Rockets

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Yes but traffic was nowhere near as bad on that > section of road prior to the closures being put > in.....but you know that already." > > You're suggesting that traffic was heavy north > sound on Lordship Lane between The Plough and the > skate park at the Old Harvester because of an > east/west closure on Dulwich Village? Yes I am. It's logical. The DV junction was a key route east/west across Dulwich and it is now closed so traffic is being forced to take other routes. The delays southbound on Lordship Lane around the Grove Tavern is because of traffic queuing to turn right onto the A205 and I suspect much of that traffic would have used to have gone via the DV junction. It was the issue we all kept flagging with these closures from the outset - they push traffic onto Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove and parts of the A205 and create congestion and increased pollution as a result. At about 1.30pm this afternoon Lordship Lane going northbound was nose-to-tail from outside Moxons to the Goose Green roundabout. It cleared about an hour later - I was sitting in Signoria cafe watching it but I suspect it was being caused by the flow of traffic coming from the North Dulwich end of EDG trying to filter onto Lordship Lane - once again increased because of the closure of a key east/west route. When they close Townley during rush-hour it will get worse again.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, traffic in this part of London is terrible, > isn't it? Something ought to be done about it. Yes but traffic was nowhere near as bad on that section of road prior to the closures being put in.....but you know that already.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Abe_froeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Thanks Ex Duwlicher, the first TFL document > > confirms the proposal came form TFL which the > > mayor is in charge of : > > > > "On 15 May, we also announced our > > proposal to increase the congestion > > charge from ?11.50 to ?15 daily, extend the > > hours of operations to include evenings > > (up to 10pm) and weekends, temporarily > > close the residents? discount to new > > applicants and make other consequential > > changes. " > > > > "Our" being TFL / the Mayor. > > You're nitpicking in an effort to blame "the > Mayor". It's literally in the document that the > Government mandated TfL to maximise revenues (like > removing fare freeze, removing free travel, > reinstating congestion charge). > > Yes, TfL decided to increase it at the same time > but it was essentially an arm-twisting and it > certainly wasn't "TfL" acting alone. > > You can't blame SK for TfL going bankrupt in one > sentence and then blame him for increasing CC in > the next! > Given the pandemic and the crash in fare revenue, > TfL would have gone bankrupt under any Mayor in > the world. This is splitting hairs in much the > same way as certain councillors are now attempting > to twist the narrative around LTNs. > > It comes to something when you have a Tory Council > shouting on social media about LTNs being > "imposed" on them - by a Tory Government. They are > literally bidding for money from their own > Government, doing what they're told and then, when > it seems unpopular locally, they're backtracking > and seeking to blame anyone else - that usually > being TfL. > > None of this is going to work if it splits into > violently pro and anti and everyone spends their > time nitpicking, shouting down, blaming, > finger-pointing and basically trying to govern by > populism. Sadly though, that's the way that > politics has gone in the last 5 years or so - > there's seemingly no desire to work together to > address critical issues, it's a case of "them and > us", you're either with us or against us. > > Not a healthy place to be in, it generally doesn't > work out as giving "holistic solutions" or > well-implemented compromises, it ends up with each > side shouting "WE'RE RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG!" at each > other. Ex - you're spot on. Politics has become so polarised that there is no longer any middle-ground and no-one can bring themselves to compromise. Prior to the election we were faced with the awful dilemma of voting for the far-left or the far-right and nothing in between. And this has filtered down to local politics as well. We can all but hope that Keir can wrestle power off the hard-left and bring Labour back towards the middle and force the Tories to come back towards the middle - if not we are all in for an even worse time. But back to the subject of the thread: Lordship Lane gridlocked from back beyond the library at the Plough all the way up to the Grove Tavern junction.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?But then I realised it is a Tory govt and they > aren't very smart so probably could not have > cooked up such a devilish plan.? > > Dominic Cummings could have though But he would have been caught in the act! ;-)

