LTN Discussion

[goldilocks]

The page i sent you literally says how to find it - it says that the information is available on Southwark maps on the 'highways' map layer. The first time I tried it I clicked the wrong one and didn't get the info so I tried again on the basis there were directions included!

In terms of the data - yes it has definitely been updated as I had previously (on this thread I think) been saying how the lack of data was unhelpful. Its still the case that all the data that is included in that dashboard has not been fully uploaded, but it does seem to change so suspect there is a long drawn out process at the council for uploading it!

@Heartblock - no, your theory is incorrect. The January 2019 data is for partial school holidays (beginning of January) and as you'll notice the traffic on EDG is always much lower when schools are out - most noticeably the private schools that are located on EDG.

I'll have a look where the Jan figures are - they were definitely on that interactive map for a while which is when i wrote them down, but no idea if they're still there.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Legal, thank's for the clear guidance on how to

> find it.

>

> BTW Goldilocks etc - how on earth did you find

> that - it's hardly intuitive - did someone tip you

> off or send you the direct link to it? Even

> following the link from the LTN page you'd need to

> know where to find it once you arrive at the

> page.

>

> I also noticed the Champion Hill reference on that

> dataset. Interesting to note as well that for Sept

> 21 they have posted a number of sets of traffic

> covering each week yet only one for Sep 19 with

> those inflated traffic numbers.

>

> Still not convinced this is anything other than

> modelling - the council have been very clear, on

> numerous occasions, that no monitoring was in

> place before Sep 21 on East Dulwich Central - they

> aren't doing that for fun - there is a reason for

> that - we just have to work out what it is!

[goldilocks]

Also - this argument doesn't hold up when you look at the DFT annual count figures from, yes, you guessed it, outside the hospital site. They also back up the September 2019 figure as aligned with earlier counts. So its not that there was any artificial inflation of the pre figure.

https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/manualcountpoints/37649

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Legal - what a brilliant find....when did the

> Champion Hill closure go in - this report, and the

> monitoring, seems to have been used to determine

> the displacement onto other roads and, guess what,

> EDG was taking the brunt of the displaced traffic

> from the Champion Hill closure according to this

> report.

>

> Ha ha, you couldn't make it up - the council used

> the increases in traffic on EDG from the Champion

> Hill closure to then help validate the "success"

> of the EDG LTN closure a few years later - robbing

> Peter to pay Paul anyone!!! ;-).

[Rockets]

Goldilocks - you really are the gift that keeps on giving - that TFL data merely goes to show how bad they are at estimating/modelling traffic levels.

Look at what happens between estimated (which the majority of those years are) and actual traffic counts - how they inflate cyclist numbers and the number of car journeys and then how an actual count reduces the number of cycle journeys by half and the number of car journeys by about 20% - I think their methodology is making presumptions and assumptions that aren't actually happening in reality!

Look at the difference between the 2016 Estimated count and the 2017 actual count....

That chart also highlights that car use has been declining over the last 15 years (which is counter to a lot of the arguments put forward by the pro-LTN lobby to justify closing roads - aren't we supposed to have seen a 10x increase in car-use?). Also, it also goes to show that cycling has been declining over the last 15 years too - another argument that the pro-LTN lobby won't agree with....

[Spartacus]

Even the BBC are questioning if local elections will be dominated by LTNs

BBC News - Will Low Traffic Neighbourhoods drive London's elections?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61191213

[goldilocks]

I did look at that and obviously there are issues with the TFL estimates as they restated their data at a point in the past. That's why I just looked at the ones that were actual counts rather than estimates as they're more reliable.

You're unfortunately conflating arguments with your declining car use point - yes the overall miles travelled had started to decline but the split between main roads and side streets had totally changed.

Again - stick to facts and leave the personal insults out. I was going to say that you wouldn't be this rude in real life, but am starting to wonder if that's the case!

[ed_pete]

Although it's really easy to just dismiss the September 2019 measurements as the position of the East Dulwich Grove Central ATC wasn't in the same place as the current one is, it's worth looking at the *actual* positions as included in the data published by Tracsis.

