LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[JohnL]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It isn't the council making rash decisions it's a

> social experiment across the UK and further

> afield.

>

> Most people who participate in 'experiments' get

> the option to decide (at least collectively)

> whether to participate; - numbers of councils have

> used the emergency Covid-19 legislation to force

> through 'experiments' which have either never been

> tested for acceptability with participants or

> which have been tested and previously rejected.

Central government is giving them money and encouragement to do this - that's one reason it will be difficult to stop in my opinion. Some big people in this government seem to support this and are encouraging local councils to move fast.

"Now local councils and advocates, encouraged by city and central government, are working to implement the schemes at a rapid clip ? and not without pushback from drivers and residents alike."

"Following the pattern of debate over Labour-led plans to build more bicycling infrastructure, the interventions have also been politicized, with local Conservative lawmakers stoking opposition to the low-traffic configurations. Yet the plans are being partially funded by ?active travel? emergency funds made available by the Conservative central government"

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-28/how-london-s-low-traffic-streets-keep-cars-at-bay

[Abe_froeman]

When you say "we" exduwlicher, does that mean you work for the department of southwark council that is (jointly) culpable for this?

[exdulwicher]

When you say "we" exduwlicher, does that mean you work for the department of southwark council that is (jointly) culpable for this?

I was using "we" as the paraphrasing of what they'll be saying.

[Spartacus]

exdulwicher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> When you say "we" exduwlicher, does that mean you

> work for the department of southwark council that

> is (jointly) culpable for this?

>

> I was using "we" as the paraphrasing of what

> they'll be saying.

A typical political answer of not directly answering the question

So in true Paxman style

"Do you work directly or indirectly for Southwark or any other council?"

[Earl Aelfheah]

Here?s some interesting reading https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2020/08/tackling-main-roads.html

[andrewc]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Here?s some interesting reading

> https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2020/08/ta

> ckling-main-roads.html

[Clutterqueen]

It all began in 2018 when some bloke called Will Norman suddenly decided that Bessemer Grange (and other areas) should become a Street School thing and advanced the school into putting this into action, even though the school is enclaved in a cul-de-sac.

This set off a lot of repercussions in the area, which has now resulted in the Dulwich Village/Calton Avenue close off!

I emailed councillors/instigators of this street scheme but never got a reply back and was busy with other things.

Will Norman doesn't even live in the borough so it seems very strange that he has the upper call about what goes on.

Richard Livingstone (MP, whatever) another person in the borough that seems to agree with these street schemes but doesn't realise the impact on everybody.

[Dulres3]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Here?s some interesting reading

> https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2020/08/ta

> ckling-main-roads.html

I always find it odd that Amsterdam is held up as example and compared to London when it comes to transport. London has a population of 9 million people spread over 600 square miles, Amsterdam has a population of around 800,000 in an area of less than 90 square miles. They're totally different situations and it's the same for a lot of other European cities that are bought up in these debates. Having travelled to and worked in a lot of them, in my experience people usually live a lot closer to their chosen urban centre than in the UK.

[andrewc]

This summary of the experience in Walthamstow might be worth a read.

https://londonlivingstreets.com/2019/07/11/evaporating-traffic-impact-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-on-main-roads/

[Rockets]

The fact that the protagonists for these changes continue to use the phrase traffic evaporation does make me chuckle....everyone knows that anything that evaporates then condenses and falls elsewhere....perhaps wonderfully highlighting beautifully the folly of these closures. They just push the problem elsewhere.

And the point on Amsterdam is well made, a very different proposition to London yet continually heralded as the answer. Anyone who bothers to scratch beneath the surface would see that whilst it is a beacon of what can be done when traffic planning embraces all modes of transport you can't apply it to London in any form.

[andrewc]

This makes interesting reading. A summary of 70 traffic studies and the average 'traffic evaporation' measured.

https://www.onestreet.org/images/stories/Disappearing_traffic.pdf

[Metallic]

I think there is too much yatter over the Dulwich scheme and actually, just like Quietway 7, it matters not one jot what people think, the council has decided and that is that.

