The newly landscaped Dulwich Square

[Earl Aelfheah]

You have provided no evidence of your claim that the filter on Calton avenue increased crime, road danger, or pollution. It’s not true. 

Like everyone I have concerns about crime. Unlike you, however, I'm not trying to stoke fears, or spread clearly false information, to service an obsessive grievance about a 5 year old road layout change. It's dishonest and it's shameful.

Edited Tuesday at 15:52 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah I would suggest it appears you only seem to have concerns about crime if your beloved LTNs are not involved......if they are involved in any discussion you will then go out of your way to argue with anyone who doesn't subscribe to the "everything is awesome" narrative you project. ANd you have the gall to accuse me of being dishonest and shameful.

You and I often, and probably always will, disagree but the evidence presented is more than compelling and with local elections approaching I suspect you'll have a hard time trying to drown out the noise about crime in Dulwich Village and the causes therein. 

It's a local discussion point amongst local residents whether you like it or not - and no-one has weaponised it - it's the local reality and the debate is stimulated by worried local residents. I would expect weaponisation in the lead-up to the local elections but that is to be expected - that is, after all, politics and every party in opposition will zero in on it as the data is there for all to see.

 

[DulvilleRes]

41 minutes ago, Rockets said:

It's a local discussion point amongst local residents whether you like it or not - and no-one has weaponised it - it's the local reality and the debate is stimulated by worried local residents. I would expect weaponisation in the lead-up to the local elections but that is to be expected - that is, after all, politics and every party in opposition will zero in on it as the data is there for all to see

Only your 'interpretation' of the data has been comprehensively de bunked. What does that say about any party that tries to run with this fake narrative that there is some correlation between crime and the LTNs? Also, what does it say about anybody who is desperately trying to establish it as a talking point in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? 

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, DulvilleRes said:

Only your 'interpretation' of the data has been comprehensively de bunked.

The data is the data - not sure any of the data has been "comprehensively debunked" at all. It is there for all to see. Only the usual deniers are trying to argue against it but they'll always come up with some sort of argument/excuse!

 

1 hour ago, DulvilleRes said:

What does that say about any party that tries to run with this fake narrative that there is some correlation between crime and the LTNs?

I didn't say political parties will try to link crime to LTNs but they're certainly likely to run on the increasing crime rate in Dulwich Village - the data speaks volumes and any politcal party that doesn't go after Labour on that would be foolish - it wouldn't surprise me if one party didn't try to link it to LTNs if they think there is a case.

The Lib Dems are on it already (in terms of the growing crime problem in the Village) and it is one of their key pledges in election leaflets dropping through Dulwich Village doors...perhaps someone will try to suggest I am lying about that as well after the PCSO issue some of you took issue with!

[march46]

Given the title of this thread I suggest we get back on topic - perhaps a separate thread could be set up for Dulwich Village crime. Probably one for the lounge rather than ‘roads and transport’.

[first mate]

It may be an inconvenient correlation but unless you can prove there is no link between the recent changes and an apparent increase in certain types of crime in the area, then it should stay in the traffic section.

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, first mate said:

It may be an inconvenient correlation but unless you can prove there is no link between the recent changes and an apparent increase in certain types of crime in the area, then it should stay in the traffic section.

This is ridiculous. Average earnings have risen since 2010. If I say that it's linked to the filter, can we then get into a longwinded debate about earnings data in the transport section?

Rockets has made wild and unevidenced claims. He's cherry picked data and still managed to misrepresent it. He's being massively dishonest.

If he wants to talk about crime in general, then do it on a crime thread. This one is about the square.

Edited yesterday at 11:27 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Rockets has made wild and unevidenced claims. He's cherry picked data and still managed to misrepresent it. He's being massively dishonest.

Only in your, and some of the other usual suspects', mind. Not sure you can accuse someone of being "massively dishonest" when all they have done is shared lots of data from many sources to back up their view of what is happening and I don't know why you seem to always have to revert to name-calling and demonising anytime anyone presents a view you disagree with - it's seems to be that aggression and name-calling is where a lot of people go to in some sort of Pavlovian response mechanism anytime they see something they do not agree with.

Let's also remember PCSOs told me (I was going to say "told people" but didn't want to trigger the usual ultra defensive/aggressive response) that they thought there was a correlation about the increases in crime in the area whilst door knocking on properties within the LTN....but that was dismissed as me telling porkies....perhaps PCSOs were being massively dishonest too or perhaps it did really happen and they do think there is a correlation!

Like so many things time will tell how this plays out and it would be impossible to make a 100% positive link but the data and crime type correlations are very interesting and there is more than a lingering question about whether there is a link between quieter streets and massively increasing crime types.

 

[march46]

For anyone wanting to look at evidence (rather than misleading speculation) TfL have helpfully pulled together a summary of the impacts of LTNs based a range of evidence. Not only do LTNs have lower crime levels, the roads are also significantly safer. 

 The impacts of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London

[Spartacus]

There is an article in today's Times that claims LTNs don't cut car use and that the report  showing this was buried by TfL.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/fb3fa78a-1023-4d88-ad75-223252e28f42

Its behind a paywall but interesting reading and you can potentially use a tool like archive.today to read it and refers to a tfl document "the travel and places study" 

 

Edited 23 hours ago by Spartacus

[HeadNun]

Ha! I was about to post this, Spartacus. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

A study that was curtailed due to funding being withdrawn two years  before it was finished (according to TfL). It was directed by Rockets’ favourite researcher, professor Rachel Aldred. I’m sure this incomplete, non published research, which hasn’t been peer reviewed and only reported as showing ‘no reduction in car use’ by the Times (Google ‘the times LTN’ if you want to understand their editorial stance) will be trumpeted as decisive, by those who have previously disparaged aldred. But there you go.

