LTN Discussion

[heartblock]

Here is East Dulwich Grove today, no road works, no school run. Please note the dead road LTN Melbourne Avenue.. no pedestrians, no bikes and I can tell you walking down this road it smells of fumes…. All without proper consultation or consent

[Rockets]

Latest One Dulwich update:

 

The most telling piece might be this:

 

The DfT has reassured One Dulwich that they have made commitments to consider “new guidance on LTNs with a focus on the importance of local support” and “how to address existing LTNs that have not secured local consent”. The Dulwich LTNs were rejected by two-thirds of those who responded to the 2021 consultation.

 

There may be trouble ahead.........

 

 

One Dulwich   Campaign Update | 10 Nov Report on Dulwich LTNs submitted to Government’s review Following Southwark’s decision not to cooperate with the Government’s LTNs Review – referring to it in an email to a resident as a “political stunt” – One Dulwich has submitted a summary report of the impact of the Dulwich LTNs to the Department for Transport and to Ipsos UK, the research company appointed to carry out the review. Our report concludes that there is no evidence that any of the council’s stated objectives have been met. There’s no evidence, for example, that the LTNs overall have improved road safety, cut carbon emissions, made walking and cycling safe, reduced inequalities in health and wellbeing or – crucially – improved air quality. Instead, data has been misrepresented, communications were misleading, survey questions have been biased, and the results of the public consultation were ignored. Inadequate signage has led to excessive revenue-raising (more than £13 million in fines in the Dulwich Village LTN alone). The DfT has reassured One Dulwich that they have made commitments to consider “new guidance on LTNs with a focus on the importance of local support” and “how to address existing LTNs that have not secured local consent”. The Dulwich LTNs were rejected by two-thirds of those who responded to the 2021 consultation. Southwark News, which reported Southwark’s refusal to cooperate with the LTNs Review, said in an editorial that campaigners are justified in saying that the LTNs were forced upon them. Government report says LTNs have failed to boost walking and cycling A new report from the Public Accounts Committee says that £2.3bn has been spent by the DfT on active travel schemes, which include LTNs, but that the impact and benefits are unclear. There has been no sustained increase in cycling rates, and fewer children now walk to to school than when targets were set. Dulwich news Please continue to let us know via [email protected] of any protests about LTNs in the Dulwich area so that we can keep everyone informed. Croxted Road residents recently got together to demand cross-council action to reduce congestion, and residents continue to raise concerns about increased traffic and pollution on East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane. Thank you for your support. The One Dulwich Team

[Earl Aelfheah]

Another meta analysis. Same conclusions as all of the growing body of academic research. LTNs work https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213624X23001785

[Rockets]

...at reducing traffic WITHIN LTN zones (pretty bleeding obvious) but with increases above the mean average on boundary roads....concluded using the same flawed council datasets Aldred et Al used.

 

Specifically, this study found substantial reductions in motor traffic within scheme areas, while across boundary roads there was very little aggregate change (+0.7% mean average compared to background trends). We have not attempted to calculate overall traffic reduction due to these schemes, because aggregation is affected by the number of count points, and in most cases, more counters could have hypothetically been placed (particularly on internal roads, more numerous than boundary roads). However, the results indicate that motor traffic has been reduced, and only a small proportion re-routed to boundary roads.

Edited November 15, 2023 by Rockets

[first mate]

 

(edited)

Rockets said: "...at reducing traffic WITHIN LTN zones (pretty bleeding obvious) but with increases above the mean average on boundary roads....concluded using the same flawed council datasets Aldred et Al used."
 

No s**t Sherlock! Hilarious. The study concludes lower traffic on roads where barriers mean traffic cannot enter..ta da! 

[heartblock]

So they have spent money on research...to prove if one closes a road to traffic ...it has fewer vehicles travelling down that closed road. They really are geniuses!

Next.

A research trial to see if a tree is cut down, fewer birds sit in the tree.

A research trial to see if sunflowers cut down, fewer bees will visit the sunflower.

