LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[malumbu]

Not really sure why you post the cycle lobby doesn't want electric vehicles. We need vehicles and they need to move to zero emission. We just need less vehicles, rather than simply replace the internal combustion engine with electric motors. And when I say 'we' I am talking about society not cyclists.

And bemused by the comparison with Bromley. Whilst I have expressed a view that some on this thread aren't progressive in their thinking, many in Bromley are in the dark ages when it comes to more environmentally friendly transport. And most have the space in their homes to keep a bike. So often the choice is: I'll use my car as it is more convenient, vs I'll use another form of transport as although it is less convenient it is better for society, the environment and my health and well being. I've made the transition to the latter, irrespective of the hills and the absolutely dreadful public transport (it's not). Join me.

[exdulwicher]

1) Investment in transport infrastructure (I know this is long-term but PTAL scores are very low in Dulwich). Without public transport infrastructure you cannot expect people to get out of the car.

This is absolutely correct in terms of investing in public transport infrastructure, however the PTAL scores only really tell a small part of the story. PTAL is based on a 100m grid square - each square has a value assigned to it based on connectivity (level of access) to the transport network, combining walk time to the public transport network with service wait times.

Those 100m grid squares can then be aggregated and an area can be assigned an overall value.

Dulwich, with its vast areas of green space (JAGS, Dulwich College and Alleyn's playing fields, Dulwich Park, Dulwich Woods and so on) is obviously somewhat limiting in terms of buses running through it so you almost end up with a catch-22. You (fairly obviously) cannot run a bus down most of the residential streets, the roads cannot realistically be widened to accommodate buses so you're left with running buses down the roads that can have them - EDG (37 & 42), N/S through the village (just the P4), Lordship Lane (185, 176, 40, P13 - lots of options depending on whereabouts on LL you are). Using the Hopper fare, the connections actually aren't that bad at all. E-W isn't brilliant but E-W is limited to the options of the roads. South Circular, EDG/Half Moon Lane and Herne Hill itself running up to Ruskin Park which is rather outside the area anyway.

Which leaves you with the only option of increasing PTAL anywhere is more buses through the Village N-S (more P4 or another service on another route).

So yes, the area has a low score overall but it doesn't really tell the whole picture - once you're out onto the boundary roads, you're in a grid square with a 3 or 4 level.

You can play around on WebCAT, it's public access: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/planning-applications/planning-with-webcat and also includes forecasts, a separate Travel Time Mapping Analysis (how far you can go in a specified amount of time from a set location via various modes).

Most of the rest of your points I agree with as well. You're right about EV charging (it doesn't solve congestion but it does help with localised pollution and it's part of the solution), spot on about cycle storage (both destination and at home - destination is important because if you want to enable local shopping trips etc by bike, you need somewhere to lock the bike up and you'd like the bike to still be there when you come out of the shop!) and you're right with point 7 with the added caveat that quite often, you don't really know what the outcomes will be until the measure has been put in place and in that respect, planters / bollards / pop-up cycle lanes etc are a very cheap and easy way of testing, adjusting and re-testing things without going to all the expense and disruption of completely rebuilding everything.

Done properly, over a decent period of time with proper consultation and good engagement, LTNs should actually be welcomed as a trial run of some proposed improvements. Everyone gets to see and experience first hand how it works, everyone gets to test out the changes required and the revised option can then be put in permanently (the revised option can also include complete removal if it's been shown not to work for the majority). One of the few transport interventions you can do that does not require colossal amounts of taxpayer money!

[devs]

Could I add another suggestion to Rocket's list....and that would be the enforcement of the 20mph speed limit,together with other traffic calming measures. I live on LL. I'm a non driver and walk everywhere. The views of pedestrians should be sought too and the assumption not made that they support LTNs. . I would love to see less traffic, but since LTNs were introduced traffic on my road of course and most of my walking journeys, has become much worse.

I can understand the frustration and annoyance of those to whom the LTNs seem to be a fait accomplit.The consultation has just not been good enough.

[Siduhe]

Done properly, over a decent period of time with proper consultation and good engagement, LTNs should actually be welcomed as a trial run of some proposed improvements.

Couldn't agree more with this.

My own perception is that the majority of people on this thread are not opposed to LTNs on principle, but many are frustrated with the way that Southwark is going about these specific experimental LTNs (including me). Which is why the inflammatory language and the unwillingness to engage in the experience of these specific LTNs (on both sides - pro and anti) is also pretty frustrating.

