Rockets

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I see "interim" the monitoring data has been > > published by the council.....should make some > > interesting weekend reading. > > > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/i > > > > mproving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review > > > > I think even the most ardent supporter of the > LTNs > > might even be tempted to question the council's > > numbers......Lordship Lane traffic down 22% and > > Croxted Road traffic down 14% > > apparently........... > > > > And apparently traffic on internal roads around > > the whole of East Dulwich is down 79%.... > > > > Cycling is up (not surprisingly) but the claim > of > > an increase of 1,160 cycles per day along > > Calton/Dulwich Village probably needs closer > > scrutiny as it seems very high. > > > > What is the council smoking.......? > > Do you question the fact that cycling is up and > traffic is down, or just the degree to which this > is true? > > You appear to have now accepted that removing cars > from some areas does encourage cycling > (?unsurprisingly?). Progress of sorts Rahx3 - yes I am questioning the numbers. Let me ask you this do you really that think traffic on Lordship Lane is down 22? I know you won't give a straight answer (I am still awaiting a response to my question on Rachel Aldred and the clear conflict of interest) but no-one could really assert that traffic is down significantly on Lordship Lane or that 1,100 more cycle journeys are happening on Calton every day - wasn't the cycle count by Goodman about 300 and those numbers were counting back and forth journeys as children were taken to and from school? That's some increase from those figures. It appears there is something odd going on here (not surprisingly). Ex- perhaps you can take a look. BTW Ex- what impact does stationery traffic have on monitoring strips? I did hear that councils move them to places where there is queueing traffic so they are not triggered if they want lower numbers.

I see "interim" the monitoring data has been published by the council.....should make some interesting weekend reading. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review I think even the most ardent supporter of the LTNs might even be tempted to question the council's numbers......Lordship Lane traffic down 22% and Croxted Road traffic down 14% apparently........... And apparently traffic on internal roads around the whole of East Dulwich is down 79%.... Cycling is up (not surprisingly) but the claim of an increase of 1,160 cycles per day along Calton/Dulwich Village probably needs closer scrutiny as it seems very high. What is the council smoking.......?

That is awful - I hope they are all ok and these idiots are identified.

Chick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There have been prosecutions for being drunk on an > escooter resulting a driving ban. The German police had rich pickings in Munich around Oktoberfest in 2019 - hundreds lost their licences as few realised that being drunk on an e-scooter resulted in a driving ban. Perhaps this is also a great way to help reduce car usage! ;-)

It seems that all the trials are plagued by some of the same recurring issues (accidents involving injuries, scooter dumping and littering and bad/irresponsible riding - although it seems only the Germans cite drunk-riding as an issue!) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50189279 https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20210630-france-to-crack-down-on-e-scooters-after-two-riders-knock-down-and-kill-woman

I am not sure it is even a case of getting used to it - they are inherently unstable due to the standing position and London roads are anything but smooth and I think the combination of the two is very dangerous. The issue with private e-scooters is that you cannot regulate their speed and some of them (we will all have seen them often going faster than cars) go ludicrously fast. Some companies even offer to retrofit e-scooters to make them go faster. In Germany they have had real problems with e-scooter accidents and a lot of Germans lost their driving licences after being caught being drunk in charge of an e-scooter (which appears to be a big problem in a lot of areas that have rolled them out)! In Germany there has been a lobby calling for e-scooter training to be made compulsory for anyone who wants to rent one and that wearing a helmet when riding one should be a legal requirement. It's clear they offer a very attractive solution to transportation problems but it's not as if they don't present a huge number of new issues.

I know the other thread has been locked but interesting that the East Dulwich Grove Residents Association did their own research, via a 3rd party, to poll residents on their views on the closures. I am also aware something similar has been done on roads like Beauval, Woodwarde, Dovercourt and, again, the results are overwhelming against the closures. The fact residents are having to do this suggests that there is zero confidence that the council are going to be fair and transparent with their review.

