LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[jazzer]

Well summarised.

PollyGlot Wrote:

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

> The LTN measures were obviously not thought

> through adequately by the council.

>

> Apart from the lack awareness of the rapid

> adoption of EVs, there has been naivety on

> unintended consequences. Some of these are:-

>

> 1. Traffic displacement rather than reduction.

>

> 2. Displaced traffic causing unacceptable

> increases in pollution.

>

> 3. Impact on local businesses. Take the case of

> Callow the locksmith who are quitting Dulwich as

> they are now located on a dead end street

> (Melbourne Grove). Others will follow- most likely

> some in Dulwich Village where they are suffering

> from the LTN measures.

>

> 4. Emergency vehicles are being delayed because

> their fastest routes are now blocked by the

> "permeable barriers". They have to find an

> alternative by hit or miss.

>

> 5. Increase in crime (as stated by Cressida Dick)

> because Police cannot gain access because of the

> barriers.

>

> 6. Increased danger to pedestrians crossing the

> road. I often see this near traffic lights where

> cars are stationary in a tail back whilst the

> other side is empty. When the lights change the

> tail back is still stationary but the other side

> becomes active immediately.

>

> I appreciate some of this may have been said

> before it is none the less valid.

[mfcjoe]

Yay, financial incentives for the rich, where do i sign?

[DulwichCentral]

Hi @PollyGlot

Unfortunately sales of new SUVs now outnumber electric vehicle sales at a rate of 37 to 1. See link to article "the trend towards purchasing bigger cars is threatening the UK?s attempts to reduce emissions from the transport sector"

https://ukerc.ac.uk/news/suvs-sabotage-green-revolution/

(also reported in The Guardian)

I don't expect to change your mind as we all seem to be fairly decided either one way or the other on here, but here's some alternate views on the points you made:

> 1. Traffic displacement rather than reduction.

The idea behind the measures is that people will opt for active travel if it's safe for them to do so. There's been a significant increase in school children cycling in the area. I see lots more families cycling on the school-run now and it would be a shame if they all went back to using cars - which would just clog up the streets again.

> 2. Displaced traffic causing unacceptable increases in pollution.

I would support any measures to improve congestion on main roads. Dedicated bus lanes, remove car parking blocking buses, 20 mph speed limits, ULEZ, road pricing, and more protected cycle ways to link up the safe routes.

> 3. Impact on local businesses.

It's impossible to tell what the impact on businesses has been until we are back to normal after the pandemic.

Claims that traffic measures have impacted business more than Covid seems highly unlikely to me.

People say businesses on Melbourne grove suffer because there are not enough cars, and those on Lordship lane suffer because there are too many cars. How can both be true? There is plenty of evidence (TfL) to show that people spend more at pedestrianised shopping areas.

> 4. Emergency vehicles are being delayed

Just everyday regular traffic congestion held up emergency services **8,841** times in 2017 - EVs would cause the same congestion and delays. Permanent cycle lanes around London are wide enough for emergency vehicles.

> 5. Increase in crime (as stated by Cressida Dick)because Police cannot gain access because of the barriers.

See (4) and Cressida Dick stated that 'on occasion it's harder for our officers to get down streets' and that she was in conversation with TfL to address any difficulties.

There are old existing 'LTNs' such as housing estates, cul-de-sacs and bollards to filter roads all over London and cities everywhere. New road layouts take time to adapt to (but less time than 10 years to phase out motor vehicles). You might be interested in this study on crime figures in a low traffic neighbourhood:

'Overall, the introduction of a low traffic neighbourhood was associated with a 10% decrease in total street crime ..and this effect increased with a longer duration since implementation (18% decrease after 3 years). An even larger reduction was observed for violence and sexual offences, the most serious subcategory of crime. The only subcategory of crime that increased significantly was bicycle theft.'

https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/ftm8d/

> 6. Increased danger to pedestrians crossing the road.