Looking forward to election day 2022 when we can get shot of them. After all, most of their support for this Dulwich scheme comes from outside their electoral boundary.

[Spartacus]

andrewc Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This makes interesting reading. A summary of 70

> traffic studies and the average 'traffic

> evaporation' measured.

>

> https://www.onestreet.org/images/stories/Disappear

> ing_traffic.pdf

An 18 Year old paper that may not have accounted for the mass implementing of schemes across London which means traffic can't just evaporate but is pushed onto already busy roads resulting in gridlock and increased pollution 😱

[andrewc]

This is worth a read too. The effect of a road closure in New York.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/nyregion/14th-street-cars-banned.html

[Metallic]

andrewc Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is worth a read too. The effect of a road

> closure in New York.

>

> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/nyregion/14th-s

> treet-cars-banned.html

".......you are less likely to drive someplace where new restrictions will theoretically mean excess traffic. The fear is diversion, but the result is deterrence."

Then you read the comments column and it sounds as if the surrounding areas are really suffering. Hey ho.

[slarti b]

andrewc Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This makes interesting reading. A summary of 70 traffic studies and the average 'traffic > evaporation' measured.

> https://www.onestreet.org/images/stories/Disappearing_traffic.pdf

Andrew, Thanks for that, I guess that must be the source for the council's suggestion in the OHS "evidence" pack that 11% of traffic would "evaporate".

But, looking at the study it looks highly biased and the conclusions very questionable in many ways; comparing apples not just just with oranges, but goats and yoghurt as well (short vs long term, pedestrianisation vs collapsed bridges, alternative routes vs no alternative, town centre vs through routes). Statistically it is questionable, averaging % increases, using a questionable denominator for the calculation %, giving equal weight to small and large schemes, duplicating results that support the authors' argument, ignoring effects such as short term closures being planned during quiet periods, ignoring teh effect of parallel measures etc etc.

Nevertheless, even ignoring the many flaws in that study, the report's conclusion, is used by the council to suggest that 11% of the through traffic through Dulwich will evaporate. From the council's own figures that would leave over 6,300 daily movements diverted onto the "main roads", ie Lordship Lane, EDG, Half Moon Lane, South Circular Road and Croxted Road. That was one of the objectives of the OHS scheme that is now being implemented without consultation under the cover of Covid emergency regs. Do you think that is acceptable for those living or going to schools on those "Main roads"?

[Townleygreen]

Referring to clutterqueen's comments, Will Norman is London's first Walking and Cycling Commissioner, working to deliver the Mayor's pledges to make walking and cycling safer and easier in the capital.

[andrewc]

Here is a the introduction to the study (Generated Traffic and Induced Travel) below.

Traffic engineers often compare traffic to a fluid, assuming that a certain volume must flow through the road system, but it is more appropriate to compare urban traffic to a gas that expands to fill available space (Jacobsen 1997). Traffic congestion tends to maintain equilibrium: traffic volumes increase to the point that congestion delays discourage additional peak-period vehicle trips. Expanding congested roads attracts latent demand, trips from other routes, times and modes, and encourage longer and more frequent travel. This is called generated traffic, referring to additional peak-period vehicle traffic on a particular road. This consists in part of induced travel, which refers to absolute increases in vehicle miles travel (VMT) compared with what would otherwise occur.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Todd_Litman/publication/235360397_Generated_Traffic_and_Induced_Travel_Implications_for_Transport_Planning/links/5a69f90d4585154d15465728/Generated-Traffic-and-Induced-Travel-Implications-for-Transport-Planning.pdf

[JohnL]

It's not a case of current traffic (petrol/diesel) evaporating - it's a case it MUST evaporate.

You might find in future you don't have a choice of what route you take - you just move like a train.

[redpost]

Seems obvious to me, since it's been proved conclusively that new roads and extra road capacity fill up very quickly and congestion soon returns, that the opposite must also be true.

[exdulwicher]

Induced demand and the inverse of it, reduced demand, are both very well documented transportation facts.

