LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[redpost]

alien

there already is monitoring, monitoring station at catford on south circular:

http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/basicgraphsseparate.asp?region=&site=LW1&sitename=Lewisham__Catford&period=30_day&graphdate=16/12/2020&species=O3

There's enough monitoring stations in london to tell us the air is bad and exceeds safety levels (although any pollution is damaging)

And what would that advice be?

move to the countryside?

[exdulwicher]

https://www.transporttimes.co.uk/news.php/If-nothing-is-done-this-pandemic-will-make-air-quality-worse-not-better-595

The publication of this report coincidentally ties in with the Ella Kissi- Debrah case linked to above.

[sdrs]

Good question - and why are they in operation 5 hours a day instead of 30-60 mins at beginning and end of the school day, like Hillsboro Rd school street round the corner? Completely disproportionate to have Townley closed 8-10 and 3-6pm on top of multiple 24/7 closures of non school streets like Court Lane, Calton Ave, Derwent, Elsie, Melbourne South, etc.(which I believe Townley, Turney and Gallery Rd 5 hr daily restrictions from 8-10 anf 3-6 were brought in as ??mitigation?? for but they?ve only worsened the displacement and pollution on Lordship Lane, Grove Vale, East Dulwich Grove, Croxted to the west)

[Nigello]

Who needs advice - just drive less or not at all. Bingo - that's it. If everyone applied this piece of advice at least once a week, who knows how much better it could be for all? I just don't think we need to put it in the hands of "the authorities as that divests us of our own agency and investment in the situation.

[alice]

Talking of 'agency' is a little irrelevant. Its hard cash that allows you to live in the Dulwich LTN zone.

[sdrs]

As one of thousands raising a family on one of the already dangerously polluted main roads in Dulwich which is now taking intolerable levels of displaced traffic from the road closures (plus further wildly excessive 5 hour a day restrictions in the Village) and deeply worried by the health impacts of the pollution from this on children, I?m not after advice from anyone. I want the council to take responsibility for the pollution the schemes are causing outside people?s homes and schools and shops and reverse the Dulwich ETOs as a matter of urgency in light of the Ella Kissi-Debrah verdict. They are causing harmful levels of displacement onto densely residential roads, including East Dulwich Grove which is covered in schools (where over 3000 kids are educated and where the main pupil entrance to Charter ED will be next year once building works are complete). Enough. Lewisham Council can now be held legally accountable for its failure to avert Ella?s death. Wake up call for Southwark. If th? 3000 locals whose epetition was ignored were to crowdfund a legal challenge to the ETOs now, the council would be in trouble .

[legalalien]

People won't take action until they properly understand the exact nature of the problem and the specific health effect on them and their children - all of us arguing about things on this thread might, but plenty of people don't give air quality a second thought. More granular monitoring, and proactively telling people about pollution levels in their specific area, and comparing it to other areas, is a way of focusing the mind. And yes, more info might lead people who are or whose children are particularly prone to respiratory illness to move - for them there isn't time to wait around for medium to long term general policy interventions to have an effect.

And or course, given my views expressed previously, I think more granular monitoring should be used to ensure that no highways policy increases pollution in any given area above a maximum acceptable level - even if it brings the average down by improving air quality in other areas.

[redpost]

alien

You can already sign up for local pollution alerts at the london air quality network

However, it's wildly inaccurate because it's a very difficult problem ...

testing stations costs ?100,000's, big running costs and frankly a more granular network won't give any more info than we already have because of weather/wind/rain/woodburners/industry

So, we need to reduce our car usage ... that's the only thing that will work

[Nigello]

Maybe pictures of children who died because of air pollution on the sides of buses or on billboards on school run routes will hit home harder?

[legalalien]

Have just had a "re-leaflet" from Coalition4Dulwich, updated to advise that there is apparently an online form where you can log in to give your views on the closures (in addition to the commonspace site or emailing the highways dept, as advised on the traffic page of the website).

The address is https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp?fm_fid=1081, and the reference number is TMO2021-EXPO2_LSPDulwich.

I haven't actually tested this, as I've already put in a response and couldn't test without making a duplicate.

I believe the deadline is tomorrow.

[malumbu]

It's as if pollution didn't exist before the LTN. Air quality has been improving since the clean air acts of the 1950s.

It as if you simply wave a magic wand and everybody changes their behaviour. Many drivers wont. I'm passionate about the environment and this frustrates me like hell, but what also frustrates me is the incredibly narrow focus of the discussions here. And blanket statements like pollution is killing our children. I'm not underestimating the impact, but some of our most vulnerable will also be in substandard housing, low employment, poor nutrition etc etc.

