Rockets

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%?

LTN BooHoo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > They are out again today...there is a group > > congregating outside Saucy with Charlie now. > It's > > almost as if they are concerned about > > something..... > > Global warming? Our climate emergency? Inactivity? > Obesity? Pollution? Our children?s future? The > fact that we have built our lives around the motor > vehicle and if we have any decency we will > acknowledge that we must seek alternatives? > > I know, none of the above. Let?s just carry on as > we were. Have a nice day. I am pretty sure that is not their concern....these are politicians trying to manipulate the result of the review. It's so brazen it just shows how out of control they are.

They are out again today...there is a group congregating outside Saucy with Charlie now. It's almost as if they are concerned about something.....

I think it's pretty clear the councillors must be pretty concerned that the review is going against them. It's a bit naughty to extend the consultation and then mobilise a door-to-door campaign trying to get people to respond....not sure that is entirely playing by the rules. Looks like a desperate attempt to get people to try and turn things their way. One wonders what they have seen from the analysis of the review thus far...it must be going against them. This lot are so dodgy.

Something isn't adding up on these numbers when you look at the detail. So Lordship Lane has seen a supposed 22% decrease in traffic yet bus journey times along Lordship Lane are now longer than they were. The devil is in the detail and all that...

The LTN survey being done on streets like Woodwarde was being conducted by lifelong Labour supporters who said they were going to take the input to Margy to get her to realise she would likely lose her seat in May based on the LTNs, such is the feeling of anger towards the council amongst many residents in the very area where Margy would be expecting support.

Does anyone know if the council has applied the 12% they estimate traffic has been down over lockdown to these numbers?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Rockets - I stopped discussing Rachel Aldred?s > credentials with you, when you refused to even > accept a simple fact about how many papers she?s > published. All the research on active travel and > traffic reduction measures points to the same > sorts of solutions. Yet you dismiss it all as > biased. TFL?s data has been manipulated. Southwark > are suspect. It does feel like an irretrievable > case of confirmation bias and a bit of a waste of > time debating. > > To answer your question - yes, I can believe that > traffic across the area is generally down and that > cycling is up. I know a lot of people who are > walking or cycling to local clubs / kids > activities etc, when before they would have > driven. A lot more families are walking to school. > I include myself in this. My behaviour has changed > as a result of the LTN schemes. It?s not in anyway > surprising to me - It?s what?s happened everywhere > restrictions on car use have been put in place. > > That doesn?t mean that traffic won?t have > increased on some streets however. As I have said > many times, that needs to be identified through > monitoring (not anecdote), and mitigated. But the > idea that allowing cars to cut through side roads > will ensure ?clean air for all?, is obviously > ridiculous. It will only ensure more cars, less > active travel and dirty air everywhere. You weren't actually arguing with me over the number of papers she had published, that was someone else! If you refuse to answer whether you think she has a conflict of interest maybe you can answer the other question I just posed. Do you think traffic is down 22% on Lordship Lane. BTW the monitoring strips on Lordship Lane were first put in on the library side of LL at the Court Lane junction late last year yet have been moved to the junction of Melford Road for the review data that has just been published. I am now convinced they did this because traffic is queuing at Melford daily. Interestingly the strips on Eynella are flush to the traffic lights.

Legal it is. And council's know this and move monitoring strips closer to the source of congestion to alter traffic counts. So given the Lordship Lane counter is close to Grove Tavern this would tally. There is no way that Lordship Lane has seen a 22% drop in traffic and anyone who spends any time on it can see it with their own eyes. I have touted that 22% reduction to friends of mine who are very pro-LTNs and even they think the council is having a laugh with that number in particular. The council also seems to be very selective on the comparison month. Monitoring was put in on Lordship Lane at the end of 2020 so why focus on April only? I suspect an FOI might be needed to unearth the raw data. Also, what is the difference between an active travel monitor and traffic count data being cited for cycling - wild fluctuations between the two. Also under Carlton cycles is refers to 5+98 - did someone leave part of the secret algorithm used in situ on the page....;-)

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