LTN Discussion

[heartblock]

When one looks at actual counts there are at least 2000+ extra vehicles travelling down ED Grove per day compared to pre-intervention - and this is in a background of decreasing rush hour traffic across London.

I truly believe if there had been no LTNs x 5 pushing traffic onto ED Grove the vehicle count would be lower per day compared to 2018/19 figures.

TFL have already admitted that a benchmarking exercise on 'side-roads' in 2018, made it appear as if traffic had increased on these roads and have written to FOI's that this data does not show any increase in 'side-road' traffic "No evidence of a year-on-year increase on minor roads from independent data over the preceding decade" from 2008-2018.

Flawed data used to increase traffic on already polluted roads.

Well done Southwark Council.

[exdulwicher]

TFL have already admitted that a benchmarking exercise on 'side-roads' in 2018, made it appear as if traffic had increased on these roads and have written to FOI's that this data does not show any increase in 'side-road' traffic "No evidence of a year-on-year increase on minor roads from independent data over the preceding decade" from 2008-2018.

Flawed data used to increase traffic on already polluted roads.

It's not TfL, it's DfT.

Benchmarking is done every 10 years or so in order to account for cumulative errors that can occur as well as factors such as: new developments, changes in land use, changes to the road layout and so on. You can read about it here, I'm not going to re-type it all!

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/916034/2019-minor-road-benchmarking-frequency-asked-questions.pdf

this is in a background of decreasing rush hour traffic across London.

Wrong again. Vehicle miles travelled in Great Britain have had year-on-year growth in each year between 2010 and 2019. However, the sharp decrease in 2020 has resulted in traffic estimates that are lower than the 2010 levels. Therefore, to say traffic has fallen over the last decade would misconstrue, as the overall decrease is entirely due to the decline in traffic levels observed in the 2020 estimates. I've said before that Covid has messed up the modelling.

You can see DfT's counts for Southwark here:

https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/local-authorities/103

There's also a data disclaimer on there:

Traffic figures at the regional and national level are robust, and are reported as National Statistics. However, DfT?s traffic estimates for individual road links and small areas are less robust, as they are not always based on up-to-date counts made at these locations. Where other more up-to-date sources of traffic data are available (e.g. from local highways authorities), this may provide a more accurate estimate of traffic at these locations.

Counts from DfT, TfL and Southwark themselves won't always align so it's important to check which ones are estimates, which are actual counts and the methodology behind them.

[legalalien]

I could be wrong but I think heartblock is referring to TfL's FoI responses/ position on the DfT benchmarking exercise. See for example,

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-1884-2021.

It doesn't sound as if DfT or TfL have particularly comprehensive data, reading some of the emails on there.

[heartblock]

Thank you legalalien, yes that FOI was interesting and yes the benchmarking was an exercise by DfT, but this is from TfL, as the information is from TfL's 2021 report - Travel In London Report 14, which was a comprehensive report that included section 7.2 Overall Trends For All Traffic In London.

It uses DfT figures and graphically shows the 'blip' in 2018/2019 benchmarking event.

In the report - pages 143-145, commentary is made about how this statistical benchmarking event resulted in a false 60% rise in traffic on side-roads that was not "an actual observed trend".

Traffic has not risen year by year on side roads and DfT after being alerted by TfL that their data which falsely indicated a rise, was being used to drive policy, are now reviewing their minor roads estimation methodology for future data.

[Rockets]

And many of the pro LTN lobbyists at all levels have been using that side-road "increase" figure as a rational for LTNs.

In the same way that folks come on here waving the Dulwich monitoring numbers as proof of the success of the scheme without paying any attention to whether the data is accurate or at all trustworthy.

The council knows that if they put "good" numbers out they will stick with their supporters and their supporters will never ask for anything to support the figures.

It's called spin. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story and all that!

