One Dulwich have met with Cllr McAsh

[first mate]

21 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It's good to hear that they have concluded LTNs are effective in general though, and are no longer disputing existing research

Don't know how you concluded that? Who is "they"?

Any of us might support the idea of LTNs in principle, who would choose congested streets over those that are not? However, success varies according to area. Thus far, the negative aspects of local LTNs are being written off as either lies, imaginary, cognitive biases or driven by a political agenda. Holes in data have been identified by OD, thus far Cllr McAsh has not denied this is the case. Many of us look forward to his response.

Edited June 29, 2023 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

I took it from what you said... that they (one Dulwich) are only asking for data specific to the ED area, rather than research what draws on other boroughs. The implication is that they accept the existing research, but just want more data specific to Dulwich. The good news is that there is lots of data specific to the Dulwich LTN, and it consistently shows drops in car use (which we know One Dulwich are strongly in favour of). They will be pleased. 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

If, as the name indicates, OD are interested in the impact of local LTNs and have asked for data only around that, that certainly does not imply they accept all the  other research. That is quite a leap; because I don't focus on and question all your research output on a subject you can safely conclude I accept it!?

OD assert the local data is incomplete and therefore results not necessarily valid. Cllr McAsh is to look into this, something I doubt he would do if it was the open and shut case you suggest.

Edited June 29, 2023 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

So if they don't accept the existing body of research, or any of the existing (not insubstantial) data. Exactly what makes you think that they'll accept any new data, should it happen not to show what they want it to?

I am still very keen to know what OD would do to reduce cars use, improve road safety and encourage more walking and cycling (which they're definitely, really supportive of)? 

[first mate]

They don't accept existing conclusions because they assert data is missing and therefore re-evaluation is required. This is pretty standard stuff and no mystery to it. As I said, were Cllr McAsh sure they were incorrect about missing data I doubt he would waste time looking into it.

[Rockets]

Earl - you need to do better research - a bit like your claim a few months ago that cycling had increased by 40% much of what you post is unsubstantiated, baseless and parroted from the pro-LTN narrative. You are trying to throw doubt on the sources of the details I posted but they come from Southwark themselves (well the company that they employ to monitor called Systra).

 

You will find the document on the SOuthwark website here (page 11): https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101515/Appendix C 6 - Dulwich Streetspace FAQs.pdf

 

The 20% rise in car use on the A205 post LTN implementation is interesting isn't it - being based on GPS data is interesting as well as it can't be fudged or manipulated like some other monitoring collection. Interesting too is that the council didn't put any actions in place to further investigate that 20% rise (although interesting that the council narrative did start to change about how A roads are designed for higher volumes of traffic as if boundary roads need to be considered the sacrificial lambs for LTNs) - there are huge swathes of Dulwich LTN boundary roads that have never properly been monitored (A205, Underhill Road etc) - can you hazard a guess as to why that might be?

 

Also your claim that the LTN data for Dulwich "consistently shows a drop in car use" is also unsubstantiated, baseless and wrong. Anyone who looks at the Streetspace dashboard can see for themselves the patterns and trends - and this completely negates the council's promise of reducing traffic for all - interesting again that, since the trend for traffic on the dashboard started to worsen, the council has stop providing updates and has removed most of the monitoring strips - again, no explanation from the council as to why:

 

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/traffic-data-analysis

 

All of the above is why One Dulwich want to council to share more data and do more rigorous analysis because the picture is far from complete and basing conclusions on conjecture, hearsay or what you hope is happening is not a true reflection of what is actually happening. As I said before politicians like nothing more than to reset and recalibrate when they can blame someone else for previous failings and it may well be that Cllr Rose's departure is the catalyst for a long overdue reset on how the council manage this - bottom line is the current LTNs will not be removed but we can all hope those who are living with the LTN displacement get fairer treatment from the council moving forward.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Do you really buy the idea that groups like One Dulwich have any interest in reducing car use? In areas where they've successfully campaigned to have LTNs removed, they have quickly disbanded. Removing restrictions on car use is really all they care about. And it is very clear that removing restrictions on car use, increases car use. 