The danger to pedestrians is cars - petrol or EV. SatNavs have been re-routing cars down residential streets for around a decade. A mile driven on a minor road results in 17% more killed or seriously injured pedestrians than a mile driven on an ?A? road because minor roads tend not to have infrastructure like pedestrian crossings, zebra crossings and there are more parked cars so less clear visibility and safe places to cross.

https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/opinion/2018/august/are-route-finding-apps-making-streets-more-dangerous/

In a previous post you mention that 'Southwark is clearly spending millions on a problem that receding fast'.

Another ten years until petrol cars are phased out is not imho fast enough. Nor will EV's solve problems as outlined above. Southwark have declared a climate emergency and are elected on their policy to reduce motor traffic and increase active travel - same with Sadiq Kahn.

[Kaa]

In my opinion, this review/survey is totally biased, questions are structured in such a way that the end result will end up being in favour of these measures we are suffering from. I took it as a deliberate way by the council not to recognise our views, i.e. misrepresent our opinions.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> OMG - has anyone started to fill out the review

> documents - talk about lose the will to live!?

>

> Firstly it re-stats the affirmation that these

> measures were brought about as part of the Covid

> response to aid social distancing and then asks a

> load of leading questions (all of which are linked

> to the success of such measures) - not one

> question addresses whether there have been any

> negative impacts associated with the closures.

> Astonishing. Of course you can leave comments but

> they don't measure comments.

>

> I started filling it out, trying to be as balanced

> as possible and then found myself getting more and

> more annoyed by the blinkered questions as I could

> see how the council were going to try and

> manipulate the results. It appears the only way to

> voice any concern may be to strongly disagree with

> all the assumptions made in the review.

[northernmonkey]

Great post DC - whilst change is hard it is very important.

Perhaps one of the positives from these discussions is how unacceptable queueing traffic of any kind seems to have become to a much wider sector of society. Presumably then we would assume that this would translate to much greater support for more radical measures to curb driving locally?

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Hi @PollyGlot

>

> Unfortunately sales of new SUVs now outnumber

> electric vehicle sales at a rate of 37 to 1. See

> link to article "the trend towards purchasing

> bigger cars is threatening the UK?s attempts to

> reduce emissions from the transport sector"

> https://ukerc.ac.uk/news/suvs-sabotage-green-revol

> ution/

> (also reported in The Guardian)

>

> I don't expect to change your mind as we all seem

> to be fairly decided either one way or the other

> on here, but here's some alternate views on the

> points you made:

>

> > 1. Traffic displacement rather than reduction.

> The idea behind the measures is that people will

> opt for active travel if it's safe for them to do

> so. There's been a significant increase in school

> children cycling in the area. I see lots more

> families cycling on the school-run now and it

> would be a shame if they all went back to using

> cars - which would just clog up the streets

> again.

>

> > 2. Displaced traffic causing unacceptable

> increases in pollution.

> I would support any measures to improve congestion

> on main roads. Dedicated bus lanes, remove car

> parking blocking buses, 20 mph speed limits, ULEZ,

> road pricing, and more protected cycle ways to

> link up the safe routes.

>

> > 3. Impact on local businesses.

> It's impossible to tell what the impact on

> businesses has been until we are back to normal

> after the pandemic.

> Claims that traffic measures have impacted

> business more than Covid seems highly unlikely to

> me.

>

> People say businesses on Melbourne grove suffer

> because there are not enough cars, and those on

> Lordship lane suffer because there are too many

> cars. How can both be true? There is plenty of

> evidence (TfL) to show that people spend more at

> pedestrianised shopping areas.

>

> > 4. Emergency vehicles are being delayed

> Just everyday regular traffic congestion held up

> emergency services **8,841** times in 2017 - EVs

> would cause the same congestion and delays.

> Permanent cycle lanes around London are wide

> enough for emergency vehicles.

