LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[heartblock]

LTNs or HTNs as I like to call them - increase kms driven - making journeys longer. In ED and DV it does not contribute to a drop in traffic miles -it increases and pushes traffic onto already polluted roads.

[legalalien]

RTNs maybe? Rearranged or reallocated traffic neighbourhoods? Both sides of the debate could agree on that terminology?

[Rockets]

My offer would be DTNs - Displaced Traffic Neighbourhoods.....

[geh]

30 minutes today to go 0.9 miles though the village up 1/2 moon lane this afternoon.

last sat, 40 minutes on the bus, prob 1.1 miles

its not the public school run traffic

LTN's have not caused traffic/congestion to evaporate

its a complete f*****g mess

this is now a thoroughly difficult and unpleasant place to live, sorry, but that's my experience.

thanks

[legalalien]

The report on the Guys? and St Thomas? Foundation Streetspace scheme is worth a read. Haven?t read all the Appendices yet, but was interested to see:

- an express statement that LTNs are down to central government:

?This scheme is implemented under the emergency responses via experimental traffic order. Central Government instructed us to install, test and consult residents and businesses on all traffic measures.?

- an acknowledgment that traffic displacement happens, as part of the Community Impact Statement

?There is a risk that new restrictions cause a displacement of traffic on to the peripheral network and have an adverse impact on road users and neighbouring properties. The proposal has no disproportionate impact on any particular age, disability, faith or religion and ethnicity and sexual orientation.? (The monitoring showed increases on boundary roads, it?s later noted that this could be displacement or post pandemic driving increase, this should be carefully monitored and measures for boundary roads out in if needed)

A detailed description of the rationale for the particular measures - see the health impact statement from paragraph 43 onward. Notably, keeping traffic away from the school gate is seen as key (spot the difference from the Dulwich measures): ?Due to the targeted selection of the three project locations, the health benefits cited are likely to, in the long term, contribute to Southwark Council?s mission to reduce health inequalities within the borough.?

I agree that the selection of the location of LTN measures is key to their success (or otherwise).

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50027904

[Rockets]

That's very interesting because that scheme is in an area with high PTAL scores - just the type of area Southwark recommended for LTNs.

Is this the one where the Guys Trust insisted on thorough and transparent monitoring and analysis?

[smooch]

.

[legalalien]

Yes. Looks like the monitoring process was slightly different. Seems they are comparing November and April without adjustment - the overall methodology is different. Each scheme seems smaller scale and a bit more thought out. The phrase ?vaulting ambition? came to mind when I compared to Dulwich and now I can?t get the Macbeths out of my head.

[Metallic]

This is the scheme Guys and St Thomas' Foundation funded is it?

[legalalien]

Yes, that?s the one.

Metallic Wrote:

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

> This is the scheme Guys and St Thomas' Foundation

> funded is it?

[Rockets]

Interesting that the report calls out the potential displacement (and then goes on to stress it does not impact one group more than others). Is it a case, I wonder, whether the council is getting their defence in early by suggesting the displacement doesn't impact one particular group or another and that the displacement is shared by all (who live on boundary roads)!

What is very clear is that this report highlights what we are seeing in Dulwich yet the council's data fails to highlight that there are significant increases of traffic on boundary roads.

I also love the way they refer to the traffic increases as slight......the devil is in the detail and all that.

Here are some choice cuts:

On weekdays, the largest decrease in traffic was on Dalwood Street (-83%) and the

largest increase was on Southampton Way (+26%). At the weekend, St Giles Road

also experienced an increase in traffic (+65%), whereas Dalwood Street had the

biggest decrease (-79%) Please see below Fig 1.

On weekdays, Fenham Road (-79%) had been recorded a highest decrease in traffic

volumes in weekday, followed by Marmont Road (south of Goldsmith) (-74%) whereas

Naylor Road (+109%) and Commercial Way (+54%) saw an increase in traffic volumes

in weekday

In term of traffic volumes, East Faraday had the highest traffic volume increase

(31%) at the weekend, followed by North Peckham (17%) and Brunswick Park

(13%).

If those types of increases are being felt in the areas with higher PTAL scores than Dulwich it doesn't take a genius to work out that maybe the council's manipulation of/errors with/oversight in counting the figures in Dulwich may actually be much much farther away from the truth.

It's becoming clearer and clearer everyday that LTNs cause significant displacement and increases in pollution associated with it.

[legalalien]

Rockets - I remain of the view that we should look at actual numbers rather than percentages for traffic counts of cars, cycles, whatever. I think using percentages is really unhelpful as it downplays increases in already highly trafficked spots and overplays increases where base volumes are small. I haven?t looked at the raw data for these Guys schemes but I think it may be in the reports?

[Rockets]

Yes the actual numbers make for scary reading because they are comparing vehicle movements during Nov2020 and April 2021 (so not even like to like in terms of weather):

Their analysis shows (and this is based on totals for all streets):

In the North Peckham trial they claim there has been a -4% decrease on weekdays and 17% increase on weekends in traffic on the closed streets and boundary roads

In the East Faraday trial they claim there has been a 3% increase on weekdays and a 31% increase on weekends in traffic on the closed streets and boundary roads

In the Brunswick Park they claim a 2% increase on weekdays and a 13% increase on weekends in traffic on the closed streets and boundary roads

It makes Southwark's claims of a 16% reduction in traffic across the whole Dulwich area even more fanciful in light of these numbers.