I do hope that today's coroner's ruling has an impact on the psyche of the country as a whole. When I was more involved in this area I was happy to have a poster campaign of cars idling outside school with exhausts going into the kid's faces, but was told that shock tactics (eg cigarette packaging) did not influence those you most wanted to target. I also thought that parents doing this, parking on the pavement etc should be named and shamed. But told that there were legal reasons that you couldn't do this. So with great delight I found a school in Scotland that did exactly that putting up photos of parents. Sorry that's a bit like North Korea.

[Abe_froeman]

I thought the purpose of these emergency traffic orders was to enable social distancing during the Covid 19 pandemic.

[redpost]

@abe yes, but primarily to allow people to walk/cycle safely instead of using a car or public transport

@malambu

Compared to the 50's, it's very different pollution now and the emitters are a lot closer to us on the roads, therefore less dispersed and more harmful to human health.

We have de-industrialised and outsourced almost all of our industral pollution to developing nations.

But, since the 50's car ownership has steadily increased at around 2.7% a year, in absolute terms from 4 million vehicles in 1950 to 40 million vehicles now. Increases in efficiency are offset by larger heavier vehicles and more intensive usage now.

[Abe_froeman]

Walking and cycling decrease social distancing.

Sitting one apiece in a one tonne metal box increases social distancing

[exdulwicher]

I thought the purpose of these emergency traffic orders was to enable social distancing during the Covid 19 pandemic.

Partly that but partly because, with everyone staying off public transport, there was a very high risk that people who used to use P/T to get around would replace that journey by one in a private vehicle. And if everyone did that, the results would be catastrophic gridlock and pollution.

There was an urgent need to promote active travel and build on the huge increases in cycling seen during the first lockdown which was primarily due to walking/cycling being one of the few things you could actually do coupled with the roads being far quieter and therefore far safer - tempting people who would like to cycle but were afraid of the traffic danger out on to the roads once more.

[Rockets]

Do the pro-closure lobby realise that Ella Kissi- Debrah's mother is a key voice in the fight to get the LTNs removed?

https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18616846.air-quality-voice-rosamund-kissi-debrah-slams-lee-green-ltn/

I see Cllr McAsh obviously didn't and was trying to use it to make a point...

https://twitter.com/mcash/status/1339203034509873152?s=19

[Raeburn]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Do the pro-closure lobby realise that Ella Kissi-

> Debrah's mother is a key voice in the fight to get

> the LTNs removed?

>

> https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18616846.air-qu

> ality-voice-rosamund-kissi-debrah-slams-lee-green-

> ltn/

>

Rockets, do you ever read the articles you link to?

The piece covers many complex topics, but doesn?t mention anything about a ?fight for LTN removal? - ? It literally quotes Rosamund (Ellas mother) as saying;

?We?re not against low traffic neighbourhoods...?

I?m only highlighting this quote to show how disingenuous you are being, not as a comment on the case/Lewisham/Hither Green.

Please stop misrepresenting information, it?s not helping anyone.

[legalalien]

Rockets is right though - and what Ms Kissi-Debrah says in this Guardian article summarises the views of several of us on here I think:

?But what has been unexpected is the diverse nature of campaigners within the anti-LTN groups. Even some of the individuals themselves are surprised. Rosamund Kissi-Debrah says: ?If you randomly rang me up and said, ?Rosamund, what do you think about a low-traffic neighbourhood??, I?d say, ?Ooh, that sounds great definitely.? But where I live, and I can only talk about Lewisham, it has been a disaster.?

Kissi-Debrah is a World Health Organization clean-air advocate whose nine-year-old daughter Ella died in 2013 after suffering a series of severe asthma attacks. She lives in Hither Green, south-east London, just off the South Circular, one of London?s busiest roads. Ella loved to cycle, scoot and skateboard ? ?you name it? ? and her two siblings are similarly ?obsessed with two wheels?. Kissi-Debrah follows behind them on a scooter: ?A manual one, not electric,? she exclaims. ?So I can?t be anti-cyclist.?

For Kissi-Debrah, the issue with low-traffic neighbourhoods is air quality and fairness. ?For people who live in an LTN, yes, life is better, I don?t deny that,? she says. ?But their traffic is going somewhere. And this brings up all sorts of issues: social justice and environmental justice. You cannot live in a neighbourhood where one part has an LTN and children are cycling and playing outside and the roads are safe, then pop along a couple of roads later and there?s gridlocked traffic. We cannot live in a society like that.?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/nov/01/car-free-neighbourhoods-the-unlikely-new-frontline-in-the-culture-wars

[nxjen]

Some of you are so focussed on removal of the LTNs that you?re failing to see the bigger picture. I welcome the coroner?s verdict but it is likely to lead to even more unpopular and severe measures to reduce traffic pollution. I think this is what James McAsh was saying in his tweet.

