Earl Aelfheah

Does anyone know whether there will be any section 106 money raised?

I don't know about demand personally, but imagine the developer will have done some assessment of this. It's not in their interests to build student accommodation that then remains unoccupied. There are several universities relatively close by, including a massive teaching hospital in Camberwell, the Camberwell College of Arts, the IoPPN / KCL's Denmark Hill campus, plus Goldsmiths not too far away. I also worry about the trains being pretty overcrowded and unreliable, but think that's probably a more general issue that needs addressing. If it's targeted mainly at students from Camberwell, the train isn't really that relevant (at least for getting to / from university).

Why ask? Do you really care what the data says? On one hand you quote it (where you think you can spin it to support your prejudice) and on the other you rubbish it as unreliable (exactly as OneDulwich does repeatedly). You do the same with all research on LTNs, on the impact of the ULEZ, with cycling data from Tfl etc... You've openly admitted that you only consider information relevant where it conforms to your predetermined view. But, so as not to be accused of avoiding the question: One claim that the data collected by Southwark Council shows that "...the Dulwich LTNs have not reduced traffic but simply displaced it." This is not what the data shows. Yes, there has been different impacts across different streets, including some displacement, but the data shows an overall reduction in traffic. To say that it hasn't reduced traffic (at least based on the data they're quoting) is untrue.

The data is there for all to see, if they’re genuinely in it. I don’t believe you are remotely interested in anything but misrepresenting it, and / or undermining it, to try and make a case that confirms a position you took before the changes were even implemented. …much like OneDulwich

Irony is dead.

I gave a specific example. They claim in that 'news' article that the data collected by Southwark Council shows that "...the Dulwich LTNs have not reduced traffic but simply displaced it." This is not what the data shows. They also say in another post of the same data, that it is unreliable. It's all the same inconsistent, incoherent, or down right untrue nonsense, that's regurgitated across the multiple 'anti-LTN' threads on this forum. Little point in going down this rabbit hole though frankly, as you've already repeated every talking point One Dulwich has ever published on their website ad nauseum. And it is very clear (from your own admittance) that you will only ever give credence to information you believe aligns to the view you already hold.

Good photo. Has fallen victim to the pup-arazzi. Pawful behaviour..... etc.

I can't be bothered going down that rabbit hole / don't have time right now. But for example, the headline 'Data confirms failure of Dulwich LTNs' and all that follows in it, is absolutely false. There are numerous other examples. It's very tedious and of course, they're completely unaccountable.

My biggest problem with One Dulwich is that they are consistently spreading pretty outrageous misinformation on their website with zero accountability. Much of it is then amplified by a handful of monomaniacs via this forum. The fact is more than four years on, the scheme has broadly proved itself successful (reducing traffic, increasing active travel and creating a well used, low traffic route connecting ED to the Village and a number of schools).

I think it covers the postcode and a 0.25 mile radius surrounding it (it's a little unclear). The LTN has been in for four years and there is no evidence of a rise in crime (possibly the data is more suggestive of a fall). As far as detailed research into the impact of LTNs on crime more generally (not Dulwich specific), that concludes they tend to reduce crime. In conclusion, we can't say anything definitively, but the available evidence does not support the claim of "increasing crime from Southwark’s LTN". If anything it suggests the opposite.

For Court Lane (Centred on SE21 7DR) crime rates are as follows: 2019: 91.7 2020: 71.6 2021: 55.5 2022: 98.7 2023: 89.9 Again, small numbers, so not sure it's really significant one way or the other. Quite a big drop in 2021 (lockdown?), but overall, the rates seem pretty stable / unchanged. In summary, available data on reported crime provides no evidence of the LTN having increased crime. If anything (caveated as above) it shows a drop in Calton Avenue and no real change in Court Lane.

Yes I agree with that. As I've said, the smaller the area you focus on, the smaller the sample, the less reliable the conclusions. But in so far as we have any objective data, it suggests crime has fallen in the LTN, not risen as stated rather definitively in the thread's title (with zero supporting evidence).

There's no evidence that Crime is getting higher inside the LTN. The specific reported crime stats for Calton Avenue and environs (although it's an incredibly small sample area) show crime falling. Centred on postcode SE21 7DG crime rates are as follows: 2020: 100 2021: 75.9 2022: 66.9 2023: 50.8 (source: 'crystal roof' website, which analyses police reported crime data by postcode). ...as I say, I'm slightly wary of quoting crime stats for such a small area, and understand that there is a difference between crime and reported crime. But in so far as we have any objective data, it suggests crime has fallen, not risen.

