The newly landscaped Dulwich Square

[first mate]

But I thought it was a cyclist who drew attention to issues with the slippery and 'dangerous' surface at the newly landscaped Dulwich Square?

[Rockets]

6 hours ago, malumbu said:

Perhaps Southwark had gone out of their way to attract vermin through the choice of materials used on Dulwich Square and this may have been worsened by cyclists, who i expect are associated with mice.  Maybe.

"Choice of materials"....hmmm what might that be in relation too...please see other thread about people crashing their bikes in Dulwich Square? In comedy, timing is everything.

2 hours ago, first mate said:

But I thought it was a cyclist who drew attention to issues with the slippery and 'dangerous' surface at the newly landscaped Dulwich Square?

It was but @malumbu clearly thinks adults and children crashing their bikes on slippery materials in Dulwich Square is fair game and perfectly reasonable "facetious" material. 

Edited Friday at 23:02 by Rockets

[CPR Dave]

On 17/09/2025 at 23:06, 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 

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

This is in one of the emails.

"There’s also the very thorny issue that, regardless of our publication plans (especially if nothing specific has been decided), all of this stuff is FOI-able! So as soon as word gets out that these reports exist (something which I think for now hasn’t happened – crucially not reached those more prone to send FOIs) we may be forced to publish what we have. Hence (and this may be more for ) we may not want to mention anything at all (including the good news
about Cycleways) until we’re ready to go out with the whole lot. UoW usually talk about this research at conferences over the summer but so far this hasn’t come to bite us and it could be framed as “their thing” even though it’s our research, money and data… But we also need to keep an eye on that side."

 

WHO DO THESE PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE WORKING FOR FFS??

[Penguin68]

59 minutes ago, CPR Dave said:

WHO DO THESE PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE WORKING FOR FFS??

The Party, obviously. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

I had a read through some of those emails in context, and you're not fairly portraying the thread imo. There is no evidence of any sort of cover up. Their main concern seems to be that it's a bit technical and they don't have time to do the work to make it accessible / ready for publication before the busy pre-election period. There is also the question of whether they'll continue with the research and so whether it's worth publishing at all.

Ironically that reference to FOI expresses the pressure they feel to publish quickly even though it's a very dense / technical report and they need to do some comms work, because otherwise 'the usual suspects' will FOI it (and no doubt make mischief / misrepresent it - my interpretation not their words).

For those (nearly everyone) who isn't going to bother scanning through the very long email chain, here is an objective ChatGPT produced summary of what's in it:

• Report Draft and Feedback:

  • University of Westminster (UoW) delivered a draft of the Wave 2 Travel & Places report in March 2024 (101 pages, mostly appendices).
  • TfL team planned internal review and feedback before Easter, with a core team discussion scheduled.

• Key Findings and Comments:

  • Positive result: proximity to Cycleways correlates with increased cycling.
  • Some technical language flagged for simplification; minor edits suggested (terminology, clarity on methodology).
  • Questions raised about the 10-minute buffer used for analysis versus usual 400m metric.

• Future Surveys:

  • Debate on whether to conduct a third wave in 2024; consensus leaning toward stopping further surveys due to limited expected new infrastructure and diminishing returns.
  • Concerns about methodology impact if a “gap year” occurs.

• Publication Strategy:

  • Original reports considered too technical for public release.
  • Proposal to publish a TiL-style summary report plus data tables in Excel.
  • Discussion on whether to include methodologies in appendices or publish original reports for transparency.
  • FOI risk noted—may need to publish all findings eventually.

• Resource and Funding Issues:

  • Collating 300–400 tables from three reports flagged as significant work; may require extra funding and time.
  • Options: use spare budget from active travel monitoring or request IDP to cover costs.

• Next Steps:

  • Internal planning session suggested to clarify approach before committing to UoW for extra work.
  • Communications and timing difficult due to pre-election period; aim for summer publication if proceeding.

Edited yesterday at 15:28 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

There is no evidence of any sort of cover up. Their main concern seems to be that it's a bit technical and they don't have time to do the work to make it accessible / ready for publication before the busy pre-election period. There is also the question of whether they'll continue with the research and so whether it's worth publishing at all.