>

> > 5. Increase in crime (as stated by Cressida

> Dick)because Police cannot gain access because of

> the barriers.

> See (4) and Cressida Dick stated that 'on occasion

> it's harder for our officers to get down streets'

> and that she was in conversation with TfL to

> address any difficulties.

>

> There are old existing 'LTNs' such as housing

> estates, cul-de-sacs and bollards to filter roads

> all over London and cities everywhere. New road

> layouts take time to adapt to (but less time than

> 10 years to phase out motor vehicles). You might

> be interested in this study on crime figures in a

> low traffic neighbourhood:

>

> 'Overall, the introduction of a low traffic

> neighbourhood was associated with a 10% decrease

> in total street crime ..and this effect increased

> with a longer duration since implementation (18%

> decrease after 3 years). An even larger reduction

> was observed for violence and sexual offences, the

> most serious subcategory of crime. The only

> subcategory of crime that increased significantly

> was bicycle theft.'

> https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/ftm8d/

>

> > 6. Increased danger to pedestrians crossing the

> road.

> The danger to pedestrians is cars - petrol or EV.

> SatNavs have been re-routing cars down residential

> streets for around a decade. A mile driven on a

> minor road results in 17% more killed or seriously

> injured pedestrians than a mile driven on an ?A?

> road because minor roads tend not to have

> infrastructure like pedestrian crossings, zebra

> crossings and there are more parked cars so less

> clear visibility and safe places to cross.

> https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/opinion/2018/

> august/are-route-finding-apps-making-streets-more-

> dangerous/

>

> In a previous post you mention that 'Southwark is

> clearly spending millions on a problem that

> receding fast'.

>

> Another ten years until petrol cars are phased out

> is not imho fast enough. Nor will EV's solve

> problems as outlined above. Southwark have

> declared a climate emergency and are elected on

> their policy to reduce motor traffic and increase

> active travel - same with Sadiq Kahn.

[Rockets]

Northern I think the issue is that a lot of people don't support these measures as they create even more unacceptable queuing traffic. That's the crux of the issue. There is broad support for measures that would reduce queuing traffic everywhere for everyone - these get nowhere near that unfortunately.

[northernmonkey]

I guess there are a lot of different issues wrapped up in that.

For example - there are those who would rather everything 'just went back to how it was' - despite that being unacceptable by any standard now apparently, and using any cars queueing at all as the rationale.

Then there are those for whom the changes have led to a worsening of traffic at peak times - most noticeably on Croxted Road - and it would be hard to find anyone who wouldn't support additional measures there to address this - those measures might be changes to traffic prioritization and the lights in the first instance.

In terms of addressing not only rising pollution but also the inactivity crisis in our population though we do need bold changes. Are we now stuck that we cannot make any changes where any road at all becomes more congested as a result of realigning traffic? If so where do we go from here?

One of the key soundbites is around supporting measures to reduce traffic overall, but really what is that? Is it road user pricing with the associated impact on poorer people or those more reliant on cars or is it further still in terms of wider traffic exclusion zones at certain times - eg no private vehicles at all with the exception of blue badge and taxi during school hours?

There isn't a simple solution to this which doesn't involve a significant curtailment of the personal freedom to jump in a car and drive the route we want, EVs aren't the whole answer either as will do nothing for road safety or inactivity nor will they encourage active travel without some reduction in the number of vehicles on the road.

Apparently no level of congestion is acceptable on our A roads - maybe its time to be bold?

