LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[legalalien]

I just googled and it?s confusing, either 50+ or 25+

https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/cyclingevent/index.php/programme/rachel-aldred/

https://www.roadsafetytrust.org.uk/trustees/dr-rachel-aldred

But given peer review seems to be such an amorphous concept and vary across disciplines does it really make a difference? I was more surprised when I realised Prof Aldred was a sociologist rather than an engineer / traffic planner. I don?t think she?s ever pretended otherwise but the Professor of Transport title led me to make assumptions.

[Earl Aelfheah]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> I just googled and it?s confusing, either 50+ or

> 25+

>

> https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/cyclingevent/index.php

> /programme/rachel-aldred/

>

> https://www.roadsafetytrust.org.uk/trustees/dr-rac

> hel-aldred

>

> But given peer review seems to be such an

> amorphous concept and vary across disciplines does

> it really make a difference?

?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]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> 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.

But it's not independent research is it....it's written by someone who has managed policy for the LCC who helped shape their LTN policy?

That is not independent and there is no way you can argue against that it isn't a conflict of interest.

And that is why so many people dismiss her research as she has a vested interest and her relationship with the LCC completely undermines her independence.

To be honest, I can't work out why you keep digging this up and going back to it - it's so fruitless.

[Rockets]

Good update from One Dulwich...did anyone else notice how the council didn't put many of the +% increase roads onto their September report?

https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/why-wont-southwark-be-clear-about-the-data

Skip to Content

One Dulwich

Open Menu

Why won?t Southwark be clear about the data?

19 Dec

So here we are, the week before Christmas, puzzling over the latest data reports on the Dulwich Streetspace project. For some reason, Southwark decided to release Monitoring Report 3 (September 2021) on 13 December, just two days before the 15 December deadline for public responses to the statutory consultation report. After many of us emailed to point out the absurdity of giving people just 48 hours to assimilate all their latest claims, Southwark extended the final deadline to 22 December.

The first big question, of course, is why they weren?t able to release this report on September data in October. Or even November. Why halfway through December?

Is it just that ? because the Dulwich decision must be taken by 29 December 2021, 18 months after the first of the experimental traffic orders went in ? they didn?t want anyone raising difficult questions at the last minute?

The second big question is why the raw data and methodology have still not been published, despite the Leader of the Council?s promise to do so in July 2021. The latest September 2021 report includes a document called ?Monitoring Study FAQs and Methodology Step-by-Step? but this describes the general approach rather than giving any specifics. For example, we still have no information about which baseline data sets are being used for each monitoring site.

Baseline data is crucial. You can make current figures look like huge increases or huge decreases ? whatever suits your purpose ? depending on which baseline you choose. As we showed in our September report (?Can we trust Southwark Council?s July 2021 Interim Monitoring Report on the Dulwich Streetspace measures??) Southwark?s claim that cycling had increased on Calton Avenue by a startling 231% reduced to just 8% when the appropriate baseline count was used.

So what does the September 2021 data show? With no transparency about what has been compared with what, it?s not easy to analyse the figures. But we can make a few key observations:

1) As we pointed out in our November 2021 report, ?Why the data doesn?t add up? (hardly any of the questions we raised there have been answered), no attempt has been made to think through the impact on the data of local or national events (apart from Covid-19), from new year groups joining Charter School East Dulwich, to the petrol crisis in September 2021.

2) If ? as the Council says ? traffic across Southwark is still down by 7%, it seems that traffic on external roads (reported as down by 3% in the Dulwich Village area, down by 1% in the East Dulwich area, and down by 5% in the Champion Hill area) has actually gone up.

3) Pedestrian numbers are presented independently of any pre-LTN baseline data at all. Without this, how can anyone know whether more or fewer people are walking through key locations since the road closures went in?

4) Data from Dulwich Common, the Dulwich section of the South Circular, has not been included. Southwark gives a number of reasons for this (it?s a TfL road, there?s a section missing, etc). However, Dulwich Common is a key external road used by displacement traffic. By excluding this data, Southwark is not providing the full picture.

