Rockets

Thanks Ex- - it's so good to have you back! Whilst you say they are "fine" and good when used with other monitoring sources of data do you have any thoughts on my questions below: Was Metrocount right to say: the counters are “not designed to work” in stop-start traffic? Do pneumatic tubes work well in road conditions under 10km/h and in congested traffic? Do you have to reset them/use them differently to specifically count vehicles under 10km/h and, if so, does that impact overall accuracy or do you have to do two separate sets of monitoring? Why do you think the MetroCount default setting is only over 10km/h out of the box? Would moving tubes from Lordship Lane at the junction of Court Lane to Lordship Lane to the junction of Melford Road (which is often under heavy congestion) increase or decrease accuracy of the monitoring provided by the tubes? It seems that tubes do have flaws and the sooner everyone moves to Vivacity monitors the better - at least we will have more definitive data that cannot be accused of being used to manipulate the outcome - this is why so many people have had problems with the way councils have conducted themselves over monitoring - they have appeared to try everything in their power to prove their LTNs have been a success and when they make such a hash of the monitoring element it creates suspicion. I still laugh heartily when I think the lengths Southwark went to monitor the streets inside the Dulwich LTN and then had to be forced to monitor outside! This really depends on whether they monitor well under 10km/h or not. Certainly when the monitoring started the tubes were positioned in different places to where they ended up for the majority of the monitoring programme. I think Ex- has said previously that moving them is often deliberate but I know for a fact that the one that was on Lordship Lane at the junction of Court Lane was moved to adjacent to Melford Road (so under slow moving congested traffic for much of the day) and the siting of many of them was close to junctions. The ones in Dulwich Village were very close to the traffic lights and junctions. If they capture everything under 10km/h then clearly no problem but if they lose accuracy under 10km/h then you have to suggest the placement and movement of them was suspicious to say the least.

This one FM? There are known issues with data quality. Usually, reports used Automatic Traffic Counters (ATCs) to monitor traffic, in most cases ‘tubes’ across the road. These are imperfect. Parked or very slow-moving motor traffic may affect results; although in most cases, count sites were placed away from junctions where queueing is likely, which should reduce this problem. Data problems due to parking may be more an issue on internal residential roads than on boundary roads. Adjusting for expected changes should help control for such bias as that data too is largely based on ATCs. We have not accessed raw data directly from counters, as this would not be feasible for so many count points, schemes, and boroughs (and data may be held by contractors). It is possible that authorities or contractors have made errors6 (in one report a clearly wrong count was given for one site, for instance). We believe that a small number of undetected errors should not bias the overall results; and sensitivity analyses assess if any borough’s exclusion substantially changes the results.

But, again, we are not discussing the strengths - we are discussing the limitations of monitoring tubes. And Aldred clearly validates my position and undermines yours. Earl now you're making things up and trying to put words into my mouth - what started this all was me saying: The manufacturer admitted they are not accurate under slow moving traffic (10kmph) Please try to be accurate.

We're not arguing about the strengths. Stripped of what context....do please enlighten me....they look pretty definitive to me. In what context do you think they can be interpreted in any other way? No. You seem to be upset that I am recognising Ex-'s credentials to talk with knowledge about this subject but not giving you the same credit. Ex- talks from a far more rational and educated position on these matters. In my defence all I remember is you talking about is teaching kids to cycle, not much else to suggest you are a transport expert delivering sustainable programmes. Sorry if I missed something, perhaps start a new thread so you can enlighten everyone and we can all pay homage to your expertise.... You're just upset that Aldred validates my position not yours and you're struggling to find an out. Or are you suggesting she means classify rather than monitor traffic....?

No, those are words in a report she put her name to. A report on LTNs and monitoring of LTNs. Which definitely does not make it confirmation bias because there is no bias or interpretation applied to her words by me. It's confirmation denial on your part....what do you think Rachel Aldred meant by the below then....it's pretty definitive isn't it? It's on page 7 in this report under Strengths and Limitations: https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/download/74b26baccb2dbc0d26f1ca1773b3cdcd08402ef0e79fae1908f79d77c2cb7653/6168872/1-s2.0-S2213624X23001785-main.pdf There are known issues with data quality. Usually, reports used Automatic Traffic Counters (ATCs) to monitor traffic, in most cases ‘tubes’ across the road. These are imperfect. Parked or very slow-moving motor traffic may affect results; although in most cases, count sites were placed away from junctions where queueing is likely, which should reduce this problem.