@rockets - I note that you omitted the conclusion on the South Circular: "It is therefore hard to draw a firm conclusion about how traffic volumes on the South Circular have changed since the implementation of the Streetspace measures."

...also, what are you looking at on the data dashboard? It shows consistent drops in vehicle counts across the area.

You cannot seriously be arguing that existing research and data does not show that LTNs reduce car use?! You're desperately looking for single data points whilst ignoring a large and consistent body of evidence. 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[exdulwicher]

25 minutes ago, Rockets said:

All of the above is why One Dulwich want to council to share more data and do more rigorous analysis because the picture is far from complete and basing conclusions on conjecture, hearsay or what you hope is happening is not a true reflection of what is actually happening. 

No, you want to tie everyone and everything up in hyper micro scrutiny of active travel schemes and argue interminably about individual sensors and 15-min traffic counts.

It doesn't work like that - it's at the macro level that you see the effects most clearly and all the evidence at a macro level for every city that's implemented these sort of measures is that they work.

Problems arise when you don't go far enough - the more exemptions and caveats that you put in, the less well the system works. 

Paris for example has achieved a 40% reduction in traffic and a 45% decrease in air pollution in less than 10 years thanks entirely to it's active travel policies. 

[Rockets]

Earl - really....I did not omit the "It is therefore hard to draw.." line form my original post did I? Come on, you're really clutching now.

 

Do you always take everything spoon-fed to you as fact ? Surely if GPS data was showing a 20% increase in car traffic post LTN measures then you can start to form a conclusion or it certainly warrants further investigation - what Systra wrote is a classic: "move along please there's nothing to see here"? It's a 20% smoking gun!

 

Honestly, spend some time on the data dashboard and look at the direction of travel of all of the car volumes on boundary roads in particular (you may notice the upward trajectory after summer drops)  and ask yourself why the council might have stopped monitoring and publishing the data. More roads had been turning red each time they published it.

One Dulwich's dialogue with Cllr McAsh may come to absolutely nothing but it is clear it is really worrying the pro-LTN lobby  - surely if the results have been as good as they claim then there is nothing to be afraid of and they should be welcoming it?

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

The data dashboard shows traffic has fallen as a result of the LTN. Anyone is free to look at it, so very little point in claiming otherwise Rockets.

I am so bored of the tactics of:

• Using anecdotes to cast doubt on the evidence
• Focusing on single datapoints while ignoring the weight of evidence from more comprehensive studies
• Trying to undermine the credibility of data collection methods, by highlighting flaws that scientists are well aware of and already take into account
• Launching personal attacks on scientists carrying out the relevant research

As with 'One Dulwich' I actually find it very difficult to believe that you have any interest in reducing car use. 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Earl - no it doesn't - the fact you claim that the dashboard shows that traffic has fallen "as a result of the LTN" shows just how much of the pro-LTN Kool-Aid you have been drinking and how you are moulding information to fit your narrative - something you seem more than happy to accuse others who don't subscribe to your viewpoint.

What the the dashboard actually shows is that from around 2022 traffic, in many places, was lower than pre-pandemic levels but has been increasing and, on some roads, close to or exceeding the pre-pandemic levels - the overall direction of travel is an upward trend in traffic levels on many roads monitored during 2022. Of course the means and location of monitoring strips used to collect the data also throws some doubt on whether these numbers are artificially lower due to the sub 10kph issue but that's another discussion completely.

In light of this and per the earlier conversation on TFL boundary roads this is also very telling from the dashboard that:

Traffic has been rising across Southwark since the end of the 2021 COVID-19 lockdown, and was at 93% of pre-COVID levels in April 2022 at count points in the north of the borough, and above pre-COVID levels on the TfL network near Dulwich.

 

Let's hope Cllr McAsh provides some of the data to fill in the blanks

 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Rockets

[Bic Basher]

In any case, I don't trust the measurement of the traffic because they don't count standing vehicles which is more common where I am.