Almost everyone I've spoken to on this thread who is pro the current experimental measures seems to agree that proper consultation and proper monitoring is key to the success of these measures. Currently, we're getting very mixed messages from Southwark about what the consultation will look like, whose views will count and what area will be consulted, and it's a similar picture for the monitoring.

As someone who lives on a street where there have been multiple people reporting adverse effects (including for residents, pedestrian and cyclists) from the Court Lane closure, all I want is some proper consultation and proper monitoring including in the streets that appear to be experiencing adverse effects. I don't think that's unreasonable, but Southwark won't currently commit to it. So please don't tar all of us who are raising questions with being backward, SUV drivers who don't care about the environment.

As I've said before, if more people who support the current experimental measures were pressing Southwark for this sort of transparent consultation and monitoring, I think we'd all be in a much better position to move forward. But for so long as anyone who is pressing for this can be categorised as an anti-LTN stalwart (which is Southwark's main response to those of us who keep raising it), it's way too easy for them to divide and conquer in our community. This thread being a prime example.

[legalalien]

I agree with Rockets, Bicknell and Siduhe (half my family come from unprogressive Bromley so that may not be perceived as a good thing).

The problem is the way that this experiment has been carried out - I'm not keen on a "live" experiment that dumps large amounts of traffic, causing congestion and pollution on the boundary roads in the hope that some of it will evaporate, based on what seems to be quite sketchy data in relation to the potential effect in this particular local area. But if it is decided to do the experiment, then I don't think it's unreasonable for it to be properly planned in advance, in terms of collecting baseline data, and putting proper monitoring in before you start (which is what the Guys and St Thomas' arrangements seem to be doing), and deciding what "success" looks like - and also when the "bad" effect is sufficiently bad that you either need to stop the experiment and have a re-think, or amend things and see what happens, again with proper, transparent monitoring.

Could we agree that this is what would happen in an ideal world? Because then the argument becomes more about how we fix the current mess. And it would also be interesting to try and agree how bad "too bad" is for the boundary roads, as I think we will find out in the not-too-distant future. Do those who support the current Dulwich closures accept that there is a point at which the scheme would have to be amended, or not?

[DulwichCentral]

I agree and there seems to be a consensus here on monitoring. In normal times I think monitoring would have been done by now, and more easily. But with a pandemic and therefore abnormal traffic patterns (either zero traffic or heavy traffic as restrictions ease and people drive instead of public transport) it must be very difficult to monitor realistically.

Believe me there are things I find frustrating about Southwark Council. But to be fair it is not their fault a pandemic has dramatically altered traffic patterns. The measures are experimental and need monitoring, particularly boundary roads, so they should stay in place until the monitoring can be done properly in as near to normal circumstances.

One thing I would add to Rockets list is more measures on main roads. Cycleways, traffic calming, 24/7 bus lanes, remove car-parking to clear bus lanes.

And if normal circumstances take some time to resume, as people continue to drive more than use public transport - then all the more reason for the measures to stay in place to continue enabling more people to opt for safe routes for active travel i.e. mitigate against a 'car recovery' in a climate emergency.

[legalalien]

DC it's the last point I don't agree with, as it will make life on the boundary roads unbearable. Given the initial OHS analysis was that the main problem in Dulwich was lots of through trafffic, I'd expect any evaporation caused by modal shift for short journeys to be less than the most optimistic expert evidence predicts. That through traffic is quite unlikely to evaporate, do you not think? So again - how bad, and for how long, are you prepared for the situation on the boundary roads to be, before acknowledging that something needs to change? I guess how open are those in support of the measures to an adjustment to the scheme (for example eg opening Court Lane but keeping Calton and some of the more minor roads filtered, or by changng the times of the timed restrictions). Is the idea of adjustment to alleviate the boundary road problems acceptable - or is the existing arrangement set in stone? It would be good to get a feel for people's views.

ETA For the record, I still have lots of problems with the way Southwark seem to be acting, not least with what appears to be a lack of compliance with the statutory notification processes, a lack of transparency, over-reliance on lobby groups in policy formation and a less than impressive FOIA/ EIR or public sector equality duty situation, but it may make this discussion more productive if we can hive that off as a separate issue. I think those are the things that tend to make those of us on here opposing the measures emotive - and of course they are things that are not irrelevant to the legality of the current arrangements).

