MARKHOUSE CAMPAIGN
Markhouse Campaign Case Study from Zakir Gulzar
T21a(20) - Markhouse Series 4 region Manipulation of results on Road Closures
After the first proposal (split into 12 proposals) was rejected by residents, the Council came back with another “improved” proposal that eventually won/favoured their efforts. This was a fairly strange result considering the first proposal was outright rejected. I believe the figure on St. Barnabas Road was around +70% of residents opposed the scheme.
As a Data Analyst I had to investigate myself and see what people on my road really think. The second proposal saw St. Barnabas Road scored 51.1% positive score for Modal Filters & Associated Measures with only 26 out of 97 dwellings responding to the councils consultation survey. They are basing their results and going ahead with the scheme based on 26.8% feedback from people on St. Barnabas Road.
I thought I would conduct my own survey to see what people on my road actually thought about the idea of modal filters and associated measures and whether they align with the results the council had told us were the results. My survey consisted of quantitative and qualitative questions. I will share with you the quantitative results only:
*These results are based on 35 results from 31 individual houses = 9 more results in comparison to what the council received back from residents of St. Barnabas Road.
I asked residents if they would be in favour of St. Barnabas Road and all affected roads being blocked off with "modal filters." 65.7% of residents said “no” they would not be happy with this happening.
I asked whether they were in favour of St. Barnabas Road becoming a two-way road and a dead end. 77.1% of residents said “no” once again suggesting they were unhappy with this proposed plan.
For the length of this post I will keep it at these two figures. Please refer to the picture attachments for further data.
So why are my results starkly different in comparison to the council's results? What I came to understand is that instead of asking straight forward "yes" or "no" questions, they very cheekily used scale based questions. For example, “How do you feel about the proposals listed below on St. Barnabas Road? “ They also use terms like “modal filters” instead of the more honest “road closures”.
*Modal filter - St Barnabas road (south of the junction with Collingwood Road)
*Two-Way - St Barnabas Road (Boundary Road to Collingwood Road) Please circle one.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0-4 = negative 5 = neutral 6-10 = positive
They have used statistical manipulation in order to distort results into thinking that locals are in favour of this plan when in actual fact the results have been deliberately skewed in order to favour their results. So bringing us back to the 51.1% of residents who are positive about the modal filters and associated measures on my road is a complete fabrication. This is a “yes” or “no” question not a scale based question. So if a resident circles “6” the Council uses this to say they are positive about the scheme. Whereas in actual fact that is more of a maybe/unsure.
I advise those who are affected to please write to your local councillors and ask for an explanation into why the results have been statistically manipulated. We should have trust in our local government to be truthful and act in favour of what local residents want not to be bombarded with schemes until they get their desired results.
By the results I have collated in comparison to the council's results I believe that there is something definitely inaccurate about the council's results. Before anyone asks
yes I have contacted the council with regards to my results. However, they are very generic with their comments back and not to single anybody out but Mr Clyde Loakes is very arrogant in his responses and very quick to dismiss any local's emails to him.
I believe it would be far better to consult with locals as to how we can work together in order to facilitate BOTH cyclists and motorists as opposed to favouring one and not the other. Closing roads and making it a nightmare to get around is not the answer. It will only drive traffic and pollution to the main roads
