Rockets

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If 7542 was made up solely of responses to the > mailed out survey then you would have a point. > But it isn't. It also includes responses from > anyone who filled it in online, of whom you have > no means of knowing where they live. The relevant > detail from the consultation report is below: > > A consultation newsletter was posted to 19,729 > postal addresses in May. We also notified 3,339 > people by direct email, after they > had registered in the previous phase. 576 paper > surveys were posted to people who had requested > them. > We received 7,542 responses to the survey. Of > these 209 were voided as being duplicates (people > providing more than one > response). Of the remaining 7,333, some 5,538 > identified themselves as living or working on > streets within the consultation zone. > We operated a ?unique identifier? system with > numbers available either on the envelopes that the > newsletter came in or in the > emails that were sent ? however only 1491 > responses included anything in the ?unique > identifier? field, and many of these were > incorrectly used ? therefore this metric has not > been used in the analysis below. Goldilocks - have you actually looked at the report or are you basing your assumptions on a presumption? You do realise the council has broken the feedback down by a street-by-street basis as well as within the Consultation Zone as a whole? They even plot a map to show the % of respondents on each street..... Take a look at the report - it's pretty compelling that an overwhelming majority of those people within the Consultation Zone responded that they wanted it returned to its original state. https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101517/Appendix%20D%20-%20Dulwich%20Review%20Consultation%20Report.pdf

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No Rockets - there were some respondents - they > were overwhelmingly negative, agreed. This > doesn't mean they are a majority of people > locally. Its not 'trying to belittle responses' > its stating something that is factually true. > > The only 'truth' is that people who responded to > the consultation were not in favour. This is > unequivocally not the same thing as a majority of > people no matter how many times you say it. It > could be that the majority of local people are > against the measures, but you don't 'know' this. 7542 respondents in fact. Of which 68% said remove the measures. The review was mailed to over 19,000 addresses in the Dulwich area. In terms of response rate that is incredibly high for a consultation. You may be desperately trying to convince yourself otherwise but the numbers speak for themselves and it comes as no surprise. Looks like that small vocal minority we were told the anti-LTN voices were was in fact a vocal majority.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > goldilocks Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Lets combine these. Rockets, its a majority > of > > > respondents. Have you ever read trip > advisor? > > > > > > @Heartblock - don't think anyone is saying > its > > a > > > statistical certainty - just that it shows it > > > might have fallen AND its backed up by the > > counts > > > in the latest data - again not a certainty > > because > > > of the way the data is presented. However, > if > > the > > > council counts traffic outside the health > > centre > > > AND at the previous points, then they could > > > understand if it is correct > > > > You?re now trying to belittle the respondents > to > > the review?.how depressingly predictable??you > > really are desperately trying to come up with > some > > rod to hit people with. The facts remain, > despite > > your protestations, Dulwich was asked for their > > input on the LTNs and they responded, > > overwhelmingly, against the measures - these > > aren?t Trip Advisor trolls these are actual > > Dulwich residents having to live with the chaos > > caused by the LTNs. I appreciate you, and many > > others who post here defending the measures, > live > > on the closed roads and you aren?t happy to > have > > your gated communities returned to how they > were > > but maybe remove the blinkers and see what?s > > happening at the end of your road. > > I'd trust Russian election results more than the > online LTN consulation result > > Let's stop spouting this 68% nonsense, the figure > has zero significance as an accurate indication of > opinion Maybe in your world but back in the real world 68% of respondents to the Dulwich LTN review said they wanted them removed and that 68% was achieved despite some significant attempts to manipulate the results by the council and councillors - remember the deadline extension and then the door-to-door campaign waged by the local councillors. The consultation result is very much an indicator of public opinion that is, after all, the point of consultations. Out of interest you say you don?t trust the result of the council consultation process - why not?