The decimal Easting and Northing of the 2019 ATC is (51.4589803,-0.0796602) and the current ATC is (51.4589830,-0.0794940).

My calculations could be wrong but I think this works out a difference of less than 50 cm on the Northing and about 14.5 metres on the Easting.

So you have ask the question whether or not you consider 14.5 metres is significant or not.

[Rockets]

It seems to have been significant enough for the council to, repeatedly, state that there was no monitoring in place on East Dulwich Grove Central prior to Sept 21 - seems odd if there is only a 14 metre discrepancy - they moved the strips on Lordship Lane about 200 metres from Court Lane to Melford Road without any caveats being applied to the reporting.

And remember the council don't even mention that it might have been in a slightly different location - they say........No data collected for East Dulwich Grove Central prior to September 2021....that's pretty definitive.

Does anyone know why they might be saying that yet using Sept 19 data as proof that there has been a reduction in traffic?

My personal theory is that they are making things up as they go along, someone used the Sept 19 numbers in the LTN wrap-up report, the council published it and then upon further review someone has found something that makes them think they can't/should not be using it/claiming it.

It seems that whatever they did it gave them 3,000 more vehicle journeys between the Jan 19 and Sept 19 numbers and using the Sept 19 numbers gave them a "reduction" that would not have been there had they used the Jan 19 figures.

It's clear the council has been manipulating the figures and reporting to their advantage throughout this whole process and they still have a third of the roads monitored showing an increase in vehicles compared to pre-Covid - not what they promised from the scheme at all.

[goldilocks]

Your personal theory is just that though - something you've thought of. Whereas the rest of us have provided data showing why you're not correct and yet its not enough to stop you speaking at length about what you (wrongly in this case) think.

It isn't clear that anything is being manipulated outside of your mind.

[Rockets]

To be honest, I am not convinced you have provided anything other than more fuel to our fire! The Champion Hill displacement issue being the latest case in point which does look like the major cause of the 15,000 peak that the council (and you) insist on referring to to help justify the closure of Melbourne Grove.

The mistake the council made was creating the new EDG Central monitoring as it was clear it was nothing more than a trojan horse to help maintain the Melbourne Grove closer at the behest of the residents and numerous pro-LTN lobby groups based there.

Some of us think the LTN monitoring information is being manipulated by the council and given the weight of evidence you keep presenting to us as you try to defend it, it becomes clearer and clearer every day that it is being manipulated.

On that subject of wilful manipulation, can anyone guess when the Champion Hill closure went in....yup, you've guessed it February 2019!!!!?

Here's a snippet on it on the Southwark Cyclist's website:

Southwark Council installed a one way filter in February 2019, preventing motor vehicles from using Champion Hill to drive from Dog Kennel Hill to Denmark Hill. The council monitored the area until September 2019 and prepared a report.

Now, can anyone guess why the council chose the Sept 19 figures for EDG Central rather than the January 19 ones? Hmmmm......it's interesting that both the council and Southwark Cyclists go to great lengths to claim that the increases in traffic on EDG may not be from the Champion Hill but "other external" factors but provided no suggestions for what they might be.

Yet the council's own report on the Champion Hill closures shows that there was only one road that had "notable increases" in traffic in both directions when comparing pre- and post-closure of Champion Hill and that was what is now EDG Central (Denmark Hill, Champion Park and Dog Kennel Hill all had notable increases but only in one direction). Displacement occurs across a wide are when these LTNs are thrown in and there are always more losers than winners unfortunately.

[heartblock]

Sept 19 with the increased figure (read Champion Hill report saying there was a significant increase in traffic on EDG post LTN) is being used instead of the pre-LTN figure in Jan 19. Why is that.......

It also was in a difference place 14 metres is not insignificant....my flat is many metres away from that data-point despite one poster deciding I practically live up that lamp-post!

[ed_pete]

Rockets - are you pro-LTN or just not pro this particular LTN ?

Your hyperbole undermines your credibility:

"My personal theory is that they are making things up as they go along, "

"The mistake the council made was creating the new EDG Central monitoring as it was clear it was nothing more than a trojan horse to help maintain the Melbourne Grove closer at the behest of the residents and numerous pro-LTN lobby groups based there."

