LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[FairTgirl]

FairTgirl Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> slarti b Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Our councillors are claiming that the traffic

> > chaos we have been encountering locally since

> the

> > road closures and other restictions were

> > implemented are nothing to do with the closures.

>

> > They claim that congestion is instead the

> result

> > of an increase in traffic compared to

> > pre-lockdown. However, The data I have seen

> from

> > DfT (covering UK) and TfL ( for London)

> suggests

> > that traffic volumes are actually still below

> > pre-lock down levels. If so, this undermines

> the

> > councillors claims.

> >

> > Can anyone give me a link to any hard data (not

> > opinion articles) on traffic volumes pre and

> post

> > lockdown? In particular the source of the

> > COuncillor's claims?

>

>

> Cllr McAsh used a survey in the Guardian - for

> London as a whole. Not specific to here. They did

> all quote first week September which was obviously

> going to show an uptick as schools went back and

> people who had not been able to work with kids at

> home may have been able to return. It is possible

> that would drop back as people got back into

> routines.

On another thread on EDF posted by Slarti B which could explain this.

It is good to know that at least one of the local councillors is listening to their constituents and thinking a bit more deeply about the implications of these road closures. However there is a major flaw in the his analysis. He quotes from a Guardian article viz. "congestion in London has risen dramatically. On one day in September, it was 53% higher than the previous year." to claim that traffic has increased so more LTN's are needed. This interpretation is not correct, indeed it is significanlty flawed.

The measure of congestion used by Waze for this statistic is journey time NOT traffic volumes. So what this is saying is that journeys are taking a lot longer. Other studies, eg DoT and TfL, show that traffic is still below pre-lockdown levels. If so, what this means is that the congestion is caused, not by extra traffic, but by the road closures themselves. And, as the Guardian article shows, this actually increase pollution on the roads affected by the displaced traffic.

So, ironically, it seems that LTN's and road closure are actually increasing pollution, which groups like OneDulwich and many posters on here have been saying for months.

[Rockets]

Yes this is why these closures are deeply, deeply flawed and I think the fact Cllr McAsh has said that they will look at impacts on pollution and congestion in the area (although given the track record of the council manipulating data for their own means there has to be deep scrutiny of whatever they find) means these closures are doomed.

There will have been a substantial increase in pollution across local roads and the area as a whole with these closures (unless, of course the reduction in many car journeys due to Covid means the comparison from prior to and post Covid throws in an anomaly)- but from what we can all see with our own eyes is clear - pollution is a lot worse due to these closures. In fact, the A205 closure will have pushed those levels even higher over the last week.

[JohnL]

Hmm - the closure of Rye Lane seems to have been accepted now.

Some will stay some will go I guess.

[Rockets]

But apparently, according to Cllr Livingstone, 52% of Londoners support the LTNs...we should all just step down and accept them as we are obviously in the minority.....;-)

Important poll: 52% of Londoners support #LowTrafficNeighbourhood measures. Only 19% oppose them.

Important poll: 52% of Londoners support #LowTrafficNeighbourhood measures. Only 19% oppose them.

P.S as with all surveys probably good to check the source! ;-)

[JohnL]

Its a Redford and Wilton survey (not that I know much about them) BUT I didn't know the below

"New LTNs were part of another condition of the government?s first TfL bailout, which said a minimum of ?55 million should be spent on them and other Active Travel interventions."

https://www.onlondon.co.uk/new-polling-most-londoners-blame-covid-or-government-for-tfl-financial-woes-back-ltns-and-are-satisfied-with-sadiq-khan/

[JohnL]

Actually when you think of it as Wandsworth have revoked LTNs to comply with the bailout conditions TFL have to do more LTNs in the other boroughs.

Whats in the second bailout ?

[Rockets]

I am more and more convinced the LTNs are being used as a political tool ahead of the mayoral and local council elections - they are being used as a trojan horse. I really didn't think the Tories could be that smart but the more I look at it the more I realise they may be playing the long game here.

[spider69]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hmm - the closure of Rye Lane seems to have been

> accepted now.

>

> Some will stay some will go I guess.

Dont think it has been accepted but think that people know no what what they want for the better the Council will just ignore.

How can you accept Rye Lane as it is when you cannot get a bus?

Not every one wants to play cricket, party or ride bikes up and down.