[northernmonkey]

 

For the avoidance of doubt - the latest data dashboard we have shows virtually all traffic counts were lower than pre covid and for those that weren't lower than pre covid, they had fallen between Sept 2021 and Sept 2022

 

The exception for this were Townley road and Burbage - which incidentally is where campaigning from 1D and similar resulted in the hours of the restrictions being reduced between Sept 21 and 22! 

 

[Rockets]

Virtually all is not all though is it - and remember the council (Cllr McAsh in particular) said the measures could only be considered a success if traffic for all was reduced. And the trend in the data in the dashboard (the devil is in the detail and all that) suggests that many other roads were heading toward the red category before the council stopped updating the dashboard and removed many, if not all, of the monitoring strips.

These are not doubt some of the many questions that will be put to Cllr McAsh as the engagement with One Dulwich continues - as I have said before what comes of it who knows Cllr McAsh seems to have his heart in the right place and was trying to be pragmatic in the early days of the LTNs but I sense had to toe the party line as the pressure mounted. Only Cllr Burgess seemed to be more vocal in her questioning of the impact on the plans and measures.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rockets 

The data shows that the LTNs have reduced overall traffic.

Anyway, what I'm interested in knowing is...assuming that you were successful in getting restrictions on car use removed (which we know would lead to more car use), what would you then want to happen? I assume you'd campaign for something else which would be as effective, if not more effective in reducing car use? So what is that thing?

I'm a little cynical because in all the areas where 'One' groups have been successful in removing LTNs, they have followed it up with... nothing. Traffic has increased and they've all slunk off into the shadows, in their SUVs. It makes it very difficult to take their claims to support a reduction in car use seriously, when their actions suggest that really they're in favour of more, unencumbered car use.

[malumbu]

Are One Dulwich campaigning for an increase in fuel duty, to fund, say hospitals, schools, decent pay rises for public servants such as nurses, as well as some substance to zero carbon?  No??? What about those of you who are against LTN's, what do you reckon?  I'll post this on the lounge too.

[first mate]

Going off piste again Mal.

[northernmonkey]

Sorry @Rockets but  you can't just state that data shows something it very clearly doesn't. 

1.  " And the trend in the data in the dashboard (the devil is in the detail and all that) suggests that many other roads were heading toward the red category before the council stopped updating the dashboard and removed many, if not all, of the monitoring strips."  This just isn't remotely true by looking at this data.  There are 2 columns, one showing a comparison to pre Covid (eg 2019 data) and one showing a comparison to 2021 traffic (just in case there was a concern that comparing to pre covid meant that the comparison wasn't reasonable).  BOTH metrics show a fall. 

The 2 points showing a year on year increase were those where the actions of lobbying by One Dulwich and the like had resulted in the hours of the filtering times being reduced.  So there is a clear correlation between the filters and the reduction in traffic and a clear link in the opposite direction when removed. 

The only other point is the EDG E which will always be difficult to fully reduce without reintroducing cut throughs from EDG to GV and so the only way there is to reduce traffic overall - and the year on year monitoring shows that this is actually happening. 

I don't think that the council has stopped monitoring because the data doesn't support traffic reduction any more, but rather they don't monitor in perpetuity and there has been extensive monitoring in Dulwich which has shown clearly that traffic has reduced. 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

7 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

No, you want to tie everyone and everything up in hyper micro scrutiny of active travel schemes and argue interminably about individual sensors and 15-min traffic counts.

It doesn't work like that - it's at the macro level that you see the effects most clearly and all the evidence at a macro level for every city that's implemented these sort of measures is that they work.

This is exactly right. OneDulwich's tactic from the beginning has been to create FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) by madly banging out long and anonymous screeds of utter cobblers about data.

There is no data that is good enough for him - I mean, them - because their objection is not to the data. The point is to drag you into their mire of nonsense. OneDulwich is Internet Reply Guy #6, the Sealion: https://twitter.com/i/events/1041376202391343104?lang=en

And ultimately any data that doesn't fit their prejudices, they disregard:

 

5 hours ago, Bic Basher said:

In any case, I don't trust the measurement of the traffic because they don't count standing vehicles which is more common where I am.

[Rockets]

Northern - as I said the devil is in the detail - look beyond the summary page at the charts below the summary - the traffic data analysis interactive charts. Click on the individual streets and looks at the graph trends and look at some of the trends - some are heading upward aren't they?

 

The summary page also has a very interesting use of colour - seemingly orange for any increases below 5% and red for any increases over 5 % yet green for any decrease - even very low decreases - clever use of colour to help the narrative.

 

You "don't think the council has stopped monitoring because"....surely the council should be telling us why they are no longer monitoring - it just stopped, without any warning, no update from Sept 22 and then many of the strips removed. Do they consider it job done, that the measures have now "bedded-in".  Without clearly communicating why they stopped they open themselves up for attack - especially given the pressure on other councils who have admitted the data is not accurate.

 

The council should have been publishing the next raft of monitoring data on the dashboard around the time Enfield council had to admit the monitoring strips had been under-counting slow moving vehicles (and admit that their contractors had been deliberately ignoring the manufacturer's usage guidelines when it came to placing them).  Given Southwark had moved many of the monitoring strips closer to junctions (see the one that was very close to Melford Road) maybe they decided that they had to stop monitoring and remove the strips in case they were going to have to admit that had been, ahem, accidentally putting them in the wrong places.

 

At the end of the day I reserve the right to be sceptical about anything they do in relation to LTNs because this is the council that:

- brought these measures in under the guise of social distancing

- initially decided to only monitor within the closed roads (and had to be forced to monitor outside of the closed road)

- repeatedly ignored the input from emergency services on immovable barriers and put lives at risk as a result and kept doubling down on it

- created a consultation response document that only allowed people to be supportive of the measures

- removed monitoring on Underhill Road early in the process even though it was a clear displacement route and refused to monitor it

- extended the consultation deadline and sent squads of activists to lobby residents (many of whom were on the Labour party rolodex) into responding

- moved monitoring strips closer to junctions to ensure they were in areas of slow moving traffic

- created the EDG Central debacle with some bizarre modelling dreamt up by goodness knows who

- got angry and aggressive and reduced TFL staff to tears because TFL dared state in a report that congestion was being caused  by the Dulwich LTNS and refused to remove it

- dreamt up the idea to close Turney Road with a proposal so expensive it was the same as all of the other programmes combined and got laughed out of the room as a result

 

....to name but a few....and there are no doubt plenty more so there's more than enough to suggest we should trust them about as much as we trust the Tories! 😉

But despite my whining I am happy One Dulwich is getting a hearing with Cllr McAsh and I know a lot of other people are too so I expect we will be hearing more from them over the coming months.

 

 

[northernmonkey]

I normally don't bother responding to you Rockets because you have your narrative and you don't want to listen to anything else.  Also you do love to post.  However on this occasion i will respond, just in case anyone is reading and thinking 'oh he must really know what he's talking about, he's looked at the data'.  Let me be clear.

The underlying data does not show lots of increases - it shows an overall trend downwards.

The central strip monitoring on EDG isn't a fiction - but you know this and i know this but it suits your narrative to suggest that it is.  We've been over it so many times that anyone remotely interested (of which there are vanishingly few people who aren't posting on this thread) can go back and look. 

Finally on monitoring - there has been years of monitoring - at some point it ends.  The council has limited resources.  Other areas haven't had the same amount of data analysis.  Also - as your thread has shown, its a pointless waste of time and money because no matter what the data says, you don't believe it and it just encourages micro analysis of distinct data points to make your point, disregarding any overall analysis anyway. 

[Rockets]

We'll agree to disagree but thanks for taking the time to respond - that's the beauty of debates - you don't have to agree!