5) Finally, data is still not being presented clearly or transparently. To demonstrate this, we focus on East Dulwich Grove, described in the report as ?a key external road?, which has around 4,000 children being educated and cared for at the numerous schools (and pre-school nursery) along its length. Two points to note:

Substantial increases in traffic on this road (26% from September 2019 to September 2021) are outlined in a table in the report, but are missing from the associated infographic. Why? Because the increases don?t support the story of LTN success that Southwark is trying to tell?

Against the background of these substantial increases, it turns out that a third ATC (Automatic Traffic Count) monitoring site was introduced a few months ago in September 2021 (see page 29 of the overall report). This new ATC is located in the middle of East Dulwich Grove, by the Tessa Jowell Health Centre. Because it?s a new site, there?s no baseline data. However, the September 2021 figures have been set against 2019 figures from ?a comparable location? (it?s not stated where this is), and seem to have had an enormous influence on Southwark?s thinking.

In September, Southwark was convinced that a timed closure was best at this location, in order to relieve pressure on East Dulwich Grove. (As it said in its original FAQs, ?The timed nature of the restriction ensures that traffic is distributed more evenly across the area whilst protecting active travel times to schools.?) It has now had a complete change of heart, apparently entirely due to data from the new ATC monitoring site and its unnamed ?comparable location?. This shows ? amazingly ? that traffic in the middle of the road went down between 2019 and 2021, even though traffic at either end (the Dulwich Village end and the Goose Green end) went up.

This strange and inconsistent result couldn?t be clarified by looking at figures for Melbourne Grove south itself (see page 87 of the ?Traffic Flow analysis? report) because the data ? for some unexplained reason ? was ?too poor to analyse?. The Council appears to have been unwilling or unable to investigate further, preferring instead to revert to the original 24/7 closure (see point 14 in the report on the statutory objections). Does this level of muddled thinking inspire confidence? Is the data leading the decision-making ? or is it, perhaps, the other way round?

All the way through the Streetspace process, Southwark has made it very clear that it prioritises its interpretation of the data over the views of the majority living and working in the Dulwich area.

So when the data is odd, or missing, or misrepresented, it begins to feel as if rational, fair and proportionate decision-making has completely disappeared.

Next

Last chance to object

[Earl Aelfheah]

@legalalien It?s not that confusing. Look at scopus. It gives details of publications and the journals they?ve been published in, (as well as h-index and citations if you?re interested). You can see that Professor Aldred has well over 25 peer reviewed articles.

https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=24068404200

It does matter a lot in academia by the way, as Heartblock will well know. It is completely out of order to impugn someone?s academic credentials by misleading others over their outputs. It is not the same thing as critiquing the research itself, which is of course entirely legitimate.

As for implying that someone?s research conclusions are being manipulated to meet the needs of a funder, that is an accusation of research misconduct and about as serious as it gets in HE.

I wouldn?t have made such a big thing about it, but he?s insisted on doubling down and I really do think it?s time he retracted his comments. I won?t say anymore because it?s boring. But hope he will do the right thing and correct the record.

[dougiefreeman]

@rahx3

You?re really not in any position to demand apologies when you yourself refused point blank to apologise for publicly insulting a group of predominantly elderly and disabled folk?

#idiotsgate

[heartblock]

East Dulwich Grove - exactly Rockets

"The September 2021 figures have been set against 2019 figures from ?a comparable location? (it?s not stated where this is), and seem to have had an enormous influence on Southwark?s thinking" and "apparently this shows that traffic in the middle of the road went down between 2019 and 2021, even though traffic at either end (the Dulwich Village end and the Goose Green end) went up"

How does traffic in the middle of a road with closed roads all around go down 20% when it is up 26% at both ends with nowhere to go - this 20% also being calculated by dubious pre-lockdown figure.

It would be good if this could be explained.

[Jenijenjen]

dougiefreeman Wrote:

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

> @rahx3

> You?re really not in any position to demand

> apologies when you yourself refused point blank to

> apologise for publicly insulting a group of

> predominantly elderly and disabled folk?

> #idiotsgate

Can you point us in the direction of the post where he did this. Or did he just disagree with them.