[Townleygreen]

>Rockets said: I am more and more convinced the LTNs are being used as a political tool ahead of the mayoral and local >council elections - they are being used as a trojan horse. I really didn't think the Tories could be that smart but >the more I look at it the more I realise they may be playing the long game here.

In Southwark, the Lib Dems are the opposition. I think there are no Tories at all.

Could apply elsewhere though.

[Rockets]

Townleygreen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >Rockets said: I am more and more convinced the

> LTNs are being used as a political tool ahead of

> the mayoral and local >council elections - they

> are being used as a trojan horse. I really didn't

> think the Tories could be that smart but >the more

> I look at it the more I realise they may be

> playing the long game here.

>

> In Southwark, the Lib Dems are the opposition. I

> think there are no Tories at all.

> Could apply elsewhere though.

Yes and I think London-wide it is going to be very disruptive and is hitting Labour run councils hard. The Tories know Labour are very entrenched in parts of London (one-party councils etc) and they also knew LTNs would be like cat-nip to the likes of Southwark and they would jump at the opportunity to roll them out and would be reluctant to let them go if people didn't like them. Tory run councils have either not rolled them out or are pulling them out - there have been protests in Labour stronghold councils like Islington, Hackney and Brent. I didn't think the Tories were smart enough to do this but the longer it goes on the more you can see change (even on a seat by seat level in councils) which will be disruptive and unsettling for the new Labour leadership. I suspect Sadiq might be in trouble at the next mayoral elections and see the Lib Dems and Independent councillors winning more seats at the council elections next time round.

[legalalien]

You can?t really tell whether it is a Tory strategy or a function of the fact that ?safe? Labour stronghold councillors feel less need to be accountable to popular opinion though? Either way, if the result is more independent councillors I am a fan.

[Rockets]

And I am not at all convinced the Tories have the gumption to do something like this....way too strategic, requiring forethought and a modicum of intelligence....

[nxjen]

As I replied when you said the same thing on 11 September in this thread, Dominic Cummings is

[Rockets]

Interesting update from One Dulwich sent by email yesterday. Interesting results from FOI that someone submitted to the council...so glad people are digging beneath the surface and exposing some of the things the council has been able to get away with for so long!

1. We had an initial meeting with our new cabinet members, Councillor Catherine Rose and Councillor Radha Burgess, ahead of formal council meetings next week. It was a constructive starting point, and plans to schedule a further meeting were agreed.

2. The traffic chaos following the burst water main on the South Circular highlights how acutely the road network is under stress from the experimental road closures. While they remain in place, this kind of extreme disruption because of temporary roadworks in the Dulwich area is likely to be a common occurrence.

3. The London Ambulance Service (LAS) opposes hard road closures and prefers camera enforced schemes as they allow for unfettered access for emergency service vehicles (see feedback on the Peckham Rye scheme here). Please take photographs of any emergency vehicles unable to get through because of closures or congestion and send to [email protected].

4. The petition to Southwark to remove the current road closures (not a One Dulwich petition) will be discussed at the cabinet meeting on Tuesday 20 October at 4pm. A deputation from Dulwich Village RA may also be heard. The meeting will be livestreamed on YouTube: details, documents and the agenda here.

5. There are also two national petitions to parliament that you might like to read and consider: #552306 and #5508887

6. We have heard that the new phasing of the lights at the junction of Dulwich Village and East Dulwich Grove might be taking place this week on Monday 19 October. However, there is no news about the measures on Burbage Road, Turney Road, Dulwich Village or Townley Road.

7. In this newsletter, Councillor James McCash discusses the measures on and near Melbourne Grove. See especially the section Next Steps ?What does success look like??

8. An FOI request has revealed further problems with the figures used to justify the closure of Dulwich Village junction ? please see the report on our website www.onedulwich.uk/fact-checker (11 October 2020).

We are a growing body of protest. We continue to campaign for area-wide timed restrictions at peak hours, not 24/7 road closures, with fair and reasonable access for those who need it. We will be in touch again soon with further news and calls for action.

[Spartacus]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Important poll: 52% of Londoners support

> #LowTrafficNeighbourhood measures. Only 19% oppose

> them.

> https://twitter.com/Livingstone_RJ/status/13178513

> 06564997121?s=19

>

>

> P.S as with all surveys probably good to check the

> source! ;-)

What is not mentioned, is that Renfield & Wilton surveys are only a small subset, normally around 2 to 3 thousand People. In this case https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/majority-of-londoners-agree-most-streets-in-central-london-should-be-pedestrian-only/ 2,500 people.

