Rockets

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So hearts drawn with chalk (probably by a child) > are equivalent to pouring buckets of engine oil > over planters? > You surpass yourself in hyperbole Rockets :)))))) You?re being selective again DC??what about the vandalism of the signs in people?s gardens???hmmmmm? You do love your hyperbole accusations don?t you, quite an obsession??

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Still...they should be on Melbourne not ED Grove. > > Even when Melbourne wasn't filtered, you wouldn't > have got a coach down there. The buses (back in > the days when the 37 went along it) could barely > make it round the bend. Certainly now it is > filtered at the ED station end, if you put a coach > in there it wouldn't be able to turn around - > putting three coaches down there is not an > option. > > Second the comment about reporting them. Email to > the coach firm with the school and Southwark > environment copied in as it's both noise and air > pollution. You're right, complaining to the > drivers is usually a waste of time. > > > I see that Lambeth gated communities are now going > to have CCTV and policing spent on them to keep > the unwashed away from the peaceful q?white areas > > Maybe if the anti-LTN'ers would like to stop > pouring engine oil into planters, spray painting > signs and vandalising cameras, that money could be > spent elsewhere?! > https://brixtonblog.com/2021/07/council-to-act-aga > inst-ltn-vandals/ > > Pouring engine oil over plants is just despicable. > Honestly, one (heavily anonymised) photo of a > Clean Air for All poster next to a massive SUV, > the forum goes into meltdown. Repeated vandalism > costing tens of thousands to fix and your > complaint is that the council are spending money > on trying to prevent it?! Not that people are > committing criminal damage and (rather ironically) > polluting the very streets they seem so keen on > "protecting"? I think your ire is aimed at the > wrong people... Also I would suggest reporting the coach company to the school - they are the ones who pay for their service so the company will probably listen to the school if their contract is at risk because of their behaviour. I completely agree that damaging anything is utterly abhorrent and such a feeble and weak attempt at protest. But Ex- the lunatic fringe of the pro-lobby has been at it just as much as the lunatic fringe of the anti-lobby - the repeated vandalism of the signs people have put into their gardens and "Love LTN" graffiti all over East Dulwich. So you can't pin this just on the anti-lobby - there are complete idiots on both sides. On the subject of the school issue in the area it was interesting how things have gradually got quieter and quieter on the local roads as more and more children have been forced to self-isolate in the latter days of term over the last couple of weeks. I really think the council should have made a concerted effort to work with the schools to help resolve the Dulwich traffic issues before throwing in the roadblocks - it's clear that the coaches are a continuing issue and so are parents doing the school run. Maybe, if the LTNs have to be removed, they will return to addressing the school issue.

Meanwhile on twitter.....: "Don't pay any attention to their incomplete data, instead pay attention to our incomplete data"!

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But @Rockets, this is what has been asked for! > Right from the moment the first planter was put > in, the modus operandi of all these One... groups > is the same. Demand data of all types. Interim > data, initial data, monitoring data, pollution > data. > > (it's quite ironic that the more militant minded > of the anti-folk then go round cutting traffic > count cables specifically to disrupt the data > gathering but we'll skip over that for now...) > > When data is given, especially interim data, it'll > be rubbished as incomplete, inaccurate, biased, > faked and the demands to see the raw data (like > WTF are they going to do with the download from a > traffic count machine...?!). When the final report > is produced, it'll be claimed that it's the follow > on from an incomplete initial report. Repeat ad > infinitum. > > Every piece of data that is produced is fought > over to the nth degree, questioning it's veracity > - wrong location, wrong time of day/week/month... > If it came from Location X, they'll demand it from > Location Y. When the data is positive (it usually > is, the basic principles are all the same), the > claim is then made that they don't need data to > see what's happening on their own street. Muddy > the waters, obfuscate, produce your own "survey" > which shows the opposite, claim the council are > manipulating things. > > You literally cannot win. Nothing will ever be > good enough, every bit of data produced will be > discarded with a request for ever more esoteric > and specific monitoring. > > > DC not conspiracy theories - just pointing out how > the council is manipulating the process to their > advantage. > > Sweeping generalisation but councils are usually > not competent enough to do conspiracy theories or > manipulation. ;-) > One of the amusing things about conspiracy > theories is that they almost always imply or > require a massive amount of cover up from > thousands of people. > > Face it, Matt Hancock couldn't even have a quiet > shag in his own office without it becoming public > knowledge; the idea that there is some kind of > mass secret collusion of council officials, > external contractors, DfT, transport experts and > so on to hide the truth, manipulate data and so on > is far-fetched in the extreme! > > > it was interesting that One Dulwich shared the > research they did from going door to door on the > roads within the closure area and 80% of the > people they spoke to wanted them removed. > > Damn, I must have been out, that would have been > an interesting conversation... ;-) > And obviously not at all biased, no leading > questions at all. > > Give us complete data, give us data that measures impact on ALL displacement routes. This is not complete data. It refers to Dulwich area-wide reductions in traffic but that's not true is it? Why? Because huge parts of the data is missing. It doesn't measure anything east of Lordship Lane - only a fool would think this is an accurate reflection of the impact of the LTNs. Without the full picture this report is completely irrelevant yet it is being positioned as proof it's working. I remind you Labour councillors are knocking on people's doors telling them its working on the basis of this incomplete data. That's wrong on so many levels but reflective of the underhand and, frankly, immoral tactics being used by people who are utterly convinced their way is the only way and are on some sort of righteous crusade.

