| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:RBKC - the Slytherin of London Boroughs... Why is it ...? | |
| Posted by: | Mark Perry | |
| Date/Time: | 15/06/19 13:26:00 |
| Well the petition against the plan had over 6000 signatures which is hardly insignificant and more than the number of people who responded to TfL’s consultation for CS9. Guess it depends on your point of view, here’s a post from someone who was at the meeting ... “TfL are using generalised models that are fit for larger roads to support their stance on smaller residential Holland Park Avenue. The modelling may have also used unrepresentative assumptions and insufficient data. These were not published in their consultation and yet to be revealed after requesting in the dedicated consultation@tfl.gov.uk and modelling@tfl.gov.uk addresses. Some models such as the Healthy Street check designed by a public health professional rather than a statistician are extremely tenuous and subjective. TfL’s data entry into the spreadsheet that produced the results of the check pre and post Scheme should an improvement. But when residents used the same, it produce a 21-point adverse result post Scheme. It shows the subjective nature of tests used by TfL. Their panel member at the meeting stated that the Lancaster Gate was assessed using another model - but it still produced traffic jams that slowed buses for up to 45 minutes, in the evening. Dr. Will Norman, the Mayor’s Cycle Czar, a PhD in Anthropology with expertise of Africa, quoted erroneous data that there were 128 collisions involving cyclists in the past three years. Crashmap which uses the same data publishes that there were 18 cycle collisions of which 6 were severe (meaning there was at least bleeding) but no fatalities. This covered the start of Holland Park Roundabout to Palace Gardens Terrace. Additionally Dr. Norman’s TfL panel colleague switched from using absolute figures to percentages when he specifically spoke about Notting Hill Gate and Holland Park Avenue. This is a typical ploy to mislead - for example if there was only 1 incident previously and another 1 occurred - this would be a 100% increase but there would still only be a total of 2 incidents. This use shows that there was an attempt at concealment. Dr Norman made other quotes that were relevant to large and wide roads such as at the Embankment but failed to be relate it to a Scheme that would remove 50% of the road travelling in one direction. TfL’s proposal to remove 19 trees in the consultation proposal that commenced on 1 May 2019 (ending 16 June - only 6 weeks) stated that 19 trees will be removed but increased it to at least 22 during yesterday’s (13 June) meeting. TfL had not competed any studies as to impact of the Scheme on air quality or traffic diverted in quiet residential streets to construct their 2-way dedicated cycle lane. These should have been important points for the respondents to the consultation. To implement their Scheme, TfL were going to remove bus-stops that would cause residents to walk much greater distances to be able to use bus services. This would cause distress to elderly and disabled residents as well as those loaded with shopping or pushing a baby-pram. With trees removed, they would be deprived of shade. TfL also mis-modelled the impact to shops to having only one delivery bay in the whole avenue serving several shops that had large and heavy deliveries such as Tesco, the local butcher and grocer. They had forgotten to factor in Health and Safety issues these business face. Dr. Norman super-imposed the experience of large high streets onto a smaller avenue and village-like Holland Park that high streets saw improvement due to cycle lanes. Metaphorically: One does not use data for a City on a village. One would have thought that his doctorate training would not have resulted in this error. Finally, there was nothing in the consultation stating that TfL has examined other alternatives. There is a very efficient one using Lancaster Gate, Westbourne Terrace, Westbourne Bridge, the Harrow Road and Scrubs Lane which are wider, has less residential, impact and better air for cyclists from open green spaces to arrive at the intended Wood Lane. This route also allowed the link from Marylebone, Kings Cross and City Road via Bishops Bridge Road. One wonders at how Dr. Norman could call the decision–made at a public meeting on June 13– a “disgrace” and a “cynical political stunt” adding that “people will die” because of the decision; when all the above deficiencies exist.” |