I do value her opinion on the fact that Parked or very slow-moving motor traffic may affect results (in relation to monitoring tubes) Sorry to break it to you Malumbu but this is not about you....

Ex- welcome back - oh how I have missed debating/arguing with someone who comes from a position of knowledge!!! 😉 So, to shut either Earl or I up once and for all and to give one of us eternal bragging rights and everyone else a rest from our bickering 😉 can you answer this: Was Metrocount right to say: the counters are “not designed to work” in stop-start traffic? Do pneumatic tubes work well in road conditions under 10km/h and in congested traffic? Do you have to reset them/use them differently to specifically count vehicles under 10km/h and, if so, does that impact overall accuracy or do you have to do two separate sets of monitoring? Why do you think the MetroCount default setting is only over 10km/h out of the box? Would moving tubes from Lordship Lane at the junction of Court Lane to Lordship Lane to the junction of Melford Road (which is often under heavy congestion) increase or decrease accuracy of the monitoring provided by the tubes? Yes and by the same measure the pro folks will point to data put out by those rolling out these measures and say..."look, proof it is working the council have said everything is awesome and so it must be" without every bothering to check the detail....Unfortunately this is the world we live in, everything is very binary...you're either in or out....no-one can take a little bit of this and a little bit of that and occupy the (pragmatic) centre ground - if the headline suits your agenda you'll amplify it - everyone does it!

To be fair DKHB, Ex-Dulwicher seemed a darn sight more qualified to pass comment on such things than Earl, Ex at least claimed to work n the industry and they said (my how we miss their learned and informed opinion): Southwark (as with many boroughs in London and cities outside London as well) are moving a lot of their monitoring to Vivacity sensors. They're the camera type things with double lenses you can see on a lot of lampposts around the area and they're vastly more accurate, they can measure pedestrian, bike, car, truck, bus etc very accurately and also measure things like turning flow. They're largely immune to congestion issues and slow moving traffic, or at least can process this as part of the whole package (speed low, flow low, count low = congestion). BTW well done to the West Dulwich Action Group for getting a segment on the BBC London news tonight.

Earl, let's just agree to disagree. You take the word of MetroCount, I will take the word of the likes of Rachel Aldred and people who actually know what they are talking about. You've been wrong on a lot of other things in the past and we will just add this to the list! 😉 What do they say about arguing with..... Sometimes the answer is staring right at you from the page! Denial is not a river in Africa! 😉 By the way, would you care to enlighten us as to why you think the MetroCount devices aren't accurate (your claim) for vehicle classification (which you are suggesting they are admitting to) under 10km/h but are for counting?

But Earl, why out of the box does it's default setting not record speeds under 10km/h.....why on earth might that be.......and how on earth can that be reading between the lines - it's printed in the user manual? Given what you're saying what rational response is there that the default monitoring window is set to 10km/h to 160km/h out of the box? But they also said this: The company says the counters are “not designed to work” in stop-start traffic and are recommended to be used in “free-flowing conditions”. Perhaps you believe everything companies tell you - Purdue Pharma told everyone Oxycontin wasn't addictive....;-)

Thanks for sharing that - the devil is always in the detail... Speaking of which do you not think it is interesting that in that manual (page 75) the default setting the device comes with does not monitor anything under 10km/h....one wonders why that might be.....the out of the box setting is 10km/h to 160km/h. Any guesses why that may be the case......? Oh I found the link to the manual with the reference below, very interesting that they say "as with any axle-based classifier....vehicles should be free-flowing. try to avoid areas with congestion" - almost as if everyone knows/should know that any system is not good with congestion and need free flowing traffic..... https://tech-metrocount.com/Article.aspx?key=piezo-install As with any axle-based classifier, also consider the following: Vehicles should be travelling at a constant velocity. Try to avoid bends, intersections and steep inclines. Vehicles should be free-flowing. Try to avoid areas with congestion. Combine both elements and the "whose narrative is correct" swing-o-meter points far more towards mine than yours. It does also make me wonder whether Southwark bothered to change the default when they moved the tubes from Court Lane to adjacent to Melford Road during their monitoring....?