I will say this though for a group of folks so steadfastly sure you are right about the data and what's been happening you're all seemingly a little tetchy about Cllr McAsh engaging with One Dulwich - which does make me chuckle and suggests you know it's not as clearcut as you would like it to be....all many of us have ever wanted is for the council to engage with all groups who have an opinion, treat everyone equally, and this seems to be, and have been, a big problem for many on the pro-LTN side.

 

Interesting isn't it - the monitoring just happened to end when another council had to admit/was exposed that it had been manipulating the numbers to its (significant) advantage via the placement of the strips (similar strips to those used by Southwark) - but, you know, that's just a co-incidence and the monitoring in Dulwich had to end at some point and the removal of those strips closest to junctions was purely co-incidental....;-) I was saying for a long time before the Enfield disclosure that Southwark had moved a lot of strips closer to junctions to manipulate the readings and I very much suspect I was correct - the one at the junction of Melford had been located between Court Lane and the bus stop near the junction of Upland in the early days of monitoring (how do I know this, because I would meet one of my children at the bus stop after school every day) and the position it was moved to is the slowest moving part of Lordship Lane South due to the choke point approaching Melford towards the Grove Tavern. An accidental error I am sure.

 

In fact I don't know how accurate the map on the dashboard purports to be but the one at Lordship Lane South was never where it is indicated on the map - probably another accidental error I am sure.

 

 

If that map is anything to go by when so many distinct points are flawed then it often means the overall analysis is likely to be flawed too...if the supporting pillars are flawed then the roof comes tumbling down...eventually

[heartblock]

1. Percentages are misleading - if traffic pre is 50 cars and is reduce by 25 cars - 50% reduction. If traffic is 1000 cars and increases by 20% - 200 cars. Oh look traffic decreased by 50% on road A but increased by only 25% on road B - it's a success! -Not. They should publish numbers not percent.

2. It's not a rumour or a conspiracy theory - ATC's that use pneumatic tubing are terrible at measuring traffic that is slow -  the company itself MetroCount advises not to use in slow moving traffic. Extra traffic at school times is crawling on Croxted and EDG - so these figures ar dodgy

3. Croxted and EDG residents were promised by Southwark that they would look at traffic, pollution and bus journeys - they have done absolutely zilch, nothing, nada.

Whatever one's thoughts on the 'not to be mentioned' it is good news that someone on the Council is listening to concerns of pollution, safety, bus journeys and traffic on these roads, why would anyone not want residents on these roads to also benefit from better solutions? 

 

[malumbu]

4 hours ago, malumbu said:

Are One Dulwich campaigning for an increase in fuel duty, to fund, say hospitals, schools, decent pay rises for public servants such as nurses, as well as some substance to zero carbon?  No??? What about those of you who are against LTN's, what do you reckon?  I'll post this on the lounge too.

It's a fair question which sadly those angry about the LTNs consistently dodge.  And then go for the playground tactic "you drive a car nah nah nah nah".  I've posed it on the Lounge too.  Please do pin your colours to the match otherwise it will appear that you are simply masquerading as caring for the environment.  Happy for you do to this on either thread.  Or start up a new one....  You are also cordially invited to contribute to the crowd funding to judicially review government about reducing their commitment on investing on active travel.  You will find that hidden away in the Lounge.

My own amusing comment - the general discussion on LTNs feels like Groundhog Day.

[Bic Basher]

Rockets comments about the monitoring strip being moved from the junction of Melford Road to Court Lane is spot on.    Nothing has changed there, traffic is still getting stuck there as cars wait to turn right into Dulwich Common.  I can see it from my window, so it's not a conspiracy and I can see the traffic from Dulwich Common at the back.   We're at a pinch point between two LTN boundary roads.

Yet because the measuring equipment doesn't show stationary traffic and has been moved to a quieter part of LL, it's all great according to the figures.   Why are Southwark continuing to deny that their tactics aren't affecting those of us who are paying the price for residents in Court Lane, Calton Avenue, Woodwarde Road etc can have quiet roads?