LTN Discussion

[Rockets]

Redpost - you are trying to find something to back up your argument and failing.

Southwark has consistently said, and even mentioned it in their LTN monitoring report, that traffic across Southwark was down hugely during the pandemic.

Page 19 of their monitoring report plots the monthly traffic figures, showing that traffic was down significantly for much of the pandemic and never once got above 2019 levels. They also state that traffic was 7.1% lower in September 21 compared to September 19 and that "Results for motor vehicle flows in this report should therefore be considered in this context."

So, all of those numbers they presented on traffic reduction (that many of you have been waving around as proof of success) have to take that 7.1% area-wide reduction into consideration because it is not factored into their post-scheme numbers.

This is why so many of us have been questioning these numbers because we are not seeing or experiencing what they claim - and that is because their numbers aren't a true reflection of what is actually happening.

For a true reflection they would have needed to remove the 7.1% from the pre-scheme figures or add 7.1% to the post-scheme figures.

But they chose not to....anyone got any guesses why that might have been.....?

[exdulwicher]

For a true reflection they would have needed to remove the 7.1% from the pre-scheme figures or add 7.1% to the post-scheme figures.

But they chose not to....anyone got any guesses why that might have been.....?

Because they'd have been applying a Southwark-wide figure traffic figure from TfL monitoring to a single LTN scheme.

Firstly, cam I assume that by "their monitoring report", you do actually mean the Main Report from the Streetspace page?

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review?chapter=4

If you're going to quote excerpts, it's useful to post the link.

Page 19 and again on page 28 of that report give a % figure for SOUTHWARK. That's data from TfL so it's main-road monitoring covering everything from the northern reaches of Crystal Palace right up through DV, ED, Peckham all the way up to Walworth, E&C, Rotherhithe etc at the northern end of Southwark. It's an area wide map that, without breaking down anything about vehicle type / roads used / actual numbers / times of day etc has simply looked at combined traffic counts and said "In Sept 2019, there were X vehicles in total, in Sept 2021 there were Y vehicles in total; Y is 7% lower than X.

It assigns the bulk of that to Covid which is logical and fair enough although there could be other underlying factors too since there's been a significant shift in working and travel patterns.

You're then trying to look at the more detailed % figures given for the Dulwich scheme itself and seem to be arguing that - what - the scheme is a failure because traffic was already lower? Southwark data doesn't apply to Dulwich? Dulwich data doesn't apply to Southwark? The council are wrong with their figures?

The "7% lower" figure is given as a helpful background note to put figures into context, not as something to apply direct to an individual LTN / Streetspace scheme. I genuinely don't know what point you're making other than you seem desperate to find something, anything to discredit the data while at the same time calling for more and more data.

This is why so many of us have been questioning these numbers because we are not seeing or experiencing what they claim - and that is because their numbers aren't a true reflection of what is actually happening.

"we want data"

[data is produced]

"no, not that data, it doesn't match our opinion"

[heartblock]

Redpost says...the traffic was higher....exdulwicher says...the traffic was lower..

make you mind up...

Maybe people who actually live on these roads and have lived on them a long time...way before some Councillors were born, maybe they have noticed long-term trends and have a little more ability to notice how traffic changes in response to external factors. One could say they have 'expert' knowledge of their road they live in

Maybe..the standard applied to clinical therapy could be applied here..

"Randomized trials cannot answer all important questions about a given intervention. For example, observational studies are more suitable to detect rare or late adverse effects of treatments, and are more likely to provide an indication of what is achieved in daily medical practice"3. Papanikolaou PN, Christidi GD, Ioannidis JP. Comparison of evidence on harms of medical interventions in randomized and nonrandomized studies. CMAJ 2006;174:635-41.

In fact Covid-19 pandemic has changed some of the ways health professionals consider therapy as per the RECOVERY trial where RCT was adapted and observation of many treatments by individuals with years of 'expert' experience in the field.

There are many cases when interventions have been applied on a population who have embedded experience, who are then ignored when they report harm and negative consequences. These populations are frequently told by very patronising, white males that they are incorrect about their own environment. mmhhhh

[redpost]

If they'd lived on these roads a long time then they would notice the 20% increase of the last 20 years? and reflect the need to do something about it?

[Rockets]

Ex- my point is very clear. The council are comparing two sets of numbers: traffic pre-scheme and traffic post-scheme. They are coming to the conclusion that the LTNs have been a success because of the reduction in post-scheme traffic numbers.

But they also acknowledge in their "helpful background note" (your words and I love the wonderful underplaying of this ;-)) that the post-scheme numbers they have published will have been "positively impacted" (my words) by a 7.1% decrease in traffic across the whole of Southwark which has nothing to do with the LTNs.