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When someone claims they're disappointed and you > respond with 'what about this then' it is the very > definition of 'whataboutary'. > > When an organisation produces material that turns > out to have been 'an absolute clanger' as the > kindest way of describing that inappropriate / > insensitive slogan then it remains their > responsibility - not that of those pointing out > how crass it is to go round requesting it to be > removed. Goldilocks - when you referred to the absolute clanger of a document I thought you were referring to the council?s review documents! What makes me laugh is a lot of the pro-LTN lobbyists are happy to slam the anti-LTN lobby yet turn a blind eye to silly behaviour by their own peers. Just this week someone came on here and referred to anti-LTN voices as pro-carbon?..really? If you can?t engage in a proper debate don?t try to engage. How many questions have I been asked and answered yet many of the usual suspects refuse to answer questions I pose to them? Some people really are like Goldilocks (not you but the fictional character) who wants things just to their liking or not at all.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lets combine these. Rockets, its a majority of > respondents. Have you ever read trip advisor? > > @Heartblock - don't think anyone is saying its a > statistical certainty - just that it shows it > might have fallen AND its backed up by the counts > in the latest data - again not a certainty because > of the way the data is presented. However, if the > council counts traffic outside the health centre > AND at the previous points, then they could > understand if it is correct You?re now trying to belittle the respondents to the review?.how depressingly predictable??you really are desperately trying to come up with some rod to hit people with. The facts remain, despite your protestations, Dulwich was asked for their input on the LTNs and they responded, overwhelmingly, against the measures - these aren?t Trip Advisor trolls these are actual Dulwich residents having to live with the chaos caused by the LTNs. I appreciate you, and many others who post here defending the measures, live on the closed roads and you aren?t happy to have your gated communities returned to how they were but maybe remove the blinkers and see what?s happening at the end of your road.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Didn't more people respond to the Consultation > than voted in the last council election... If they did our councillors should start preparing their: "I feel like now is the right time to stand down and let someone else pick up the mantle" twitter updates....I suspect a big turnout in the council elections in May.

But it is a majority isn't it? And a quite significant one.....so why do you think the council is ignoring the 68%?

Redpost - our local councillors are supposed to represent the interests of their local constituents are they not? That's why they are known as local councillors. If we cannot rely on them to stand up for their constituents then what are they there for - window dressing? I expect them to not toe the party line and do, instead, what is right for their constituents - that is what they are there for. 68% of Dulwich residents want the closures removed yet there is deafening silence from our local councillors - their silence speaks volumes. Maybe it is reflective of the quandary the Labour party has got itself into that it has forgotten and neglected who actually elects them. Roll on May when, one hopes, some independent candidates will run and stand-up for Dulwich residents.

Heartblock - me too. It seems being a good party member is more important that being a good constituent councillor. It still galls me that Cllr McAsh (pre-pandemic) used the fact he thought the DV closure was coming to lobby residents on Melbourne to support their own closures on the basis of the displacement heading their way yet he cared not one jot for anyone else in his ward and the impact on them. He should have been calling out the foolishness of the DV closures and fighting for his constituents - a little less "solidarity comrade" and a bit more "you're doing what comrade" would have been a more appropriate response for a councillor who knew the displacement was coming. He and every other councillor is culpable for standing back and letting this happen - bowing to the party machine and being weak at the expense of the constituents they are supposed to represent.

Penguin68 - you live on Underhill does a 3% increase in traffic seem accurate to you?

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Erm excuse me @Rockets I wasn't asking you. I was > asking @heartblock as I've never seen heartblock's > alternative suggestions. I may have missed them. DC - you have missed them (it seems a lot of the pro-LTN lobby miss them every time someone posts them - one might suggest it was deliberate.....there is a lot of "post them remorse" going on here as in people ask someone to post something, they do and then the "post them" questioner pretends they have never seen them - I suspect because they don't have a rational response). BTW in case you missed my comments on Underhill do feel free to share you thoughts on that when you're ready.........#iwontholdmybreath.....

Redpost - firstly trying to paint everyone who is anti-LTN as pro-carbon is as ludicrous as it is utterly predictable and demonstrates how having a rational debate with many on the issues is a fruitless task as they put their own prejudices ahead of pragmatic discussion. That being said, handwaving is a very good way to describe the LTNs - just the difference being that that particular handwaving exercise is actually doing more harm than good and making pollution worse. I am glad I am on the side of the debate that is challenging the council on this and not just rolling over and pretending everything is great - no-one should be turning a blind eye to the reality of the LTNs. There is no proof that LTNs are delivering or have delivered the things you claim anywhere in the world and I suspect these "many studies" you refer to are sponsored reports by the pro-LTN lobby. It's clear from the council's own report that the LTNs in Dulwich are not delivering against the intended aims and I am afraid that is irrefutable. Can you just help me pull out the upside from the rogue's gallery of LTN failure below (all of which is taken from the council's own report)? Really as yourself if the below is really worth it to sustain an 8% increase in children/parents cycling to school within the Dulwich Village triangle? - No reduction in pollution (in fact increases in areas such as East Dulwich Grove) - 10% decrease in car journeys (although data collection and analysis from the council is dodgy to say the least and it is unlikely any reduction has been observed) Decreases in traffic on closed roads but increases in traffic on boundary roads (Burbage, EDG, Lordship Lane and Underhill taking the brunt ) School journeys have seen a 6% shift from car use but some of the shift to cycling and scooting has been at the expense of walking Bus journey times have increased on many key routes such as EDG, South circular and Croxted

