exdulwicher

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not sure the council cabinet reshuffle is > going to help. One of the new appointees has the > title Member for Low Traffic Statutory post going forwards (it might not be that title in every council nationwide but they're all mandated to consider this now urgently). Don't forget, this has come down directly from central Government with direct funding available. Councils (and this applies to most traffic schemes, not just LTNs and not just now) bid for funding and then have to use that funding to implement either what they're directed to do (like LTNs) or what they want to do (eg a council will bid for funding to, say, modify a junction, they receive funding and it then has to be spent on modifying that junction, it can't be re-directed elsewhere). The problem is not LTNs - as a general rule, if they're well implemented and people are engaged with the process, they work, they deliver tangible benefits and this is well-known and well-modelled more or less worldwide, obviously with caveats around the various specifics like location, population (inc population density & demographics), the existing infrastructure and so on. The problem, and I mentioned this earlier re Wandsworth, is poor local Government engagement and implementation. There are a few instances (not all but certainly a few) where councils have fallen over themselves to get money and spend money and in their haste they've sort of forgotten anything around engaging with residents and businesses. Now to be fair this isn't all on councils; central Government was pushing for rapid implementation and they could have done far more with explaining nationally why it was being done - in many respects they've simply left the councils to cop the flak which is very poor of them but they're busy trying to break international law so I doubt they care and the messaging around Covid / returning to work etc has been incredibly muddled and chaotic. The critical thing (and hopefully this is where a specific role within council will come into play) is to trial the scheme properly under the existing legislation, model it, refine / amend it (there might be some that are removed, some that are altered etc), look at the data on it, refine it further and do that in conjunction with complementary "carrot" work - local mobility schemes, e-scooter hire, bike hire, walking buses, local home delivery services, providing information and advice to residents and businesses and so on. Many people on here have mentioned that it can't all be stick, there has to be some carrot and they're right. But equally, engagement goes both ways - constructive criticism is fine but abuse and insults and vandalism are not.

https://road.cc/content/news/vandalism-oil-spread-road-anti-ltn-protests-turn-nasty-276865 My mistake, it was oil spread on the ROADS, not actually IN the planters. They were just overturned.... http://www.ealingtoday.co.uk/default.asp?section=info&page=ldrsroad003.htm

Partly, it's the responsibility of the council although using it as a community benefit is certainly an option. There was talk somewhere (might have been Oval LTN but I can't find it now) reporting that vandals had poisoned the plants by pouring oil into them. I mean there's being against the closures but poisoning soil and plants is despicable. Manchester put a load of much more heavy duty ones in on Deansgate, a road which has long been a pain for footballers revving fast cars up and down it and restaurants / cafes campaigning for street closure to allow them to spread out into the street. The council put in massive cast iron ones with proper trees:

There is ONE thing that reduces pollution. Fewer cars (or fewer journeys, depending on how you phrase it). LTNs help with that by deterring (some) car use. It takes time to bed in, it sometimes requires additional interventions like setting up bike or scooter hire schemes or better parking for them, Walking Buses for kids to get to school, pop-up cycle lanes, 20mph zones and so on, sometimes it'll largely achieve the desired effect on its own. The roads aren't closed - residents, emergency services, deliveries etc can all reach all houses and businesses so it's an important phrasing distinction between "closed road" and "filtered road" (where through traffic is prohibited). We're in a situation which was going to arise sooner or later, Covid or not. There's a climate emergency, there's a global pandemic, there's an obesity and diabetes crisis especially amongst children and it's got to the point where we could have made minor changes over the last 20 years, drip fed into the system but we haven't. It's now at the point where it needs dramatic intervention NOW because, if we don't do it, it'll need even further dramatic intervention next year (like the Athens case mentioned above where odd and even-numbered cars were banned from the streets on alternate days - happened in Paris as well: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/07/paris-bans-cars-for-second-day-running-as-pollution-strikes ) The choice now is you can be sort of nudged into making fewer journeys because it's mildly inconvenient to drive or you can wait a year or so and be banned from driving on alternate days altogether. If you're angry about pollution, look to the people driving short journeys, not the LTNs.