If there is 7.1% less traffic on the roads to start with (due to the pandemic) you can't sit and compare pre- and post-scheme without adjusting one set of figures to create a level playing field. Otherwise one set of numbers is positively or adversely impacted by the 7.1% reduction in traffic everywhere. Unless you are trying to claim that the Dulwich LTN area has been immune to the Southwark area reduction in overall traffic.

At the moment the 7.1% reduction is positively benefitting the post-scheme numbers - and those are the numbers the council and the pro-LTN lobby are using to justify the LTNs. Even without the LTNs the post-scheme numbers would have been 7.1% lower to start with - do you not agree?

[dulwichfolk]

redpost Wrote:

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

> If they'd lived on these roads a long time then

> they would notice the 20% increase of the last 20

> years? and reflect the need to do something about

> it?

Making people travel further won?t help.

The values for dulwich were going down year on year?. Pre covid

The 20% is only due to changing the counting method tfl/department for transport?

But keep going?.anything to keep the LTN.

[ed26]

Isn't it fair to assume that the parade of anti-LTN signs on EDG and Dulwich Common indicate that traffic hasn't reduced on those roads? They would be foolish to leave the signs up if the LTNs had improved their quality of life so much.

[heartblock]

TFL data for Southwark

Traffic miles all vehicles in 1993 - 528.5

Traffic miles all vehicles in 2019 - 527.4

Traffic miles all vehicles in 2020 - 436.6

10 years ago a benchmarking change occurred for minor roads, then again in 2018/2019

DOT

The previous minor road benchmarking exercise was undertaken in 2008/9 so in 2018 and 2019 a larger sample of minor road count points were surveyed. These data have been used to recalibrate minor road traffic estimates since 2010 and to produce new benchmark estimates for 2019. A representative sample of minor road sites are counted each year. The change in the traffic flows between two consecutive years is applied to the overall minor road traffic estimates for the previous year.

The adjustment applied to minor road traffic as a result of the 2019 benchmarking project was higher than that of previous benchmarking exercises.

So whenever you hear that minor road traffic has increased - do look at the overall stable numbers in Southwark and do remember the benchmarking elevated the estimate of traffic on minor roads.

[heartblock]

And yes I did notice traffic worsened, when Southwark re-jigged the Townley- Greendale-ED Grove crossing years ago making ED Grove traffic worse and now they have closed roads making it terrible. What new horror will they impose from high next?

[Rockets]

One Dulwich update:

Dear all,

More than 2,000 One Dulwich supporters

Welcome to our new supporters ? as of today?s date, 2,107 of us have now signed up to the campaign.

We continue to object to Southwark Council?s flawed scheme because, according to Southwark Council?s own modelling, it offers no overall improvement in air quality and instead:

displaces traffic and pollution on to residential roads with schools and health centres;

discriminates against those with poor mobility;

damages the viability of local shops and businesses.

In the run-up to the local elections in May 2022, it?s even more important that we make our voices heard, so please encourage family, friends and neighbours to sign up to the campaign: Support One Dulwich.

Why is Southwark delaying the permanent traffic orders?

On 24 January, Southwark Council sent out an email telling us that:

the decision to approve the scheme was made on 23 December 2021;

the permanent orders will come into effect on Thursday 17 February 2022;

all principal and boundary roads will be monitored (although the email doesn?t say which ones);

24/7 monitoring has been introduced on Burbage Road, Townley Road, and Dulwich Village, and will continue on the middle section of East Dulwich Grove (near the Tessa Jowell health centre).

Separately, we have just seen a second 21-day emergency traffic order dated 19 January 2022 (so running out on 9 February 2022) that keeps the junction of Calton Avenue/Dulwich Village/Court Lane closed. As before, the reason for the order is apparently ?to safeguard the high volume of pedestrians that are using this area to access schools and local businesses?. Embarrassingly for Southwark, they will have to make a further so-called emergency traffic order to span the gap between 9 and 17 February 2022. Otherwise the junction road closure will have no legal basis.

It seems that the Council is intent on delaying the process of making the traffic orders permanent. Why? So that continuing objections can be legally ignored as the Council goes into the period of ?heightened sensitivity? in March before the May 2022 elections? (See the official guidance here.)

The legal challenge

In the meantime, work with the Dulwich Alliance?s legal team continues, thanks to all your generous donations to the Dulwich Alliance?s fighting fund. At this stage, based on legal advice, the Dulwich Alliance has decided to wait for the final details in the permanent traffic orders before taking next steps.

