LTN Discussion

[Metallic]

kissthisguy Wrote:

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

> From the Times this morning [?]

>

> Rush hour traffic is a third lighter than

> pre-pandemic levels

>

> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rush-hour-traff

> ic-is-a-third-lighter-than-pre-pandemic-levels-0x0

> sfw6gs

>

> Relevant bit:

> "London?s morning rush hour congestion decreased

> by 21 per and evening rush hour by 19 per cent

> compared with pre-pandemic levels in 2019." Any

> Southwark claims of LTN "success" needs to be seen

> in this context.

Especially as the traffic is worse during rush hours on east Dulwich Grove, Lordship Lane and Croxted Road. The latter where I have some close friends who are very distraught.

[heartblock]

Thanks Metallic and kissthisguy - this is our (ED Grove residents group) point - our high density, residential school street as a stretch of road has seen an increase in traffic overall and idling traffic/congestion is more prevalent than before the ED and DV LTNs - in the context of a drop in traffic at rush hour across London.

So in no way can this be a success - unless of course you live on a gated road.

[goldilocks]

Regular reminder that Heartblock's street and the area by the schools hasn't seen an increase in traffic overall and that there is zero evidence showing that congestion or idling is more prevalent in that section.

[legalalien]

Had a LD canvasser this evening.

Useful discussion.

Still undecided.

[heartblock]

Section? I live on a road not a section.

Regular reminder that traffic has increased the length of EG Grove by at least 25% in the background of decreasing traffic during rush hour.

Zero evidence - So Southwark failed to measure the increase in idling traffic, but we all see it.

But of course - do go ahead and gaslight..

[goldilocks]

I'm not gaslighting, I'm pointing to data that shows that traffic on the section of road between Melbourne Grove and Townley Road has fallen.

Data you choose not to believe - but still data that exists. You present your opinion as fact regularly. I use data.

[heartblock]

There is no data that shows traffic counts between Melbourne Grove and Townley Road has fallen from pre-LTN levels to the current date. I think you are confusing the so called "ED Central Northbound" 'data' that is from the Health centre to the Harris School Northbound a mere 40 metres - disputed figures at the best.

ED Grove traffic along the whole road (which had no turn-offs) has risen by at least 25% - Southwark Council data.

[ED - NAGAIUTB]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> Came across this today which asks are Electric

> Cars the next "diesel scandal" ?

>

> http://a.msn.com/08/en-gb/AATxAda?ocid=se

>

> Makes some interesting points, not convinced by it

> but an interesting proposition.

Interesting read and it would not surprise me if quite a bit of this was accurate and will only come out in years to come.

One statistic that I thought was a bit spurious was that only 40% of households didn't have access to a driveway. I'd have thought it much higher than that.

[exdulwicher]

One statistic that I thought was a bit spurious was that only 40% of households didn't have access to a driveway. I'd have thought it much higher than that.

The specific wording used is "access to off-street parking" which just means "not on the public highway". So it includes driveways, lock-ups, resident car parks, underground parking garages - even things like supermarket car parks. Doesn't say you have to own them, just that you have access to them. So if you drive your EV to the supermarket and pop it on charge at one of points there, that is counted as having "access to off-street parking". It's a slightly disingenuous way of saying it although if you take all the above into account, the figure is roughly correct.

It's useful in determining how many on-street chargers are needed albeit in fairly general trends.

[Rockets]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> I'm not gaslighting, I'm pointing to data that

> shows that traffic on the section of road between

> Melbourne Grove and Townley Road has fallen.

>

> Data you choose not to believe - but still data

> that exists. You present your opinion as fact

> regularly. I use data.

Still waiting for someone to try and answer my questions in relation to the council's data for that section of road - and don't forget the data has not been adjusted to take into the account the 7.1% area-wide reduction in traffic due to Covid!

1) Where is the Jan 19 data from (for what purposes was it collected and from which point was it collected as it is not the same location as the Sept 21 monitoring point)?

2) Where is the Sept 21 monitoring point?

3) What methodology was used to arrive at the Sept 21 figure?

4) Why does the EDG Central chart say: the Pre-implementation data for Jan 2019 has been adjusted to September 2019 levels to ensure compatibility and what adjustment took place and why? That suggests to me that the September 2019 figures were modelled.

5) Why was the decision taken to add the EDG Central monitoring point in Sept 21? What, or who, prompted that so late in the process?

6) When was the Sep 21 monitoring captured - was it at the beginning of the month before the private schools went back or at the end of the month during the fuel crisis?

And I would add another:

7) Was the post-scheme data collected in school holidays? It clearly states that pre-scheme data collection for the whole area was conducted outside of school holidays yet does not make that claim for the post-scheme data. It's a big issue if it was in school holidays.