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Abe_froeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The Mayor is desperate for people to get back > onto > > public transport because TFL has gone bankrupt > on > > his watch. (They won't though because the Mayor > > also said that people will die if they travel > on > > the tube). > > That's politics in play right there. > > TfL would have gone bankrupt anyway no matter who > was Mayor given the Covid crisis. Half their > funding comes from fares and that's collapsed. > So the Government bailed out TfL (quite rightly). > They then put a host of conditions onto that > bailout such as the increased congestion charge > (both pricing and hours of operation). That wasn't > SK running that through, it was central Government > but it suits them very well to have everyone > blaming the Labour Mayor. > > There's similar political posturing going on now > over Hammersmith Bridge - Grant Shapps said it's > been in a terrible state for decades which > presumably also means the point when Boris was > Mayor of London... However it's being blamed on > SK. But the infrastructure money comes from > central Government so it's more or less been in > the hands of the Conservatives for the last > decade! > > It's all just political point scoring. Sod the > constituents, politics is now just arguments on > Twitter as one Minister or councillor seeks to > belittle another. The thought had crossed my mind that this initiative was promoted by the Tories with them knowing full well that it would be like catnip to some London boroughs and they would begin carpet bombing closures and ultimately annoying the hell out of the constituents and potentially destabilising the political landscape. But then I realised it is a Tory govt and they aren't very smart so probably could not have cooked up such a devilish plan. I do think the Mayor's office is going to take the brunt of this and the fact Lambeth weren't interviewed for the ITV London news piece suggest the council may not be too keen to stick their head above the trench on this.

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > An 11% reduction in car usage in one fell swoop > would be a huge achievement. It just goes to show > > how many of those journeys weren't critical. > > The figure of 11% evaporation comes from a 20 year > old study using highly subjective data, dubious > methodology and some very, very dodgy statistics. > Even the authors admit some of their working data > (eg evaporation of 149%) was incorrect and\or > unreliable. > > But even taking their dodgy figures as correct, > that still leaves 89% of traffic to be displaced. > Where will it go? I have noticed that the council has, retrospectively, put more monitoring in place around Dulwich. It will be interesting to see what conclusions they come to - one hopes they have monitoring data from before the road closures were put in place so they can make a proper comparison.....we know they only had monitoring added to the closed roads around DV and weren't monitoring the displacement roads from the start.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's starting....the pressure is mounting....TV > > news coverage tonight as well. Votes will be at > > stake now.... > > > Oh no, not the TV news! You already posted this in > the other thread by the way. Sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to post on multiple threads. I consider myself suitably chastised. The point I am making is that there is growing awareness of the problems these measures are creating. This, in turn, creates a narrative that all traffic congestion is being caused by it (whether it is or isn't). The news actually showed one of Lambeth's parking enforcement cars trying to drive down one of the closed roads so it all adds to the general perception that it's been rushed and is chaotically implemented and creating big issues. The fact that the mayor's office put up a spokesperson to defend the closures was interesting.

It's starting....the pressure is mounting....TV news coverage tonight as well. Votes will be at stake now....

Here the full league table of car sinners from TFL - for some reason it pastes upside down so Islington is the best and Bexley the worst! Islington Tower Hamlets Hackney Westminster Haringey Hammersmith & Fulham Southwark Newham Camden Lambeth Lewisham Waltham Forest Kensington & Chelsea Wandsworth Brent Barking & Dagenham Enfield Hounslow Ealing Redbridge Greenwich Richmond upon Thames Merton Kingston upon Thames Croydon Havering Bromley Harrow Barnet Hillingdon Sutton Bexley BTW did anyone see the ITV 6 o'clock local news - big segment on the controversy of the LTNs using the stuck fire engine in Brixton as the catalyst for the story. Someone has organised a march to Brixton Town Hall to protest. The news item said there were 160 LTNs put in in the last few weeks across the capital. Interesting that the mayor's office rolled out a spokesperson rather than Lambeth immediately elevating the story to mayoral responsibility rather than local council. The issue is getting more and more attention.