The title of the OP is really, really misleading / unevidenced.

He's started another thread because he's a monomaniac.

The 'crystal roof' website I quoted from uses the same data (metropolitan police statistics). The quoted trends are for the postcode. I just caveated it a little because I'm not sure that you can say too much about such a small area (as overall numbers are so small that a couple of crimes can skew things). But all in all, there is nothing in any of the available data or research (imperfect as that will always be) to back up the claim (completely unevidenced) that the Local LTN has increased crime. I'm not talking about 'narratives'. I'm talking about available data. Some general, some more specific.

I agree. But the research that has been done, suggests that LTNs generally reduce crime. Of course that doesn't mean that it's necessarily true universally of specifically, but in the absence of any recorded increase in crime (in fact most police stats at least suggesting crime is falling) and the aforementioned evidence from other areas where similar interventions have been studied, I'm not sure why one would assume crime has gotten worse as the result of the local LTN. I'm suspicious of anecdote, leading to speculation on an effect, followed by an assertion of causation.

The crime rate has dropped every year since 2020 according to the 'crystal roof' website (which analyses crime stats by postcode). Centred on postcode SE21 7DG it shows crime rates as follows: 2020: 100 2021: 75.9 2022: 66.9 2023: 50.8 It doesn't include stats for 2024 yet. Not sure how accurate this is for a small area in reality. But suggests that the wider area is seeing a fall in crime.

This is uncontroversial (except for those who are ideologically opposed to any measures they consider 'anti-car'). No one wants LTNs for the sake of it. Certainly not where there is evidence that they might make thing worse. The data that was collected and published on the Dulwich LTN specifically however, did show a reduction in traffic and an increase in active travel. There isn't any reliable data on emissions, and I suspect the shifts are too small to have any significant impact on emissions one way or the other. Together with other policies however (for example the ULEZ and wider measures to encourage more active travel), there is evidence that air quality is improving in London.

So I'm confused. The manufacturer has 'of course' said that their equipment is very accurate at recording the number of vehicles, even in slow moving traffic. Or they have very specifically 'admitted they are not accurate under slow moving traffic (10kmph)'?

You still don't understand what confirmation bias is do you? Over on the other thread, just to remind you, you said: I don't believe I have ever claimed that you had 'validated' her research. I don't believe for one second that you have such expertise. I believe I said that you had conceded that she is indeed an expert (or at least 'someone who knows what they are talking about), even citing her work personally. I think you'll find that this is true, but feel free to point out where I am lying. So to clarify, you do think she knows what she's talking about, but you disagree with the conclusions of all (?) of her published research?

Of course THEY (MetroCount) do because THEY are trying to sell their product at a time when more accurate tools are coming into the market. It doesn't mean it is true - it is a claim. A claim the likes of Aldred even challenge. But you claimed that: You do see this presumably? So you finally accept that the manufacturer does state that their equipment is very accurate at recording the number of (even slow moving) vehicles? Because you have been denying it over many, many posts.

So some great news. After 114 pages, we have reached something of a consensus concerning the work of Professor Rachel Aldred and her team. Previously Rockets and First Mate have rubbished her research, but have recently conceded over on the West Dulwich LTN Action Group thread, that she is indeed an expert, even citing her work personally. Below is a summary of some of the conclusions her work has reached across a series of studies, some London wide and others based on in-depth London borough research. We can now all agree that LTNs lead to: Their roads that are safer Their streets that are less dominated by traffic They have lower crime levels They benefit deprived areas and under-represented groups They have no adverse impact on fire service response times They are supported by the public They enable more active travel They lead to reduced car use They enable young people to be active# Links to all the studies here: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-impacts-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-feb-2024-acc.pdf

It literally does not mean this. You've cut off the bit where is says: They literally state that their equipment is very accurate at recording the number of vehicles. So you also now accept her analysis (having previously rejected it, and her, as biased and unreliable)? This is great news. So both you and Rocks now accept the conclusions she reached, that LTNs help to reduce traffic?

Where have I u-turned exactly? And where have I lied about what you have said? Are you quite OK?