LTN Discussion

[Raeburn]

All discussion on here is about mis-interpretation/mis-representation of LTN data, or LTN data incorrectly gathered. Never images?

If anything the article highlights issues with conflating and projecting to draw conclusions.

[Penguin68]

The images are of tables of data and graphs, appearing in other research and manipulated to exclude some elements etc. So same stuff really, just in visual form. 

[Raeburn]

It’s all images of proteins, cancer cells etc? There’s one of scattered data set graphs early on. Are you looking at the same article?

[Spartacus]

I think that the point of the article, is not to show LTN specific data but that any data can, and may have been manipulated, even scientific papers, and that we should all do our own due diligence on any paper we read rather than accepting it as gospel. 

[Raeburn]

Is what I’ve just done.

[legalalien]

This seems a great example of people hearing the things that they want to when they read an article.  I interpreted it to say that most of the errors found were image manipulation because easier to spot, but the main example given related to reproducibility of some cancer studies - clicked through to the paper which makes some interesting observations about science/ peer review

https://elifesciences.org/articles/67995

With apologies for the length of the quote:

"Science is a system for accumulating knowledge. The credibility of knowledge claims relies, in part, on the transparency and repeatability of the evidence used to support them. As a social system, science operates with norms and processes to facilitate the critical appraisal of claims, and transparency and skepticism are virtues endorsed by most scientists (Anderson et al., 2007). Science is also relatively non-hierarchical in that there are no official arbiters of the truth or falsity of claims. However, the interrogation of new claims and evidence by peers occurs continuously, and most formally in the peer review of manuscripts prior to publication. Once new claims are made public, other scientists may question, challenge, or extend them by trying to replicate the evidence or to conduct novel research. The evaluative processes of peer review and replication are the basis for believing that science is self-correcting. Self-correction is necessary because mistakes and false starts are expected when pushing the boundaries of knowledge. Science works because it efficiently identifies those false starts and redirects resources to new possibilities.

We believe everything we wrote in the previous paragraph except for one word in the last sentence – efficiently. Science advances knowledge and is self-correcting, but we do not believe it is doing so very efficiently. Many parts of research could improve to accelerate discovery. In this paper, we report the challenges confronted during a large-scale effort to replicate findings in cancer biology, and describe how improving transparency and sharing can make it easier to assess rigor and replicability and, therefore, to increase research efficiency.

Transparency is essential in any system that seeks to evaluate the credibility of scientific claims. To evaluate a scientific claim one needs access to the evidence supporting the claim – the methodology and materials used, the data generated, and the process of drawing conclusions from those data. The standard process for providing this information is to write a research paper that details the methodology and outcomes. However, this process is imperfect. For example, selectively reporting experiments or analyses, particularly reporting only those that 'worked', biases the literature by ignoring negative or null results (Fanelli, 2010; Fanelli, 2011; Ioannidis, 2005; Rosenthal, 1979; Sterling, 1959; Sterling et al., 1995). And the combined effect of constraints related to the research paper format (including word limits, and only reporting what can be described in words), the tendency of authors to report what they perceive to be important, and rewards for exciting, innovative outcomes is an emphasis on reporting outcomes and their implications, rather than a comprehensive description of the methodology (Kilkenny et al., 2009; Landis et al., 2012; Moher et al., 2008).

The sharing of data, materials, and code can also increase the efficiency of research in a number of ways (Molloy, 2011; Murray-Rust et al., 2010; Nosek et al., 2015). For example, sharing provides opportunities for independent observers to evaluate both the evidence reported in papers and the credibility of the claims based on this evidence; it allows other researchers to analyze the data in different ways (by, for example, using different rules for data exclusion); and it helps other researchers to perform replications to determine if similar evidence can be observed independently of the original context. Moreover, giving other researchers access to data, materials, and code may allow them to identify important features of the research that were not appreciated by the original researchers, or to identify errors in analysis or reporting."

 

 

[Spartacus]

Consultation closed 

Not a vote mind you

Let's see how its results are represented and what happens next 

My moneys on regardless of how many say no (compared to yes) that the council will still say " but its what you want" 

[legalalien]

just catching up on recent developments.  Have the proposals for pocket parks in Melbourne, Derwent, Elsie, Tintagel been circulated?  Forward plan says decision will be made in May.  Couldn't see it on the council consultation page.  I walk through there quite often so just wondered what was happening.

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50033739&PlanId=804&RPID=23591546

[Rockets]

Oh dear....the council's own data that was recently published on the now inaccessible Streetspace Dashboard showed that traffic has increased massively on LTN boundary roads.

 

As you can currently no longer access the data for yourselves (can anyone get access to it as it gives me a 501 error - https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/traffic-data-analysis) One Dulwich has published the data that the council had published.

 

Really not sure how the council can spin their way out of this one - their own data shows LTNs are not working as desired and are merely displacing traffic - as many feared. Remember Cllr McAsh's own words that LTNs can only be considered a success if every road benefits.