[Penguin68]

It's all a matter of trust, isn't it? Do you trust Southwark to actually treat these as an experiment, to be properly and openly studied and assessed - or do you believe they are using the Government order as a back-door to implementing (with no real opportunity for open review and change) changes which they had previously proposed, and which had been opposed by locals when they had that opportunity.

Do you believe this is actually about Healthy Streets - in the light of Covid-19 and NOx2 pollution etc. - or do you believe this is part of Southwark's avowed and open policy to drive out car usage in their borough (not our borough, as it happens, but Tooley St's to do with as they wish)?

Do you believe that the councillors will take an open view of how they assess these schemes, or do you believe they will intentionally limit the people polled in order to 'prove' (and I use that word quite wrongly) their original hypothesis?

Do you believe they will take every opportunity to extend the schemes both in scale and in terms of timescale (as they have already done elsewhere) with the hope that it moves from 'trial' to fait accompli without objections (other than vapid ones on fora such as these) to be made?

Do you trust your (sic) Southwark Councillors?

Outwith any possible merits of some or part of these schemes, I have absolutely no trust that Southwark will do anything other than ride rough shod over the views of those effected - as is and has been their wont.

[legalalien]

Pengun you are right and that is why I just edited my post above. I think a lot of the aggression and frustration here is directed at the Council and the process as much as it is at the substance of the measures. If those in favour of the measures could go some way to acknowledging the process flaws without compromising their view on the substance of the measures, and those against the measures could (as I think Rockets has done) acknowledge more expressly that not every measure aimed at car reduction is a bad thing, then perhaps we are a bit closer together?

[exdulwicher]

Re the consultation matters.

Lambeth released this a couple of days ago on the Railton Road LTN: https://beta.lambeth.gov.uk/streets-roads-transport/railton-low-traffic-neighbourhood-stage-one-monitoring-report/methodology

Stage 1 of what they stress is an ongoing consultation and within it, clearly set out, is how they've gone about it, good and bad points, next steps and so on. There's also an Equalities Impact Assessment in there.

It's been said by me and others on here that Lambeth have generally engaged better and I think if Southwark were to do something similar it might help address some of the concerns raised on here.

Maybe?

[Bicknell]

you may be right exdulwicher, but friends in lambeth say baseline is baffling and eqaulities impact Assessment very vague. so it sounds all open and clear but doesnt build trust. Agree with penguin and legalalien that trust is important. but also agree with legalalien tjat getting angry with councils doesnt help us come together on this forum. just hope - really hope that southwark will get the reveiw process right this time.

[heartblock]

If Southwark had monitored particulates and NO2 and had undertaken an equality impact assessment then it is highly unlikely that the current LTNs would have been put in the roads that are currently gated. I?m not arguing against any LTNs but Southwark?s are misplaced and probably cause more pollution across the borough than less. Of course nothing can be proven as nothing has been measured. In science this type of bias is why studies are blinded in order to be measured to reduce unintended bias. So... if you live in an LTN, of course you can?t help being biased ....which is why councillors should say if they live in an LTN.

[malumbu]

Suddenly we've all become experts on air quality. Well I am. I've kept that quiet but from time to time post something about vehicle technology which shows that my knowledge goes beyond Google. Siting pollution is just another reason that many use to try to block measures to reduce vehicles. I doubt whether many cared until things started to affect them in terms of driving and inconvenience.

OK here we go again.

1. Vehicles are cleaner. The ULEZ will get rid of most of the polluting vehicles

2. The latest diesels no longer produce the levels of nitrogen oxides than those in the past. There is the VW gate and manufacturers cheating the tests, but this has at last been sorted.

3. Modern cars produce much less PM than ten or twenty years ago

4. If you see a vehicle spewing out smoke it generally because either the equipment has failed, or worse still been illegally removed. Has been clamped down on but essentially this is because the owner/driver doesn't care a fig. And again more will come off our local roads in the Autumn

5. Most of you are rubbish drivers and don't know how to anticipate the road ahead, drive over traffic calmed streets etc, Speed bumps - accelerate/brake. Gap in the traffic, accelerate. Green light ahead, race to try to get through, brake hard at the last second. I've got the badge, done the training etc. Poor driving adds to pollution through unnecessarily putting the engine under stress, braking particulates, tyre wear particulates, and leads to more CO2 (and higher fuel costs). You can pass your test at 17 and not have any further training or examination until you are too old to drive.

