LTN Discussion

[Rockets]

I think it is incumbent on everyone, for or against the measures, to challenge the council to share data that makes it crystal clear what is happening rather than dealing in half-truths and being deliberately obtuse with the data that they present to residents as fact.

It is clear they are manipulating the data for their own advantage and we should all be very concerned by this - it's a very worrying trend.

Is it not about time there was a public meeting on this where they share the data - they seem to have manipulated the pandemic to ensure they don't actually have to arrange any public meetings about anything anymore.

Wasn't the last one they had that abomination of a meeting at the library to talk about the CPZs?

[goldilocks]

Can't even agree with this Rockets - i don't think 'its clear they're manipulating data for their own advantage' - i can't get past that its just general underwhelming levels of competence in terms of being able to arrange the process by which it all needs to be shared.

I share your frustration, but not your conspiracy theories. I have written to Cllr Rose and requested the data be shared though. You'll be unsurprised to hear that I haven't had a response .

[heartblock]

The ATC data is available, although frustratingly, you do have to go onto the map site, find the ATC's then go into individual folders and then find the actual counts yourself. Quite why Southwark has not tabulated all this data in a simple excel spreadsheet is up for interpretation. As the ACTUAL counts do not appear to fit into Southwark's publicised message that traffic has reduced on boundary roads - I can only assume that if data is easily accessible then residents would clearly see the massive holes in Southwark's published 'facts'.

It would also be great for them to explain how they modelled some of the figures and why they made certain assumptions.

ALSO - where is the data showing the peak levels of NOx and PM - the trigger for Ella's fatal asthma attack was a particularly high peak level of pollutants. One only needs a hot sunny day and high NOx and PM to set off a young child's asthma attack while walking past idling traffic on ED Grove - do Southwark actually give a s**t about the health of our CYP living and walking/cycling on Croxted, LL, Grove Vale and ED Grove?

[goldilocks]

It isn't though Heartblock. Some of the data is available - but not all. For example nothing later than September 2021 on any road, and some of the earlier stuff is 'patchy'

[heartblock]

Nope - all the ATC data is available - just go to maps- 2016 to Sept 2021. Shows where ALL ATCs are and actual counts. Also shows the ones that stopped recording. Just go and look for yourself.

It's patchy - you are correct - but this is because they have only recorded data on those dates. There IS no other data. That is why they have had to model and make assumptions.

Now - are they going to model and make assumptions that proves spending all that money hasn't actually worked.....just before an election? Are they going to say that their data collection is inadequate....just before an election.

What if LTNs have increased traffic, have increased pollution, have increased bus journey time, haven't made any difference to numbers walking and cycling locally- would you be pleased they spent this money? would you be pleased they published 'facts' that are not true, would you be pleased they have caused division and pitted neighbour against neighbour...

I think many living in their gated roads wouldn't even care..nice quiet road, a rise in house price and can still drive one of their cars, maybe the BMW or Range Rover on polluted roads, while maintaining a holier than thou support of a failed, greenwashing project.

[goldilocks]

I was talking about Oct / nov / dec / jan 2021/22 This data is collected and not available on the site. THey weren't stopped, its been confirmed they are still collating info.

[Rockets]

Looks like Southwark councillors are, amongst others, coming under pressure on their failure to adequately meet the demand for cycle hangers and storage. Their lack of investment in the most basic of infrastructure to support modal shift has been really quite shocking - keen to close the roads, less keen to put facilities in place for those who don't own a huge house with a side-return and place to easily store a bike...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60835416

[heartblock]

Confirmed...by whom? Do you believe them?

[Bic Basher]

They've added some on the Lordship Lane Estate.

[goldilocks]

Confirmed - it was in the last newsletter that data was being collected - the ATC strips that are down are collecting data, once they're finished they get removed

[Rockets]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> Can't even agree with this Rockets - i don't think

> 'its clear they're manipulating data for their own

> advantage' - i can't get past that its just

> general underwhelming levels of competence in

> terms of being able to arrange the process by

> which it all needs to be shared.