ali2007 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I haven't been following this thread so apologies > if I'm repeating what's already been said. No, it encourages shorter journeys to be made on foot, by bike etc. If you're on Calton Avenue and you need to go to Dulwich Village, the easiest / quickest option is now to walk / cycle / scooter through the planters, not to drive the long way round. Sensationlist cabbie conspiracy theory bollocks. Cabbies should be in favour of things like this. It is in the interests of every cab driver out there to minimise private car use. Drivers don't get taxis. Pedestrians do though. More walking and less traffic is good for cabbies. Plus they make a few extra quid out of a slightly longer route! No it didn't. The Fire Brigade were within a few metres of their actual destination (someone locked out of their house), they were blocked by a badly parked car and they do actually have the authority to shunt things like that if required. London Fire Brigade have been quoted several times saying they're in favour of the LTNs and actually their response times have dropped slightly in areas where these have been introduced. Check out their Twitter feed. The article you saw was in the Daily Mail which automatically places it as more sensationalist bollocks. Source? Actual cases where this has happened? I posted about this either earlier on here or on a related thread. Wandsworth messed up big time on a variety of issues, they've utterly screwed themselves over. Catastrophic local government short sighted stupidity. Why? It's costing Government to put these in, TfL aren't making any profit from it. With public transport usage curtailed due to Covid / social distancing, if everyone jumped in their car to make journeys that they previously did by public transport, the roads would be gridlocked, this was known about coming out of lockdown hence the rapid need to encourage alternative transport.

The trials in Coventry have just been paused after complaints of pavement riding! The reality is that the police aren't going to do much about it unless you're mowing down pedestrians or bouncing off cars along Red Post Hill. Echo the comments above about locking it up - it's unlikely to survive long on the open Sheffield Stand bike racks outside ND although if there's one of those Cycle Hangers anywhere nearby, that might be worth a conversation with a resident to ask about sharing it. Could ask TfL / Network Rail if they have any plans to install a bike parking shed or lockers at ND. Or is there anything at London Bridge? At least that'd save carrying it to/from the office. Most stations got rid of lockers (too easy to put bombs in) but LB bike parking (out the station, turn right towards the underground) seems pretty extensive and safe, it's always full of bikes and it's got CCTV. Tuck it away down there with a hefty lock around it?

The full monitoring report for that is here. The plus points outweighed the negatives so yes, it's essentially "semi-permanent" (or more accurately - intention to be made permanent) while further longer-term monitoring is done. That's standard - as it's been shown to be better in the short term, the "trial period" has been extended. If it can show benefits both short term and long term then it'll go from being "semi-permanent" to permanent. http://www.camberwellsociety.org.uk/rw_common/plugins/stacks/armadillo/media/ChampionHillAreaMonitoringStudyFINAL.pdf That's what happens when you leave a scheme in place long enough, you actually get meaningful data out of it. Wandsworth Council might like to take note of that...

It's a retreat for the second reason. There wasn't anywhere near enough time to ascertain effectiveness - it's been said before on here and other threads that it takes about 6 months for everything to settle down and this is known about with most road schemes, alterations etc. The council spent no time on framing the issues, engaging with residents, communicating the changes, highlighting the positives and there was no commitment to supporting complementary innovations like Walking Buses (for kids to get to school) or bike share schemes or permitting pop-up businesses in any of the closed areas. They've squandered money (ironically given to a Tory Council by a Tory Government at the specific behest of Government policy, they've lost whatever goodwill they may have had and they've made it far harder for themselves in trying to change things in future. Honestly, spineless local Government is the major stumbling block in all of these schemes and plans. It's why things get watered down to be beyond useless as consultation after consultation is ambushed by vocal NIMBYs and the councillors immediately fall over themselves to appease rather than explain. And far from being democracy, it's simply a case of shouting loudest. Exactly this @Rockets, the council have just blown any possible chances of progression. The anti-LTN side see it as a victory for shouting loudly and protesting, the pro-LTN side haven't had a chance to see any benefits of the scheme, the council have no modelling data worth a damn because it wasn't left in place long enough and the residents (and all the through traffic) see it as carte blanche to just drive anywhere, anytime. What a failure.