[goldilocks]

No- I'm not, I'm talking about the data that was released in the last council tranche of data which showed that traffic outside Charter East Dulwich and the Health Centre had actually fallen compared to counts pre changes being made.

Rockets keeps trying to undermine this data and I can see that there are questions and I can't answer them, but the fact remains that there is data that shows a fall.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> There is no data that shows traffic counts between

> Melbourne Grove and Townley Road has fallen from

> pre-LTN levels to the current date. I think you

> are confusing the so called "ED Central

> Northbound" 'data' that is from the Health centre

> to the Harris School Northbound a mere 40 metres -

> disputed figures at the best.

> ED Grove traffic along the whole road (which had

> no turn-offs) has risen by at least 25% -

> Southwark Council data.

[first mate]

It is appropriate to query data that does not seem to make sense.

Rockets has asked some important questions. Thus far, no-one has come forward with a credible response.

[KidKruger]

Yeah otherwise questioning Brexit would be stupid too, right ? 🙄

If it sounds unrealistic and the Council is deaf and has its own agenda and other ?data? they?ve provided is suspect and they?re in the habit of gaslighting and misrepresenting and the borough?s population is not their priority, well?

[Rockets]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> No- I'm not, I'm talking about the data that was

> released in the last council tranche of data which

> showed that traffic outside Charter East Dulwich

> and the Health Centre had actually fallen compared

> to counts pre changes being made.

>

> Rockets keeps trying to undermine this data and I

> can see that there are questions and I can't

> answer them, but the fact remains that there is

> data that shows a fall.

>

>

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> > There is no data that shows traffic counts

> between

> > Melbourne Grove and Townley Road has fallen

> from

> > pre-LTN levels to the current date. I think you

> > are confusing the so called "ED Central

> > Northbound" 'data' that is from the Health

> centre

> > to the Harris School Northbound a mere 40 metres

> -

> > disputed figures at the best.

> > ED Grove traffic along the whole road (which

> had

> > no turn-offs) has risen by at least 25% -

> > Southwark Council data.

A fine example of never let the truth get in the way of a good story perhaps?

From the monitoring report methodology explanation there are more than enough questions to be able to question the validity of any of the data within the main report. It would be great if the council took time to address those questions and provide an explanation but they refuse to do so.

Cllr McAsh never responded to the questions on his thread.

[goldilocks]

Rockets questions are fine - but the fact that no one on here has answered them is not conclusive, its just that no one has the answers he needs. They'd need to come from the council and I as much as anyone else am hugely frustrated by their lack of responsiveness on this.

first mate Wrote:

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

> It is appropriate to query data that does not seem

> to make sense.

>

> Rockets has asked some important questions. Thus

> far, no-one has come forward with a credible

> response.

[Penguin68]

The data collected are partial, inconsistent and not fully reported. It is impossible to draw conclusions from them which would be in any way credible. They will support almost any argument, because they actually support none. I have already adumbrated on the difference between correlation and causation, but the figures available will hardly support even statistical correlation - and certainly not the type of multi-variate analysis from which suggestions of causation might be inferred. This has all the merits (and accuracy) of medieval debate about the numbers of angels that might dance on the head of a pin. What we cannot now do is go back in time to measure accurately a 'before' state which might be consistently interpreted with any 'after' state. That boat has left.

The only figures which might now support (or deny) the policy would be a properly conducted poll or survey of those impacted (rather than those with a political axe to bear, including but not exclusively 'interest groups' of people not in SE22). We had a stab at one of those, of course, but the 'results' didn't match Tooley St's prejudices, so were ignored. That survey would not of course tell us anything about whether the nominal intentions of the LTNs were, or were not, met, but rather give us a (small p) 'political' view of the local impact.

Sadly the rather larger poll about to be conducted in May covers a much larger range of issues (quite properly) and for which the P in political will definitely be a large one!

[kissthisguy]

Excellent post @Penguin68!

[kissthisguy]

I would add that a long overdue piece of work is on the outcomes for different demographics. Not just asking people how they feel about it / their perceptions but publishing (using data the council must have or have access to) where benefit and harm has fallen. You could overlay traffic / congestion increases and decreases with data from a consumer bucketing tool like Experian or Mosaic, which goes into quite granular detail on occupant's home ownership status, job security etc etc.

[heartblock]

When counts have been 'invented' for a section of previously unmonitored road from a different month and a different location - surely one must question the validity. More important when this 'new' information is an outlier to the trend.

I know this isn't a RCT but if data has an impact on policy, that may result in CYP having adverse health outcomes, then it is a case of Southwark undertaking due diligence and to investigate, audit and review 'facts' or details.

[Penguin68]

You could overlay traffic / congestion increases and decreases with data from a consumer bucketing tool like Experian or Mosaic, which goes into quite granular detail on occupant's home ownership status, job security etc etc.