[Bicknell]

agree lots of issues @northernmonkey

but dont agree empty streets v traffic queues is the answer

poor public trnaport in duwlich - lets start there. or communiy bus if tfl wont do anything

solution must be fair.

dont like seeing children walking to school on raods crammed full of traffic

[slarti b]

@Dulwich Central

Some comments on your earlier post

Unfortunately sales of new SUVs now outnumber electric vehicle sales at a rate of 37 to 1. See link to article "the trend towards purchasing bigger cars is threatening the UK?s attempts to reduce emissions from the transport sector" [ukerc.ac.uk]

As we know from your previous posts you do not understand data so it is not surprising the figures you quoted are out of date and do not represent what is happening now. The EV sector is expanding rapidly as a result of technological, infrastructure and commercial improvements and the proportion of new car sales is increasing rapidly. In 2020, approx 11% of new car sales were electric vehicles (EVs) and for Apr 2021 ytd sales of EVs are over 13% of new car sales. See https://www.nextgreencar.com/electric-cars/statistics/

Stop spreading alarmist misinformation.

I am sure more people would buy EVs if the council would make it easier to access charge points. Sadly they seem more interested in political posturing and vanity projects such as "Margy Plaza"

> 1. Traffic displacement rather than reduction.

>The idea behind the measures is that people will opt for active travel if it's safe for them to do so.

You clearly don't understand local traffic patterns. Within Dulwich, there is already an extremely high proportion of active travel ( far higher that Southwark's anmbitious target for 2030). The issue is through traffic and, during term time, parents from the private schools bringing children from across London. They are not going to opt for active travel and their traffic will merely be displaced onto the Dulwich Village bypass roads

> 2. Displaced traffic causing unacceptable increases in pollution.

I would support any measures to improve congestion on main roads. Dedicated bus lanes, remove car parking blocking buses, 20 mph speed limits, ULEZ, road pricing, and more protected cycle ways to link up the safe routes.

What a muddled, inconsistent comment. How do 20 mph limits and ULEZ reduce congestion? And, as well as displacing traffic onto the bypass roads, you wish to increase congestion by adding dedicated cycle ways which will reduce capacity.

> 3. Impact on local businesses.

It's impossible to tell what the impact on businesses has been until we are back to normal after the pandemic.

Claims that traffic measures have impacted business more than Covid seems highly unlikely to me.

Listen to the local businesses

> 4. Emergency vehicles are being delayed

Yes, they are being delayed by the road closures. Stop sticking your fingers in your ears

Southwark have declared a climate emergency and are elected on their policy to reduce motor traffic and increase active travel - same with Sadiq Kahn.

Interesting that Shaun Bailey, a weak candidate in a strong Labour area, did so well against Sadiq Khan. In the local elections next year, I hope Labour candidates are very clear on their policies on reducing car useage, encouraging EV's ( or not?), imposing CPZ's etc rather than just vague generalisations about "encouraging active travel".

[Nigello]

Dear all those concerned about pollution and congestion,

Right now the only thing you can do that will have a positive effect is to not drive as much. Not ordering takeaway or home delivery items will also help.

It really is that simple, though it will involve a certain amount of deprivation and accommodation of discomfort.

Over to you.

[first mate]

"There isn't a simple solution to this which doesn't involve a significant curtailment of the personal freedom to jump in a car and drive the route we want, EVs aren't the whole answer either as will do nothing for road safety or inactivity nor will they encourage active travel without some reduction in the number of vehicles on the road."

The impression is that the bulk of the traffic build-up at key times is the result of multiple 'school runs' so this is probably the area that should be examined a lot more closely. Are there ways schools, private schools included, can be encouraged to stop parents driving their children to school? Could private schools be made to facilitate and fund some sort of london-wide chaperone service, whereby children have to use public transport but for safety reasons they are accompanied. Could Southwark Cyclists find bike train volunteers to help children living closer get to and from school on bicycles?

Given so many streets are now free of traffic I am interested to know how much of a cycling uptake there has been? Has the bad weather put a lot of people off and, if so, won't this continue to be a factor, especially in winter?

[Penguin68]

Unfortunately sales of new SUVs now outnumber electric vehicle sales at a rate of 37 to 1.

1. SUVs have replaced things like people carriers and other large saloons and estate cars - so their sales need to be understood as displacement of many other types of vehicle. SUVs are seen as being safer (better driving position and visibility) and, well, sexier. Most marques now offer SUVs - many are good value and - where they are petrol cars - not that polluting.