stecoward101 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Rockets 'and then manipulated by the council for > their own benefit'. Why would a council manipulate > the data. They want to reduce the number of cars. > > > It does not matter If Southwark have a lower car > use than most other boroughs as if it is still > high then you need to do something. > > rockets, this is not rocket science. The council manipulated the data to convince people there was a 46% increase of traffic through the DV junction to create a mandate to have it closed. It was a lie and blatant manipulation of the data to create public support for their changes. Traffic through the DV junction had been going down year on year and the only increase was that of pollution after they changed the junction layout during the first OHS "improvements". No, it's not rocket science - the council probably hope that it was as the problem for them is when non-rocket scientists like myself scratch a little beneath the surface they can expose where the council has been trying to hoodwink the constituents!

stecoward101 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Abe_Frorume I am confused why you are concerned > by this. Ensuring buses can run better surely a > good thing. Would you prefer that public transport > be hampered. > > Buses in South London are the most important > element of the public transport infrastructure. > The tube does not slow down because someone > decides to block the line. > > Additionally buses are using social distancing at > the moment so are transporting less passengers. > > Well done Southwark council for this change. Southwark and TFL have to do something as busses are getting caught up in the gridlock caused by the road closures on the roads where there can be no bus lane. I completely understand this move as if you have to do everything to encourage people out of cars and back onto public transport but I would be concerned if LL loses parking spaces at a time when the CPZ is being implemented too.

I wonder if we are particularly unlucky to get such a concentrated cluster in a small area, seemingly without any co-ordination between the local councillors on negative impact (although they did, of course, acknowledge during their door-to-door lobbying of the streets targeted for closure that there would be significant displacement).

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am not sure how you equate 8% as pretty > convincing support. I would consider 92% not > signing it as more convincing. > > Yeah, statistics don't work like that! ^^ > > Petitions are interesting and most councils will > give them lip service while trying their best to > ignore them because they can be horrendously > biased. There's a genuine art in creating a > petition that does not lead the respondent to > giving the "desired" answers from whichever side > of the fence you're on and most petitions created, > including a lot on Change.Org (because anyone can > create a petition on there) fall foul of that and > then can be ignored for that very reason. > > Thank you for your petition, unfortunately it was > a load of biased crap and we've therefore filed it > in the bin". > > I've posted this clip before on other threads but > it's worth highlighting - how to create "leading" > opinion polls/surveys: > It's ironic that councils will pay lip service to petitions due to them being flawed yet themselves create surveys and consultations that include some of the most biased and leading questions you will ever see! ;-) Trying to leave anything other than a glowing endorsement of their street closures is a battle in itself, although I notice they had edited it recently to give it more balance but version one was like Henry Kissinger addressing the media: "Does anyone have any questions for my answers."

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The council are chasing the displacement and that > is a very slippery path. > > They're not because there hasn't been time to > examine the outcome, propose further mitigation > and implement it. > > It's just the phasing of the agreed plans as they > don't have the resources to put everything in at > once, it's all going in over the space of about a > month or so. That's the same nationally by the > way, I don't have any behind the scenes insight > into Southwark other than what is on their > website. Were the closures of the roads surrounding Melbourne Grove part of the OHS plan? I am not sure how anyone can expect to drop a load of closures on a small area and not have a massively detrimental impact - or perhaps they don't care. On that point does aynone know whether other parts of Southwark are getting such concentrated clusters of road closures in a small area or has Dulwich been singled out for special attention?