Which if this is the source of the "52% of all Londoners support" statement is misleading as it should really say "52% of 2,500 Londoners ..."

There's lies, damn lies and statistics

[legalalien]

That fact-checker thing at point 8 looks absolutely shocking.

[KidKruger]

Correct, absolutely shocking, but we sort of suspected the data was perverted for specific aims.

[malumbu]

Did we all get out of bed the wrong side today? I'm sitting on some lovely data that shows the typical person surveyed (when I say typical the sample size was large enough to get pretty good representation of the population) couldn't give a fig about the environment when planning a journey. There is a Londoncentric cohort who are a little better. Great when they publish this work.

[AylwardS]

Legalalien I?m not sure if this is what you want but I commented on the Dulwich Healthy Streets previously on here and I?ve since had emails about something else I may be interested in.

https://dulwichvillagestreetspace.commonplace.is/about

As I recall when I added my comment I was asked if I?d like to know of other things happening in the area.

[Rockets]

Those 2,500 Londoners must have been answering that poll for ages - RedfieldandWilton seemed to have asked them about just about everything: Covid, housing, what a great job Sadiq Khan is doing, roads, pavements, Hammermsmith Bridge, what a great job Sadiq Khan is doing, transport, post-Covid economic recovery, what a great job Sadiq Khan is doing and finally that TFL's woes are nothing to do with Sadiq Khan!!!! ;-)

The 52% of Londoners stat tweeted by Cllr Livingstone omits to mention the part of the research that said the majority of Londoners think LTNs have not been effective in reducing car numbers! Certainly looks like a viral propaganda campaign based in flimsy research - the myriad of "HealthyStreets" twitter handles have been pumping out the stat a lot today!

[legalalien]

AylwardS Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Legalalien I?m not sure if this is what you want

> but I commented on the Dulwich Healthy Streets

> previously on here and I?ve since had emails about

> something else I may be interested in.

>

>

> https://dulwichvillagestreetspace.commonplace.is/a

> bout

>

> As I recall when I added my comment I was asked if

> I?d like to know of other things happening in the

> area.

Thanks. Earlier today I managed to log in to some sort of Southwark account. Seems I was signed up to my Southwark, anything dulwich related and a couple of other things but I have never received any comms. I updated my preferences to cover everything so let?s see (I haven?t received anything at all since I signed up years and years ago and I do check my spam folder regularly, so let?s see. I?ll try your approach as well....

[legalalien]

Just did the street space thing but wasn?t asked about whether interested in other stuff.

For anyone looking at a degree / masters in local government, the democratic deficit caused by COVID could be a thing?

[malumbu]

2500 Londoners will be much more representative than the unscientific snapshot on this forum. And its the long game, behaviour change doesn't happen overnight, it took decades in terms of smoking, and drunk driving, and for some sadly using a hands on mobile device whilst driving. In fact some of this reminds me of those complaining in the 60s when the breathalyser was introduced - civil liberties and of course I drive more carefully when drunk.

[Penguin68]

2500 Londoners will be much more representative than the unscientific snapshot on this forum

It all depends on how the respondents are recruited - undoubtedly the ED forum is self selecting (but with quite a wide variety of views, political and social, represented) - but the sampling process for a survey is key - is it random, is it weighted, and if so how? etc. What are the confidence limit? Any statistical poll with a result around 50%, even with a sample of 2,500 is likely to have a confidence range of +/- about 4% - 52% plays 48% essentially means 'evenly balanced'. or may. The metadata (recruitment criteria, how the poll was conducted, over what time period etc.) is key in interpreting the results. And a London-wide poll will include areas which are probably not so impacted by the actions, which are by no means uniform across all the boroughs.

[Rockets]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 2500 Londoners will be much more representative

> than the unscientific snapshot on this forum. And

> its the long game, behaviour change doesn't happen

> overnight, it took decades in terms of smoking,

> and drunk driving, and for some sadly using a

> hands on mobile device whilst driving. In fact

> some of this reminds me of those complaining in

> the 60s when the breathalyser was introduced -

> civil liberties and of course I drive more

> carefully when drunk.

But the fundamental difference, don't you agree, is that there is no downside to stopping smoking or stopping drunk driving or wearing seat belts? Doing all of those things has immediate positive impacts for everyone. The same cannot be said for LTNs.....