[Jenijenjen]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> East Dulwich Grove - exactly Rockets

>

> "The September 2021 figures have been set against

> 2019 figures from ?a comparable location? (it?s

> not stated where this is), and seem to have had an

> enormous influence on Southwark?s thinking" and

> "apparently this shows that traffic in the middle

> of the road went down between 2019 and 2021, even

> though traffic at either end (the Dulwich Village

> end and the Goose Green end) went up"

>

> How does traffic in the middle of a road with

> closed roads all around go down 20% when it is up

> 26% at both ends with nowhere to go - this 20%

> also being calculated by dubious pre-lockdown

> figure.

>

> It would be good if this could be explained.

It would also be good if you could answer the critique levelled at your views rather than change the subject.

[Penguin68]

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?

The researcher is clearly independent of TfL - but is a participating advocate for a particular set of views and is therefore not, I would argue, 'an independent researcher; as regards the topic being researched. If the NHS commissioned the Chair of Forest to undertake research on the impact of smoking policy would you be happy?

[heartblock]

It would be nice if we could discuss the local situation, but as it seems that the pile on for my opinion seems to be more interesting for some on here and an excuse to not allow an important discussion on a policy that quite frankly does not achieve what it claims - I'll dip out - so long and thanks for all the fish.

[Earl Aelfheah]

dougiefreeman Wrote:

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

> @rahx3

> You?re really not in any position to demand

> apologies when you yourself refused point blank to

> apologise for publicly insulting a group of

> predominantly elderly and disabled folk?

> #idiotsgate

Suggesting that I've insulted the elderly and the disabled is completely untrue.

[CPR Dave]

They don't want to talk about the data because they have no answer to it

[Metallic]

Meanwhile, Southwark officers release massaged data when what everyone wants is the real thing.

[dougiefreeman]

Jenijenjen Wrote:

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

> dougiefreeman Wrote:

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

> -----

> > @rahx3

> > You?re really not in any position to demand

> > apologies when you yourself refused point blank

> to

> > apologise for publicly insulting a group of

> > predominantly elderly and disabled folk?

> > #idiotsgate

>

> Can you point us in the direction of the post

> where he did this. Or did he just disagree with

> them.

Sure. Page 221.

Legalalian wrote: "Seems to be an anti LTN protest at he closed junction this morning."

To which rahx3 responded: "Yep, a small number of idiots blocking the right turn for cyclists with their bags and placards."

The protest was comprised of predominantly elderly and disabled people who were peacefully protesting following major disruption to their lives as a result of the LTNS and other measures. This was following unsuccessful attempts to have their concerns heard (let alone valued) by Southwark Council.

You can read on from there to see how Rahx3 responded to the varying comments made on this reaction.

[dougiefreeman]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> dougiefreeman Wrote:

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

> -----

> > @rahx3

> > You?re really not in any position to demand

> > apologies when you yourself refused point blank

> to

> > apologise for publicly insulting a group of

> > predominantly elderly and disabled folk?

> > #idiotsgate

>

> Suggesting that I've insulted the elderly and the

> disabled is completely untrue.

It's entirely true. As is evidenced above.

[exdulwicher]

Meanwhile, Southwark officers release massaged data when what everyone wants is the real thing.

We're going around in circles though.

We demand the data.

/data is presented

No, not that data! Also it's wrong and massaged and it doesn't cover x, y and z and it wasn't done at the right time and it wasn't left in place long enough and the person who wrote the report from it is biased and...and...and...

If you think it's fake / massaged / biased / flawed / out of date, you need to respond to Southwark Council with your reasoning behind it, not post "it's massaged" on a forum with nothing to back up your assertion. I mean, literally every piece of "pro" data has been called into question and the poster asked to justify it so surely that works the other way around? Justify your assertion.

We're into conspiracy theory levels of data bias now, to the effect that no matter how much proof is presented to say that, broadly speaking, LTNs work and can form a positive part of a raft of measures to reduce vehicle usage, nothing will ever be sufficient.

You'll always be able to find a negative, even amongst a load of positives.

What's presented will always be not quite what was asked for.

It's classic distraction and confusion tactics. Muddle it all up, spread misinformation, make a few allegations (it's massaged, it's biased) without ever really backing them up. Before you know it, no-one has a clue what's going on! Especially if someone has managed to add percentages up incorrectly...