A research trial to see if a hospital is closed, fewer patients will be treated.

I’ll set up a research fund for the three above, I think you must agree all very useful subjects, on wildlife, the bee population crisis and the underfunded NHS...... So send me your cash, NOW, for this important research.

[Rockets]

But look, as far as the pro-LTN lobby are concerned job done by the "researchers" because someone pushed this out as "proof" that "LTNs work" without actually spending any time looking at the data within the report and what it actually says. It's a well used tactic to try and convince people that your plans are delivering what you promised.

It's the same as touting the ludicrous statement that there has been a "40% increase in cycling" - a case of never let the truth get in the way of, what you think, is a good story.....;-)

[DulvilleRes]

It is disingenuous of One Dulwich to pull this England-wide report on Active travel, drawing on data from the likes of Leicester into the specifics of Dulwich. The local data simply doesn't exist to say the LTN's have failed to promote active travel, especially cycling. Many people posting on here report an increase in the numbers of people cycling in our neighbourhood. 

So who are One Dulwich? Who are their funders and leading lights? Despite many times of asking, no one on these Transport threads seems able to answer the question, despite pushing their agenda. What is known is a strong alignment between the anti-LTN lobby and local Conservatives, and what is known is nationally, local Conservatives mimic local newspapers to put over what is essentially their own political agenda. It is also known that the Conservatives are banking heavily on 'The War On Motorists' to try and win votes. Are we being trolled? 

[alice]

LTN are rubbish and they didn’t work, but that won’t stop voting me labour to imply otherwise is ridiculous

[Spartacus]

4 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

It is disingenuous of One Dulwich to pull this England-wide report on Active travel, drawing on data from the likes of Leicester into the specifics of Dulwich. The local data simply doesn't exist to say the LTN's have failed to promote active travel, especially cycling. Many people posting on here report an increase in the numbers of people cycling in our neighbourhood. 

So who are One Dulwich? Who are their funders and leading lights? Despite many times of asking, no one on these Transport threads seems able to answer the question, despite pushing their agenda. What is known is a strong alignment between the anti-LTN lobby and local Conservatives, and what is known is nationally, local Conservatives mimic local newspapers to put over what is essentially their own political agenda. It is also known that the Conservatives are banking heavily on 'The War On Motorists' to try and win votes. Are we being trolled? 

This post reads like a conspiracy theory 🤔 

Are LTN supporters real? are LTN layouts in fact messages from higher intelligence (like crop circles)? Are there lights on every cycle ? Only the Southwark X files know !!!

[DulvilleRes]

23 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

This post reads like a conspiracy theory 🤔 

Are LTN supporters real? are LTN layouts in fact messages from higher intelligence (like crop circles)? Are there lights on every cycle ? Only the Southwark X files know !!

These are simple and pertinent questions - who are One Dulwich and who funds them? Given that they are a local political organisation, in that they were recommending how people should vote in the last local elections, I think this is something that as a local resident, I would like to know. If they have nothing to hide, why the lack of transparency? One Dulwich's supporters on these threads expect transparency from everyone else, but when it comes to themselves, not so much. 

I would also question why One Dulwich should post their press releases on these threads, as if they are some kind of community organisation. Their lack of transparency really doesn't merit that status. 

 

 

[Spartacus]

As far as I understand it, they are a group of local residents who oppose the LTN and after the issues where pro LTN supporters targeted signs opposing the LTN, they obviously don't want to attract attention to whom they actually are.

They aren't the illuminati pulling strings of world leaders and certainly not sinister shadowy characters trying to throw the next election. 

[first mate]

Nor are they responsible for installation, monitoring and maintaining LTNs, often against local resident wishes.

I am far more concerned about issues of transparency and democracy at the hands of those that actually have the power to govern us and make decisions for us. We have yet to see data that shows local LTNs have made a positive difference to the majority of residents. There has been much weaselling around by Cllr McAsh on these traffic issues but he is on the record as saying he wants to get all cars off the streets...he has no mandate to do that, nor were CPZ and LTN invented as mechanisms to make that happen. But that is just what Southwark Labour are trying to do.