[legalalien]

I?ve just been skimming through a planning application for a new building in Rotherhithe as it?s interesting to see how Southwark?s ?car free? borough policy feeds through to some of these

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s105163/ROTHNEWROAD_VG_%20final%20V7.pdf

Interested to see just how little provision is made for ?visitor parking? (cars or cycles) to these new developments, and also the interaction between the council and TfL on modelled changes to local trips. Here, looks as though Southwark allowed for a small increase in private vehicle journeys and TfL have come back and told them that ALL trips have to be allocated to sustainable travel modes. I?m not sure what that means for any disabled residents. Southwark seems to contemplate two disabled parking bays but these are only ?potential?. Many of the new developments seem to be taking a similar approach. If public transport was perfect and convenient everywhere I guess this might work, but. Given the current financial state of TfL and the question mark over the Bakerloo Line extension (not relevant to this particular devt, but is for all the ones on the Old Kent Road), I do wonder what will happen.

[heartblock]

I imagine that residents with a disability or are less mobile, will be told by certain lobby groups to 'try harder' when it comes to 'active travel' and by Southwark to use buses, when bus routes are being cut.

Meanwhile those with private garages and drives for private parking, living in gated roads can continue to be rewarded for their good luck and wealth by this poorly planned policy based on erroneous information.

I note that the Feb Dulwich Streetspace Review, admits two things

1. ED Grove Central has only been monitored since Sept 2021

2. They are going to "Explore measures to improve traffic conditions along ED Grove"

What does that tell me? Firstly as I have been saying there is no pre-LTN data for so called ED Central, which seems to be a point on the road rather than a stretch of road, so therefore all this spin about a fall in traffic is an exercise in justifying keeping Melbourne Grove closed

and

I would think if after 2 years of the flawed LTN implementation there is still need to 'improve traffic conditions' then this tells me that at least for ED Grove the traffic and pollution is much worse that pre-LTNs - especially taking into account the drops in traffic across London (from the same TfL 2021 report) - "plateaued across all areas, at a lower level than before".

[legalalien]

I found ?improve traffic conditions? a bit ambiguous, I have to say. It might for example mean putting a bike lane down East Dulwich Grove, heedless of any effect on congestion.

[Metallic]

Goldilocks: do you live in an LTN?

[singalto]

I am a Blue badge holder and, according to the latest leaflet from Southwark I can ?apply for exemptions across all of our Streetspace schemes, borough-wide with the exception of the closure at the Dulwich Village, Court Lane and Carlton Avenue junction. Does that means I can go into a LTN? Use a bus gate during the restricted hours? I still don?t understand why there is a bus gate from Calton Avenue to EDG when there is no bus route on Townley Rd.

[Rockets]

Just reading the Streetspace propaganda flyer that dropped through our door (it's as close to an admission they made a mess of this as you'll ever get) and what does it mean when it says: Improved access for emergency services

And then goes on to say:

Replacement cameras mean there is new additional access for emergency vehicles to and from Carlton Avenue, Dulwich Village, Court Lane and Derwent Grove.

[legalalien]

I think they will be moving planters and putting in cameras so that emergency services can go through.

Strange they?re having to do this when the emergency services were consulted from the outset and were perfectly happy with the closures.

Oh that?s right - they weren?t.

[legalalien]

On a related note if anyone is visited by canvassers, worth interrogating them about parking policy as well as LTNs, from earlier discussions the borough wide imposition of a CPZ is something planned but being put off until after the election. Was interested to see that the countryside charity is now also on a mission to reduce residential parking in London - even front garden parking.

We have to be in compact cities to save the countryside, among other rationales.

https://www.cprelondon.org.uk/news/why-boroughs-need-to-re-assess-parking-policy-now/

[tiddles]

Oh dear lord what a bloody nightmare?

[legalalien]

The delayed presentation/ interrogation of Cllrs Rose and Burgess about their respective portfolios is on the agenda for next Monday?s meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7273&x=1

A good test of whether the LDs can come up with some properly incisive questions to ask - which for me is key to my vote in May.

I?d like to see some properly thought out detailed questions about the whereabouts of raw data, choice of data points and presentation of data, for example.

[Rockets]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> I think they will be moving planters and putting

> in cameras so that emergency services can go

> through.

>

> Strange they?re having to do this when the

> emergency services were consulted from the outset

> and were perfectly happy with the closures.

>

> Oh that?s right - they weren?t.

Yes a lot of the Streetspace newsletter is very carefully worded - plenty of use of the words "generally" and "most" in relation to traffic on main roads etc - a significant shift from the phrases used by the likes of Cllr McAsh at the outset about "all" and "every" road benefitting.

The reduction in the timed access is a clear demonstration that the measures have not worked as originally hyped.