 

Data confirms failure of Dulwich LTNs

15 Feb

The latest Southwark data shows that the LTNs have not reduced traffic, simply displaced it

When One Dulwich met Cllr James McAsh last year, he said there would be no further updates to the Dulwich Streetspace Data Dashboard. But, to our surprise, an update appeared on 1 February, comparing June 2022 figures with June 2023.

It confirms that the Dulwich LTNs are a failed experiment.

Firstly, the Dulwich LTNs have not reduced traffic but simply displaced it. As the opening statement on the Dashboard says, traffic across Southwark has been rising since the end of the last COVID-19 lockdown and, in April 2022, was already “above pre-COVID levels on the TfL network near Dulwich”.

So if some roads have been closed to traffic, where have all the cars, vans and lorries gone? The new data makes this very clear. In June 2023, traffic on East Dulwich Grove, a Dulwich LTN boundary road – a major bus route, with three schools, a health centre and a nursery, and thousands of children walking and cycling along it – had increased by 35.8% since pre-Covid/pre-LTN.

We’ll just repeat this. According to Southwark’s own data, traffic on East Dulwich Grove has increased by 35.8%.

Because East Dulwich Grove was already a busy road before the LTNs, this 35.8% increase represents thousands more cars/Large Goods Vehicles, rising to a peak of 16,960 as an average daily vehicle volume over five days in December 2022.

At the point where East Dulwich Grove meets Lordship Lane, traffic increased in just twelve months by 23.5%. This is in Goose Green ward, where Cllr James McAsh – the Council cabinet member for the climate emergency, clean air and streets, and decision-maker on the LTNs – is the local councillor.

News isn’t much better within the Dulwich Village LTN. Between 2022 and 2023, traffic on Townley Road, closed for 2.5 hours a day, increased by 14.6%, while cycling dropped by 23%. On Burbage Road, cycling dropped by a massive 57%, down to just 400 cycles in the week of 19 June 2023, which is lower than before the LTN went in.

Figures for Croxted Road – another Dulwich LTN boundary road – are all over the place. In January and June 2023, there was apparently a large drop in traffic during the morning weekday peak (8am to 9am). But in February, March and May 2023, traffic was the same or above the June 2022 level.

The clue to this variation may lie in the opening statement on the website, where Southwark points out that Automatic Traffic Counts (ATCs) “occasionally fail to collect data or under-report volumes”.

This is obviously what happened in January and June 2023. On 16 January 2023 the number of cars on Croxted Road was recorded as zero. Despite these obvious reporting anomalies, June 2023 was the month Southwark chose to represent the true picture of traffic on Croxted Road.

It’s time for this failed experiment to stop.

We all know the pain and misery that have been caused by the Dulwich LTNs. One Dulwich has argued for a long time that 24/7 road closures directly discriminate against those who depend on their cars for basic mobility, especially the frail and elderly, and those with disabilities.

But this huge displacement of traffic on to roads that were already busy also underlines that Southwark is failing in its basic statutory duty under the Traffic Management Act 2004 to ensure that road networks are managed effectively, to improve safety, and to minimise congestion and disruption.

In Dulwich, as this latest data update shows, we have a road network that is no longer fit for purpose.

[march46]

The dashboard showed traffic on most roads was significantly lower than pre-covid. 
 

The recent trend (Jun 22 compared to Jun 23) showed some increases which reflects the change to the timed restriction hours (halved I think?). Reducing the timed restrictions has induced demand.

Edited February 15, 2024 by march46

[vladi]

  On 30/01/2024 at 20:17, Spartacus said:

Consultation closed 

Not a vote mind you

Let's see how its results are represented and what happens next 

My moneys on regardless of how many say no (compared to yes) that the council will still say " but its what you want" 

Expand  

'was ever thus

[Rockets]

  On 15/02/2024 at 18:27, march46 said:

The dashboard showed traffic on most roads was significantly lower than pre-covid. 
 

The recent trend (Jun 22 compared to Jun 23) showed some increases which reflects the change to the timed restriction hours (halved I think?). Reducing the timed restrictions has induced demand.

Expand  

March46 is your analysis merely confirming that displacement, rather than evaporation, has been taking place then?

[ab29]

Repasting here: what a con! Is anyone really surprised?

No money for sweeping pavements and social care and yet thousands of pounds wasted on ltn,  ltn consultations, ltn road closures, ltn so-called 'planters' upkeep, ltn dulwich village junction consultations and re-consultations and re -re-consultations and re -re-re consultations and so on!

Am not sure how much the councils are in finanicial trouble and how much this is due to complete mismanagement and money wasted on crap like ltn!

h

Edited February 15, 2024 by ab29
n

[march46]

No Rockets, that’s you trying to repeat your stuck record.
 

Evaporation is evidenced by the fact the traffic levels are mostly still lower than pre-Covid levels. The more recent rise in traffic is due to the hours of the timed restrictions reducing which has induced demand. As traffic has increased, it follows that cycling has reduced.
 