With such a small population to be addressed there are real issues of Data Protection here (or there maybe). In addition, until the census figures are published and absorbed into e.g. the Mosaic Database the analysis will be based on updates and assumptions 'read into' 10 year old data. But you are absolutely right that analysis by economic power, life stage, family size and other standard demographics may shed light on the backgrounds and status of perceived 'winners and losers' - to build into an understanding of 'fairness' (but itself a very subjective issue). Do the needs of a family with small children 'trump' a household of the old and clinically vulnerable, for instance?

[Rockets]

And I feel that at each juncture the council has had to manipulate their approach because the results are not giving them what they want - the house of cards was tumbling from the outset and they have been desperately trying to propr it up with some "good news".

Firstly the local consultation demonstrated clearly that the majority of locals* (*who responded for those who will claim the usual - you can't say that) disagreed with the council's approach and were against the current way the measures were implemented. Since then the council has been trying to negotiate a path by presenting "success" data that is fundamentally flawed and does not stand-up to any level of scrutiny and because they are refusing to engage it makes it look as if they have something to hide.

The problem is that it's clear May will be a watershed moment for them - where their manipulation of the LTN process and data could well come home to roost and the narrative is fast becoming who will replace them in the local area - because they are powerless to do anything to manipulate that process.

[heartblock]

Well May is easy for me now...I don't see a vote for Labour Central being on my cards after today. I'll either vote for a Tory/LibDem type who wants the LTNs to go or a Tory/Labour type who wants them to stay.

[legalalien]

Or as I said to the canvasser yesterday- I haven?t decided who to vote for yet but I have decided who not to vote for.

I can?t not vote as the importance of voting has been drummed into me from a young age.

[Bicknell]

just got this from dulwich streetspace

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you because you made an objection(s) to one or more of the following traffic orders as part of the Dulwich Streetspace scheme statutory consultation process, which ran from 21 October 2021 to 11 November 2021:

(a) TMO2122-015_DS Calton Avenue area

(b) TMO2122-16_DS Champion Hill

© TMO2122- 017_DS East Dulwich area

(d) TMO2122-18_DS Melbourne Grove south

(e) TMO2122-19_DS bus, cycle and taxi routes

On 23 December 2021, having considered all valid representations received during the statutory consultation process, the Cabinet Member for Transport, Parks and Sport made the following decisions:

? That the objections received in relation to TMO2122-015_DS Calton Avenue area, TMO2122-16_DS Champion Hill, TMO2122- 017_DS East Dulwich area, TMO2122-19_DS bus, cycle and taxi routes are rejected based on the consideration of officer responses and available monitoring data, and to proceed with the making of these orders.

? That the TMO2122-018_DS (Melbourne Grove south) objections are accepted and that officers do not proceed with the making of this traffic order. September 2021 monitoring data indicated that the Melbourne Grove South traffic filter may be contributing to traffic reduction of cars on East Dulwich Grove Central, and this trend requires further monitoring. Amending this traffic filter may result in an increase of cars on East Dulwich Grove Central, which would be contrary to the Movement Plan 2019 aims and council policy.

The reasons for the decisions and responses to the objections can be found in the Determination of Objections ? Dulwich Streetspace Review Report dated 8 December 2021 .which can be found here. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=7524

The council confirms that the following traffic orders were made on 10 February 2022:

(a) TMO2122-015_DS Calton Avenue area

(b) TMO2122-16_DS Champion Hill

© TMO2122- 017_DS East Dulwich area

(d) TMO2122-19_DS bus, cycle and taxi routes

These orders will come into force on 17 February 2022. You can request a copy of the orders by emailing [email protected]

In the event you wish to question the validity of any of the aforementioned traffic orders on the grounds that it is not within the relevant powers, or that any of the relevant requirements have not been complied with, then you may make an application to the High Court within 6 weeks from the date the order is made.

The council will continue to monitor the grounds for objections and such feedback and future engagement activities will inform any necessary modifications to these orders. In accordance with the Cabinet Member?s decision, there will be a review of the Dulwich Streetspace measures in six to nine months after implementation of the traffic orders.

Thank you for taking the time to provide your representations to the Dulwich Streetspace scheme. We look forward to working with the community to create safer and healthy active travel routes, encouraging the uptake of walking, cycling and public transport amongst residents and re-purposing the street space for the community and local economy

Yours sincerely,

Head of Highways

[Rockets]

You see this is why I am so angry about the council not being prepared to answer questions about the monitoring collection and methodology because they are using the monitoring as the reason why they are rejecting people's objections to the measures.

If the monitoring data is flawed, as many of us suspect it is, then so is any decision to make the measures permanent. This may demonstrate why they are so keen to avoid any data scrutiny because the house of cards comes tumbling down.