acknowledge that you have made an entirely false statement about another persons Academic output first.

[ab29]

What an utter and complete fraud this LTN scheme is.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Rockets is Rockets...ha ha not sure quite how to

> take that....

>

> Anyway, what many people struggle with in respect

> to Rachel Aldred is that she led policy for the

> London Cycling Campaign, which has been

> instrumental to lobbying councils for LTNs, and

> now writes research reports, many of which are

> funded by TFL or organisations set up by TFL,

> that tell everyone how good LTNs are.

>

> That is a glaring and obvious conflict of

> interest.

So if TFL commissions independent academic research it?s automatically compromised? What are you talking about? You don?t want them to fund research into transport in London?

In truth, you are questioning her probity and effectively accusing her of research misconduct. Make a proper complaint if you believe it and present the evidence that she has acted improperly so that it can be investigated, instead of the online smears and innuendo.

Heartblock has denied that she is an academic with over 25 peer reviewed papers, (in response to a general thread questioning her credentials). As someone who claims to be an academic of some standing and who has implored others not to attack the person, but to look at the data, it?s actually outrageous.

I invited him to simply acknowledge that he has made a misleading statement about another?s academic output. But he insists first on doubling down and repeating it, then trying to reframe his accusation in a way tagt is quite disingenuous, and lastly has tried to deflect and ?move on?.

It?s not good enough.

[heartblock]

I agree it is certainly busier down Ashbourne. Is there any data in the latest report?

[northernmonkey]

How are you judging whether it?s busier heartblock? Whenever I go down ashbourne I don?t see a single car.