[dougiefreeman]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> Meanwhile, Southwark officers release massaged

> data when what everyone wants is the real thing.

>

> We're going around in circles though.

>

> We demand the data.

>

> /data is presented

>

> No, not that data! Also it's wrong and massaged

> and it doesn't cover x, y and z and it wasn't done

> at the right time and it wasn't left in place long

> enough and the person who wrote the report from it

> is biased and...and...and...

>

> If you think it's fake / massaged / biased /

> flawed / out of date, you need to respond to

> Southwark Council with your reasoning behind it,

> not post "it's massaged" on a forum with nothing

> to back up your assertion. I mean, literally every

> piece of "pro" data has been called into question

> and the poster asked to justify it so surely that

> works the other way around? Justify your

> assertion.

>

> We're into conspiracy theory levels of data bias

> now, to the effect that no matter how much proof

> is presented to say that, broadly speaking, LTNs

> work and can form a positive part of a raft of

> measures to reduce vehicle usage, nothing will

> ever be sufficient.

> You'll always be able to find a negative, even

> amongst a load of positives.

> What's presented will always be not quite what was

> asked for.

>

> It's classic distraction and confusion tactics.

> Muddle it all up, spread misinformation, make a

> few allegations (it's massaged, it's biased)

> without ever really backing them up. Before you

> know it, no-one has a clue what's going on!

> Especially if someone has managed to add

> percentages up incorrectly...

OOOOHH SLAM DUNK 🙄

Don't know what you've been reading - but heartblock, Rockets et al have backed up all of the claims they have made about the data with reasoning. It is the proLTN brigade that are the ones obfuscating. Perhaps you, like rahx3, dc, NM etc get blurry vision when your eyes pass over any valid arguments or clear flaws outlined in the data that throw up pressing questions... Care to take a pass at explaining the U-turn on the re-opening of MGS? Or perhaps explain the rationale behind the amended (/"massaged") data for the MGC counter? As outlined here:

It is entirely understandable that residents who are living with more disruption and pollution since the introduction of the LTNs would question the data that is being used to justify ignoring the vast majority of the respondants to the review (and all of the objectors). And then equally understandable they might question the council's backtrack on one of the only decisions they made to try and help ease the significant traffic increase on EDG by re-opening MGS.

The evidence of data manipulation seems pretty clear to me.

[Rockets]

But Ex- as someone who works in the industry would you be happy to put your name and reputation against the data, methodology and manner in which the council has handled this LTN process?

It's got more holes than a piece of emmental and most people are concluding the council is either incompetent or corrupt(and there is another group that is pro-LTN that is happy to be spoonfed data that supports their view)!

What I think you are highlighting is not confirmation bias but people saying "hang on a minute - that's not what the data says" and they are questioning the interpretation and manipulation. And when they scratch beneath the surface they realise that it is all just smoke and mirrors (and I very much suspect this is just the council's way of handling things and they have been doing it for years just no-one ever really looked beneath the headlines).

Just look at the latest September results pdf infographic - some roads have been left off from the summary charts and it just happens that the roads left off are the ones with the increases (East Dulwich Grove, Underhill etc). Another oversight per chance?

[Earl Aelfheah]

dougiefreeman Wrote:

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

> Jenijenjen Wrote:

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

> -----

> > dougiefreeman Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > @rahx3

> > > You?re really not in any position to demand

> > > apologies when you yourself refused point

> blank

> > to

> > > apologise for publicly insulting a group of

> > > predominantly elderly and disabled folk?

> > > #idiotsgate

> >

> > Can you point us in the direction of the post

> > where he did this. Or did he just disagree with

> > them.

>

>

> Sure. Page 221.

>

> Legalalian wrote: "Seems to be an anti LTN protest

> at he closed junction this morning."

>

> To which rahx3 responded: "Yep, a small number of

> idiots blocking the right turn for cyclists with

> their bags and placards."

>

>

> The protest was comprised of predominantly elderly

> and disabled people who were peacefully protesting

> following major disruption to their lives as a

> result of the LTNS and other measures. This was

> following unsuccessful attempts to have their

> concerns heard (let alone valued) by Southwark

> Council.