"Some of us think the LTN monitoring information is being manipulated by the council"

[heartblock]

I can't speak for Rockets, but data turned into statistical analysis is always manipulated, my question is why use a baseline that is post -LTN implementation rather than pre? If LTNs work and reduce traffic, congestion at peak times and pollution I'm all for them, but I have found no convincing research and locally have witnessed the opposite effect.

[Rockets]

I am definitely not pro-LTN. I think LTN's are a lobby-group influenced sledge-hammer to crack a nut that do more harm than good.

You have to ask yourself some questions:

- why did the council decide to add EDG Central midway through the LTN monitoring process? Who lobbied them to do it?

- why did the council choose to use the Sep 19 "data" rather than the Jan 19 data in their LTN report?

- why does the council steadfastly refuse to provide monitoring for Underhill Road - one of the main displacement routes for traffic?

- why when the elected local councillors stated that only if every road saw a reduction in traffic could the LTNs be considered a success are the same councillors now happy for 3 of the 9 monitored roads to register an increase in traffic?

- why has the council not accounted for the overall reduction in vehicle use since the pandemic in any of their LTN monitoring reports. Surely the post LTN monitoring is getting a 10-15% head-start which has nothing to do with LTNs?

And so the list goes on...it's hardly hyperbole.....it doesn't take a genius to work out what is going on here. Many are more than happy to turn a blind eye to it (usually those who they live on one of the roads benefitting from the closures!)

[Rockets]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> I can't speak for Rockets, but data turned into

> statistical analysis is always manipulated, my

> question is why use a baseline that is post -LTN

> implementation rather than pre? If LTNs work and

> reduce traffic, congestion at peak times and

> pollution I'm all for them, but I have found no

> convincing research and locally have witnessed the

> opposite effect.

I very much suspect because if they used the Jan 19 pre-Champion Hill LTN data their Dulwich LTN report would need to conclude that EDG Central traffic increased post Melbourne Grove LTN implementation - and that would be the truth getting in the way of their "good" story.

Look what happens when you remove the Sep 19 figures from the council's monitoring data:

Jan 19: 12408

Sep 21: 12675

Oct 21: 12016

Nov 21: 12421

Dec 21: 10,74

Jan 22: 12414

In real terms (when you consider the overall reduction in traffic is anywhere from 10% - 15%) traffic has actually increased significantly on EDG (and most other roads monitored during the LTN monitoring). But this is what LTNs do - they push more traffic down fewer roads.

It is also interesting looking at the Champion Hill report (and I think this goes some way to explain why the council refuses to monitor Underhill Road) but LTN reports tend to focus on the roads immediately adjacent to the LTNs - remember the whole argument about Aldred et al not analysing "boundary roads"? One trend that was seen in the much-heralded Waltham Forest LTNs was that displacement impacted roads up to 3.1 miles away but by trying to contain monitoring to the immediate area allows the council's to try and paint a rosier picture.

In the Champion Hill report you can see this in action as it clearly shows a substantial increase in traffic along EDG Central but it is dismissed as not being caused by the LTN - without any rational as it why that might be.

[Bic Basher]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> In real terms (when you consider the overall

> reduction in traffic is anywhere from 10% - 15%)

> traffic has actually increased significantly on

> EDG (and most other roads monitored during the LTN

> monitoring). But this is what LTNs do - they push

> more traffic down fewer roads.

I've been tagged in a LTN convo for the last couple of days featuring numerous pro and anti LTN activists, some of which I wouldn't be surprised are the same individuals on here and the one theme that keeps coming up which is the same as here is that when you ask the pro LTN supporters for data, they don't come up with any and just say it's down to "academic data"

Yet I see from my window every day the increase in traffic and the fact that it gets so bad at times that I can smell the fumes if I walk along LL especially between the library and The Grove during the rush hour.

[heartblock]

Indeed Bic..but you will be told it's your 'perception' and 'you have already made up your mind' and that you are not listening to 'facts'.

In reality, those in power can publish 'facts' that are manipulated data. As Rockets points out the ED Central figure runs around 12,000 until the blip after the CH LTN - so why use a figure of 15,000 that is an outlier across 4 years.