Basic info on both because to be quite honest I don't have time to type out the maths:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand#Reduced_demand

The situation at the moment (nationwide, not just Dulwich or Southwark) is that residential roads have become a sponge soaking up the excess traffic from the strategic roads. The oft-ignored flipside to the consultation argument is that at no point were residents consulted on having the residential road network turned into a de facto commuter route.

The modelling of this works worldwide - with some variations in the maths to accommodate things like housing density, population, the type of roads (A, B, residential...) However the key factor is to do it as one block. This is why Loughborough Junction didn't work because it was an isolated case and the faff factor of driving around it wasn't enough to persuade people to take another form of transport.

You need a network of LTNs and London is at that critical point where there's enough LTN infrastructure being put in to annoy people but not enough to change travel patterns. It is getting there though. This article talks quite widely about it and references numerous studies:

https://londonlivingstreets.com/2019/07/11/evaporating-traffic-impact-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-on-main-roads/

The old models for vehicle use were based on the "water through a pipe" analogy (which is why you get congestion after junctions - the common approach was to have a single lane road widen into 2 lanes at a junction then back to one after it, they're called high-throughput junctions and designed to avoid congestion at the junction. You simply end up with congestion AFTER the junction where the "pipe" narrows again).

Where the modelling of individual tin boxes does work very well is trains and planes which follow pre-determined routes at pre-determined speeds and you don't have to worry about the movement of PEOPLE until they're at the airport or train station. It falls down with motor vehicles since you're actually considering individual humans who happen to be carrying a 2-ton box around with them. The modelling needs to focus on the people, not the box.

As an aside, Streatham's LTN went live a few days ago, they used a picture of "Dulwich Square" to illustrate the principles. http://www.prera.org.uk/?p=2066

[Spartacus]

Now it gets worse

Not only does the Mayor and council want us out of our cars, but now the Mayor wants us out of the buses. https://www.mylondon.news/news/local-news/london-bus-coronavirus-travel-rules-18788777

The idea is on certain routes to stop commuters on every other bus from boarding to make more room for school children.

So those that can't walk or cycle now can't drive due to restrictions and soon won't be able to easily get a bus. This has to be some sort of joke! All this whilst they are encouraging us to go back to working in the office to help save businesses in places like Oxford Street.

Talk about a disjointed transport strategy, no wonder there are questions about the mayoralty being in crisis

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-53806962

[JohnL]

I must say I'd prefer School Services to say "School Service" on the front or even be yellow.

There's completely separate reasons why schoolchildren should have separate transport I guess.

[slarti b]

Exdulwicher and AndrewC

Not sure who is responding to who on this thread but on the issue of evaporation and LTN's can you please tell me which are the major roads, (or in exdulwichers terms, stratgic roads) that traffic displaced from Dulwich Village will use?

This was a clearly stated objective of the OHS scheme but councillors never stated which roads they were referring to.

I accept there may be some evaporation (despite the obvious flaws in the figures used in the Cairns,Hass-Klau Goodwin report) but this will still leave a signifcant amount of through traffic using other roads.

[exdulwicher]

You're conflating displacement (where the same amount of traffic is moved from Route A to Route B) and evaporation (where some vehicle journeys previously made on the now inaccessible Route A are made by alternative means - the active travel plans obviously focus on cycling and walking but it could also be car-sharing, public transport or simply that people change their habits - for example only driving to the shops once a week rather than three times).

Hammersmith Bridge is quite a good example, it's been closed long enough to have some reasonably in depth assessment done on surrounding traffic and pollution levels.

https://www.hammersmithbridge.org.uk/p/179/traffic-evaporation

https://www.citymetric.com/horizons/has-closing-hammersmith-bridge-really-improved-london-s-air-quality-4731

There's a PDF of a metadata study on the subject here which, although rather wordy, also manages to keep the maths to a minimum.

https://www.hammersmithbridge.org.uk/Uploads/2019-05-23-5343-Disappearing%20traffic%20-%20the%20story%20so%20far.pdf

There's a reasonable chunk of data and info from places like Hackney and Waltham Forest which have had similar measures (back when the popular term was Mini-Holland) for a lot longer than Dulwich as well.