6. Most modern cars have stop start technology and should turn the engine off when in stationary in traffic. I suspect many turn this off due to selfishness or some scare stories in twitter about damaging the engine, and draining the battery.

7. Local authorities have a duty to measure air quality and take action. This doesn't mean monitoring every metre of local road but representative monitoring and modelling

8. This is a longer game of behaviour change, and not going to produce overnight results

9. Air quality is not a problem that manifested itself due to the advent of LTNs. We've been failing to meet standards for years hence government was ordered by the courts to sort things out. The previous Mayor took action in proposing the ULEZ. Local authorities have done lots, albeit not well joined up at times. I just wonder how many of you clocked this, and did your own bit to help. At the end of the day we are causing the pollution on our roads, be it from driving, deliveries, building work etc.

10. There is always more that can be done. There is no such thing as zero pollution and perfect air quality, society needs to decide what is acceptable in terms of the impact on health vs living in a Western country that needs some level of traffic to maintain our normal living standards. And we need to protect those most vulnerable.

I was looking for a link that shows how local air quality has improved over recent years (it has) but found the FOE article about a high number of pollution hotspots (SE22 does not feature in the worse streets in London). This recommends action by the authorities but as ever we as individuals need to do more without having to be told or made. https://friendsoftheearth.uk/climate/mapped-more-one-thousand-locations-england-still-breaching-air-pollution-limits

As for the local measures to discourage driving, you can come up with 'better' plans for LTNs or whatever. I'm talking principles here. I will be inconvenienced by roads closing, roads narrowing, junctions changing. I just choose to see the big picture.

[legalalien]

heartblock - I completely agree with you, others might not and in the absence of localised data will argue on the basis of the generic reports being produced by Rachel Aldred etc (which people have different views on in terms of independence, but we can agree to differ on that, I think,if we focus on the specifics of this scheme). What I think we need to agree on is a way of getting actual data, both quantitative and (as we can't afford to put equipment everywhere) qualitative to some extent.

And I say again - we need to have some sort of "maximum temporary negative effect" measure which means the experiment has to be halted or adjusted. I think. If we could agree on the principle of that they we could move on to where that line should be drawn...

[Rockets]

malumbu Wrote:

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

> Not really sure why you post the cycle lobby

> doesn't want electric vehicles. We need vehicles

> and they need to move to zero emission. We just

> need less vehicles, rather than simply replace the

> internal combustion engine with electric motors.

> And when I say 'we' I am talking about society not

> cyclists.

>

> And bemused by the comparison with Bromley.

> Whilst I have expressed a view that some on this

> thread aren't progressive in their thinking, many

> in Bromley are in the dark ages when it comes to

> more environmentally friendly transport. And most

> have the space in their homes to keep a bike. So

> often the choice is: I'll use my car as it is more

> convenient, vs I'll use another form of transport

> as although it is less convenient it is better for

> society, the environment and my health and well

> being. I've made the transition to the latter,

> irrespective of the hills and the absolutely

> dreadful public transport (it's not). Join me.

It is clear from all of the above posts that both sides in this debate are a lot closer than most people think - we all want to do something about the climate emergency but disagree on the effectiveness of the measures the council has put in thus far.

DC - I would agree that more measures to support cycling are needed on main roads, traffic calming, 24/7 bus lanes etc are all needed. But it has to be part of a broader package of events. What interested me in the Guardian's interactive article was just how little of Southwark has any measures - there is a section in the north and then the tiny section in Dulwich - you cannot operate a programme like this - it's way too isolated and would only ever cause the problems we are seeing across the area. And beyond these closures there seems to have been little else - one wonder how many cycle hangers could have been installed for the cost of all the cameras and street furniture now adoring Dulwich Village in support of these closures.

Devs - likewise - we have a problem of speeding drivers and we have to do everything to reduce speeds.

All in all there has been a lack of infrastructural support from the council to encourage anything other than a small amount of modal shift on the closed roads. The lack of positive action on things like bike hangers is quite shocking. There are three things that will make positive change happen: infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure and the council has put the cart before the horse with the LTNs.