2. There are electric SUVs (I can't wait for the all electric Hummer EV SUV to be launched next year - it will cause such apoplexy in so many of the righteous)

[slarti b]

@Penguin,

Unfortunately sales of new SUVs now outnumber electric vehicle sales at a rate of 37 to 1

Dulwich Central's figures are out of date and wrong. They give a misleading impression of the current position which is changing rapidly as technology improves and more EV cars becone available.

April 2021 YTD figures show 13% of UK new car sales are electric vehicles. No idea about SUVs

[roywj]

first mate Wrote:

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

> "There isn't a simple solution to this which

> doesn't involve a significant curtailment of the

> personal freedom to jump in a car and drive the

> route we want, EVs aren't the whole answer either

> as will do nothing for road safety or inactivity

> nor will they encourage active travel without some

> reduction in the number of vehicles on the road."

>

> The impression is that the bulk of the traffic

> build-up at key times is the result of multiple

> 'school runs' so this is probably the area that

> should be examined a lot more closely. Are there

> ways schools, private schools included, can be

> encouraged to stop parents driving their children

> to school? Could private schools be made to

> facilitate and fund some sort of london-wide

> chaperone service, whereby children have to use

> public transport but for safety reasons they are

> accompanied. Could Southwark Cyclists find bike

> train volunteers to help children living closer

> get to and from school on bicycles?

>

> Given so many streets are now free of traffic I am

> interested to know how much of a cycling uptake

> there has been? Has the bad weather put a lot of

> people off and, if so, won't this continue to be a

> factor, especially in winter?

Exactly! - There is only really a traffic problem (including before and after introduction of LTNs) during private school term time. If you take a look at the cars queuing in the morning they are mostly occupied by people on the school run. I walk down EDG twice a day for the school run.

I don?t even notice a problem when the private schools have broken up earlier and Charter are still attending as most of their pupils are local and walk to school.

If this problem could be tackled by the private schools as you mentioned then I think it would go a long way to resolving the traffic problem in the area.

[Peckham Park]

If all the local schools did a short survey of how all their children got to the school it would be a useful idea of how much active travel was in the area. Instead of the Council spending money on planters, a fixed term contract for a project officer to speak to pupils and schools about what the Council could do to support them would be helpful. You could even have a league table of most active schools. I?m sure Charter East Dulwich, Harris, and the local primary schools would do pretty well! The survey would communicate to those parents who drive their children from within and outside Southwark to state and private schools that behaviours need to change, and to seek their comments on what would help them change.

[Rockets]

This thread seems to be doing more research into the root cause of the problems than the council has ever done! ;-)

68% of local journeys were being done on foot or bike in 2018 and I suggest post-pandemic that that figure is even higher - so clearly the issue does not lie with us locals yet it is us locals who are having to live with the displacement being caused by the sledge-hammer to crack a nut closures installed by the council.

If only they had done some proper research to determine what the traffic issues across the area were being caused by and look at measures that could adequately address the problems but, unfortunately, they were allowing themselves to be led by a small group of anti-car protagonists whose sole aim was to close roads to car usage and create car-free/massively reduced zones for the benefit only of those within them. The council's misguided, ill-conceived and executed strategy is backfiring massively.

[exdulwicher]

> 2. Displaced traffic causing unacceptable increases in pollution.

I would support any measures to improve congestion on main roads. Dedicated bus lanes, remove car parking blocking buses, 20 mph speed limits, ULEZ, road pricing, and more protected cycle ways to link up the safe routes.

What a muddled, inconsistent comment. How do 20 mph limits and ULEZ reduce congestion? And, as well as displacing traffic onto the bypass roads, you wish to increase congestion by adding dedicated cycle ways which will reduce capacity.