DC - oh my and so it continues "show me your solutions" - how many times do we have to return to this - maybe someone should pin a new thread on the forum saying - these are our ideas so there can be no confusion!!! ;-) Anyway I promised I would come back to you on the issue of Underhill and I looked at the data again (thanks for calling me out on it as it's actually a lot worse than I remembered). In the 4 page Data Collection report Underhill is not mentioned once: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101513/Appendix%20C%204%20-%20Dulwich%20Streetspace%20data%20collection%20timings.pdf In the 105 pages of monitoring data Underhill is not mentioned once: https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101512/Appendix%20C%203%20-%20Dulwich%20Streetspace%20traffic%20flow%20analysis.pdf In the 67 page main report Underhill gets mentioned once on Page 34 https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101511/Appendix%20C%202%20-%20Dulwich%20Streetspace%20main%20report.pdf And on page 34 the slide says (under the title of Further Count Sites): "A check has also been performed on streets east of Lordship Lane between Dulwich and Peckham. The changes in total numbers of motor vehicles on Barry Road and Underhill Road from data recorded prior to implementation, and pre-COVID with data collected in June 2021 is shown in the table below." They determined that Underhill saw a 3% increase and Barry Road an 11% decrease (that 11% decrease figure is significant in the overall scheme of things). A bit odd don't you think that the same level of detail is not provided for Barry Road or Underhill Road as all of the other roads and maybe you can have a guess as to how the council defines a "check"? Surely they should define what that is? Let me explain to you why the council did that - because they were not monitoring Underhill from the outset which is ludicrous when it was one of the main displacement routes - don't you think? They didn't want to monitor it as they knew that's where the traffic was going. So, perhaps, you can agree that the claim of just a 3% increase in traffic on Underhill may not be entirely accurate. There are plenty of people on here who witnessed first hand what happened to Underhill and traffic increased by more than 3% on that route and I believe if a true reflection of the increase was included in the overall monitoring report there would be no area-wide decrease in traffic - thereby damning the LTNs as a complete failure. Please do take the time to respond as I would be interested in whether this changes your perspective at all and whether you think a single figure of 3% increase could really be an accurate figure for Underhill given the lack of supporting data shared by the council on that road? It is a bit odd don't you think that there is lots of detail to support other roads yet none to support Underhill? Do you have any idea how the council determined the 3% figure?

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No not really, not getting into this game. You > well know that I believe that we need hard > measures, others are better placed to work out > what is best. They've been restricting access to > many roads ever since I've lived in London, and it > has affected my behaviour as it will others. > > And on Climate Change, just putting the blame on > corporations wont sort stuff out, personal > responsibility just as important. Although agree > with the sentiments about the PM. Hope all active > on this site sign the petition - see the thread > /forum/read.php? > 5,2242072 Of course not.....you only want to challenge but aren't happy to be challenged and when you are you recoil and refuse to engage or respond - you've done it consistently since the outset of this discussion....typical of so many on the pro-LTN side...it's because you don't have a rational argument to counter the questions asked of you - it's all so one-sided - a bit like the LTNs - our way or the highway.

Huge crowds out around Court Lane this evening?..glad the weather held for everyone.

Heartblock that is a superb video that really highlights the massive flaws in the ludicrous LTN programmes that many on here have been highlighting since day one of this debacle - it was destined to fail as the maths just don't work. Remember the council reckoned 7000 cars a day used the DV junction - the most any LTN has reduced car use is 10% so even if those heady numbers (which came from the LTN lobby so are probably greatly exaggerated) were achieved over 6000 cars a day would be needing to find a new longer route. Throw in the fact that 68% of local journeys were already done on foot and bike and you can see why LTNs were destined to fail in Dulwich. It also begs the question why the council were so convinced they would work - maybe they couldn't cut through and see past the lobbying they were on tbe receiving end of from groups like the LCC. Maybe someone like Malumbu or DC can take a look and give us their thoughts (I know it's unlikely as most on the pro-LTN crowd like to ask, not answer, questions! ;-))?