Thank you for your continued support

Does anyone with a sharp legal or political brain know why the council would be filibustering over making the closure permanent? Or have they hit a legal issue with their implementation - we know the emergency services have voice their opinion and been ignored about the DV closures?

[Bic Basher]

ed26 Wrote:

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

> Isn't it fair to assume that the parade of

> anti-LTN signs on EDG and Dulwich Common indicate

> that traffic hasn't reduced on those roads? They

> would be foolish to leave the signs up if the LTNs

> had improved their quality of life so much.

There's still anti-LTN posters up on LL at the Dulwich Plough/Library end of shops too.

[legalalien]

I imagine they?ve chosen a 17 Feb date as it will take a while to get all the new signs sorted out, and presumably the signs on the south circular need to be signed off by TfL- if they have any sense they?ll take the time to do a better job of the signage than they did previously, as poor / badly positioned signage has been the cause of a number of complaints/ challenges to PCNs.

[Metallic]

Rockets asks:Does anyone with a sharp legal or political brain know why the council would be filibustering over making the closure permanent? Or have they hit a legal issue with their implementation - we know the emergency services have voice their opinion and been ignored about the DV closures?

They don't want time for big rows even lawyer-rows, with the May elections looming. I'm really disappointed in Southwark Labour councillors - some of them - at least McCash comes on here and puts his case. East Dulwich Forum covers where I live and think I can therefore say this. But people in Melbourne Grove and those other closed roads have no idea what the ripples from the junction closure means to all of us in the old (OHS) Area B. Why should we suffer for them?

[redpost]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> TFL data for Southwark

> Traffic miles all vehicles in 1993 - 528.5

> Traffic miles all vehicles in 2019 - 527.4

> Traffic miles all vehicles in 2020 - 436.6

>

> 10 years ago a benchmarking change occurred for

> minor roads, then again in 2018/2019

>

> DOT

> The previous minor road benchmarking exercise was

> undertaken in 2008/9 so in 2018 and 2019 a larger

> sample of minor road count points were surveyed.

> These data have been used to recalibrate minor

> road traffic estimates since 2010 and to produce

> new benchmark estimates for 2019. A representative

> sample of minor road sites are counted each year.

> The change in the traffic flows between two

> consecutive years is applied to the overall minor

> road traffic estimates for the previous year.

>

> The adjustment applied to minor road traffic as a

> result of the 2019 benchmarking project was higher

> than that of previous benchmarking exercises.

>

> So whenever you hear that minor road traffic has

> increased - do look at the overall stable numbers

> in Southwark and do remember the benchmarking

> elevated the estimate of traffic on minor roads.

Ah, I see that you trust certain southwark traffic figures and not others.

You forgot the 2019 datapoint:

2019 - 527.4

[heartblock]

A. These are not Southwark Council Counts (by methods not disclosed)

B. You need to read a little more carefully - as your own copy and paste of my post indicates the 2019 data from TFL is there at the beginning.

Considering the inaccuracy of assuming this data is generated by Southwark Council, when I indicated it was from TFL data and your misreading of my post. I wonder do you work for Southwark Councils data and information department?

[MiniViking]

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs for a moment(!), I had understood that the time periods of the restrictions was going to be reduced. If that's correct, does anyone have any information on when the reduced time periods are due to take effect please? Thanks.

[legalalien]

Here?s an extract from the council notification:

?When will the measures be implemented?

The measures will come into effect at 00.01 on Thursday 17 February 2022, once all the necessary road signs, posts and other related highway works are in place. This is during most local schools? half term so we can minimise disruption.

The changes and improvements

Timed Restrictions: Hours of timed restrictions reduced from 5 hours to 2.5 hours (8.00 to 9.00am and 3.00pm to 4.30pm)

Better Signage

Additional advance notification signs along the main roads e.g. Dulwich Common, Lordship Lane, Croxted Road.?

[MiniViking]

Thanks

[legalalien]

A wide range of minor road changes included in this notice (including some East Dulwich ones), including various yellow lines, removal of disabled bays following an audit of usage, and making permanent various school streets and pavement widening schemes.

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IssueId=50028347&OptionNum=0

Also had a quick skim through the info re the cycle lane they?re putting in on Druid Street (used to live near there a long time ago). The equality para graph notes that ? The scheme will benefit the wider community by providing some separation between the northern residential side of the street, and the southern residential and commercial side.?

Cycle lanes / transport policy used as a form of social engineering to keep different parts of the community apart? Surely not? But if you read more of the report it seems ?There has been historic tension between residents of the Arnold Housing estate on the northern side of Druid Street, and the businesses under the arches on the southern side of Druid Street, due to noise and disruption from loading, and disturbance from late night patrons of the breweries and bars in the arches.?