ULEZ makes it more expensive to drive thus disincentivising it (and/or it incentivises use of EV which, while they don't solve congestion or parking, they are at least less polluting).

20mph limits smooth traffic flow, makes it easier to turn into main roads from side roads and so on. That is of course assuming that its adhered to which we know it isn't!

Adding cycle lanes doesn't reduce capacity. If you're talking about moving PEOPLE rather than cars, a single cycle lane can shift 5x the number of people in the same amount of time compared to a neighbouring traffic lane. When Kensington & Chelsea put in their pop-up lane, journey times by car actually decreased due to smoother flow (and cycle traffic increased dramatically). Then they ripped it out again following a few high-profile complaints and journey times got worse again and cycle traffic all but disappeared. Besides, having made it more difficult / expensive to drive, you have to incentivise the modal shift and cycle lanes (and bus lanes) are part of that. Most people aren't going to ride a bike when they have to mix it with traffic (in the same way that you wouldn't walk if there wasn't a pavement). Put in a safe space, help the shift.

> 4. Emergency vehicles are being delayed

Yes, they are being delayed by the road closures. Stop sticking your fingers in your ears

The Telegraph report that got quoted on here stated 159 times where paramedics had reported delay due to LTNs over the 8 months since they first started going in.

London Ambulance Service gets about 6000 calls a day so over 8 months that's about 1.44 million calls. 159 occasions is about 0.01% of calls.

London Fire Brigade keep comprehensive records on their response times:

https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/london-fire-brigade-mobilisation-records

In 2017 (pre pandemic, pre LTNs), they recorded 148043 responses of which:

2561 delayed due to wrong / incomplete address (1.7%)

8841 delayed due to traffic / roadworks (6%)

2182 delayed due to traffic calming measures (1.5%)

Various other delays (like engine breakdowns etc) and obviously a large number that weren't held up and got there within the target response time.

In 2020, they recorded 150378 responses of which:

2003 delayed due to wrong / incomplete address (1.3%)

5452 delayed due to traffic (obviously far less traffic around during the lockdowns) (3.6%)

2145 delayed due to traffic calming measures. (1.4%)

So basically no change at all due to LTNs (since "traffic calming" can also include things like speed humps, width restrictions and so on).

LAS and LFB have both stated on the record that they generally have no problems with LTNs and they're consulted as part of the process anyway. Occasionally, changes such as ANPR gates or lockable bollards (instead of planters) are installed on their recommendation.

But it always gets a response to post a random out-of-context picture of an ambulance or fire engine next to a planter and claim that LIVES WERE IN DANGER!!! Rather ignoring the LIVES IN DANGER due to congestion, hoax calls, wrong address and so on.

[exdulwicher]

If all the local schools did a short survey of how all their children got to the school it would be a useful idea of how much active travel was in the area. Instead of the Council spending money on planters, a fixed term contract for a project officer to speak to pupils and schools about what the Council could do to support them would be helpful. You could even have a league table of most active schools. I?m sure Charter East Dulwich, Harris, and the local primary schools would do pretty well! The survey would communicate to those parents who drive their children from within and outside Southwark to state and private schools that behaviours need to change, and to seek their comments on what would help them change.

Schools are obliged to produce travel plans although what is on the public facing part of their website is never the full thing - eg Alleyns:

https://www.alleyns.org.uk/senior-school/aboutalleyns/find-us

There's some nice words in there about public & active transport although how much of that translates to real word action, I'm not sure. Schools need to urgently add in secure cycle storage options and open up their sports centres for changing/showering if required.

Other incentives like a free breakfast if you cycle in can also be considered - several employers do this now as well or options like an extra day's holiday on completion of a certain number of cycle commutes.

[Peckham Park]

An interesting article by London Councils that develops the ?nudge theory? approach https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/download/file/fid/26353

Though nudges also need harder deterrents, and schools should have parent exclusion zones from car stopping around them.

[alice]

School streets with collapsible metal barriers are a simple low cost flexible idea. Why not more of them?