And Otto2 I agree we are seeing more and more children cycling and this is excellent and more of it is to be encouraged but we all have to recognise that life patterns are very different during a pandemic and no-one should be travelling more than a mile or so from their homes so people jump on their bikes or walk. The moment lockdown lifts I believe that changes again as people can venture further afield and will go to visit friends and relatives further from their homes.

It was funny recently as I walked up Court Lane and did a very unscientific survey and I reckon some 30% - 40% of the houses there had a 4x4 sitting idle on the drives or on the road (it seems that the Volvo XC range is very popular along that road for some reason) and guaranteed that the moment lockdown lifts those cars start bombing around the country.

One of the reasons I have been challenging Malumbu on how they use their car is not to call them out but to make the point that even the most ardent supporter of model shift and LTNs still has reason to own a car and many people who own a car do so because they have to - some just have many more reasons to use it than others.

And finally, Malumbu - there are many in the cycle lobby who believe that any car is bad and as someone posted earlier this seems to be reflected by our council.

In fact, from the minutes of the Southwark meeting Peter Walker is said to have said this (and this is reflective of much that I have read from others) but perhaps the response from the council is perhaps more surprising:

Peter Walker cautioned against a focus on EV, as there is rising evidence

is that the emissions are still high from brake dust etc.; the safety

problems of cars remain, alongside the predominance of roads given over

to cars. The transport policy officer clarified she is not advocating

wholescale switching from petro cars to EV , only that EV is a option of

last resort.

It worries me massively that a transport policy officer would say that EV is an option of last resort - this again adds more weight to the accusation that the council wants to eliminate cars completely which just is not feasible and this is clouding their judgement on measures that can help tackle the problem we all want to influence.

[legalalien]

Please Malumbu. You've hinted at your expertise loads of times. I still don't have a driving licence and the constant "most of you are rubbish drivers" "inconvenience for drivers" theme is exactly the kind of thing we have been trying to get away from in the last half a day., which I was starting to feel was quite positive (And on a similar note, maybe we could move away from "cyclists this, cyclists that").

Can we not recognise that it is not pleasant/safe for people to have massive levels of congestion/ traffic fumes outside their houses on particular streets, or pleasant/safe for those who have no choice but to drive on those streets or be bus passengers on those streets? I choose to see the small picture and think that it is as important as the big picture, so perhaps that is where we differ.

[Bicknell]

good points heartblock and legalalien

personally worried that teh council will suggest modelling. i think modelling can prove what ever you want it to prove. agree with what dulwich central said that data is difficult in a pandemic but its what we need to see if this ltn works.

so then also agree that we need to stop teh experiment if we can see huge traffic jams on roads on the edge of the ltn. children living on those roads shouldnt have to live with massive increase in pollution even for six month/year

[Otto2]

"to make the point that even the most ardent supporter of model shift and LTNs still has reason to own a car and many people who own a car do so because they have to - some just have many more reasons to use it than others."

We gave up our car (actually, carS!) when our children were quite young - as a trial at first. It seemed really daunting. I had lived a car-free life previously in a city where car ownership was fairly impossible. Back then, I did not have the additional transport burden of two tiny children. But, it was much easier than I thought it would be.

I have seen a massive increase in people walking and cycling. Yes, we are in a lockdown, but, many people have made a shift I bet they will stick with. Would this have happened without LTN's? Probably not - it is easy to just jump in a car and people do not do change so eagerly when it is convenient for them not to.

We'll need more of lots of things infrastructure-wise to reduce car dependency but beginning to shift behaviour seems like the hard part to me.

[heartblock]

Aaaaah but Malumbu I am an expert in cardio respiratory disease.... and I know about particulates too. Sadly Particulate Matter (PM) exposure has been linked to adverse health effects by numerous studies. Non-exhaust emissions already account for over 90% of PM10 and 85% of PM2.5 emissions from traffic and are related to vehicle weight and braking. Less cars, vans etc of all types are the answer, rather than heavier electric cars (battery makes them heavier). Also better public transport and protected bike lanes. Pollution and health should be monitored for any route changes that increase traffic on residential roads. LTNs in ED and Dulwich... don?t seem to address car use and ownership or increase of bike lanes. In fact LTNs are in areas of multiple vehicle owning households, with free on street parking...