[Raeburn]

?

It says lots of things, disappointment with the Council, community consultation, ULEZ, issues with traffic moving, air quality and lower income housing. The topics are complex and some of the points very nuanced, which Rosamund Kissi-Debrah acknowledges and questions.

But it doesn?t say anything about a fight to get LTNs removed.

[Rockets]

Raeburn Wrote:

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

Raeburn, are you reading the same article....read it through...see the para where she says:

Ms Kissi-Debrah, who lives in Hither Green, an area experiencing a spike in traffic, said the scheme is ?insane? and an example of ?environmental racism?.

I have pasted the full article below so everyone can read and come to their own conclusions.....she is saying what many of us on here believe is happening...that LTNs create nirvana for a few and hell for everyone else.

That's not being disingenuous, it's being concerned about everyone

You are the one who edited her quite to suit your means:

?We?re not against low traffic neighbourhoods, what we?re against is areas where the traffic isn?t as bad pushing their traffic onto this side,? she said.

Air quality voice Rosamund Kissi-Debrah slams Lee Green LTN

By Grainne Cuffe

A leading environmental campaigner whose daughter?s death may have been linked to air pollution said the surge in traffic by her home following a new LTN is ?like a slap in the face?.

Rosamund Kissi-Debrah?s daughter Ella died in 2013 when she was just nine years old after suffering three years of seizures from severe asthma attacks.

The mum-of-three successfully campaigned for a new inquest into her death ? the High Court granted one last year after new evidence came to light. It is due to be held later this year.

The Lee Green LTN (low traffic neighbourhood), which was implemented at the end of June, aims to reduce rat-running, improve air quality, and encourage greener modes of transport.

It was already planned under Lewisham Council?s healthy neighbourhood programme, but is now covered by emergency transport measures in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The scheme involves 13 modal filters, physical and camera-enforced barriers that cut off roads to through-traffic.

It has created much more space for cycling and walking, but left some streets safer than others as traffic is displaced to neighbouring areas.

The changes have had many different reactions, positive and negative, while the majority of people are supportive of improving air quality and creating safer streets.

See more: Lee Green LTN needed to tackle air pollution, say backers

Some residents outside the LTN have seen a significant increase in traffic in their streets since June, and whether it will decrease remains to be seen ? the scheme has not been fully rolled out, with cameras yet to be installed.

Ms Kissi-Debrah, who lives in Hither Green, an area experiencing a spike in traffic, said the scheme is ?insane? and an example of ?environmental racism?.

?I find it unacceptable to push traffic from the other side of Hither Green to add to the traffic on the South Circular.

?The South Circular is never going to move so people on this side are always going to have the traffic from [it].

?Hither Green Lane (HGL) has now turned into a replica of the South Circular, and that?s putting it mildly.

?Whatever they have to do to stop Hither Green Lane being gridlocked, they have to do it,? she said.

Residents in HGL, as well as other streets, have been reporting heavy traffic as early as 1.30pm that continues into the evening.

?What I?m most annoyed about is councillors? patronising responses, as if people on this side are stupid. For example ?you need to give it time?. I need to give it time?

?Not only did they not consult us when they closed off roads, where did they think the traffic was going to go?? she said.

Ms Kissi-Debrah said ?what is unforgivable? is that we are in the midst of a pandemic.

?The numbers from the BAME community on this side are more than on the other side. The other side is more affluent.

?It?s environmental racism,? she said.

The term refers to racial discrimination in environmental policy making, where some groups are affected more negatively than others.

?I don?t blame people for wanting quieter roads, but they need to understand that they do not have the South Circular in the midst of their neighbourhood.

?People live on these main roads, and it?s the poorer people who live on them.

?Gloating that your children can now go out and play or cycle does not help things.

?Does that mean my children do not deserve to do that? These are questions people need to ask themselves.

?It is as if now that the traffic is not in their neighbourhood, they are not concerned where the traffic was.

?Because when I campaign, I don?t just campaign for my children, I campaign for all children. But some are more equal than others it appears,? she said.

The hope for reducing the traffic build up is that drivers will get frustrated and choose another route.

But people are concerned it will not have eased by the time school starts up again.

?By September this will be a disaster zone. I see this as a slap in the face from the local council after all my hard work of campaigning over the last six years.

?I am always going to see this as a matter of life and death.

?I also wouldn?t be happier if they pushed traffic from the South Circular elsewhere because it?s other people?s children who that will affect [?] their children mean as much to them as mine mean to me.

?We?re not against low traffic neighbourhoods, what we?re against is areas where the traffic isn?t as bad pushing their traffic onto this side,? she said.

If Ella was still alive, she would soon be opening her GCSE results.

?The timing, you couldn?t even make this up, [along with] the response from those that implemented it and are now trying to defend it.

?You have to think about Ultra-Low Emission Zones (ULEZ) to reduce the traffic ? I don?t see all the car schemes that have been put in place.

?You can?t just block off roads and give no other alternatives,? she said.

We are monitoring this area for changes in air quality and we do expect with a reduction in overall traffic that there will be further improvements in air quality for all,

Cllr Sophie McGeevor, cabinet member for environment and transport, said that a car-based recovery in the wake of the pandemic ?would be a disaster?.

?I have huge respect for Rosamund as an air quality campaigner, and her feelings and opinions are highly valued by myself and the council as an organisation.

?We share the same aims, to reduce traffic and improve air quality.

?Everyone has been clear that a car-based recovery to Covid-19 in London would be a disaster, leading to increased congestion and declining air quality.

?With 60 per cent of all car journeys being less than 2.5 miles in London there is a huge opportunity to reduce the number of car journeys on all of our roads.

?The measures we have put in place during Covid-19 are there to support people who want to or have no other option to walk or cycle, and are intended to support traffic reduction on all roads including in Hither Green.

?Air quality has significantly improved in Lewisham and on the south circular in recent years and we expect it to improve even further when the Ultra-Low Emission Zone is extended.

?We are monitoring this area for changes in air quality and we do expect with a reduction in overall traffic that there will be further improvements in air quality for all,? Cllr McGeevor said.

[Raeburn]

Precisely. Doesn?t say anything about a fight to get LTN?s removed.

[legalalien]

The focus on the LTNs here is because this is a thread about the Dulwich LTNs?

I have no problem with more severe measures- the ULEZ will help but I think increasing the cost of polluting motoring and, for example, banning domestic fires are good ways forward.

Channeling traffic onto main roads regardless of the consequences for their denizens (and for those forced to sit in idling traffic - let's not forget these are bus routes) , in order to make traffic so bad that a percentage of people give up driving short journeys - not so much a good way forward (particularly when those giving up the short journeys are the ones benefiting from quiet streets, not those suffering the consequences). Just because it's one of the few things Southwark can do with the powers it has (and I get that) still doesn't make it OK in my view.

(Interesting article about air pollution inside buses here https://www.driving.co.uk/news/public-transport-worse-than-driving-for-exposure-to-air-pollution/).

Hopefully TfL will see some sense and intervene. From what I can gather from an FOI exchange with TfL, Southwark didn't formally notify TfL of the Dulwich closures through the TMAN scheme until 10 November - long after making the orders (which seems odd, given the statutory scheme requires advance notification to TFL (and TfL approval or non-objection) before making any experimental order that would be "likely to affect" the South Circular or Lordship Lane). I can't see how the Phase 2 closures don't meet that test - particularly given the whole point of the closures is to channel "rat running" traffic onto those roads. Let's see.

[DulwichCentral]

Is there anybody here in the Dulwich debate who supports the LTN who doesn't ALSO want further measures on main roads? I doubt it.

There is a mantra being repeated over and over here. As Rockets puts it, some kind of 'Nirvana' has been created for the 'lucky (selfish) few' who live on the filtered streets.

A) those streets were initially chosen to be filtered because they were gridlocked rat-runs (not because 'wealthy selfish people' live on them)

B) the people benefiting are not just the residents of those streets because:

C) most importantly these streets are now ROUTES used by people who don't live on those streets. People who want to get from one end of Dulwich to the other using clean transport - they link up then with other ROUTES like Railton LTN, Ferndale LTN etc etc and other cycleways on main roads.

To keep implying that the residents on the filtered streets are the *only ones* who benefit is simply not true.

To keep suggesting that these people are selfish / uncaring / anti-social/ wealthy / socially unjust (and even racist) sadly does nothing but stir up unnecessary division.

Yes, these people are no doubt relieved their horrible streets are better - and probably fully support more being done because they know how horrible it is to live on a gridlocked road. If there was more unity to push the council for more (instead of creating division) that would be so much more productive for ALL imho :)

[Rockets]

There are many pro-closure lobbyists who claim there are no negatives associated with these closures that everything is awesome because of them. We even have councillors claiming on public meetings that traffic on the displacement roads is no heavier than it has ever been. Now that's disingenuous.

I also, hasten to add, that it was the same councillor who said LTNs were designed to channel traffic off side streets onto main roads.

The pro-closure camp and council clearly dont want a rational debate about the pros and cons.