[Nigello]

Because the barriers only prevent very local congestion - the cars and the kids in them will likely still come. Perhaps a very few drivers will be deterred but, with the self-deception that so many of us have, most will likely think "oh, it won't be that bad. I can manage to just pull over for a few seconds..." when in reality it is will be much more of a jam. Just don't drive to school. That's the simple message but one very few will act on.

[mr.chicken]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> (I can't wait for the

> all electric Hummer EV SUV to be launched next

> year - it will cause such apoplexy in so many of

> the righteous)

It's amazing how much we see eye to eye! I do think having more road space taken up and worse parking situation is more than made up by the laughs I will get from imagining how annoyed lycra-clad cyclists will be. HAHA suck it cyclists the electric hummers are coming!!

[DulwichCentral]

@Slartib wrote:

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

> The EV sector is expanding rapidly as a result of technological, infrastructure and commercial improvements and the proportion of new car sales is increasing rapidly. In 2020, approx 11% of new car sales were electric vehicles (EVs) and for Apr 2021 ytd sales of EVs are over 13% of new car sales

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

Slarti - as a member of One Dulwich who claim to support active travel you may be interested in this article by Christian Brand, Associate Professor in Transport, Energy & Environment, Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford (see link to full article below).

'Globally, only one in 50 new cars were fully electric in 2020, and one in 14 in the UK. Sounds impressive, but even if all new cars were electric now, it would still take 15-20 years to replace the world?s fossil fuel car fleet.'

'The emission savings from replacing all those internal combustion engines with zero-carbon alternatives will not feed in fast enough to make the necessary difference in the time we can spare: the next five years. Tackling the climate and air pollution crises requires curbing all motorised transport, particularly private cars, as quickly as possible.

**'Focusing solely on electric vehicles is slowing down the race to zero emissions'**

'One way to reduce transport emissions relatively quickly, and potentially globally, is to swap cars for cycling, e-biking and walking ? active travel, as it?s called? Strikingly, people who cycled on a daily basis had 84% lower carbon emissions from all their daily travel than those who didn?t.'

'the average person who shifted from car to bike for just one day a week cut their carbon footprint by 3.2kg of CO2 ? equivalent to the emissions from driving a car for 10km'

'When we compared the life cycle of each travel mode, taking into account the carbon generated by making the vehicle, fuelling it and disposing of it, we found that emissions from cycling can be more than 30 times lower for each trip than driving a fossil fuel car, and about ten times lower than driving an electric one.'

'So the race is on. Active travel can contribute to tackling the climate emergency earlier than electric vehicles while also providing affordable, reliable, clean, healthy and congestion-busting transportation.'

https://theconversation.com/cycling-is-ten-times-more-important-than-electric-cars-for-reaching-net-zero-cities-157163

As to my other points @ExDulwicher has nicely expanded on those - see above.

[redpost]

scrawford Wrote:

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

> An interesting article by London Councils that

> develops the ?nudge theory? approach

> https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/download/file/fi

> d/26353

>

> Though nudges also need harder deterrents, and

> schools should have parent exclusion zones from

> car stopping around them.

They also need to look more closely at parents who game school entry by renting in the catchment area and then moving further out in order to reduce rent or afford house purchase, but then commute their children by car.

Personally, I have no problem with this at all if they don't use a car. I would do the same.

[tiddles]

I am amazed that our local councillors are presiding over a project that has caused so much anger, divided communities , damaged local small businesses after a really awful time abs to cap it all - caused horrific increases in pollution to the majority of our community. There are a number of streets that house very wealthy people - wide streets, large front gardens, but key routes that are now very quiet. I know several businesses and residents in the shut off streets of DV - business has dropped, and the residents hate being trapped. There is no allowance for care workers or social care.

If anyone can tell me this is all fine then I am flummoxed. I have contacted councillors and it?s like dealing with a programmed robot.