>

> I share your frustration, but not your conspiracy

> theories. I have written to Cllr Rose and

> requested the data be shared though. You'll be

> unsurprised to hear that I haven't had a response

> .

They have clearly manipulated data and the whole process. Let's look at the manipulation, or incompetence, rap sheet:

- The manipulation of the original OHS process where the council allowed vested-interest lobby groups like the LCC to dominated the discussion

- The use of Covid "social distancing measures" to allow them to circumvent the results of the OHS consultation to force the LTN measures through

- The council putting monitoring strips in on only the closed roads in the first instance

- The council then being forced to expand monitoring but they omitted key displacement routes like Underhill Road only to add them a long time after the monitoring started

- The council then moving some of the monitoring strips from original locations (like the one near Court Lane on Lordship Lane that moved down near Melford after some months) to give them more advantageous results

- The repeated claims that emergency services had been consulted and were supportive of the closures when the exaqct opposite was true

- The lack of any sort of public debate or forum in the initial stages due to Covid

- Once they finally gave in and organised some resident calls (like the Melbourne Grove one) they manipulated those calls to "randomly" select residents to speak who just happened to be the people behind groups like Clean Air for Dulwich and EDSTN lobby group and gave them a platform at the expense of others. They clearly changed their tactics after the first Zoom call which I believe was the Dulwich Hill ward call where they lost control of the narrative as most on the call were against the measures

- The muting of chat functions on wider council calls

- The blatant manipulation of the "consultation" process from the initial plans to only consult within the LTN area (which they relented on following constituent pressure) to the conclusions they reached despite an overwhelming majority of respondents saying they did not want the measures

- The extension of the deadline for the initial consultation to allow Labour councillors to go door-to-door touting flawed data to try to influence the result (which of course failed spectacularly)

- The presentation of flawed, incomplete or carefully selected data in relation to the LTN monitoring in the Streetspace materials

- The complete omission of the at least 7% reduction in traffic across the whole of Southwark in their monitoring data (bar a brief mention in the opening blah blah blah)

- The use of 3rd party cycling data from "independent" sources within the monitoring process - those independent sources are believed to be Anna Goodman, who data was torn apart upon close analysis. The same Anna Goodman who publishes paper after paper with Rachel Aldred lauding the greatness of LTNs and is seen as part of the pro-cycle lobby. So they can hardly claim that cycling data was independent.

- The continued presentation of data in Streetspace flyers that stimulates more questions than answers as it desperately tries to paint a picture of positivity around the LTNs

And these are just the examples that spring to mind and I am sure there are plenty of others. One of two could be put down to "oversights" or incompetence but the weight of examples suggests the council has been willingly trying to manipulate the process to their advantage from the outset.

And by the looks of the latest Streetspace flyer they are continuing to do so.

[heartblock]

Newsletter.

[heartblock]

The concept of LTNs is shameful. There are few, if any, traffic measures I can think of which so cynically push traffic on to other streets so some areas can benefit.

[goldilocks]

That is your view that you have repeatedly made. The alternative approach is that they're a tiny step in what needs to be an overhaul of the dominance of private car travel in our cities and provide some safer routes for active travel. They are by no means enough but they are a small step towards encouraging people to change their travel habits and make driving a less convenient option.

[Spartacus]

Devil's advocate time

Do we need exclusive safe routes for active travel

Or

Better use of shared space for everyone ?

Are cars the devil's some people portray them to be or is it how they are driven ?

Maybe alternatives to closing off streets to all for the benefits of a few need to be weighed up to see if there is a better way of safely sharing ?

As others have said, an LTN is a blunt tool and with creative thinking and planning there could be alternatives

In Germany 25 years ago around some schools, they removed the kerb to blend the pavement and the road, making it hard for drivers to "own" the road, as a result drivers were more cautious and slower through these areas.