>

> You can read on from there to see how Rahx3

> responded to the varying comments made on this

> reaction.

Seriously?

I said there were a 'few idiots blocking people turning off the main road' I explained the context of this.

There were a few people who decided to block my daughter's exit from the main road (leaving her stuck out in the middle of two lanes of traffic on her bike). This was a few thoughtless people. You've decided to say they were elderly and disabled, although they weren't, to try and reframe criticism of their inconsiderate and dangerous behaviour as 'attacking vulnerable people'. It's about as cynical as one can be.

To say that I 'insulted the elderly and disabled' is completely disingenuous, and completely untrue.

[exdulwicher]

But Ex- as someone who works in the industry would you be happy to put your name and reputation against the data, methodology and manner in which the council has handled this LTN process?

The data seems to broadly stack up against most other LTN stuff. I don't doubt that there's a few inaccuracies in it, especially early on when monitoring has only just gone in but do note that it's also offset against the radical shift in travel patterns over the last 18 months. To a certain extent it's also dependent on what (if any) monitoring has been done before that to form the baseline.

Methodology - well it's all fairly standard stuff. Traffic counters, pollution monitoring, trendlines from TfL. I mean there's nothing in there that's massively radical, it's not like they sent the Hamlet kids out into the road and asked them to keep track of things.

Engagement - most councils are crap at this. That's partly because most stuff they do, very few people give a toss. You might get a few complaints if you move bin day or bump up the charge to remove garden waste or there's significant change to the social care but the critical thing is that all of those are limited to a small % of the population and it's relatively easy to deal with on a case by case basis.

Traffic (and especially parking) - well if you want to cause a riot, just say you're going to remove a parking space. Everyone will pile on. Councils rarely know how best to respond to this and a lot of the response is on an emotional level which is far more challenging to deal with.

Again, factor in stuff like working-from-home, staff absenteeism from Covid isolation and the responses can be delayed which is assumed to be because they're wondering how to cover things up.

It isn't because as a general rule cover-ups, while they sound impressive, require far too much effort and competence for any level of Government (including councils) to pull off successfully.

None of this is unique to Southwark by the way.

[Earl Aelfheah]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> dougiefreeman Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Jenijenjen Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > dougiefreeman Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

> Seriously?

>

> I said there were a 'few idiots blocking people

> turning off the main road' I explained the context

> of this.

>

> There were a few people who decided to block my

> daughter's exit from the main road (leaving her

> stuck out in the middle of two lanes of traffic on

> her bike). This was a few thoughtless people.

> You've decided to say they were elderly and

> disabled, although they weren't, to try and

> reframe criticism of their inconsiderate and

> dangerous behaviour as 'attacking vulnerable

> people'. It's about as cynical as one can be.

>

> To say that I 'insulted the elderly and disabled'

> is completely disingenuous, and completely untrue.

I will apologise for referring to anyone as an idiot - not really necessary. I should have just said a few 'inconsiderate people'. The point stands however.

[DulwichCentral]

Thanks for the usual sound and sensible contribution Ex. Watch how it will be ignored by the conspiracy theorists.

[Earl Aelfheah]

You're spot on Exdulwicher.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> It's classic distraction and confusion tactics.

> Muddle it all up, spread misinformation, make a

> few allegations (it's massaged, it's biased)

> without ever really backing them up. Before you

> know it, no-one has a clue what's going on!

> Especially if someone has managed to add

> percentages up incorrectly...

This is exactly right. OneDulwich posts a lot of bobbins at great length with a whole bunch of logical and statistical fallacies within it. The point is not to identify accurate data - it's to create confusion, cynicism and apathy. It's Trumpism on a tiny scale.

The purpose of its campaign (and its shadowy funders) isn't actually to reduce pollution or congestion, or "all roads matter" or to protect BAME people, or whatever other concern trolling talking point is pushed this week - it's to deny there is a problem amd to do nothing. That's why it has objected to every traffic reduction measure and wants to roll back whatever was in place before.

back in the real world and away from the "usual suspects" bickering on here, actual real people on the street are losing patience with OneDulwich's unreasonable attitude.