Malumbu - aren't you a motorist too? Don't you have a very old car you use very infrequently?

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That is your view - but let?s remember you very > confidently said there was no monitoring on under > hill - whereas in effect there was. > > We would all like more granularity eg directional > and timed, but overall my sentence is factually > correct Yes because that was an easy mistake to make given tbe Underhill numbers were pretty much an addendum to tbe overall report with absolutely no data to support where the number for Underhill had come from. If I remember rightly, I will check tomorrow, the council just gave tbe figure (which was an increase if I remember rightly) separate to the rest of tbe monitoring data and didn't share any baseline data as they had for others. Maybe that satiates the pro-LTN lobbyists who will blindly believe what the council tells them but for some of us it raises yet more questions. One wonders why the council has yet to share the raw data they promised....another oversight perhaps or maybe they know they don't want any scrutiny on how they reached their conclusions?

And this is your regular reminder that the council's monitoring data was deliberately manipulated to try and create a positive outcome...and even after all of their tampering the results weren't close to what they had promised and were roundly torn apart on further analysis when people scratched beneath the propaganda....

Zaardvark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes and imagine how bad it would be if there were > no LTNs - people are afraid to get on public > transport, prefer cars and we would be in an even > worse scenario without LTNs. We are in a pandemic > and sometimes people's choices (solo travel by > car) will be to the detriment of the many. > > However, the car registrations could be an ULEZ > phenomenon also? Are people buying new cars for > that, and are yet to sell their old cars? ULEZ > versus another dense area of the SE without ULEZ > would be interesting to look at. > > Z. I am not sure people are afraid of public transport, at some times it is as busy as it ever was pre-pandemic, especially when you look at the below article in light of the fact most companies are not returning to offices full-time. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-58360193 A reduction in car ownership was one of the promised outcomes of LTNs and, like so many of the other promises, it isn't actually being realised.

Sorry to hear that.

Interesting thread on car ownership levels in areas with LTNs. Wasn't a reduction in car ownership slated as one of the aims, doesn't seem to be happening...

Malumbu - I am not sure what point you are trying to make about the right turn in and out of Wood Vale and I am not sure you are either to be honest....your rationale seems confused at best. What point are you trying to make, can you explain it please? Were those measures put in to create modal shift, did they lead to an increase in congestion and pollution? I am not sure why you think our position is hypocritical unless you are just trying to use that to deposition any opposition. Anyway, my question to you which I repeat for your benefit as you seem (again) reluctant to answer is...on the basis of Cllr McAshs post a year ago do you think the LTNs have achieved their objective? I think we all know why you refuse to answer and that answer helps you answer the question you post about what hard measures are needed whilst we wait for more strategic ones.....we need ones that work and these measures clearly do not work.

Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here's a new report... > > https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen > t/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1007 > 815/gear-change-one-year-on.pdf One wonders whether you will be heralding the 2021 report quite as enthusiastically.....2021 cycling levels (according to DfT) are now reportedly below pre-Covid levels so all of those gains will have been wiped out in a year suggesting that the pandemic was the major catalyst for temporary cycle growth not any of the measures put in to facilitate modal shift.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > OK Rocks, here's another question. Stopping > vehicles turning right into and out of the South > Circ on the junctions with Wood Vale and with > Underhill increased traffic flows on Honor Oak > Road, including passing a primary school, > Fairlawn. > > Should Southwark reinstate those restricted turns, > and what would you say to the citizens of Wood > Vale and Underhill? Some consistency would be > great. Malumbu - it's a bit of a daft question to be honest - we're talking about the LTNs installed under the OHS initiative. Those measures weren't put in under the pretence that they would reduce car use and pollution - were they? Nor did they cause massive congestion issues elsewhere - did they? I very much suspect they were put in to stop accidents as cars tried to turn across fast-moving traffic on the A205. Please do correct me if I am wrong and those measures were installed, in fact, to encourage modal shift. You love asking questions so here's one for you to answer - do you think the LTNs have delivered against the objectives Cllr McAsh stated in his blog post in October 2020 that being: The goal - to be absolutely clear - is to reduce traffic overall, not simply to move it from one road to another.