Dulres3 Wrote: > Have you actually read the document? Why don?t you > enlighten us as to the statistical methods used in > the models, and their validity. Don?t worry, I?ll > understand the mathematics, so get as complicated > and technical as you like. > Dogkennelhillbilly was being sarcastic. If that helps at all.

There are countless books, technical journals, websites and videos that describe how traffic is modelled, how flow rates are calculated, how journey types are differentiated, how multi-modal travel is accommodated, the methodology behind it, the data gathering processes... Some of it is incredibly technical - even Wikipedia has some quite in-depth mathematical speak - but there's plenty of introductory information there too. All easily available to search for online. You can read TfL's Modelling Guidelines here, it's only 184 pages. Bit of light bedtime reading... http://content.tfl.gov.uk/traffic-modelling-guidelines.pdf

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.

Nope, it came direct from DfT. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/board-20200602-agenda-and-papers-supplentary.pdf There's an easier to digest version in various City finance publications eg: https://www.cityam.com/tfl-bailout-conditions-published-as-rescue-row-rolls-on/ and https://www.citymetric.com/transport/whats-actually-uk-government-s-bailout-package-transport-london-5170 TfL had one or two areas of discretion but the current Active Travel plan is also linked to TfL's future funding. Basically, if they DON'T do it, no more funding. Rock, meet Hard Place. Hard Place, this is Rock.

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.

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How does Southwark get these numbers. Direct from > DVLA registration or off an from official must > complete survey in the borough census. > > Have to admit when I have been through the so > called poor areas there are many many expensive > cars being driven by young people and parked up. > > Makes you wonder if these surveys are worth the > effort and are the truth. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/boroughs-and-communities/southwark https://www.london.gov.uk/in-my-area/southwark Plus census data and voting records. DVLA would sell them the car registration info if they asked for it as well. Travel data is from Oyster Cards, contactless and season tickets. when I have been through the so called poor areas there are many many expensive cars being driven by young people and parked up. [stereotype] They're the local drug dealers [/stereotype] ;-)

The problem with that stat is that "Southwark" covers nearly 29 square km of everything from deprived areas, ongoing regeneration and very affluent areas and there's a marked change in urban geography and demographic between say, Elephant & Castle and Dulwich Village. Dulwich itself has one of the highest levels of car ownership within the borough but if you take some of the areas of North Southwark with the lowest levels of car ownership and than get an average across the entire borough, it appears lower.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > exdulwicher Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/road-traf > > > fic-estimates-in-great-britain-2019 > > > > DfT stats out today for traffic. > > Included in there is a stat that residential > areas > > have seen a 36.4% increase in traffic since the > > 1990s. > > Could it just possibly be that congestion is > caused ? and air pollution is made worse ? not by > cycleways, or opening streets to pedestrians, but > by too many motor vehicles?! You wouldn't make a very good Daily Mail journalist or taxi driver would you?! ;-)

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @ Ex Dulwicher. i have the TFL report at home and > will check this evening, plus the Southwark > traffic reports as well. > > I am concerned that people cherry pick staistics > such as a 36% increase in traffic and quote them > out of context. Or in the case of the OHS > consultation provide totally misleading statistics > such as the 47% increase in ttraffci through DV. > > > also, I think you are professionally involved in > traffic, what do you think of teh reduction in > p;ollution shown by the DoT figures over the last > 20 years? Apologies, I wasn't intending to cherry pick to show one side or the other of any argument - as this thread is concerned with predominantly residential roads, I thought it was worth mentioning as being of relevance to that (rather than say statistics about motorway miles which obviously doesn't apply to Dulwich!). Pollution - that's not measured directly from vehicles, it's extrapolated from vehicle miles/type, average CO2 emissions and actual roadside measurements. The problem is that actual measurements include general pollution and you then model things like "25% of it is cars" and so on. Since overall pollution has dropped - very dramatically in places - due to factors like closure of factories / mines, cleaner engines and various weather factors, it's difficult to attribute it directly. What's in there is a series of best guesses; pages 35-39 give a series of assumptions, info around changes to methodology and statistical analysis like sample size and there's a note in there too about changes to council boundaries which often has an effect the recorded level of traffic if a borough / county gains or loses some land during a boundary change.

