Dulwich Review Data Meeting
13 July 2021
The unanswered questions
A summary document from the Dulwich Alliance
Introduction
- Southwark Council held a ‘Dulwich Review Data Meeting’ on Tuesday 13 July 2021 Dulwich Review – Data Meeting Tickets, Tue 13 Jul 2021 at 18:00 | Eventbrite.
- The event was billed as ‘an opportunity to learn about the latest monitoring data from roads in and around Dulwich, and to ask questions of officers and councillors.’
- The data on which the meeting was based was published by Southwark Council after 6pm on Friday 9 July, giving residents and other stakeholders less than four days to review the 160 slides supplied ahead of the meeting
- There was no formal agenda. In the event Cllr Rose recapped some events to date, and Cllr Simmons chaired. Attendees could ask questions by raising a yellow hand and waiting to be called, or by putting them in the chat box.
- The chat box was not open to all. The only people who could address everyone through the chat box were council officials and councillors. Because of this, it was not possible for attendees to share comments or questions with anyone other than selected individuals representing the council
- Dulwich Village councillors were both present but did not speak; and Southwark’s head of Highways Dale Foden was also present but did not speak or take any questions. Questions were answered by Director of Environment Matt Clubb and principal project manager Clement Agyei-Frempong
- 12 officers and councillors and 178 residents attended the call
- The meeting was scheduled to last for 1.5 hours
- Cllr Simmons opened the meeting with comments that included ‘there have been some quite nasty incidents in the last month or so, and the police have had to be involved on several occasions’, ‘we know that Dulwich is much better than this’ and a ‘if people do misbehave, unfortunately they will have to leave’
- Questions were managed by Cllr Simmons, focusing on the three LTN areas in turn. Because of this, most of the overarching questions were never asked or answered.
- Accordingly, the Dulwich Alliance is now submitting the unanswered questions, and requests a written response from Southwark Council
Questions
- Why was the data (160 slides worth) released so late, with less than 48 hours to go till the end of the consultation? And this meeting announced with only two working days’ notice?
- Was this late release of data with insufficient time for it to be assessed or analysed or responded to in detail deliberate?
- Why was the raw data and methodology not supplied? Without it, it’s impossible to analyse the figures.
- How long will Southwark Council allow for detailed responses and questions on a road-by-road basis?
- When will the next tranche of data be released? And will this include data on relative traffic network performance, such as journey lengths and times around and across Dulwich (these impact on everyone needing to use motor vehicles including disabled and emergency services), congestion and average speeds?
- When will the second of the promised two data meetings be held?
- Will the Review Survey be delayed again?
- What moves will be taken to improve the situation NOW? Fiddling while Rome burns, etc.
- Why is the data presented in this report so inconsistent? Derwent and Elsie not mentioned despite being closed as part of the ED LTN, but Eynella/Dovercourt/Woodwarde/Half Moon Lane are as they’re affected by the LTNs. Cycling data missing for roads such as Townley – hugely important for considering if the ANPR cameras are doing their job and encouraging cycling – and Melbourne Grove because apparently these were put in the wrong place.
- Why isn’t there an EqIA yet?
- Why don’t you publish the raw data for March, May and June (instead of only April) and let people make up their own minds. Clement says that he is happy to share the data, please do so now.
- Can you please specify location of the AQ monitor on Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove?
- Why is Vivacity monitor data not admissible?
- As was raised during the meeting, there has been no traffic monitoring on the South Circular. There is also no monitoring on other displacement routes such as Underhill Road and Norwood Road. Given this is appears Southwark cannot accurately measure overall impact. Please confirm how you are considering this.
- For many roads around the Herne Hill Velodrome, including Turney and Burbage, the cycle counts will be skewed by the road cycle clubs which use Herne Hill Road as their starting point. There are huge numbers of cyclists which go out from Herne Hill every week with these clubs, that restarted in April after the lockdown. These are not local cyclists. How do you differentiate between club cyclists and locals who use bikes for everyday use?
- Transparency of data: the raw data and methodology has still not been provided – it has been promised many times.
- Data omission – Data from some roads has not been included in the analysis (South Circular – TFL will have data for this road, Norwood Road – TFL have made it clear there is a problem with bus journey times on this road, Rosendale Road – SC have put in a Trascis monitor as part of the monitoring of the Dulwich LTN but no mention of this in the report and we are sure there are other roads that Southwark are purposefully omitting from their analysis). Also, we were made aware by Tracsis that their monitors show congestion and this information must now be known by SC but has not been part of the analysis.
- Tactical choices of baseline data: The choice of ‘baseline’ data for Croxted – 2017. More recent data is available, which is unsurprisingly lower. Assume this is the case with other choices of baseline data.
- The use of averages in the summary of the data: – for example, by using of 7am – 7pm average bus delay data rather than looking at peak hour delays which cover the LTN hours and amalgamating north and southbound traffic flows when SC are only currently restricting traffic northbound through the Village.
The Dulwich Alliance
21 July 2021