 

[Rockets]

 

On 18/11/2023 at 12:43, DulvilleRes said:

It is disingenuous of One Dulwich to pull this England-wide report on Active travel, drawing on data from the likes of Leicester into the specifics of Dulwich.

Why is it disingenuous for OneDulwich to highlight a cross-party parliamentary report saying that the active travel measures are failing to deliver against their stated aims? Do you somehow think that Dulwich is single-handedly bucking the national trend? Just look at a graph in another report Malumbu kindly brought to our attention.

 

 

Of course, I am sure we would love to be able to analyse the trends in Dulwich but the council stopped updating their Streetspace dashboard in September 2022 so there has been no data shared for over a year - I wonder why?

 

On the subject of OneDulwich and their "transparency" I suggest you are only concerned about this because you would really prefer them not to be a voice for those within the community who do not believe the council is acting in good faith over LTNs and CPZs. Thank goodness they have been else the council would have had free reign to do as their please with zero accountability - I very much suggest that it is the actions of groups like One Dulwich that has meant the council have had to u-turn on their CPZ plans, that the scrutiny being forced by the likes of One Dulwich is forcing the council to rethink their plans - they are finally having to be accountable for their actions.

I do also wonder if you share the same concerns about who Clean Air Dulwich are, or EDSTN Healthy Streets or the Melbourne Grove Residents association are and whether any of them have strong links to the council and the Labour party. If not, then I am sure that you are very concerned that the only source of data suggesting LTNs have been working were produced by a group being funded directly from the organisations who put the measures in and whose lead researchers are the ex-policy chair for the London Cycling Campaign and a researcher caught tearing down posters urging people to sign a petition against LTNs. In light of the cross-party parliamentary report one wonders whether there are now real questions being asked about the validity of those LTN research projects and whether the £1.5m invested to "independently" assess the impact of the LTNs was well spent - perhaps this will be something Labour's Covid Corruption Minister will take a look at ;-).

[DulvilleRes]

As ever, the devil is in the detail of the report that One Dulwich are quoting to thinly imply that the LTN's in our area aren't working to increase active travel. The report is a national one, and goes to some lengths to describe the financial challenges that councils are working under as an impediment to progress. It also says that the data could be patchy

cycling infrastructure could be inconsistent across the country and investment was very localised, so a national survey was “too diluted to reflect what is happening on the ground"

However, the relevant London section, unchallenged by the Public Accounts committee says 

Since the introduction of School Streets (timed restrictions on motor traffic) and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (restrictions on through traffic in residential areas) in London there has been growth in localised cycle and scooter use.

This would be backed up locally by recent research that shows that Southwark has the second highest cycling rates in London, which would suggest that whatever our council are doing is working. So I think One Dulwich quoting from the report the way they do in their press release is disingenuous. 

I think there is a public interest in knowing who is backing One Dulwich  - it is clearly a well funded operation, all those placards, posters and a well maintained website don't come cheap. Whether unwittingly or otherwise, the One Dulwich agenda is one that the Conservative party has identified as a vote winner. It could of course be entirely co incidental, and I have no problem with people campaigning for local issues they believe in, but I do have an issue with transparency and people being honest about who they are and their motives. If local senior Conservatives are involved, especially those who have run for office or plan to do so, I think we should know, so local people can make their own minds up as to who they are dealing with. 

 

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

Since the introduction of School Streets (timed restrictions on motor traffic) and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (restrictions on through traffic in residential areas) in London there has been growth in localised cycle and scooter use.

But the public accounts committee says that in many cases walking to school is now lower than pre-pandemic. Could it be that many of those cycling to school we see in the area have actually swapped from walking - which is a net loss for active travel?

 

3 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

This would be backed up locally by recent research that shows that Southwark has the second highest cycling rates in London, which would suggest that whatever our council are doing is working.

