LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Metallic]

andrewc Wrote:

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

> Politicians are being sued for not reducing

> pollution. The Paris agreement on emissions means

> that countries are mandated to comply. Not taking

> action is not an option. I know that many on this

> thread think that polution will go up with road

> closures but all the evidence is to the contrary.

> I guess this is why politicians are getting

> involved.

Unless you live on Croxted Road. Good luck with explaining away the displacement and extra pollution they will get.

[slarti b]

andrewc Wrote:

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

> I know that many on this thread think that polution will go up with road

> closures but all the evidence is to the contrary.

Can you provide "all the evidence"? You have linked to a 20 year old, highly questionable, non peer reviewed study on traffic "evaporation" supported by extremely dubious statistics but even that doesn't mention the issue of pollution does it?

[andrewc]

I would happily parade down the streets protesting at the road closures if I felt that helped. However I cannot find any studies that support that action. They may exist but I cannot find them.

The latest study I posted up was from Edinburgh Napier University and is dated 10 July 2020.

It may be that in Dulwich the road closures do not have the same positive effect as evidenced in studies.

[slarti b]

Andrew,

You have posted links to a highly questionable 20 year old study on traffic "evaporation", which does not cover pollution.

You have also posted a recent Napier paper on school streets which is not comparable to the wide spread closures and restrictions the local Councillors are imposing; resticting a cul-de-sac for 1.5 hours a day is not the same as shutting off a road carrying thousands of threough traffic movements.

So, please stop making assertions about "all the evidence" and "all the studies" unless you can supprot it with credible, comparable evidence

The Napier study does however have some useful information, eg the measures other councils are using such as timed cli=osures, raised bollards and ANPR monitoring with residents permits. oine DUlwich has suggested these but teh councillors say they are not possible. Is thsi down to the competence ( or lack of) of the Southwark traffic department?

[andrewc]

In my search for evidence for or against road closures, this link may interest some. I am not cherry picking here. Just googling and posting up what I find, as someone who is not an expert but interested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

Or maybe this one

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/streets_people.pdf

[Bicknell]

Its OK to google @andrewc. but start from where we are - London suburb with no tube, used as direct route by cars vans lorrys from Kent and Surrey going north and Wandsworht, Clapham etc going east. Closing roads is an idea, thats all, one of many. May not work here.

[slarti b]

andrewc Wrote:

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

> In my search for evidence for or against road closures, this link may interest some.

You need to read, analyse critically and see how these road studies apply to Dulwich, rather than posting links to what is essnetially marketing material.

For example, the EU study rehashes a couple of Cairns Goodwin and Hass-Klau (CGK) case studies from their 1998 study, including Nurnberg. In their results table (used to calculate the figure of 11% evaporation campaigners always talk about) CGK show a traffic evaporation for the Nurnberg scheme of -149% and -86% (yes they have double counted it, they do this several times with results that favour their assertions). However, when you look at their report summary Goodwin admits that traffic in the overall Nurnberg area actually increased.

His report, and the others you mention, are subjective, cherry pick results that suit them and use completely invalid statistical analysis that discedits their results

In terms of relevance to Dulwich, find some studies relating to through traffic, much of which is work related, where there are alternaive routes close by and then lest see what they say.

Finally back to the question neither you, exDulwicher, the councillors or the pliant council officers will answer: which roads do you want the displaced traffic to use instead of Dulwich Village and Calton Avenue... and Burbage\Turney etc

[andrewc]

This is a meta analysis of 33 studies on traffic calming.

"the meta-analysis shows that area-wide urban traffic calming schemes on the average reduce the number of injury accidents by about 15%

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457500000464

[Rockets]

andrewc Wrote:

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

> This is a meta analysis of 33 studies on traffic

> calming.

>

> "the meta-analysis shows that area-wide urban

> traffic calming schemes on the average reduce the

> number of injury accidents by about 15%

>

> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/

> pii/S0001457500000464

AndrewC - you do love nothing more than to post 20 year old analysis and reports - it's not actually helping your case you realise...I would probably stop Googling and take a walk down the streets impacted by the council's closures - it's a far more effective way of assessing the real world impact rather than dusting down reports nearly two decades old to desperately try to prove a point....

[andrewc]

Are there any studies that support the idea that more roads reduce traffic?

[thebestnameshavegone]

andrewc Wrote:

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

> Are there any studies that support the idea that

> more roads reduce traffic?

None. More roads equal more traffic.

When one is accustomed to privilege, equity feels like oppression.

[slarti b]

andrewc Wrote:

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

> This is a meta analysis of 33 studies on traffic calming.