 

Edited February 15, 2024 by march46

[ab29]

  On 15/02/2024 at 19:47, Rockets said:

March46 is your analysis merely confirming that displacement, rather than evaporation, has been taking place then?

Expand  

yep

ad nauseam: 

Repasting here: what a con! Is anyone really surprised?

No money for sweeping pavements and social care and yet thousands of pounds wasted on ltn,  ltn consultations, ltn road closures, ltn so-called 'planters' upkeep, ltn dulwich village junction consultations and re-consultations and re -re-consultations and re -re-re consultations and so on!

Am not sure how much the councils are in finanicial trouble and how much this is due to completemismanagement and money wasted on crap like ltn!

[Rockets]

  On 15/02/2024 at 20:07, march46 said:

No Rockets, that’s you trying to repeat your stuck record.
 

Evaporation is evidenced by the fact the traffic levels are mostly still lower than pre-Covid levels. The more recent rise in traffic is due to the hours of the timed restrictions reducing which has induced demand. As traffic has increased, it follows that cycling has reduced.
 

 

Expand  

Sorry March you’re wrong and I think you are putting way to much faith in the council’s narrative.

 

Look at the numbers:

1)  East Dulwich Grove East at 35.8% higher traffic levels than pre-Covid

2) Burbage Road North now at 10.6 higher traffic levels than pre-Covid

3) Townley Road (which is restricted at the bus gate for the morning and afternoon rush hours in one direction) running at 3.2% lower than pre-Covid levels

4) The council claiming Croxted Road is 37.9% lower than pre-Covid levels which is laughable given the unholy row that erupted between the council and TFL when TFL said the LTN displacement was the reason for the increased traffic and congestion that was causing bus delays at the very junction the council does its monitoring. Not sure how those two things tally - can you explain that one?

 

All of the above can be very simply explained: displacement. The Dulwich LTNs have not led to a reduction in traffic- look, even Townley and Burbage which have bus gates are not performing well - traffic has been displaced around the LTNs - it’s as clear as clear can be - except for those who don’t want to admit it.

And can you explain your claim that cycling is down because car traffic is up? Are you saying people are abandoning bikes for cars?

Edited February 15, 2024 by Rockets

[Penguin68]

I suspect the first we will ever hear of the council 'reconsidering' their LTN policy will be in the year that income from fines finally falls away. Until then income will always trump democracy. This was never about 'safer streets' and always about an income stream. 

And, considering the way that legitimate calls on council expenditure are increasing, whilst their tax base is effectively frozen (or at least increases are limited to below inflationary (recently) levels) it is not wholly surprising. It is the fact they feel driven to lie and obfuscate which is saddening. And, of course, there are still 'true believers' out there thinking it's all to do with air and life quality.

[tiddles]

I wish they would invest the money from the LTN fines and cpz charges (which have doubled since their inception) in the quality of the roads! I  am on a bike and am encountering particularly shocking road surfaces at the moment - coming down dog kennel hill is pretty dangerous and East Dulwich grove is shocking. 

[Rockets]

A, perhaps, timely reminder of what Cllr McAsh wrote about LTNs on his blog….has time, and his promotion within Southwark Labour, changed his view per chance? 

[tiddles]

But that is exactly what is happening - all the schools and nursery on East Dulwich grove are getting more pollution. The closed off roads are the more expensive areas with larger front gardens! 

[legalalien]

Not sure if this link will work - but seems that in Croydon the Conservative mayor is copping some heat on his decision to retain LTNs, in part because not having the fine income would put a hole in the council budget...

 

PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions

 

[Spartacus]

  On 20/02/2024 at 12:07, legalalien said:

Not sure if this link will work - but seems that in Croydon the Conservative mayor is copping some heat on his decision to retain LTNs, in part because not having the fine income would put a hole in the council budget...

 

PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions

 

Expand  

So , it's not about the money then 🤔 😅

[ianr]

This URL seems to be  more easily accessible, and I'm not  a subscriber:  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/17/tory-mayor-backs-ltns-after-report-shows-they-make-money/.

[legalalien]

Sadiq Khan admits south London’s new low-traffic neighbourhood ‘not great’

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e8636826-0a45-4d4e-9dc2-05a983c75e90?shareToken=eacd07b1789f8862adca1b8e019fcb5d
 

The mayor has noticed that the emperor has no clothes?

[Rockets]

There be a mayoral election coming....and clearly the Streatham LTN is an unmitigated disaster - propped up by the usual pro-LTN lobby groups working with councils (and the houses who live within the area and to the benefit of a small proportion of the local population) to try and force an ill-conceived plan that actually makes things worse and has a massively negative impact on public transport ....where have we seen that before.....?

 

Speaking of which, has anyone else noticed that new monitoring strips have been going in around the area - Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove, Barry Road? There is a new set on Lordship Lane near the Court Lane junction (another on Townley) - clearly the positioning of the ones on Lordship Lane suggests the council wants to conclude that traffic is increasing as they have been moved up the road from the Melford Road position when they were monitoring to prove traffic was down and the LTNs were working!

Edited March 1, 2024 by Rockets