Well done Chener. Sometimes it is the smallest things that speak the loudest.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Rockets you have spent the last year (??) > inventing conspiracy theories accusing the council > of withholding information. Now they've released > data you say 'it's simply not borne out by what > the majority of people are seeing and > experiencing'. > > One Dulwich recently slated the review process as > flawed because it's about 'feelings' or > 'perception' rather than data. So which do you > prefer? Perception? Data? Or data you agree with > according to your perception? ;) DC not conspiracy theories - just pointing out how the council is manipulating the process to their advantage. Trust me, if this was another party doing this I bet you'd be screaming more loudly than I am! Just because their findings validates your position doesn't mean you should not scrutinise them and challenge the way the council came to them - if it's LTNs this week it will be something you care about next week. I challenge anyone to tell me that traffic is down 22% on Lordship Lane by the junction of Grove Tavern - that's just not the case - not even close and why have the council not shared the data from the monitoring strips that were in near the Court Lane junction in October and November? At the end of the day what I say or you say won't make the slightest bit of difference but there are a lot of people who feel the same way as me and it was interesting that One Dulwich shared the research they did from going door to door on the roads within the closure area and 80% of the people they spoke to wanted them removed. It's going to be very interesting to see how the council manages the review feedback process because if those numbers are seen in the submissions from locals they will have to find a lot of Southwark Cyclists to balance it back in their favour and then, perhaps more importantly, will local councillors want to continue on their current path when they realise that the majority of the Southwark Cyclists can't be counted on for votes in May.....time will tell.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I understand nudge tactics but I was wondering > whether there are there any examples of LTNs > working - anywhere? Waltham Forest is always > thrown around as a great example of them working > but speak to anyone who lives around there and > they tell you they are anything but successful > (except if you live on the closed off streets) so > I am wondering if you have any examples of where > they have worked? > > https://londonlivingstreets.com/2021/07/15/impact- > of-2020-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-in-london-initi > al-traffic-counts-now-in-from-4-london-boroughs/ > > What is your definition of "worked"? > Broadly speaking, vehicle traffic drops, active > travel increases. Surely that means that it's > working? But Ex- that article you link to is very much part of the problems - it proves nothing because it is based on the numbers many of us are questioning - the "interim" results from the council. This is the problem many of us have with this process - the incomplete (flawed) data from the council is being presented as proof these measures are working by all of the usual lobby groups - yet, you may have noticed, that the monitoring is flawed. Labour councillors are knocking on people's doors sharing this report as proof their measures are working but as you know, it is anything but. For example, no monitoring data has been released for any site east of Lordship Lane. Underhill, for example, has been soaking up a lot of the displacement and yet no monitoring has been shared for that displacement route. Just look at page 15 of the report the council put out - huge parts of the area (many of which are soaking up the displacement) the council have decided not to share any data from. Surely, given your professional credentials, in these circumstances you can agree that this data is incomplete and therefore cannot be taken as proof of anything (and probably should never have been shared in its current form). It's a bit like being on a listing ship and looking at the port side and saying everything is fine when the starboard side is holed below the waterline and taking on water.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Summary graphics attached. 24,000 fewer vehicles > across the whole area. 3,400 more cycles a day. But does anyone actually believe this to be a true reflection of what is actually going on - it's simply not borne out by what the majority of people are seeing and experiencing in the area? The data is also incomplete (many roads that have had monitoring in place are missing) and massively selective. I think trust in the council (unless you are a pro-LTN headbanger) is at an all-time low and no-one believes anything they put out or say anymore. At what point will they have a proper public meeting to meet local residents face-to-face to discuss this or are they always now going to hide behind on-line meetings? I very much suspect the CPZ meeting held at the library a couple of years ago has scarred the council for life (huge numbers of people turning up to tell them they didn't agree with them) and they are terrified of actually having to meet their constituents now!!! ;-)