Might that also be because the report didn't come to the conclusions UoW and TFL needed it to - the report concluded that LTN's did not actually reduce car use? Like here in an excerpt from the report and the reminder from TFL about everything being FOI'able but that no-one outside of TFL knew about the study (that stuff is smoking gun gold is it not - I mean what else could they possibly mean?):

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.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The email exchange has been misrepresented.

On the substance - it’s one incomplete study (from someone you have repeatedly disparaged as lacking credibility - unfairly in my opinion), and hasn’t been peer reviewed.

As for these folk from online ‘petrol head’ forums who seem to spend their life wasting the time of public bodies with constant FOIs, determined to find conspiracies where there are none and / or loopholes for their traffic offending - they need to grow up imo.

[Rockets]

14 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The email exchange has been misrepresented.

In your mind maybe, but the conclusion of the report has not has it? It clearly concluded that LTNs were not the drivers of lower car use didn't it?

 

15 hours ago, Rockets said:

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.

So, you can look at that report and argue until the cows come home about whether it was incomplete, buried, too technical for the general public, no longer funded...blah, blah, blah.

It doesn't matter - the point is that the report did not support a narrative TFL would be happy to see made public (TFL basically admits as much in the FoI exchanges) - do you agree with that? I can guarantee you that if the report did say that LTNs do reduce car use TFL would have encouraged UoW to publish it and you would have read all about it in a Peter Walker "exclusive";-).

This is the problem with activist research - if the paymaster doesn't like the narrative then they won't put it out and it happens in every industry.

14 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

As for these folk from online ‘petrol head’ forums who seem to spend their life wasting the time of public bodies with constant FOIs, determined to find conspiracies where there are none and / or loopholes for their traffic offending - they need to grow up imo.

The other side of the argument of course is they are using tools available to them to flag the reality of how some organisations and public bodies are hiding things from the public as it doesn't suit their narrative.

I think it's known as holding them to account. It's why we have FoI's because so much has been hidden/buried in the past across a wide range of subjects.

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

In your mind maybe

Nope. I uploaded the email exchanges to chatGPT and asked for it to provide an objective summary. There is no conspiracy.

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

So, you can look at that report and argue until the cows come home about whether it was incomplete, buried, too technical for the general public, no longer funded...blah, blah, blah.

I'm not arguing anything. I'm telling you what the full email exchanges say - not cherry picking bits and taking them out of context to try and prop up something I want to believe. 

As for the study, it was curtailed because there were too few new LTNs and the sample size was too small to carry out the planned analysis of their impact on travel behaviour. Two follow-up waves also failed to provide enough data. Publishing the reports was deemed unnecessary because they were highly technical and would require significant effort to make accessible for the public and the findings offered little new insight, were largely inconclusive, and could even cause confusion.

Yet you continue to discount a huge body of high quality research, giving greater weight to a single, incomplete study, that hasn't been formally published or peer reviewed.

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

This is the problem with activist research

Sorry? Is it 'activist research', or important research you're putting a lot of weight on?

And btw (as there has been some successful deflection of the point), the cheese shop's closure had nothing to do with changes to the road layout in Dulwich Village 🤣

Edited 7 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

As for the study, it was curtailed because there were too few new LTNs and the sample size was too small to carry out the planned analysis of their impact on travel behaviour. Two follow-up waves also failed to provide enough data. Publishing the reports was deemed unnecessary because they were highly technical and would require significant effort to make accessible for the public and the findings offered little new insight, were largely inconclusive, and could even cause confusion.

Do you agree that the last version of the study did conclude that:

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

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.

If you're having trouble finding it you will find it under Summary Discussion within the report.

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Sorry? Is it 'activist research', or important research you're putting a lot of weight on?

This is the problem when organisations like TFL fund these types of reports - sometimes the research will throw up results you aren't interested in because it doesn't suit the narrative you are trying to land by funding the research in the first place.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Do you ever answer a straight question, rather than asking another one? The slipperiness is exhausting.

 

[Rockets]

Ha ha - @Earl Aelfheah let me answer the straight question I posed to you: yes, that UoW report did conclude that lower car-use within LTNs that they surveyed was not down to the LTNs!

Maybe I am not the one being slippery here! 😉

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

That isn't answering my question is it? It's answering a question no one asked you.

And yes, you are being slippery. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah