LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[srisky]

Walked up Calton this morning and I didn?t seen any signs about turning left onto Townley - if there was a sign it was hard for a pedestrian to spot so must be even trickier for a driver.

I also noticed plenty of cars heading northbound along Townley and Dulwich Village - perhaps there will be a period of amnesty whereby warning letters are sent before fine start?

[legalalien]

I don't think the Townley one is in operation yet - there are signs there which are still covered with black polythene so can't see what they say...

I'm not sure why they're not all signposted the same way. If you go up Turney towards Burbage in the other direction there's a big sign saying no right turn except buses, taxis etc, which is a lot clearer. Maybe they forgot the sign for the other direction, the one I posted the pic of looks temporary?

[Rockets]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> Myths about LTNs - must be true it?s in The

> Guardian

>

> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/1

> 6/mythbusters-eight-common-objections-to-ltns-and-

> why-they-are-wrong?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Ha ha, yes indeed....and look at who the author is.....none other than cycling activist and Guardian political correspondent Peter Walker ....I wonder how sales of his book: Bike Nation: How Cycling Can Save the World are going.....;-)

As I read each of the points he tries to, unsuccessfully make, I laughed a little louder each time....the level of cultish delusion runs strongly through each....

Peter, and the pro-closure lobby, are going into overdrive at the moment - they must sense that they are under pressure. Peter is posting an exclusive report today saying that there is no evidence that LTN's cause social injustice...the report is penned by Rachel Aldred who is the director of the Active Travel Academy.....and a big cycle lobbyist and activist.....

Edit: Ah I have just seen why they are going into overdrive The Mail on Sunday (#washesmouthoutwithsoap) did a piece quoting the UK's head paramedic saying that closures are impacting response times.....both sides are upping the ante....https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8949617/Top-paramedic-warns-bike-lanes-holding-ambulances-traffic-jams.html

[Metallic]

I went down to Dulwich Village to take a look. Walking along towards the Gallery it looked as if most people were just driving through. The warning signage is awful, a driver on Gallery Road has no idea about the Burbage Rd bus gate camera until they have turned and are in view of the camera.

Lots of grinning cyclists though.

[Penguin68]

I'm not sure why they're not all signposted the same way.

How on earth do you think the council is to get their forecast level of fines if they don't make it difficult and obscure for motorists, particularly those new to the area, possibly forced there by other road closures.

[peckhamside]

And if it was a roundabout only with priority to the flowing traffic how would people cross the road!! Doh

[peckhamside]

Hi there, does anyone know if there are any open consultations at present where I can formally register my full support for road closures, LTN etc.

I will also e-mail my local Councillors.

In my own short road there are numbers of people who run health children to school or even the bus stop or drive them to schools well out of the local area.

Until they get the message or we get road pricing we will need LTN, CPZ, traffic calming and all the rest.

[legalalien]

Well based on my pic above I'm wondering. When you see a new bus gate ahead of you, the sign saying restricted access "ahead" with a left arrow looks as though it's encouraging you to turn left, even if the sign is red. And there you are, caught by the second bus gate. There are going to be some very angry delivery drivers and builders about the place.

PS have just looked at the underlying traffic order and it's a deliberate omission - there are clear "no turn" signs to be placed on Burbage heading eastward to Turney and on Turney heading away from the village to Burbage, but not on Turney heading towards the Village.

[legalalien]

Hi peckhamside, you need to go to

https://southwarkstreetspace.commonplace.is/

the main map is the one (I think) where you can comment on areas not currently part of schemes, and there are separate links where you can comment on the schemes that have already been put in. That's assuming you're in Southwark? I think Lambeth have something similar, not sure about Lewisham.

[redpost]

"How about execessive car usage affecting emergency response times?"

Traffic is up 50% over the past 10 years

You won't read that headline in the daily mail, because it's true

Rockets Wrote:

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

> nxjen Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Myths about LTNs - must be true it?s in The

> > Guardian

> >

> >

> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/1

>

> >

> 6/mythbusters-eight-common-objections-to-ltns-and-

>

> > why-they-are-wrong?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

>

> Ha ha, yes indeed....and look at who the author

> is.....none other than cycling activist and

> Guardian political correspondent Peter Walker

> ....I wonder how sales of his book: Bike Nation:

> How Cycling Can Save the World are going.....;-)

>

> As I read each of the points he tries to,

> unsuccessfully make, I laughed a little louder

> each time....the level of cultish delusion runs

> strongly through each....

>

> Peter, and the pro-closure lobby, are going into

> overdrive at the moment - they must sense that

> they are under pressure. Peter is posting an

> exclusive report today saying that there is no

> evidence that LTN's cause social injustice...the

> report is penned by Rachel Aldred who is the

> director of the Active Travel Academy.....and a

> big cycle lobbyist and activist.....

>

> Edit: Ah I have just seen why they are going into

> overdrive The Mail on Sunday

> (#washesmouthoutwithsoap) did a piece quoting the

> UK's head paramedic saying that closures are

> impacting response times.....both sides are upping

> the

> ante....https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8

> 949617/Top-paramedic-warns-bike-lanes-holding-ambu

> lances-traffic-jams.html

[legalalien]

Actually redpost the online DfT statistics show that motor traffic in Southwark fell between 1999 and 2019 (and the Lambeth transport policy expressly acknowledges that there has been a significant reduction in motor traffic in Lambeth in the last 15 years). The point is more that it needs to fall more if we are to achieve our environmental goals.

Edited to add: that Daily Mail article is hilarious - love the "frightening scene" at the Surbiton bus stop.

[legalalien]

Here's the Rachel Aldred report.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d30896202a18c0001b49180/t/5fb246b254d7bd32ba4cec90/1605519046389/LTNs+for+all.pdf

Reading it suggests to me that the Dulwich LTN doesn't really fit with her idea of where LTNs should go and what they are for:

"Boroughs should consider equity when developing and prioritising LTNs,given that LTNs may particularly benefit people living without access to private greenspace or local safe public places for playing or socialising"...

"Creating car-free and car-lite spaces in our neighbourhoods can be a low cost,rapid and efficient way to ensure that the many who have limited access to private gardens or urban parks,or who live in crowded flats or poor quality homes,can take a breath of fresh air,socialise maintaining a safe distance,play and exercise."

"While measures to reduce car use and enable active travel have multiple co-benefits, some policy goals may pull against each other in the shorter term. If we were primarily interested in reducing car use,this might suggest we should prioritise LTNs in richer areas,where car ownership and use is highest.This would have equity implications,as the people and neighbourhoods who might most benefit from LTNs would then be left behind; although indirectly they may benefit from wealthier people driving less. We need to understand better how the impacts of active travel measures vary by area of introduction,and to ensure that equity is considered alongside environmental criteria as part of a wider long-term vision for greener and more equitable cities."

The data bits of it aren't terribly helpful when it comes to assessing any particular LTN, as the conclusions are very general - they relate to the general "are LTNS automatically unfair" type argument rather than any particular case (if that makes sense)....

[Rockets]

redpost Wrote:

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

> "How about execessive car usage affecting

> emergency response times?"

>

> Traffic is up 50% over the past 10 years

>

> You won't read that headline in the daily mail,

> because it's true

>

>

> Rockets Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > nxjen Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Myths about LTNs - must be true it?s in The

> > > Guardian

> > >

> > >

> >

> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/1

>

> >

> > >

> >

> 6/mythbusters-eight-common-objections-to-ltns-and-

>

> >

> > > why-they-are-wrong?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

> >

> > Ha ha, yes indeed....and look at who the author

> > is.....none other than cycling activist and

> > Guardian political correspondent Peter Walker

> > ....I wonder how sales of his book: Bike

> Nation:

> > How Cycling Can Save the World are

> going.....;-)

> >

> > As I read each of the points he tries to,

> > unsuccessfully make, I laughed a little louder

> > each time....the level of cultish delusion runs

> > strongly through each....

> >

> > Peter, and the pro-closure lobby, are going

> into

> > overdrive at the moment - they must sense that

> > they are under pressure. Peter is posting an

> > exclusive report today saying that there is no

> > evidence that LTN's cause social

> injustice...the

> > report is penned by Rachel Aldred who is the

> > director of the Active Travel Academy.....and a

> > big cycle lobbyist and activist.....

> >

> > Edit: Ah I have just seen why they are going

> into

> > overdrive The Mail on Sunday

> > (#washesmouthoutwithsoap) did a piece quoting

> the

> > UK's head paramedic saying that closures are

> > impacting response times.....both sides are

> upping

> > the

> >

> ante....https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8

>

> >

> 949617/Top-paramedic-warns-bike-lanes-holding-ambu

>

> > lances-traffic-jams.html

Of course you won't read that headline in the Daily Mail because they are as much on an agenda push as the Guardian - they are coming from polar opposites of the debate.

Nor will the pro-lobby who have been publicising those estimated (the estimated is the key here and I will explain why in a moment) traffic increase figures want you to scratch beneath the surface. Even those estimated figures show that traffic is still markedly lower than it's peak in 1999 and the trend has been downwards for a long period of time. There has been no analysis as to what is causing the rise - it started in 2013 so I suspect it is linked to home delivery services.

Now, people are rightly challenging those estimated figures because, well, they are estimates. And when you actually look at real data using road counts and monitoring these numbers are not being seen.

Take our local area the OHS figures for DV (which were based on actual traffic counts using monitoring) clearly demonstrated that traffic through the DV junction has been declining year on year for a number of year. Not a huge drop but still year on year reductions - surely if there had been this huge increase in traffic since 2013 on the borough by borough basis seen in the estimated study then there would have been an increase in the real world?

This is at a time when the council is refusing to be transparent about their plans for monitoring and are suggesting that modelling will work to determine how much displacement and increases in pollution there has (or has not) been from these closures. The only way to get a real world view of the what is going on is to physically monitor.

[redpost]

No, I was quoting national figures as was the top paramedic. The point stands in my criticism of the daily mail.

[Rockets]

I think this was also a catalyst for the pro-closure lobby push - this piece on the ITV News last week (pretty much you can do a find and replace on any mentioned of Ealing with Southwark in terms of the accusations of councils not listening and well done Crystal Palace for their protest against the closures!):

[exdulwicher]

Actually redpost the online DfT statistics show that motor traffic in Southwark fell between 1999 and 2019 (and the Lambeth transport policy expressly acknowledges that there has been a significant reduction in motor traffic in Lambeth in the last 15 years). The point is more that it needs to fall more if we are to achieve our environmental goals.

It does and it doesn't.

If you look at the data for Southwark:

https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/local-authorities/103

If you go to the Summary page:

https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/summary

and filter traffic by Road Type on C-roads, there's a massive increase.

The raw counts don't always pick this up because they're at fixed locations so what is measured as a decrease in traffic passing a fixed point on an A-road is actually measured as an increase in traffic along a C-road. Basically rat-running. The physical counts of how many vehicles have gone down a certain road need to be tied into other measures like phone data, traffic flow, congestion charge counts, ANPR, temporary traffic counts (the little boxes with a sensor cable stretched across the road) plus things a bit more removed like census data, surveys and car sales figures.

Here's London overall as one Region:

https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/regions/6

Again, you can filter by road type, traffic type etc.. It's 3.6 BILLION more miles driven on London's roads in the space of 10 years.

There's a huge amount of info and data in there to go through and just saying "oh there's been a decrease in traffic" is not true. There might be a decrease past a fixed point but it's not shown in the bigger picture. Residential streets (where there are generally no traffic counts) have become sponges to absorb the arterial route traffic. Everyone is on Waze and Google Maps being shown all these little cut throughs to save a minute here or there. The result being that they're directed off the A-roads, away from the traffic counters and into the residential streets. Traffic displacement in reverse.

There's a few articles out at the moment. The Peter Green one linked above.

This one which mentions Railton Road: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/16/i-got-it-wrong-since-the-changes-its-become-more-vibrant-life-in-an-ltn

The guy in Daily Mail article has form for this, he was saying the same about segregated cycle lanes in London in about 2017. None of his scare-mongering has been shown to be true. As a general rule the Daily Mail isn't really interested in truth. ;-)

[Rockets]

Ex- and to be fair, and in the interests of balance, nor is Peter Walker and the The Guardian interested in the truth.......;-)

The truth is out there somewhere...and I think this is what is acting as the catalyst for so much push back against these closures...people can see for themselves what is happening in their own local area and they are not taking well to some faceless local bureaucrats and pro-closure lobby groups telling them everything is going really well....

[Earl Aelfheah]

We need to give more space to cars

 

[legalalien]

Thanks exdulwicher that looks really interesting.

[Nigello]

Truth is good, facts often better.

[redpost]

Thanks exdulwicher & rarah, very interesting.

I suspected the displacement onto minor roads, I don't drive, but when I get an uber I can see the trip avoiding main roads quite often even when (personally) I'd prefer the main road route as less a lot less turns and less potential harm to residents/kids on small streets etc

[exdulwicher]

Truth is good, facts often better.

I'm reminded of the scene in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade where he tells his class that archaeology is the search for FACTS. Not TRUTH.

"If it's truth you're interested in, the philosophy class is right down the hall."

[legalalien]

Question (really for exdulwicher who seems likely to know) - is it me, or is there an awfully high percentage of estimated data in those data sheets? I'm not a statistician so don't really know what I'm looking at, but there seems like a lot more estimated data than actual count data happening (I was just looking at the Southwark one). Is that the case do you think? i ask that from an agnostic position as regards LTNS or anything else generally, it just seems like avilable data on this and air pollution isn't crash hot, which doesn't help either side of the debate. Does Southwark collect its own traffic data separately to inform itself or is the monitoring done centrally? If councils collect data does this get sent to dfT (and likewise TfL)? You'd hope that from an efficiency perspective all the data is pooled?

[Abe_froeman]

rah rah do you have the explanatory notes to accompany that? There's no way 86% of the fuel I put in my car just drips out of the engine.

[exdulwicher]

rah rah do you have the explanatory notes to accompany that? There's no way 86% of the fuel I put in my car just drips out of the engine.

That's about right - varies depending on how you measure it, if it's a rolling road or real-world; also real-world things like temperature, speed, manner of driving but tank-to-wheel efficiency is about 16 - 20%.

The TTW efficiency is determined by the total amount of losses, which in a combustion engine comprise thermal losses, pump losses and mechanical losses. The thermal losses occur as not all of the fuel energy is transformed to mechanical energy, and most of these losses are dissipated through the exhaust. The combustion process is unable to utilize all the thermal energy, and the exhaust ends up at a higher temperature and pressure than the ambient air. All the rotating parts of the engine creates friction when moving and results in mechanical losses, which increase with the speed of the engine.

It's a massive pain modelling that ofr all types of vehicle though so generally an average figure is used. Diesel engines on biodiesel can get up to 35% efficiency in absolutely ideal running conditions.

Not my area but useful to understand the basics when politicians start banging on about "net-zero" or how cars are more efficient now therefore there's less pollution per car therefore we can build more roads and have more cars....