But ex- wouldn't it be nice if the council put as much effort into trying to change the mush larger sources of emissions and pollution beyond cars - they seem to be focussing an unprecented level of energy and attention on the private car and private car owner when much bigger issues remain - 79% of the problem comes from buildings. We had another leaflet drop through the door today (it's almost daily the local printers must be loving this). This time from the coalition4dulwich lobbying to keep the changes and build on them. I did laugh as the leaflet says that Dulwich was chosen for these measures for a number of reasons and lists them but the authors probably don't realise that many of the reasons they have cited are the reasons previously cited by Southwark as reasons NOT to have LTNs....;-) #doyourresearch.......

They also missed their cycle hangar target significantly - only installing 55 of the targeted 100 for the year. It's incredible that they suggest they have met targets on the basis of anecdotal evidence like social media - not sure that stands up to scientific scrutiny. It seems, per the thread with Cllr McAsh on the monitoring data, that this council is really struggling to get the one thing they promised and the one thing we all need....actual data. Now I wonder yhy that might be? Also very interesting to read that Cllr McAsh says an independent analyst will be reviewing the monitoring data - I wonder who that analyst is.

Cllr McAsh - why has the data not been made available - the council has the data? Data was promised as part of the review yet none has been forthcoming and the review is due to close within days - can you share what has gone wrong?

Redpost - keep it civil. I was merely pointing out that your aggressive assertion that it was more fiction was incorrect on your part. You know that we were referring to Southwark as a whole (as the report to which we were first referring) and you know that stretches to central London don?t you? You are also aware that Lordship Lane and other roads in the area are major bus routes? I disagree with your assumption that UK wide data is more relevant than London data - I would be interested to hear why you think that is the case. As you have looked at the report you will no doubt have seen the chart above the one on ?central London. It refers to NO2 sources in outer London. Again 50% of emissions are from road transport of which 20% are from TFL buses - maybe those green line buses are a little more prevalent all over London than you believe. Granted you may not see many taxis but that still accounts for 4% of NO2 emmissions in outer London and I would not consider Southwark outer London - there are plenty of taxis in the north of our borough. So maybe you can now agree that there is far more fact in my assertions than fiction. I won?t hold my breath for an apology?.;-)

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yet more fiction from rockets: > > "buses and taxis are contributing far more." > > truth: > > https://www.statista.com/statistics/1233533/transp > ort-ghg-emissions-sources-united-kingdom-uk/ > > passenger cars are 55.4% of UK transport > emissions > > buses are 2.5% > > furthermore, these are aggregate figures. If we > were to base on per passenger km, there would be > further order of magnitude in difference Redpost - come on, you should know by now that I will have done my research! ;-) And you should know better than to throw UK data around when we are talking about London! Attached are some stats on breakdown of pollution and from the London Council's Demystifying Air Pollution report from 2018. Look at London's PM3 sources: 53% comes from road transport.... ..of which taxis are the biggest contributor - 26% Van and mini bus - 17% Diesel car and petrol car on 14% each TFL bus fleet - 13% etc etc.... So this is why it is important for the council to show what the sources of pollution are - it seems a disproportionate amount of energy is being employed by the council to deposition cars when they are part of the problem not the only problem.

Legal - I suspect they would counter that since the govt cuts they no longer have the resources to do this stuff internally! ;-) Your point is a very relevant one though - we all know getting consultants to do anything is actually a very expensive way of doing it. It reminds a lot of the time Lambeth spent money on putting billboard advertising up telling people that they didn't have enough money due to government cuts - but they could fund a billboard advertising campaign to tell people about how little money they had.... I do also think the focus on transport (and private cars in particular) is a diversion tactic to divert attention from areas like housing which are far greater contributors to emissions than private cars and that the private car is a convenient cause-celebre and easy target. It's clear even within the 15% of transportation's contribution to emission that the private car is a very small % of that and that buses and taxis are contributing far more.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > exdulwicher - too true, usual libertarian drivel > from boris > > what is needed is road charging that's broadly > revenue neutral (ie. remove fuel duty and recover > revenue through road pricing), this government > doesn't have the balls though for such a > progressive move To be fair I am not sure any government would have the balls for such a move. But remember transport is only part of the problem - the much bigger (and tougher) nut to crack is buildings - that accounts for 79% of the emissions in Southwark - every factory, office and home needs addressing.