I?m not quite sure how much a cycle lane, even one with a Rediweld Splitter Island, is going to help with that.

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7562&LLL

[CPR Dave]

I see the Crown and Greyhound have asked for double yellow lines outside their pub so they can get cars in and out more easily.

[legalalien]

An interesting feature is that there is yet another General Exception Report for this decision (these are used when things don?t go through the forward plan publication process when they should.

The notice says this:

?The decision is listed on the Forward Plan for a January 2022 decision. However, due to an administrative oversight, the report and appendices were not submitted in time to achieve the January decision deadline.

The next Forward Plan to be published will be the April 2022 Forward Plan. This will significantly delay the construction of the proposed works which will potentially damage the reputation of the council.?

Ie we stuffed up a bit, let?s use an exception policy so we don?t embarrass ourselves (and not for any substantive reason). Southwark do seem to have a generally high level of these kinds of notices. I?d be interested to know how this compares across different councils.

[legalalien]

The final version of the council?s 2022/23 budget is on the agenda for its next meeting, see

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/b50013955/Supplemental%20Agenda%20No.%201%20Tuesday%2001-Feb-2022%2011.00%20Cabinet.pdf?T=9

Para A39 says that ?The department is expecting to reinvest significant income from the introduction of Low Traffic Neighbourhood in schemes to improve access around the borough including healthy streets and with the aim of tackling the climate emergency. This income is expected to be one off for 2022/23 only and the ongoing income from LTNs will be reviewed for 2023/24.? There?s an amount of ?4million listed as additional income from this source in the associated table.

I?m not quite sure how revenue recognition works in the council?s accounts. Could this be PCN revenue already collected as cash but later recognised as income when it is formally set aside to be spent,or are they budgeting for a further ?4 million in fines for the next financial year? It seems to me that there?s a clear conflict of interest here, as the council is incentivised to make signage/ publicity around closures as poor as possible to maximise their budgeted revenue. On the bright side, the climate bit of the report says this: ?Within the revenue budget, there is income received from implementation of ?Low Traffic Neighbourhoods? across Southwark, which is supporting a range of environmental measures including those to help improve air quality. This is not considered a long-term source of income, as we anticipate that income received from fines will reduce as compliance increases.?

On a related note, the table showing the LTN income has a column showing whether an equalities analysis has been done, which is marked ?Full Impact Assessment needed? (as opposed to ?undertaken? which appears next to some other items). The cumulative equality impact assessment (if you can make it through to page 156) says that the LTN income line item is ?Assessed as overall positive across all protected characteristics with risk of some potential negative for Age, Sex and Disability subject to an improved approach to be developed through the Movement Plan Update in 2022?, and ? The charges will apply to all people who contravene the rules equally and will not have any adverse impact on any individual group; and overall the assessment is a positive outcome for residents and the local community with significant improvements in air quality / environmental pollution. Full assessment being conducted to understand and mitigate against any perceived concerns from any protected groups.? There?s similar wording on page 162 in relation to disability, 175 in relation to sex discrimination and page 182 in relation to socioeconomic disadvantage.

It sounds from this (to me anyway) that the council isn?t entirely happy with where it ended up on the equality assessment with the LTNs, which is promising for those whose concerns around the closures centre on age and disability discrimination - it would at least seem to open the door to some further tweaks to minimise adverse impacts on relevant protected groups. Whether there?ll be any impact on the Dulwich scheme, who knows?

Council tax is going up btw. About ?1.28pw for a Band D property, including the increase in the GLA component of the tax, as well as the Southwark rise.

[heartblock]

One of the Chairs of Newham Labour Party - who has just resigned and left the Labour Party, gave one of the reasons as the money being made out of local people.

"Luxury Flats spring up at unaffordable prices and the housing waiting list grows. Perhaps the final straw for locals was the report in the press of the Newham traffic camera netting a profit of ?5.2million a year. So much for people at the heart of everything we do"

If only some of our Local Labour Party members were this honest and this brave.

[legalalien]

I think campaigning season has started in earnest. I?ve had flyers from both the Conservatives and the Lib Dem?s today.

[Rockets]

And I saw Cllrs Leeming and Newens mustering with others outside Au Ciel this morning...I was half expecting a knock at the door from them later as they began canvassing.

"Councillors, I have been expecting you. would you like to come in for a cup of tea.. I have a few things I would like to discuss with you...."

Unfortunately they didn't come knocking.

But it does look like some got the knock....

https://twitter.com/RM_Leeming/status/1487406307103629317?t=99jaG7XTX3W7cQ9oFXFSow&s=19

..."lots of interesting and useful feedback"...you could interpret that in many ways...