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rocks - you asked about nudge. Nudge is exactly > that, as I expect you know, pushing people towards > better choices. The nudge on emissions could > include - if you walk a mile to the local shop, > not only will you be saving money on using your > car, but this is also good for your health and > others. > > LTNs are not a nudge but a kick up the backside. > > The Heathrow study is interesting as this showed > that despite what many said with regards to the > environment and emissions, when push came to shove > they wouldn't change their behaviour. Hence the > need for a big stick and/or carrot. > > Good examples of nudge: A text reminding you to > pay your bills or fine "95% of people pay their > bills/fine on time" So it is cool to do that. > > And the classic the spot on the urinals - men > naturally aim at this as a target which reduces > them weeing on the floor of the toilets. > > Very much encouraging/praising good behaviour I understand nudge tactics but I was wondering whether there are there any examples of LTNs working - anywhere? Waltham Forest is always thrown around as a great example of them working but speak to anyone who lives around there and they tell you they are anything but successful (except if you live on the closed off streets) so I am wondering if you have any examples of where they have worked?

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But Ex- do you really believe the numbers being > presented? A 22% drop in traffic on Lordship Lane > - really????. > > That?s a huge drop that I don?t think anyone who > spends any time on Lordship Lane is seeing. And if > traffic has dropped so much why are bus journey > times along Lordship Lane increasing? > > Why has the council moved the monitoring strips > from close to Court Lane (which were there around > Oct/Nov last year) to close to Milford Road for > the review? > > BTW, from your expertise below what speed do > monitoring strips become useless? Is it 5mph? > > The graphic that Rah3 posted the other day (I've > tried to link it again below) state that the 22% > decrease figure was from the Court Lane end of LL > which is probably as a result of Court Lane now > longer being an access road from the Village > (other than for residents, perhaps a few people > parking on Court Lane / Eynella for the park and > so on). Bear in mind that the figure generated > from tube counters is for that section of road, > not "all of Lordship Lane" > > The figure from EDG at the LL end is a 26% > increase, an extra 2400 vehicles per day compared > to same period in 2019. Clearly, it's not ALL > displaced traffic - the maths of the reductions > elsewhere simply don't add up to it ALL shifting > to EDG. > > As an initial test of the LTN though, I'd say > that's overall quite positive although it now > needs some work to reduce traffic along EDG. The > major problem is the EDG/LL junction area, that > whole lot needs a complete overhaul but that would > cost millions and take a very long time of major > disruption - my guess is it's one of those things > that'll be put off indefinitely either due to > funding or the fact that no-one is prepared to > face the year of roadworks and associated chaos. > There are easier shorter term measures like > restricting parking along there, adding in a > pop-up cycle lane and so on, all of which would > help to alleviate congestion. > > Counters - the accuracy varies a bit, generally > the accepted error margin is about 10% although > often it's a lot lower that that. A dual hose > system can determine speed quite well. When a car > passes over it you get F/F...R/R pulse readings > and since it knows that the hoses are x distance > apart, measuring the speed is easy. You can get an > idea of vehicle length too from the time > difference between the front and rear wheels > although where it sometimes gets confused is > lorries with multi-axle trailers. That said, as a > general rule, the tube counters aren't suitable > for larger roads with heavy traffic although > they'll cope with buses. If a car stops over it > though with the tubes between front and rear > wheels, the longer pause can sometimes confuse it > but the time gaps between pulses are pretty easy > to identify. If you're getting a lot of that, you > probably need to move the counter to somewhere > with slightly freer flow of traffic and/or back it > up with manual counts, video counts etc. > > As to why the council moved them - that's what > they do. The whole point of those things is > they're cheap and portable and don't need > thousands of them across the neighbourhood, they > can move them round, a week here, a week there and > it'll give the same trend comparisons. You don't > need to know to the last % point the exact numbers > of cars, bikes, buses, trucks on every stretch of > road on every day of the year. > > /forum/file.php? > 5,file=396982 But they moved them on Lordship Lane south from the Court Lane junction to very close to the junction of Melford Road for the review period which is probably the slowest moving part of Lordship Lane due to the queueing traffic trying to turn right onto the A205 - that doesn't make sense does it - unless you are trying to skew the results? Every morning and evening the traffic is tailing back to pretty much Court Lane. I would love to see the stats from the monitoring strips they had in close to Court Lane for a couple of months in October/November as I very much suspect they do not show a 22% decrease in traffic.