The only reason is manipulating data to 'prove' an intervention has a positive effect.

But.... there is no validity in this data.

[ed_pete]

Would another way to interpret the 2019 figures be that the Jan to Sep increase is due to the closure of Champion Hill. However, the road users have slowly adapted to this and changed their means of travel so what we're really seeing here is traffic evaporation.

[Waseley]

So Mr/Mrs Rockets. You are against all Low Traffic Neighborhoods. So you should not vote Tory as this is their policy. The assumption is therefore that you supported the status quo where car was king. We'll I'm not with you on this but I appreciate your honesty.

[first mate]

Mr/Mrs Waseley,

I think most objectors are not anti all LTNs in principle but anti the lack of proper consultation and thoughtful implementation. Many of these LTNs were shoehorned in under emergency measures in lockdown. We are no longer in lockdown or emergency measures; time to review and reconsider the real efficacy of our local LTNs, not least with a proper and transparent process of consultation.

[heartblock]

The issue with the current ?experiment? initiated under Covid rules is that it creates areas of High Traffic Neighbourhoods as well as LTNs. Traffic hasn?t evaporated, hence the overall rise along ED Grove - despite a drop in traffic across London of about 11% not related to any LTN implementation.

A plan to reduce car use across the area would be great - proper school coach provision for schools with a wide catchment area, local buses, utilising ALL roads for public transport and a walking, cycling network.

If you all recall...some of these LTN fan-boys and girls, were the same people who objected to buses on their road. The P4 and 37 were both rerouted due to pressure from those who have been gifted closed roads by some weird algorithm that has nothing to do with inequality, the most polluted roads or the roads with the highest pedestrian use. It?s never been about reducing car use...it?s all been about having one?s road gated from other people to use and one?s personal residence sitting within a quiet road.

[Rockets]

Waseley Wrote:

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

> So Mr/Mrs Rockets. You are against all Low

> Traffic Neighborhoods. So you should not vote

> Tory as this is their policy. The assumption is

> therefore that you supported the status quo where

> car was king. We'll I'm not with you on this but

> I appreciate your honesty.

Waseley - rather than trying to push the "petrolhead" narrative (I know it is the go-to position from the pro-LTN handbook) why don't you read what I have actually posted both on that message and previous messages?

I said I am not pro-LTN and my position is not the Tory position of pull them out - my position is more Lib Dem (as in LTNs make sense in some areas and not in others - I personally was amazed when the Soho LTN was withdrawn as there it made perfect sense).

I actually agree with the council's own initial assessment that LTNs won't work in areas with low PTAL scores - which is why I am objecting to the LTNs in Dulwich - because the moment you put them in you create more problems than they solve and, guess what, despite the protestations from the pro-LTN lobby this is exactly what is happening.

I also think the council have completely overlooked any other modal shift infrastructure initiatives and have put all of their eggs in LTNs. I think they could have done a lot more to improve cycle and walking infrastructure as other boroughs have successfully done but Southwark have been sleeping at the wheel and thought LTNs were the only thing they needed to implement.

[heartblock]

Exactly!

[Bic Basher]

I tried today to converse with the pro-LTN activists and it's such a minefield. They're even against EVs as they don't want any form of motor vehicle on their streets even if has zero emissions.

I think most of us here want practical solutions to the LTN issue, but the mantra from certain circles is that every single vehicle is a menace to society which only Amsterdam style streets full of bikes can resolve. It's not practical or realistic to expect that.

[first mate]

No, not when you have a hill either end of ED and the main flatter route out of the area is viewed as 'iffy'.

[Bic Basher]

Another thing the pro-LTN lobby got wrong is that they didn't sell it to "normal people" well if at all.

The way they see it as a culture war between who they sneer as ignorant people who they feel don't understand about the causes of pollution and excess traffic and the other who want proper solutions that enable the general public to go about their business without major disruption or health risks to people who tend to be poorer.

Southwark and the pro-cycling/environmental lobby could have done this transparently and come up with solutions that work for both parties which wouldn't had led to such a bitter election campaign in Dulwich Village ward and kept Labour in those two seats, but we could be in for a shock in that seat next Thursday night.