[Metallic]

For some reason I haven't received that Streetspace newsletter. Was it posted or just put through the letterbox?

[legalalien]

I got mine at about 7am Saturday morning hand delivered (no envelope)

[DulvilleRes]

'The reduction in the timed access is a clear demonstration that the measures have not worked as originally hyped'

Isn't it more like a clear demonstration that the Council has listened to concerns from residents voiced during the consultation, and made some sensible adjustments?

[Rockets]

No, because most of the concerns voiced by residents said remove the closures. So that makes what they are suggesting both an admission that the measures did not deliver what was promised (else why make any changes at all) and nothing more than political tokenism....but personal opinions on that may differ from whichever side of the planters people live!

Let's be honest many of those most vocal on here in their unwavering support of the closures live on the closed roads and have benefitted the most.

[oldermum]

The possible course for further action is that it has breached the Equalities Act by failing to consider appropriately the needs of those who are defined as having 'protected characteristics" under the act. The act isn't flawless but does include age (any age, not just the elderly) and those with disabilities who could be thought to be disproportionally affected because some people in those groups will have limited mobility and won't be able to walk for long distances, cycle and have difficulty using public transport. There are many other protected characteristics including gender and race, but it is harder to see how they could apply. Southwark has now agreed to exempt Blue Badge holders (very strict mobility criteria - can't walk more then 250 yards on most days), but only those who live in Southwark. The congestion charge is not applied to any Blue Badge holder, no matter where they live.

There is no time like an election year to get the interest of your local councillor. There will also be an election within the Labour Party to decide who succeeds Harriet Harman at some point...

[legalalien]

Thought I had posted earlier but didn?t work, clearly. Conways are at Court / Calton this morning moving planters around to make way for ambulances etc.

[legalalien]

And don?t forget that Southwark has also imposed the socioeconomic duty on itself

https://justfair.org.uk/southwark-council-amends-constitution-to-include-socio-economic-duty/

(Before anyone jumps in to mention any general studies, Southwark has to have regard to that duty in its own decision making. Properly, not just a mention in the decision making report to tick a box. I?m yet to be convinced that has happened).

oldermum Wrote:

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

> The possible course for further action is that it

> has breached the Equalities Act by failing to

> consider appropriately the needs of those who are

> defined as having 'protected characteristics"

> under the act. The act isn't flawless but does

> include age (any age, not just the elderly) and

> those with disabilities who could be thought to be

> disproportionally affected because some people in

> those groups will have limited mobility and won't

> be able to walk for long distances, cycle and have

> difficulty using public transport. There are many

> other protected characteristics including gender

> and race, but it is harder to see how they could

> apply. Southwark has now agreed to exempt Blue

> Badge holders (very strict mobility criteria -

> can't walk more then 250 yards on most days), but

> only those who live in Southwark. The congestion

> charge is not applied to any Blue Badge holder, no

> matter where they live.

> There is no time like an election year to get the

> interest of your local councillor. There will also

> be an election within the Labour Party to decide

> who succeeds Harriet Harman at some point...

[Rockets]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Thought I had posted earlier but didn?t work,

> clearly. Conways are at Court / Calton this

> morning moving planters around to make way for

> ambulances etc.

Thank goodness - they have been delaying response times significantly despite the claims to the contrary from the pro-LTN lobby. The way the council have treated constituents has been shameful but the way they ignored the input from emergency services about not physically closing roads has clearly been endangering lives and is utterly unforgiveable. Putting ideology ahead of constituent safety is a massive blot on their collective copy books and I hope someone is held to account for ignoring the pleas of the emergency services to remove them sooner.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

DulvilleRes Wrote:

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

> 'The reduction in the timed access is a clear

> demonstration that the measures have not worked as

> originally hyped'

>

> Isn't it more like a clear demonstration that the

> Council has listened to concerns from residents

> voiced during the consultation, and made some

> sensible adjustments?

That's exactly right, but the hardcore on here are chucking an epic tantrum because they didn't get things exactly their way. Compromise or fixing congestion and pollution isn't what they're interested in. Anything less than total removal of all aspects of the LTN is unacceptable to them, regardless of the data, the facts, or the opinions of anyone else. OneDulwich was categorically against all new traffic measures during the consultation, and it hasn't changed its mind since.