But Ex- do you really believe the numbers being presented? A 22% drop in traffic on Lordship Lane - really????. That?s a huge drop that I don?t think anyone who spends any time on Lordship Lane is seeing. And if traffic has dropped so much why are bus journey times along Lordship Lane increasing? Why has the council moved the monitoring strips from close to Court Lane (which were there around Oct/Nov last year) to close to Milford Road for the review? BTW, from your expertise below what speed do monitoring strips become useless? Is it 5mph?

Malumbu - I wasn't talking about that study I meant more generally whether there was an LTN that had delivered anything close to the goals set out for them?

spider69 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ab29 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It really infuriates me - this omnipresent > dictate > > of 'data'! People who have no idea about others > > experience feel entitled to reprimand them from > > the depths of their armchairs - because of > > 'data'! > > > > How about we start listen to people and their > > experience for a change. > > If they hear the truth their cosy little world and > we know best will collapse Unfortunately, it seems listening to people is becoming a continuing problem for Labour - they seem to favour pushing their own ideology over listening to what their constituents think, feel or need. It?s why they got trashed at the last election and gave us this Tory regime - they failed to listen to or engage with the people who were supposed to vote for them (they felt having a load of middle class Glastonbury goers parachuting in from Islington for a long weekend in June and singing Corbyns name at the festival was a sign that people loved him when nationally the opposite was true). It?s happening at every level and what is happening in Dulwich is merely a reflection of the terrible state of the Labour party. They have lost touch and show no interest in those that they are supposed to represent and put their own ideology ahead of the wants and needs of the people.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lebanums Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I don't believe the answer is to make it > difficult for private car ownership. Make other > options more > > attractive. There is no longer direct access to > a train station for those of us who live away > from > > LL or on the Peckham Rye side. The request to > extend the 63 to Honor Oak Park has been > requested > > for years, but nothing has happened, there is no > longer access to Peckham Rye. What are we > supposed > > to do? > > > > Sadly you do have to have harsher measures to > discourage drivers as for many this is what it > takes to reduce the number of journeys. That's > not to say improved public transport, safer > walking and cycling aren't important, or that > current measures are perfect (not commenting on > the current LTN). > > In 2017 the nudge unit aka Behavioural Insights > Team did some work with the Heathrow estates team > (Heathrow is like a town in its own right and > there are a wide number of businesses that go > beyond aviation). You have a fairly well defined > shift pattern, but most commute in a single > occupancy vehicle. Interventions included making > car sharing more convenient, but in terms of pick > ups but going as far as whether you drove with the > radio on, and what station. > > Results were pretty disappointing. "A range of > light touch interventions were trialled, and many > of them did not yield a significant effect. This > highlights the complex challenge of increasing > sustainable travel of staff, using low cost > behavioural measures" > > Discouraging driving can be seen as financial > incentives to those reducing their carbon > footprint/pollution emissions in paying less to > the government than currently through vehicle > excise duty (road user charging). There could be > sweeteners/rewards but not sure who should pay for > these, as those who don't drive would essentially > be subsidising this. > > It's a long and detailed report but here is one of > the interesting conclusions: > > The divergence between stated preferences and > observed behaviour > > This project provided further evidence of the gap > between attitudes and observed behaviours and > should reaffirm to practitioners that they should > not to take self-reported opinions, especially > those > reported to employers, at face value when devising > transport interventions. The gap between stated > preferences and observed behaviour is a > well-documented phenomenon which was reaffirmed > by > this project the magnitude of difference surprised > us. > > Despite nearly the majority of drivers expressing > that they would car share if they could find > someone with a similar shift pattern who lives > near them, registration rates for the car sharing > scheme were unexpectedly low. > > https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen > t/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5863 > 76/sustainable-travel-evaluation-of-low-cost-workp > lace-interventions.pdf > > Interventions included a free bus pass, but this > had limited uptake, and few continued to use the > bus after the offer ended. Malumbu - is there an example anywhere in the world where LTN nudge tactics like this have delivered on their stated goals?