[Spartacus]

Curious Earl 

As you are knowledgable about it enough to knock it, have you read it ? 

[Spartacus]

I could be wrong, but found a freedom of information request to TfL that references the document mentioned in the article, it even appears to have a link to the document 

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-0324-2526

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah are you sure as this article says funding was withdrawn two years into the three year project….seemingly when they realised the results weren’t what they wanted. Funded by taxpayers money too…ouch….if true a massive smoking gun.

FoI’able is a fascinating concept and clearly shows the mindset of those rolling these things out.

As more of the report gets leaked it will be fascinating to see how this develops. If the accusations are true then it’s yet more proof of what many of us have been saying for years, that they don’t deliver - the irony is of course that a lot of you accuse us of trying to manipulate narratives….

It will be fascinating to read the exchanges between the university and TFL because surely “independent” researchers would insist on publishing the paper no matter what the results?

 

Emails between Transport for London (TfL) and the university show that officials were concerned about the report’s results coming out, the newspaper reported.

The correspondence discussed how they might present the findings in the most positive light before a decision was made not to publish, the Times said.

An official is said to reminded others in one email that “all of this stuff is FoI-able” (available under freedom of information laws) before reassuring them that no one outside TfL yet knew about the study.

Funding to finish the three year, £82,095 project, was withdrawn in June last year after the study had been underway for two years.

 

 

 

 

 

27 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

I could be wrong, but found a freedom of information request to TfL that references the document mentioned in the article, it even appears to have a link to the document 

It does indeed, good find. And here appears to be the offending text from the report….

While there is evidence that respondents living in areas with more LTN roads do use a car less

frequently, there is only weak evidence that this could be driven by the LTN itself. Once other area-

level and infrastructural characteristics are accounted for, there is not a significant effect associated

with car use. This suggests that the lower car use in areas with more LTN roads is the result of the

other area-level and infrastructural characteristics rather than the LTN.

[first mate]

Good find Spartacus.

Is the quoted text above a fancy and rather oblique way of saying that it is things like better transport links that account for less car use, not LTNs?

[Earl Aelfheah]

12 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Curious Earl 

As you are knowledgable about it enough to knock it, have you read it ? 

Yes, of course. 

It was incomplete, unpublished research, that hasn't been peer reviewed. It's lead author is someone who those pointing to the article have repeatedly rubbished in the past (unfairly in my opinion, but anyone want to be consistent?).

The Times have published huge numbers of exclusively anti-LTN articles such as this, as they know they get click through. But this is a weak article. There is a large body of high quality research evidence regarding LTNs. It's a bit of a case of not seeing the wood for the trees.

[Spartacus]

But have you read the report that was withdrawn?  your answer seems to be focused on the Times article, not the actual report itself.

It is available in the foi I found a link to earlier. 

[Rockets]

21 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It was incomplete, unpublished research, that hasn't been peer reviewed.

Hmmm, are you sure according to some of the items uncovered by the FOI it seems a report was one month away from being published and there was a discussion about extending the research (or taking a one year hiatus) to see if more LTNs would have a more positive impact on the results but there were no more LTNs planned.

21 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It's lead author is someone who those pointing to the article have repeatedly rubbished in the past (unfairly in my opinion, but anyone want to be consistent?).

@Earl Aelfheah by your own measure then if we will dismiss the content of the report then you will surely embrace it and agree that there is no link between the LTNs and lower car use?

6 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

There is a large body of high quality research evidence regarding LTNs.

And this one seems to pour scorn on one of the key strategic objectives of LTNs does it not? Commissioned, written and allegedly buried by the very people who were claiming the exact opposite.

What's interesting is that if this does prove to be the smoking gun some are claiming it is then it massively undermines the argument that everything has been fair, balanced and transparent. I also see that someone called Will or Will N is mentioned in the FOI communications as being involved in the review and the decision........

To some of us what is being suggested is of no surprise. As we have been saying the truth always comes out eventually.

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 minutes ago, Rockets said:

 

27 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

There is a large body of high quality research evidence regarding LTNs.

And this one seems to pour scorn on one of the key strategic objectives of LTNs does it not?

And there you go. You're discounting a huge body of high quality research, in order to give greater weight to a single, incomplete study. Wood, trees.

You've previously described Professor Aldred as lacking any credibility (apparently that view is flexible depending on the conclusions of her research?). 

You do see the confirmation bias here right?

[Rockets]

But @Earl Aelfheah by the same measure you must support the conclusion of said report - surely? Come on, you can't have it both ways.

And if it is proved that this report was buried due to the conclusions it came to then will you accept that it then calls into question anything else published by TFL to defend the LTNs?

One suspects it was only not fully completed (I mean there was 112 pages of the report and one person said they were a month away from publishing) because it didn't come to the conclusions they wanted/needed. 

Unfortunately, this is how activist research works - people tend to pick and chose what they decide to share.

This could be a huge smoking gun - you know, we know it and the person who warned others about the fact that everything was FoI'able clearly knew it as well.

It is starting to unravel one piece at a time....

Edited 3 hours ago by Rockets