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You can still drive round, if there's something > essential for you in Melbourne Grove? > > There is no 'nationwide campaign' - a newspaper, > worried about falling ad revenue, has to present > any story as something incendiary, or a 'fury' to > get clicks. > > The amount of vehicles on the roads has doubled in > the last 30 years, which isn't sustainable - so if > you're upset about the volume of traffic now, > unless more drastic measures are taken pretty soon > it will get far, far worse. But it's interesting isn't it, Southwark has one of the lowest car uses of all the London boroughs and the data presented (and then manipulated by the council for their own benefits) showed, quite clearly that there had been a gradual decline in the number of car journeys through the DV junction across 5 or so years. I think you will find there is a nationwide campaign beginning to grow - there is a lot of publicity about these closures in a broad range of media (I saw a piece on BBC London News some weeks ago on the same subject) and the more people who read or hear about it the more people likely to say "hang on a minute" and may question what is happening. It's the very essence of a grass roots campaign. Look at One Dulwich and the support they have. Look at the similar community-led action programmes all across London trying to get a more balanced and sensible approach to the problems. The councils have to do something to re-control the narrative else they will lose it completely and that has dire consequences for everyone - for or against.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I was on EDG at about 5pm today, there wasn't > > any > > > congestion at all. Is this kind of anecdata > > > useful? > > > > > > "the petition has nearly a thousand > signatures > > > which is about 8% of the total population of > > East > > > Dulwich" > > > > > > Yeah, but change.org petitions of any > > persuasion > > > are a load of old tut. Those signatories > aren't > > > all East Dulwich residents (or even > necessarily > > > all real). > > > > > > Let's be honest, Change.org petitions are a lot > > more transparent than the consultation surveys > the > > council conducts! ;-) > > > > The thing that the pro-closure lobby doesn't > seem > > to like right now is that there is a lot of > > dissent against the closures amongst a large > > swathe of the community and they seek to > > de-position and belittle to try and maintain > the > > impression that everything is great and it is a > > minority of petrol-heads making a lot of noise. > > For the pro group they aren't that happy that > the > > playing field is being levelled after having > the > > council echo-chamber to themselves for so long. > > The road isn't closed. None of the roads are > closed. You can still drive your brum brum where > you like. It might take longer. But if the journey > is indeed 'essential', that shouldn't be too much > of an issue. But they are closed to through-traffic aren't they? Whilst I hate the Daily Mail there is certainly a nationwide campaign starting against these closures and it will gain more and more momentum. The more people who become aware of it the more pressure will be heaped on councils to justify what they are doing and why they are doing it and they will have to prove it is having a positive impact. Previously they had carte blanche to put these things in place with little or no justification because there were only a few dissenting voices - the good thing now is there will have to be transparency where before there was none. If I was a betting man I think the council will end-up having to remove some of the closures - and then the pro-closure lobbies can fight amongst themselves over which roads re-open again! The folly was doing everything at once as the first closure in DV had a negative impact on EDG and now they have closed Melbourne it is making it even worse and each closure is amplifying the problem. When the timed closures in DV come in that will push huge amounts of traffic down Croxted Road and the A205 and Lordship Lane it's only going to get worse again. The council are chasing the displacement and that is a very slippery path.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was on EDG at about 5pm today, there wasn't any > congestion at all. Is this kind of anecdata > useful? > > "the petition has nearly a thousand signatures > which is about 8% of the total population of East > Dulwich" > > Yeah, but change.org petitions of any persuasion > are a load of old tut. Those signatories aren't > all East Dulwich residents (or even necessarily > all real). Let's be honest, Change.org petitions are a lot more transparent than the consultation surveys the council conducts! ;-) The thing that the pro-closure lobby doesn't seem to like right now is that there is a lot of dissent against the closures amongst a large swathe of the community and they seek to de-position and belittle to try and maintain the impression that everything is great and it is a minority of petrol-heads making a lot of noise. For the pro group they aren't that happy that the playing field is being levelled after having the council echo-chamber to themselves for so long.

But where does the other 89% of traffic go that can no longer use the roads that are now closed? By that reckoning about 6,000 cars that used to use the DV junction will now be looking for another route. Therein lies the point....