Does anyone, on either side of the debate, really believe the council when they claim traffic has reduced by 22% on Lordship Lane? Are they just plucking numbers out of the air or have they manipulated the data collection to such an extent that it is delivering fantasy results and they think people are stupid enough to believe it? There is not a chance that traffic has reduced by nearly a quarter on Lordship Lane and even the most ardent pro-campaigner knows that. And on the subject of safe routes I used to cycle to Hammersmith everyday, long before the cult of cycling took off, and I found very safe routes to do so. They are not hard to find. Granted we need to do more but cycle campaigners are going to have to understand that they are going to have to coexist with every other form of transport and are going to have to accept that cycling is not the only form of transportation in this city. I do also think cycle campaigners may need to think about engaging some PR types as they do seem to be the new estate agents and are getting a pretty terrible reputation. Even cycle club members I know moan about other cyclists and their behaviour!

Southwark Cyclists won't be happy until they have every road closed I see they are suggesting Dulwich Village should also be closed permanently....it's amazing the council has such a cozy relationship with them....there is no balance at all and it is skewing the council's approach and thinking. It makes you wonder what other cozy relationships the council has with lobby groups and how that is determining council policy in areas beyond LTNs.

Meanwhile the pro-lobbyists ramp up the "it's working" narrative on the basis of some seriously suspect data from the council.....

Most of our councillors were voted in on a majority of about 250. Previously most people didn't bother with councillor elections...if a lot of people start to bother (on the basis of LTNs) then our councillors are in trouble. That will be weighing on their minds as we edge closer to May. Southwark Cyclists won't save them when push comes to shove in councillor elections.And this is not a case of people suddenly voting Tory, it's about parties like the Lib Dems seeing an opportunity (as they did in Bankside).

LTN BooHoo - yes we agree but this route Southwark have taken is not at all equitable....whilst some benefit the majority don't. The council may be able to bus in votes from LTN lobby groups outside of Dulwich to try to influence the review result but they can't do that in the councillor elections in May and they may be in for a torrid time at the polls - there are lot of local residents who are disgusted by the approach the council and councillors have taken. All there needs to be are a couple of independent candidates or a sensible Lib Dem candidate and you can see a shift taking place and the Red Wall of Southwark starts seeing a few different coloured bricks. To be honest Southwark needs some opposition as there is very little accountability right now and it's why people like Leo Pollack get away with what they were doing for so long and it's why the council is able to treat residents with contempt as they have done during the whole of the LTN debacle.

Ha ha...it's a question....sometimes answering simple questions seems to be the hardest thing for the pro-lobby! ;-)

Northern - do you agree then that it was wrong of the council to release interim data, extend the deadline for the review and then go knocking door to door with said interim data to try influence people's input?

And is there anyone on the pro-LTN side who thinks traffic is down 22% on Lordship Lane as the council claims? If so, why is it that the councils same data shows bus journey times increasing....it makes no sense at all....

northernmonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On the April point they did seem to indicate that > there would be more data for May and June coming > soon so that will be helpful to understand what is > a trend vs anomaly. > > I'd also agree that more granularity of data would > be helpful - I'd like to see the directional > traffic counts rather than in total and would > agree that weekday vs weekend would also be > helpful. > > The questions were supposed to be split by area > though - East Dulwich, then the village and then > champion hill so the fact that Tom of Denmark Hill > spoke at the end was because he was one of the > questionners from that area. The assumption that > only negative views can be genuine does reflect > your views rather than people being an obvious > plant. I think we also need to see the data from all the strips that were placed in other parts of certain roads before the review data period. What happened to all the info gathered in Oct/Nov 2020?

rjsmall Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does the report include which roads are defined as > External Roads and which are Internal Roads and > whether the "specific" roads were defined before > the data was gathered or afterwards > > It is a shame that they didn't have any counters > for Lordship Lane near the Grove Tavern and also > the South Circular along Dulwich Common as they > are roads that would be expected to pick up > displaced traffic. > > Is there a link for the full report? RJsmall - there was a counter on Lordship Lane near the Grove Tavern and the council say it recorded a 22% decrease in traffic.....no I don't believe it either. The counter is near Melford Road so would be in the stationery traffic zone and there is some debate that the strips can't monitor traffic that is crawling and council's know this and out strips close to congestion when they want to record low numbers. There was originally a set of strips near the Court Lane but they were moved ahead of the review to closer to Grove Tavern.....read into that what you will. Interestingly there is also a set of strips close to Townley on Lordship Lane and no data from that one has been shared.

Rahx3 do you really believe that traffic on Lordship Lane has decreased by 22%?