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > exdulwicher Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Included in there is a stat that residential > areas have seen a 36.4% increase in traffic since > the > > 1990s. > > Thanks for the link, there is some intersting > stuff there, especially the table showing that > pollution and CO2 emissions have fallen (up to 65% > for NO) despite the overall increase in traffic. > > How relevant is this to Soutwark though, do you > have the equivalent figures for London? From > memory, I think the TFL figures show a reduction > in car useage over the last 20 years rather than a > 36.4% increase, despite a big increase in > population. Can you comment on that? There's a breakdown of it in this file: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/road-traffic-estimates-in-great-britain-2019 It downloads as a .zip, open it up and there are 9 folders, one is called Traffic by Local Authority (TRA89) Open that one up and there are 7 spreadsheets in there. Top one is Vehicle Miles, the ones after that are broken down by various other rankings such as Car, miles excluding Trunk Roads and so on. It takes a LOT of reading!

FairTgirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is there much in this data and discussion about > the role Google Maps and sat navs have to play in > actively sending traffic down residential roads as > well? It's not *really* DfT's remit to go down that route to be honest but there are countless studies and articles about the phenomenon, eg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-12/navigation-apps-changed-the-politics-of-traffic In the US in particular (where Waze is bigger than in the UK), communities have been reporting closed streets to Waze / Google on a rotating basis to try and get rid of some of the issues that it creates. You can search for it online, there are community blogs that describe it. Basically, it's the community trying to create their own LTN to counteract the issues of travel apps directing drivers off down residential roads.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/road-traffic-estimates-in-great-britain-2019 DfT stats out today for traffic. Included in there is a stat that residential areas have seen a 36.4% increase in traffic since the 1990s.

A fair chunk gone in around Walworth/Newington, an LTN within the estate between the Kennington Underground Station and Walworth Road. And further up the road in Lambeth is the Oval LTN.

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.

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:

The Daily Mail "fury" article, like most Daily Mail articles in dangerous disingenuous bollocks. LFB confirmed there was no delay in attending the call out, they support the LTN schemes and they were consulted on it.

Yes and no. People fear change and on anything contentious like traffic management, the general response is one of resistance and resentment. Consultation happens, vocal resistance is met, proposal gets watered down, re-submitted, vocal resistance is met and so on. Eventually, what happens is so light-touch that it only succeeds in annoying people and not delivering any of the originally promised benefits. A far better (and cheaper) way of doing things is to just tell people what you're doing and why, implement the changes, consult as you go and you get to actually SEE the changes from the start (disruption, traffic jams) right through to the final result (acceptance, lowered traffic etc) without relying on traffic models. The advantages are that it's temporary and cheap. If it doesn't work, you don't need to call in construction crews and dig the entire road up again, you just move a few planters. If it sort of works in some areas but not others, you can tweak it reasonably easily. You'll still get resistance - you always will no matter how many consultations you carry out - but this is quicker and cheaper. Eventually, by a mix of ongoing consultation, traffic / pollution monitoring, traffic modelling and actual physical data of what is happening right there on the roads gives you a far better picture of what works and why than just trying to rebuild one junction or block off one road. Honestly, this should be the standard method of doing this, not the constant back-and-forth of proposal -> consultation -> counter proposal -> further consultation... Long term, it's far less disruptive and far cheaper and gives better modelling info.