I will be interested to see what the Guy's Trust says as they were very clear from the outset that they would only support if there were tangible benefits. Of course, there have been increases in cycling but at what cost?

[legalalien]

I think that?s fine if the closures direct traffic away from schools although it sounds as though weekday only closures might be more effective than 24/7 closures. But depends on what the raw numbers say/ experience on the ground is, which % figures don?t tell you.

[Rockets]

The report does break down actual numbers to support the % figures so there does seem to be an element of granularity to their reporting.

[KidKruger]

Do some reading and become better informed 🙄

Right. Got it.

[heartblock]

Appendix 12 Impact on Urban Health (IoUH) Streetspace Scheme Monitoring Report October 2021 of the GSST funded project is worth reading.

This scheme is well organised has great data and appears to be a far more rigorous and well thought out scheme and report, with data analysed and reported accurately.

The Dulwich scheme in contrast is poorly planned, badly delivered and with questionable data (very hard to see the actual collected data) and with biased analysis.

Maybe the difference between an organisation dedicated to showing real health outcomes and an organisation dedicated to promoting individual careers and political 'health'

[Metallic]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Appendix 12 Impact on Urban Health (IoUH)

> Streetspace Scheme Monitoring Report October 2021

> of the GSST funded project is worth reading.

> This scheme is well organised has great data and

> appears to be a far more rigorous and well thought

> out scheme and report, with data analysed and

> reported accurately.

> The Dulwich scheme in contrast is poorly planned,

> badly delivered and with questionable data (very

> hard to see the actual collected data) and with

> biased analysis.

> Maybe the difference between an organisation

> dedicated to showing real health outcomes and an

> organisation dedicated to promoting individual

> careers and political 'health'

WOW

[heartblock]

Yes well...peed off with Southwark's gaslighting report. Every time I read that an ex-councillor has parachuted into a planning job with a former private property company that has links with Southwark Council it makes me wonder...

[heartblock]

An excellent research article. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17579139211058303

[ianr]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> An excellent research article.

> [https://journals.sagepub.com ...]

Mapping the movement for climate change and health in England: a descriptive review and theory of change analysis

R Issa, C Baker, R Spooner, et al.

Perspectives in Public Health Volume: 141 issue: 6, page(s): 328-337

Article first published online: November 24, 2021; Issue published: November 1, 2021

[malumbu]

An interesting article but not sure of the particular relevance to the discussion here.

Extracting from it: "Recognising that there is value in working to influence change across various points in an ecosystem, and given the rapid boom of climate change and health organisations in recent years, there may be benefit in a mind-set shift within the climate change and health space in England: with more coordination and collaboration to reduce unnecessary work and duplication, better identify movement gaps, and lead to more cohesive outcomes."

So our health professionals need to be better joined up and that may go into local authorities, public health, social care etc. I thought that the Lansley changes were supposed to address much of this, but totally lost about NHS reform at the moment.

The report also considers too much emphasis on personal behaviour (individual behaviour change). Perhaps, but that takes a strong and interventionist government. Seems like lounge talk to me. Anyway pleased that we reading up and educating ourselves.

[heartblock]

Very relevant as it highlights that smaller interventions are not joined-up. For example LTNs in isolation with no extra infrastructure of increased PTAL and improved pedistrian and cycling access on ribbon roads just create HTNs and quiet roads for the few in leafy streets.

The paper indicates that health professional groups are very much ignored by central government when deciding policy that impacts health.

The GSTT funded intervention/research is an example of when health professionals are involved and it is an impressive report compared to the biased and unscientific report churned out by our Council.

Health professionals are organised at voluntary level in Medact for example, but central Government refuse to allow us to influence Government or local Government policy - but cycling groups and town planners are involved. LCC has more influence on policy that impacts health than respiratory health professionals and experts - it is very relevant to the Dulwich/ED LTNs that were advised by former councillors, Sustrans and LCC - not a respiratory expert in sight.

[heartblock]

Yes the mapping paper is great - some of the authors members of Medact as am I.

[Rockets]

And it is telling that the GSTT report comes to a very different strategic conclusion than the council's own report on Dulwich LTNs - I know Cllr McAsh is trying to claim that an independent analyst firm did the Dulwich report but there is a huge gap between the detail, transparency, methodology and authenticity of the GSTT reports and the Dulwich reports and I suspect Southwark told the company they used what conclusion needed to be reached and that they needed to find the data to support the rational that the LTNs were a good thing.

The council have dug themselves such a deep hole with the Dulwich LTNs that I suspect they are struggling to find a way out - which is why, despite Cllr Williams' promises to contrary, that the council has not released the raw data or methodology - because they know that their numbers won't stand up to scrutiny.

And, typical of all politicians, they realise that transparency this deep into the mire might cost people their jobs/political reputations so they try to snake their way out of it. The next stage of the process will be the "blame someone else to protect myself" and I suspect that will come as we near the council elections in May as councillors fight to retain their seats.