But really bad optics don't you agree - that type of image sticks and forms opinions. If there are no double-yellows why not - council oversight probably? Once again, it is what happens when you rush to implement something and demonstrates how poorly executed it is being done across the country and is wonderful ammunition for the anti-closure lobby.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Then came OneDulwich and this galvanised > cross-Dulwich support for people who wanted a more > balanced discussion and finally there was a group > that could not be ignored by the council..." > > OneDulwich galvanised a lobby that had never > previously espoused any concern about air > pollution in Dulwich but were really upset when > they couldn't drive their car to the shops. Nonsense. What they did was take an area wide community-led approach and hit upon a vein of anti-closure sentiment brought upon by the myopic and biased approach to the CPZ and OHS taken by the council across multiple wards in the area. The council presented flawed presentation after presentation full of manipulated and misleading data to try and prove their point during the CPZ and OHS consultations and people lost their trust in the council. One Dulwich and its supporters agree that something has to be done but doesn?t agree with the way it is being done and felt that the measures put in place will make things worse rather than better (remember, you can expect about 11% reduction in car use). The council thought that the voices of a few streets and twitter accounts benefitting from the closures would drown out the negative sentiment that they had been trying to dilute by dividing and conquering. They did it with the CPZ (68% against dont forget) and were trying it again with OHS. One Dulwich has over 1300 named people (none of them children from families from the closure lobby...ahem Southwark council....) supporting a mandate to push for a fairer and more balanced approach to the challenge. The council cannot ignore them. Awareness is at an all time high and you can?t walk down Lordship Lane for hearing people talking about the negative impact of the closures. Everyone can see for themselves the additional congestion this is causing and even if that congestion would have been seen without the road closures due to a Covid that doesn?t matter now because the council is having to own it for the ham-fisted way they have handled this and previous projects. They are reaping what they have sowed and my biggest concern is that this may well do real damage to properly dealing with the pollution crisis as no-one will trust them again.

ExDulwicher - you make some very salient points in your post, many of which I completely agree with. The biggest problem the council has right now is two-fold: one of credibility the other of carpet bombing. The credibility narrative, or lack thereof, was set some while ago with the CPZ "consultations" when the council was felt, by many, to have railroaded their plans for East Dulwich through against the will of the majority of residents across East Dulwich. They were seen to manipulate the system to their advantage (and the benefit of those most vocal advocates), tried to dampen any dissenting voices (I remember very well the debacle of the CPZ meeting at the library) and tried to divide and conquer the naysayers. Then came the OHS "consultation" and the plans for Dulwich Village and the voices of dissent became more vocal but once again the council used the myriad of tactics at their disposal to try to silence the voices. Then came Covid and everything changed. Even the most ardent petrolhead could see that car usage would increase on the back of the fallout and things would need to change. But instead of creating new Covid plans the council just said - "we're going ahead with those plans that were already in the hopper". AT the same time they neglected any of the most pressing needs of the area such as providing social distancing on Lordship Lane. The perception was that with the TROs the council said, right, "here's our opportunity" and they misjudged the mood of the majority of the people. They carpet bombed closure plans left, right and centre and people said, "hang on a minute - we have lives to live and we are the ones being impacted by this". Then came OneDulwich and this galvanised cross-Dulwich support for people who wanted a more balanced discussion and finally there was a group that could not be ignored by the council. Suddenly, those who felt they were being overlooked and ignored had a voice. At the same time the advocates for change were dancing in the nearly formed squares and heralding the end of the car and beginning of the cycling nirvana many dreamed of. This antagonised a lot of people whose day to day live was being disrupted by the closures. It was clear that the first round of DV closures had created more congestion and pollution and that was before schools returned and people even thought about returning to work. Meanwhile the council pushed forward with the plans for more closures (yet acknowledged they had received a lot of negative feedback). So here we are today with a council that has created a lot of the problems for itself and much of it comes down to a lack of communication with the constituents and they face a massive uphill battle trying to convince a lot of people that what they are doing is in everyone's best interests. People don't trust them. Everyone I am meeting at the moment is saying the same thing: "What has the council done to the traffic" and not "The traffic is a lot worse due to Covid". And that is a very deep political hole to try and climb out of. You rightly say that there isn't one single thing to get us out of the conundrum but the problem is that the council has used a single instrument to try and resolve it and it is a blunt one at that.

stecoward101 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure why you sarcastic remark is needed. I > believe caring for the welfare of children walking > to school is more important that access to shops > both ways. Please remember that the shops are > still accessible to cars if they travel the other > way. > > I live, work and volunteer in this community so > maybe you should take your sarcasm and use it > where it works. ...but urging people not to use shops who are lobbying against the closures....that's not at all community minded.

stecoward101 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I notice the coffee shop is still doing well. I am > not sure cars drive down Melbourne Grove to buy a > smoothy or get keys cut, try on second hand > clothes or visit an Italian who has been empty for > over a year. Blocking off Melbourne Grove is a > great thing for local, cyclists and pedestrians > and also improves the safety of the children who > attend the school. I urge the local residents to > stop using the businesses that are trying to > unblock it. Wow.....what a wonderfully empathetic sense of community you are displaying....