The company says the counters are “not designed to work” in stop-start traffic and are recommended to be used in “free-flowing conditions”. But can they measure both those different things at the same time? By default having a "different setting" suggests it is binary - that the setting is either on or off - you're either setting it to monitor slow moving or free flowing traffic and by having a "different setting" suggests it cannot do both well at the same time - does it not? So based on your previous statement about the setting the accuracy of the results of the measurement will be determined by the location of the tubes combined with which setting has been initiated - correct?

They are inaccurate. They have "admitted" it. That's why they tell people they have different settings on the device. You're wrong.

We will agree to disagree. I will just leave the words of Rachel Aldred...I don't often quote her in a positive way but this is a damning as it gets for tube counters...perhaps you think she is wrong too...... There are known issues with data quality. Usually, reports used Automatic Traffic Counters (ATCs) to monitor traffic, in most cases ‘tubes’ across the road. These are imperfect. Parked or very slow-moving motor traffic may affect results; although in most cases, count sites were placed away from junctions where queueing is likely, which should reduce this problem.

Earl, The company says the counters are “not designed to work” in stop-start traffic and are recommended to be used in “free-flowing conditions”.

Earl, you're really flogging a dead horse here. The very purpose of the tubes is to classify vehicles - i.e. one vehicle has driven over the tubes, if it is not accurately classifying vehicles then it is not accurately counting vehicles either. It's very clear: these tubes are designed to be used in free-flowing traffic (that is the guidance given by MetroCount) and are not accurate when used in congested or slow moving traffic conditions. This is why Enfield council had to re-run the monitoring after resetting the tubes for under 10km/h monitoring which resulted in a lot more vehicles than their initial monitoring claimed. MetroCount admits they are not good under congested traffic conditions and says the counters are “not designed to work” in stop-start traffic Rachel Aldred admits they are not good under congested traffic conditions Ex-Dulwicher admits they are not good under congested traffic conditions Earl thinks everyone else is wrong....and clearly knows better....

Earl, for goodness sake read the whole article...MetroCount say the below......I can't spell it out any more simply... If even Rachel Aldred is calling the accuracy under slow moving vehicles into question you seem to be on an island of 1 with your position. The company says the counters are “not designed to work” in stop-start traffic and are recommended to be used in “free-flowing conditions”. It explained: “Vehicles travelling very slowly might not be classified correctly, either the axle hits are too far apart so it splits them and places them into an unknown vehicle class, which doesn’t get included by default, or it attaches those axle hits to a vehicle in front or behind.”

Just leaving this here Earl..... Even Rachel Aldred questions the accuracy of tubes in a report she did - I doubt she does this if the 99% accuracy you claim is correct. I very much suspect 99% applies to those placed in free-flowing traffic. I very much suspect you have to set them to either monitor traffic above 10km/h or set it to monitor under 10km/h - which is why they are supplied with default setting over 10km/h. Rachel Aldred said in this report: https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/download/74b26baccb2dbc0d26f1ca1773b3cdcd08402ef0e79fae1908f79d77c2cb7653/6168872/1-s2.0-S2213624X23001785-main.pdf There are known issues with data quality. Usually, reports used Automatic Traffic Counters (ATCs) to monitor traffic, in most cases ‘tubes’ across the road. These are imperfect. Parked or very slow-moving motor traffic may affect results; although in most cases, count sites were placed away from junctions where queueing is likely, which should reduce this problem. And remember...Southwark moved monitoring strips CLOSER to junctions and congestion.......perhaps they did not read the instructions properly.....