Possibly not a wider area solution but it was creative.

How about instead of everyone arguing over if LTNs are right or wrong, the community on here puts their creative head together to suggest ways the space can be shared sensibly and safely.

After all, as the street space review said "people need to use other forms of transport to be able to travel, such as private cars". So let's look how to implement a scheme or schemes that benefits all not just a few and mitigates the I'm right, you're wrong type arguments.

[heartblock]

Actually not my view - but I copied and pasted the view of the Chair Campaign for Better Transport and the UK Noise Association and the Vice President of the UECNA.

[heartblock]

And if you look at a gated road..they are full of parked cars - nice Ferrari, a Maserati and a few other nice cars on Calton.. car storage for the wealthy...hardly reducing car use.

[march46]

You see that @heartblock, other people see the huge increase (7 times) in children using Calton to safely get to school.

[Spartacus]

And back to bickering rather than debating creative solutions

Strewth 🙄

[heartblock]

Creative solutions

1. Efficient cheap green local transport (PTAL Dulwich very poor)

2. Reduction in council tax for anyone with no car or one car, increase if two cars

3. Road tax

4. Council 'taxi' service for anyone with mobility issues

5. Policing of parents parking in no parking zones to drop off and pick up kids from schools (rife on ED Grove - idling cars every afternoon)

6. Open up all roads - stop road parking on at least one side of all roads and add an elevated cycling lane

7. Private Schools insist children must come by PT or school coach

[SE22_2020er]

1. Controlled parking zones throughout East Dulwich balanced with an increase in Blue Badge zones for disabled drivers who have no alternative but driving

2. Remove parking on East Dulwich Grove and replace with a proper cycle lane

3. Double yellow lines around JAGs and Alleyns to stop ability of people to drop off children

4. Multiple Signage along East Dulwich grove to show impact of pollution on residents

5. Remove parking spaces along Lordship Lane - 15 min unloading and blue badge parking only

[Rockets]

march46 Wrote:

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

> You see that @heartblock, other people see the

> huge increase (7 times) in children using Calton

> to safely get to school.

But is this sufficient to justify the damage being done elsewhere? Are you suggesting that all of those children were being driven before? And can you clarify the 7x - it's all well and good throwing x's around but if the base was tiny then a 7x increase still makes it a small number. I know the council loves to throw an x into their documents but it means nothing without the baseline.

I spend a lot of time on Calton during the day and yes, there is a plethora of kids on bikes at drop-off and pick-up (and this is a good thing) but then, for the rest of the day you see the occasional Uber bike and the member of the lycra racing club heading out for a lunch-break cycle - yes on the boundary roads being impacted by the displacement heavy traffic is a constant with peaks of nose-to-tail at rush-hour times. Again, can that be justified? It seems to be that the negatives far outweigh the positives.

[heartblock]

2. Remove parking on East Dulwich Grove and replace with a proper cycle lane - yes I agree for the section from Melbourne to Townley, the back of the Dutch Estate is under-used, so ED Grove residents could access and use if they own a car and maybe restrict to one side at the the far ends to one side. Otherwise parking might become an issue on Melbourne etc. as EDG residents try and park on these roads.

I think if roads like Calton/Gilkes have garages, drives and street parking, it does seem a little unfair to have parking for multiple cars for the wealthiest in the borough and no access to parking for less well-off....It is an interesting conversation though - the 'right' to park and the 'right' to drive. Although I agree with road pricing, one can see that the poorer one is the less access to anything increases..

[Spartacus]

Good starting points, thank you

[heartblock]

And I think priority bus lanes and walking routes...as a percentage most people walk or take public transport. Maybe lots and lots of empty cycle lanes during the day are not the complete answer, despite LCC being one of the main lobby groups for LTNs. I think Calton and Melbourne would be great local mini- bus routes plus a cycle lane on one side, connecting to an elevated shared walking cycle route on ED Grove with one way for cars and a dedicated bus lane.