[legalalien]

So - let?s accept that people in the same situation as you could, with a bit of effort, go car free. People like me have always been car free. Of the other people traversing roads in Dulwich, there are some who could reduce their car journeys a bit and some who could not. The original analysis of the traffic flows suggested most traffic was through traffic which, given lack of public transport, suggests quite a bit falls into the ?could not? category. But then again, a fair bit of the through traffic may be delivery drivers delivering stuff to the people who are car free or reducing their car use. If the latter were really committed they?d try to reduce their deliveries but there is no concurrent stick / carrot to try and make that behavioural change.

If you never have anything delivered then kudos - I do have groceries delivered as I don?t drive. Whether people can or are willing to change their behaviour once lockdown ends remains to be seen - but I come back to the point - how much pain is it acceptable to inflict on the boundary roads while we find out whether the modal

shift will happen? I think this is what it comes down to really. If there wasn?t massive congestion and a problem people would be willing to put up with inconvenience for a bit to see if the experiment would work.

Otto2 Wrote:

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

> "to make the point that even the most ardent

> supporter of model shift and LTNs still has reason

> to own a car and many people who own a car do so

> because they have to - some just have many more

> reasons to use it than others."

>

>

> We gave up our car (actually, carS!) when our

> children were quite young - as a trial at first.

> It seemed really daunting. I had lived a car-free

> life previously in a city where car ownership was

> fairly impossible. Back then, I did not have the

> additional transport burden of two tiny children.

> But, it was much easier than I thought it would

> be.

>

> I have seen a massive increase in people walking

> and cycling. Yes, we are in a lockdown, but, many

> people have made a shift I bet they will stick

> with. Would this have happened without LTN's?

> Probably not - it is easy to just jump in a car

> and people do not do change so eagerly when it is

> convenient for them not to.

>

> We'll need more of lots of things

> infrastructure-wise to reduce car dependency but

> beginning to shift behaviour seems like the hard

> part to me.

[Otto2]

I never had many (save the odd purchase) deliveries previous to lockdown but as I'm on the shield list and haven't been able to shop for a year, I have had to have deliveries. That will end soon though and I can't wait! We do have a cargo bike that can also be a tandem so that is helpful.

I'm of the opinion it should be given more time and tweak as necessary. There will be tweaks needed and like someone said previously, this is a decent way to figure out what will work without too much expense.

[legalalien]

So here?s the challenge.

I don?t think we can rely on a comprehensive monitoring programme from the council / TfL that will cover all the displacement roads once traffic starts to pick up, as we all agree it will (if it?s not going to then there would be no need for the closures).

How do we try and capture what happens in a sensible way that doesn?t involve those who support or those who are against the closures taking snapshots of bits of road and posting them here or on social media (whether to show cyclists / pedestrians/ traffic).

[Otto2]

I think you could just take snapshots of publicly avail data daily at regular various times (google traffic perhaps)if you wanted to?

But, how about giving it more time? Change happens slowly and things are abnormal at the moment in terms of patterns.

[legalalien]

It's all very well to say "give it more time". I think it's uncontroversial that the experiment results in - in fact REQUIRES, a significant adverse effect on denizens and users (drivers and passengers in private and public transport, cyclists and pedestrians) of a number of roads, caused by congestion. If there is no congestion in the early stages, that suggests that there is no problem that requires the LTN solution - and without congestion there is unlikely to be much modal shift.

The question is, how much harm should we allow to be done, and for what period of time, and I haven't heard anyone attempt to quantify that yet. Slightly increased traffic on the boundary roads for six months - maybe? Gridlock for five or six hours a day for a year - no? This is an area- specific experiment, there's not much data out there and it seems to me that no-one has a clear idea of whether or when the potential traffic evaporation might happen. So let's have an honest discussion about how much "collateral damage" those who want to continue the experiment are happy to inflict.

I still have a problem with an experiment that says "lets inflict lots of noise and potentially illegal levels of air pollution on Group A to see whether we can get people who are largely in another group, Group B, to change their behaviour". It doesn't sit right.

[Concerned2021]

I agree with all the posts regarding traffic displacement and increased pollution on boundary roads. I also have concerns about impact on key services. Staff who need to drive for their job in the public sector - social care and NHS have been silenced in this debate since concerns about impact have to be escalated through senior managers and it is sensitive to comment on social media on a professional level. The impact has been huge and is likely to get worse as the programme is further rolled out throughout London. I would envisage that many key staff will be looking to move out of London on the back of this since chronic stress caused by driving in traffic jams against time deadlines is not sustainable.