TheCropolite Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think you?re still not getting it. There are too > many car trips in London, plain and simple. Data > from TFL shows that 35% of car trips are under > 2km. > > http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-14-who-tr > avels-by-car-in-london.pdf > > That?s under 30 mins walking or 10 mins by bike. > In London most of those 1-2km trips will be > quicker by bike or scooter etc. anyway. Some > people may need a car for transporting goods, > fine. But most (around 60%) of those trips are > also being made by single individuals with no > passengers. > > This government is not going to introduce sweeping > legislation to stem car use in London which I?m > not going to get into but if everyone who was > making those 1-2km trips by car stopped we would > have 35% less cars on the road which is a huge > number, which would also improve journey times for > those making longer trips or who really need to. > > You may think what they?re doing is stupid and is > not going to do anything, but I think in hindsight > you?ll hopefully realise that any measures to > reduce car use are good, and this is one such > measure. A little further analysis of the link you shared from TFL is very telling. Slide 14 Car Use by Geography shows the car use by London borough league table - at the top is Bexley, then Sutton, Hillingdon, Barnet, Harrow, Bromley.....Southwark comes a distant 26th out of 32 (with 32 being the best having the lowest car usage in London). Below Southwark are Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Westminster, Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Islington - most of which have much better transportation links to, and across, the city compared to our part of Southwark. Southwark has a third less car journeys than neighbouring Bromley or Croydon. It would be great if the council understood where the traffic in Southwark emanates - is it locals going about their daily lives or is it from neighbouring boroughs because it appears to be the residents who are bearing the brunt of these closures.

TheCropolite Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > TheCropolite Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > tiddles Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > Rockets - spot on > > > > > > > > > You do realise this is what happens when you > > close > > > roads/lanes? There is an initial period where > > > congestion increases before it decreases. > > Google > > > it. > > > > > > 11% overall...Google it.....oh you don't need > to > > it was in the links you sent earlier....in > fact, > > if you had bothered to read the document links > you > > sent you will see that in Waltham Forest there > was > > a significant net increase in traffic on the > roads > > not closed and this did not go down. > > > > Can the other roads in East Dulwich accommodate > > the remaining 89% of traffic? Dulwich Village > has > > 7,000 car journeys per day through the Calton > > junction (the council's own numbers) - let's be > > very generous and say 1,000 of those journeys > are > > then made by other means - are you sure the > other > > roads that are not closed can accommodate > another > > 6,000 car movements per day? > > > > And that is just one junction. Then throw in > the > > other changes going in on Melbourne Grove, > Townley > > etc and you have a huge amount of traffic being > > forcibly funnelled down roads like Lordship > Lane > > and East Dulwich Grove. > > > > Do you see the problem a lot of us are > concerned > > about - this isn't sovling a problem it's > creating > > a much bigger one? It's classic traffic > > evaporation, it condenses and falls somewhere > > else. > > Of those 6000 car movements how many are > necessary? How many are over 1-2km? How many are > transporting more than one person? People need to > stop driving their cars like it?s their god given > right, it?s really not that complicated. Check the > data from that TFL link, it?s ridiculous. > > > P.S. this 11% number you keep giving is just one > example there are plenty of others where it is > significantly more than this. The problem is no-one knows about those 6,000 car journeys as the council never did that analysis - which we were saying they should have done as they didn't have the granularity to make a decision to close off Calton when they suggested it as part of OHS. I take TFL data with a huge pinch of salt - all the research goes round and round in circles and often comes back to being sourced from those with a vested interest in justifying their desire to close roads for cars. Regular poster on this forum ExDulwicher (who works in the business) says, if I remember correctly, that the most they have seen is 24% but the mean is very much 11%. And I remind you that the 11% came from one of the reports you sent out so by default you must agree with that stat as you were encouraing us to read it!!! ;-)