Not sure what your point is here - Southwark has always had high cycling rates - and has always scored highly in the Healthy Streets scorecard - which I am afraid to tell you is sponsored by the likes of the LCC and Sustrans and has Dr Rachel Aldred as their coalition adviser....;-)

 

3 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

I think there is a public interest in knowing who is backing One Dulwich

Have you asked them? As I said before, it only seems to be those who would rather there not be a voice of reason or another opinion beyond the council's and their active travel lobbyists in this debate who are concerned about who is behind One Dulwich. And as I said before are you pushing for the same transparency from Clean Air Dulwich, EDSTN Healthy Streets or The Friends of Dulwich Square to name but a few who sit on the other side of the debate?

Honestly, live and let live. If you don't like what they say don't waste energy trying to find a way to rationalise your distaste for what they stand for - people have any opposing view to you - well that's democracy in play. Take a leaf out of my book I find a lot of what Clean Air Dulwich puts out utterly laughable and massively hypocritical and I pigeon hole it as such! 😉 

[DulvilleRes]

There is a vast difference in the scale and impact between One Dulwich and any other group you mention. As far as I am aware, the likes of Clean Air Dulwich have never posted their press releases directly on this forum, frankly most people reading this would be scarcely aware of their existence. In contrast, the Roads and Transport section of the forum at times resembles a One Dulwich public information channel, the topics debated mirror what appears to be a campaigning strategy for One Dulwich, which in turn also has a huge overlap with some of the very current questions that former Conservative candidates for the last local election are formally asking Southwark Council. A quick Google search reveals this.

I am a huge supporter of local debate and democracy, and on that basis, I do have an issue with One Dulwich's lack of transparency. British politics at every level has been blighted by unaccountable and shadowy lobby groups, and I think it is in the local public interest we have some sense of who is actually pulling the strings in One Dulwich and where they get their cash from. If the Conservatives continue to run for local and national elections campaigning heavily on local traffic issues, the question can be asked, would they unwittingly or otherwise, benefit from One Dulwich's campaigning spend? 

I would ask One Dulwich myself some of these questions, but I saw what happened to local people who were in favour of LTN's who put their heads up. The personal targeting and intimidation from a person or persons unknown from the anti-LTN lobby was on such a level that the Police had to get involved; it was life-changingly nasty for some of the people targeted in such a way. This was on a level of seriousness for which there is no equivalence with anti-LTN signs getting pushed over, unacceptable as such behaviour was. One Dulwich as I recall rightly condemned the intimidation of the pro-LTN lobby, but given the complete opaqueness of them as an organization, I just don't know who I am dealing with, and thus rightly or wrongly reluctant to put my name out there. What is clear is One Dulwich supporters on these threads have no problems with relentless personal attacks on local councilors and academics, which is something I've always found unsettling, and certainly not in keeping with what I think should be the tone of a local discussion forum, or indeed any wider sense of neighbourliness. 

So, given the seemingly very close proximity of One Dulwich activists and some of the people who post on these threads, I am asking them again in the spirit of openness in local democracy - are former/ future Conservative councilor candidates involved in One Dulwich? Where do they get their funding from? I would ask serious questions of anyone closely aligned with the In the One Dulwich agenda over a sustained period who didn't know at least some of the answers, or was too incurious to ask.

 

     

[first mate]

What a complete and utter smear and hack job. With no evidence whatsoever. "One Dulwich activists"...hilarious. 

We've been here before. I am not a member of One Dulwich. I don't know anything about them. However, 'they' seem to have similar doubts, based on scrutiny of current supporting research, on Southwark's interventions on traffic and street management. On that basis I want to hear what they say and make my own mind up, rather than consistently being told what I should do and think by certain voices on this forum, who are wholly in support of the council's traffic interventions, as part of a wider agenda.

I find it useful to find a single voice that expresses those doubts and robustly challenges the serried ranks of council supporters which include the London Cycling Campaign (with some very active members on this forum) and the various climate change organisations, already mentioned.