I had a quick skim through and it makes a lot of key points about the challenge we all face to reduce emissions - it also, I hasten to add, does the usual "we need more money from central govt to make this happen" narrative. But a couple of things jumped out. 79% of all emissions in the borough come from buildings 15% come from all transport - it would be interesting to see a breakdown within this as this includes buses and taxis and both of those are the most polluting form of transport on the road. The council calls out the need to reduce private car journeys, and whilst this is important, they really need to able to show how much buses and taxis are contributing to the problem and how quickly they can phase those out too. I wonder if this suggests we might be facing another 18 months of LTN hell.... Review the 11 existing LTNs over the next 18 months including impact on carbon emissions. Some other things jumped out. Encourage and collaborate with transport operators including Transport for London to improve frequency, capacity and access to public transport. Work with the Mayor of London to secure the national investment needed to decarbonise bus and rail network Explore the feasibility of emissions-based parking permits as part of review into permits on streets and estates

I had heard the event on Saturday was a protest against the closures - does anyone know?

Every time I see someone on an e-scooter I can't help but think that they are inherently unstable - the centre of gravity is all wrong due to the position of the feet and I think people get into trouble when they hit a pot hole etc because of it. Boris Bikes have always been a problem with people riding them who have no idea what they are doing and I can't help but think that with e-scooters it is going to be even worse.

It is incredible. Amazing how they can be ruthlessly efficient in throwing in planters, getting cameras put in and then adding a right-turn phase light at the DV/EDG junction yet when it comes to the raw data to show whether their measures are working or not they cite "unwelcome hitches". Honestly, they must think people are stupid. It's really becoming a comedy of errors and so many people are losing their faith in this council to do anything properly. We also had a leaflet from Labour drop through our door from Margy and Richard telling us that they had to rush the implementations to get the govt money and that's why they could not consult and that they want people to respond to the review so they can "make changes" as they "know the measures aren't perfect". It's all so wonderfully open ended - please respond so we can make changes. They should be telling us what changes they are suggesting . Are they then going to suggest a review on the back of the review to review the changes that they claim we will be asking for in the review? I very much suspect they are sitting on raw data that validates what we have been saying: that the LTNs have been an unmitigated disaster and even their Bureau of Misinformation is struggling to cut the numbers to show any upside. They all know their political futures are hanging in the balance and are probably struggling how to spin their way out of this. Soon the internal finger-pointing will start and may have started already looking at Margy's tweet.

Over the weekend it seems the vandal who has been attacking anti-LTN signs has been on the rampage again. Good to see Clean Air Dulwich saying that this is not acceptable. Let's hope the person doing it gets the message as this is bordering on intimidation.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > rahrahrah Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > first mate Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > I also do not agree with rah's take on what > > > Heartblock has said and > > > > doubt very many others will either. > > > > > > I simply corrected two demonstrably false > > > statements. Professor Aldred does have over > 25 > > > peer reviewed articles and she isn?t > ?employed > > by > > > or paid by people paying for her research?. > > > > > > I have absolutely no problem with challenging > > the > > > data, or the conclusions of a particular > piece > > of > > > research, but that is not what those > statement > > > do. > > > > > > What are the matters of fact you disagree > with > > > exactly? > > > > > > So Rahx3 - do you at least acknowledge that > > working for a cycle lobby group, and heading > their > > policy unit, whilst doing paid research (much > of > > which is funded by the organisation the lobby > > group is lobbying) that is designed to prove > the > > effectiveness of the measures said lobby group > is > > pushing is a conflict of interest? > > Honestly, I don?t think there?s much point in > having this conversation. I?ve corrected two > demonstrably false statements. It?s no good saying > someone hasn?t published something they have. It?s > no good saying someone is paid by an organisation > they are not. If we can?t even accept matters of > fact, then there is little point trying to have a > sensible conversation about more nuanced issues of > interpretation or judgment. So do you think there was any conflict of interest.....? BTW are you 100% sure she wasn't paid for her role at LCC - she was both a director and a trustee?

Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And, to add those who are discrediting Aldred's > professionalism -- this from Rockets: > > "I am glad we have finally established that Rachel > Alfred's research is neither impartial or unbiased > nor particularly scientific." > > It would be good to stop this sort of thing as > well as the Alice statement that I will not repeat > as it is false. But that's what I think and the more I look into it the more it validates my thoughts and nothing I am seeing from the counter argument is making me rethink my position. I refer you to my previous post above - there is a massive conflict of interest that can lead a lot of people to be able to question the output. Ok let's turn this on its head....convince me there is no conflict of interest. I am happy to hear what you have to say.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I also do not agree with rah's take on what > Heartblock has said and > > doubt very many others will either. > > I simply corrected two demonstrably false > statements. Professor Aldred does have over 25 > peer reviewed articles and she isn?t ?employed by > or paid by people paying for her research?. > > I have absolutely no problem with challenging the > data, or the conclusions of a particular piece of > research, but that is not what those statement > do. > > What are the matters of fact you disagree with > exactly? So Rahx3 - do you at least acknowledge that working for a cycle lobby group, and heading their policy unit, whilst doing paid research (much of which is funded by the organisation the lobby group is lobbying) that is designed to prove the effectiveness of the measures said lobby group is pushing is a conflict of interest?

Heartblock - I do hope you will stay and not let those who seem to find it difficult to accept that people might have a different opinion to their own drive you out. You explained, very clearly, why you think her research is not as impartial as others would like to think.I agree with you and I am sure lots of others do too. Just because your view differs from others' doesn't mean it's wrong but we have seen time and time again throughout this process that many of those on the pro-LTN side of things find it difficult to accept any opinions other than those they hold themselves. They're also very partial to a bit of gaslighting - it forms a major part of their approach. Part of the reason we are in this mess is because of the inability of some to see things from the other side.

Rahx3 - I don't think Heartblock's questioning of Rachel Aldred's output is unjustified - there are many who are, quite rightly, questioning how balanced Rachel Aldred and her research team's reports and research are. I think that questioning is understandable as many (like the Guardian and everyone in the pro-LTN lobby) hold her reports as the gospel on the positive impact of LTNs and other active travel interventions. Yet when people, like us, scratch beneath the surface and discover that she was both a trustee and director of LCC (London's cycle lobby group) and headed their policy unit during her tenure between 2012-2018 and that both the LCC and TFL sponsor her to produce reports that they use to justify their interventions (that LCC lobby for) you can see why people might question how unbiased they are. I also think Heartblock did a great job posing some questions about Rachel Aldred's methodology and conclusions. It's not unreasonable to suggest there is a conflict of interest if you are working for/have worked for a group lobbying the very people who fund a lot of your research.

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What is wrong with aspiring to the same levels of > cycle-use as Amsterdam? > What are the big differences? I know we have some > hills, but bikes can go up hills. It's also > pancake flat between East Dulwich and central > London (if you go via Peckham) - The route of the > 37 bus from Nunhead to Clapham and beyond is also > flat. > Also - neither London or Amsterdam are megacities, > by the definition of 10M+ people. Amsterdam is > part of the Randstad conurbation which has a very > similar population size to London. > > This is not an argument in favour of the current > LTNs but why would we not aim high on encouraging > and facilitating active travel. > > > I share your view that walking is just as > important. The difference, in my view, is that > there are few, if any encumbrances on walking in > this area - not that I am aware of anyway. Compare > that to cycling and it's more obvious, to me > anyway, where you can spend money to effect > change. I aspired to be a professional sportsperson but unfortunately I wasn't good enough - sometimes aspirations don't match reality! ;-) Even if you compare metropolitan areas London (14.5m) dwarfs Amsterdam (2.5m) and they are markedly different in terms of topography and geography. I do always chuckle when I read about Amsterdam and The Netherlands when you realise they own more cars per capita than us in the UK!