Earl, you are selectively clipping elements of the Time article. here is the full text for reference where MetroCount actually admit the fallibility to the Times. https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/flaw-in-roadside-counters-for-low-traffic-schemes-j6wbwvzjn Traffic counters used to monitor the impact of low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) are not accurately recording vehicles during heavy congestion, The Times can reveal. Research suggests that between 5 and 35 per cent of cars, vans and lorries in slow moving or stop-start traffic are not being counted, calling into question the claimed success of the controversial schemes. Scores of LTNs were introduced during the pandemic and many more are planned. They use bollards, planters or camera enforcement to block through traffic in residential areas. The idea is to encourage people to walk or cycle instead of using their cars for short journeys. However, critics say the schemes force traffic on to a small number of surrounding roads, increasing congestion and pollution. Councils that have introduced LTNs have mostly hailed them as a success, pointing to data showing they have cut traffic both inside the areas and on some of their boundary roads. However, local residents have often been baffled by these claims, saying they have witnessed significant increases in congestion on the boundary roads. The company says the counters are “not designed to work” in stop-start traffic and are recommended to be used in “free-flowing conditions”. It explained: “Vehicles travelling very slowly might not be classified correctly, either the axle hits are too far apart so it splits them and places them into an unknown vehicle class, which doesn’t get included by default, or it attaches those axle hits to a vehicle in front or behind.” This means if there is little or no congestion at the measuring points before the LTN, the number of vehicles counted is likely to be accurate. However, if the LTN creates congestion at the count points, the post-implementation surveys will not report the true number of vehicles. There are also fears some counters may not have recorded vehicles travelling under 6.2 mph at all. One north London council has already been forced to admit it under-reported congestion on the boundary roads surrounding one LTN. Enfield council confessed that cars, vans and lorries travelling in congestion had not been recorded after the Fox Lane LTN was introduced because a software update had changed the setting without its traffic engineers realising. MetroCount said the council’s contractor appeared to have made “a deliberate choice to change the default setting, contrary to MetroCount documentation that advises caution when surveying slow-moving or congested traffic”. It added: “Every single report produced by our software lists all the parameters selected at the top of the report, including any speed range settings.” The Times approached eight inner London councils that introduced LTNs during the pandemic to ask what settings they had used on their counters, whether they had been adjusted after their schemes were implemented and whether they were confident in the accuracy of their data, but none of them answered. Almost all of the councils have presented their LTNs as a success, claiming traffic reductions even on some boundary roads. Enfield council conducted a manual count of vehicles on four roads that also had automatic counters. This survey found that the automatic counters under-recorded nearly 3,000 vehicles — the equivalent of 5.4 per cent — over a 12-hour period. Dozens of videos have emerged on social media of cars moving very slowly or being stationary over counters on LTNs’ heavily congested boundary roads. One resident of Enfield was so suspicious of the data reported by the council on his heavily congested road near the edge of an LTN that he trawled through 24 hours of CCTV to see how many vehicles had actually passed his home. Ediz Mevlit, a bus driver from Palmers Green, said: “The council said only 1,845 cars a day passed through my road on average and congestion had reduced. But when I watched the CCTV back, I counted 2,523, that’s about 30 per cent more — and I probably missed a few because I sped up the footage. I was so angry because they had been making me feel paranoid. It’s the gaslighting, telling me traffic has reduced when it hasn’t.” After Enfield council’s recording error was discovered, it re-ran all the data without the 6.2 mph filter and recovered some of the undercounted vehicles. This changed its reported data from a 5.7 per cent increase on boundary roads to 8 per cent but critics say new data still did not record vehicles during heavy congestion because of the counters’ inherent limitations. In a report on Hackney council’s LTNs, John Wilde, a director at Charles & Associates Consulting Engineers, said: “Automatic traffic count surveys cannot be considered as broadly accurate [on congested roads]. A CCTV method survey would be more robust, and would also capture the stationary or slow-moving traffic conditions, whilst also allowing for clearer assessment of the peak periods.” Automatic counters have also been the primary source of data used by academic studies suggesting that LTNs work. This week a petition demanding the government carry out an independent review into LTNs surpassed 10,000 signatures, forcing a response. It said the Department for Transport had already appointed the University of Westminster to “undertake an independent evaluation of active travel schemes funded in 2020-21”. The director of the University of Westminster’s Active Travel Academy is Professor Rachel Aldred, a former trustee of the London Cycling Campaign, which has been one of the most vociferous advocates of LTNs. Enfield council said new traffic data on its boundary roads meant there was “no material change” to its previous conclusion that the Fox Lane LTN should be kept. It added that it did not rely on automatic counters alone and used other methods of assessment such as bus journey times to consider the impact of its schemes. The council also said it was not appropriate to compare directly the data between the manual counts and the automatic count, or draw conclusions from the disparity because they were not conducted at exactly the same spots on the roads. MetroCount says that its tube-based counters are still very accurate for traffic volumes, even under very slow and congested traffic conditions because the axles passing are continuously recording. It says that in most circumstances this would exceed 95 per cent accuracy but that the reporting of volumes under slow-moving conditions requires users to change the default settings. In a statement it added: “Our standard settings are recommended in normal free-flow circumstances and when also wanting to display very accurate speeds, classes, headway, gaps and other higher level information in addition to the basic traffic volume. Under these conditions accuracy routinely approaches 99 per cent or higher, as verified by many departments of transport globally. “All automatic counting technologies will have some limitations in very high congestion, and even manual and video counting is known to have accuracy issues for long-term counting. It is incumbent upon users to know how, where and when to best install traffic counters and use complex associated software.” The residents feeling the impact of LTNs It was a struggle for Christiane Comins to get to the protest outside Islington town hall this week but she got out her crutches and gritted her teeth. Comins, 53, has multiple sclerosis (Jack Malvern writes). While she has a blue badge that gives her permission to drive through her neighbourhood, this is of no use for the delivery drivers she needs for essentials or the friends she relies on for help. Her neighbourhood, in the Barnsbury area of Islington, is the latest in the north London borough to be proposed as a low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN). It prompted a protest of more than 100 residents outside the town hall on Tuesday. “Because I’m disabled, I’m not only reliant on taxi journeys to or from the hospital but also reliant on friends coming to visit me,” she said. “I’m reliant on food deliveries to the house. They won’t be able to come. I may just drown in a pool of my own tears. I used to say I should jump in the Thames, but I can’t climb the bridge any more.” She said her MS comes and goes and that she dreads returning to a bedridden state. The last time, her friends were able to visit and even hold a party for her. “That can’t happen now if Barnsbury LTN goes ahead. I have MS and it’s a bugger. I go up and down. “Of course I support cyclists, but do they need every street in the neighbourhood? No, they don’t.” She worries not only for other people with disabilities but for local shops. “I worry a lot for some businesses like our butcher, who is feeling the pinch from [existing] LTNs. It’s quite frightening how little say you have.” Others at the protest complained that their daughters felt unsafe walking home at night through streets deserted of traffic. Nicholas Mason, 78, a retired solicitor, said his journey time to pick up his granddaughter from school in Tottenham, north London, had tripled. Jonathan Harrison, 75, a retired architect, added that the zones were frustrating his journeys to hospital for cancer treatment. A few weeks ago he received £480 in traffic fines for driving past a camera near his home. “I never saw a sign saying don’t come in this road. I had no idea they’d closed it. I think it’s totally outrageous. There’s been no consultation. None of this was in their manifesto, that they’re going to make it impossible to drive. It’s a pointless, ridiculous, vengeful policy.”