>

Did you read the abstract of that report? In fact do you read and understand any of these links you post?

to quote "through traffic is removed from residential streets by means of, for example, street closures or one-way systems. Speed reducing devices are often installed in residential streets. Main roads are improved in order to carry a larger traffic volume without additional delays or more accidents"

So tell me which main roads will be carrying the larger trafic vo9lumes? This is actiually the same question I keep answering about displaced traffic that you are incapable of answering!

[andrewc]

I am certainly incapable in answering any questions on traffic management because I have no training in the subject.

.

[slarti b]

andrewc Wrote:

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

> I am certainly incapable in answering any questions on traffic management

Well, you seem to share that characteristic with our local Councillors. And, like you,the councillors shoudl not be in a position wehere they are messing around making changes that affect thousands of people without understanding the consequences.

As a start try actually reading the CGK study, it is only 273 pages.

[northernmonkey]

Wow- seems unnecessarily rude - do you think you might phrase things differently if this forum made people use real names?

[Rockets]

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> andrewc Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Are there any studies that support the idea

> that

> > more roads reduce traffic?

>

>

> None. More roads equal more traffic.

>

> When one is accustomed to privilege, equity feels

> like oppression.

You won't find anyone on here suggesting we need more roads. Just a balanced, fair and equitable use of existing road infrastructure that takes all road users into account - not draconian road closures that please a small minority of road users and residents yet heaps misery on everyone else.

And what is happening is not equity, far from it as it is obvious this is displacing traffic from one area to another and only the most blinkered advocate for the closures would deny that. Remember, 89% of the cars will now be going a different route - is that success and achieving the stated goals, no not even close?

[JohnL]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> Wow- seems unnecessarily rude - do you think you

> might phrase things differently if this forum made

> people use real names?

Trumpist Politics - I can here him raving on my TV now.

[JohnL]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

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

> -----

> > andrewc Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Are there any studies that support the idea

> > that

> > > more roads reduce traffic?

> >

> >

> > None. More roads equal more traffic.

> >

> > When one is accustomed to privilege, equity

> feels

> > like oppression.

>

> You won't find anyone on here suggesting we need

> more roads. Just a balanced, fair and equitable

> use of existing road infrastructure that takes all

> road users into account - not draconian road

> closures that please a small minority of road

> users and residents yet heaps misery on everyone

> else.

>

> And what is happening is not equity, far from it

> as it is obvious this is displacing traffic from

> one area to another and only the most blinkered

> advocate for the closures would deny that.

> Remember, 89% of the cars will now be going a

> different route - is that success and achieving

> the stated goals, no not even close?

The government wants more bikes and pedestrians and less cars - it's a long term gain for short term pain.

[mr.chicken]

I love how the angry drivers who only talk to other angry drivers are convinced that everyone hates the traffic changes and only a tiny minority like it. If traffic changes make life worse for drivers, but better for non drivers, there's a good chance the majority of southwark residents will be in favour because the majority of us do not have access to a car. Page 11.

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-12-how-many-cars-are-there-in-london.pdf

Drivers are in the minority in Southwark.

Drivers skew rich, white, male and middle aged, so it's particularly funny to hear the "WoNt SoMeBody ThInK oF tHe ChIlDrEN/old people/cyclists (lol)/poor people" etc concern trolling. What's telling is the missing concern for the 4000 people dying per year in London due to pollution deaths, or any suggestion about how to stem the ever growing tide of traffic and attendant pollution.

Tell you what drivers, people might take you seriously if you can actually come up with a plan which would actually fix the problem. "I paid for my car so I should be able to drive it" isn't a plan so much as a manifesto.

[macutd]

here is the plan (answer) make all public transport free. This will encourage people off the road.

[srisky]

Isn't ULEZ the plan?

[JohnL]

Multiple plans (carrot and stick) may work

[redpost]

The ultimate and equitable solution is road pricing based on time of day, surrounding population density and vehicle emissions, but no government has the balls to do it (yet).

[slarti b]

mr.chicken Wrote:

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

> Drivers skew rich, white, male and middle aged,

Actually that is true of cyclists, particulalry commuter ones. They tend to be mostly male, white, employed earning high income and middle aged.

[JohnL]

slarti b Wrote:

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

> mr.chicken Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Drivers skew rich, white, male and middle aged,

>

>

> Actually that is true of cyclists, particulalry

> commuterones. They tend to be mostly male, white,

> employed earning high income and middle aged.

lots of local cyclists completely different (in my area anyway).

And then you have the scooter riders.