You sound incredibly rattled by One Dulwich for reasons that are not entirely clear? Being the recipient of information does not make you a supporter. I hope that whoever is posting the One Dulwich statements continues to do so; it balances out the rhetoric of some of the other loud and vociferous posters who echo Council and LCC party lines.

Many of us have strong reservations about the way the council has managed its various traffic interventions. In the old days, James Barber was a regular on this forum but Cllr McAsh won't come on here. Unless you are in one of the 'special' groups where you get a direct line into the Council it is pretty difficult to get your views heard. 

[heartblock]

I know, it is hilarious the conspiracy theory that one Dulwich is some sort of cover organisation for nefarious activity...jeez. Although, if you look at the early days on twitter and the smearing by the Cycling Lobby LCC of people (teachers, nurses, mums, health visitors, WHO clean air campaigners to name a few),  who didn’t want closed roads in their area - one can see where this behaviour stems from.

Apparently they were ‘mis-informed’, anti-vaxers, climate deniers, right-wing...... well you remember. 

Its just a group of people concerned that some of theses policies don’t work and may have the opposite effect, one can choose to agree or disagree with points they make. One can even agree with one of their arguments, yet disagree with others. See how it works?

 

[ab29]

I agee with One Dulwich - they represent my views and concerns. I don't drive, don't own a car - never have - and I walk a lot. I live on a main road where the traffic has been very much worst since the so called ltn was introduced: more traffic, more noise and more air pollution. Neither southwark council nor cycling groups care.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 15/11/2023 at 21:29, Rockets said:

...at reducing traffic WITHIN LTN zones (pretty bleeding obvious) but with increases above the mean average on boundary roads....concluded using the same flawed council datasets Aldred et Al used.

 

Specifically, this study found substantial reductions in motor traffic within scheme areas, while across boundary roads there was very little aggregate change (+0.7% mean average compared to background trends). We have not attempted to calculate overall traffic reduction due to these schemes, because aggregation is affected by the number of count points, and in most cases, more counters could have hypothetically been placed (particularly on internal roads, more numerous than boundary roads). However, the results indicate that motor traffic has been reduced, and only a small proportion re-routed to boundary roads.

Of course, this isn't what it says at all. Anyone actually interested in the true picture should read the paper, which is a really thorough, and balanced meta-analysis of the data:

"...Mean falls in motor traffic on internal roads are around ten times greater than mean rises in motor traffic on boundary roads, adjusting for background trends... the results indicate that motor traffic has been reduced, and only a small proportion re-routed to boundary roads. This is suggested by the mean increase of 82 vehicles per day on each boundary road being much lower than the mean reduction of 815 vehicles on each internal road."

Edited November 26, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[ab29]

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Of course, this isn't what it says at all. Anyone actually interested in the true picture should read the paper, which is a really thorough, and balanced meta-analysis of the data:

"...Mean falls in motor traffic on internal roads are around ten times greater than mean rises in motor traffic on boundary roads, adjusting for background trends... the results indicate that motor traffic has been reduced, and only a small proportion re-routed to boundary roads. This is suggested by the mean increase of 82 vehicles per day on each boundary road being much lower than the mean reduction of 815 vehicles on each internal road."

keep dreaming

[CPR Dave]

So traffic down inside the LTN, traffic up on the boundary roads.

Something we all knew already and something that was entirely foreseeable.

These are some of the words Earl left out where he put that ellipsis in his quote...

"Specifically, this study found substantial reductions in motor traffic within scheme areas, while across boundary roads there was very little aggregate change (+0.7% mean average compared to background trends). "

[Earl Aelfheah]

I suggest you read it (I mean if you're genuinely interested in the facts and not just confirming your bias). It's quite nuanced and the narrative is interesting. But overall LTNs have reduced traffic

[first mate]

Earl, weasel words. Not many of us are buying it. We all know that within LTNs traffic is reduced...that is it. Plus we are interested in the local picture, not the general.