Nah, sorry - you can't throw that back to me...you've done this before on many occasions. You're incredibly prejudiced - shockingly so in fact. Maybe you're trying to be funny..who knows. You're happy to accuse anyone who dares question your way of thinking as some sort of right wing bigot yet you're happy to indulge in bigotry. You can't have it both ways but your attitude is reflective of so many nowadays. It's sad and incredibly hypocritical.

How much has it increased by and when did it increase? Perhaps those who can afford cycle hangers are now seen as a revenue generating opportunity like people with gardens or cars? 😉 Of course it could also be that the council are skint (but only in areas that are not Dulwich Square of course!) #sorrycouldntresist

I very much suspect the 99% accuracy applies to "free flowing" traffic - MetroCounts words not mine. Rest assured when I have time to find the MetroCounter counter manual my paste came from then I will post it. If it does indeed come from a MetroCount installation instruction manual will you stand corrected and issue a grovelling apology? Or will you try to deflect and distract or perhaps construct some reason why they recommend installing in free-flowing traffic and avoiding congestion....?

They have tried to wrestle this confliction previously....on numerous occasions. And yet......;-)

Oh my......what a wonderfully prejudiced statement that is....

We will agree to disagree.....(not for the first time, not for the last time) Search MetroCount installation instructions and you will find the below...it's all publicly available Site Selection As with any axle-based classifier, also consider the following: Vehicles should be travelling at a constant velocity. Try to avoid bends, intersections and steep inclines. Vehicles should be free-flowing. Try to avoid areas with congestion. Explain to me then why Southwark decided to move the counters near Court Lane to down near Melford Road.....a co-incidence or oversight perhaps....perhaps they weren't reading the instructions supplied by MetroCount!!!