LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Earl Aelfheah]

If you remove the planters, I think there will be a small increase in traffic as people are more tempted to make shorter journeys by car / discouraged from walking. The small extra capacity created by reopening a few side streets will quickly be filled. This is what happens time and again (yes, induced demand). Congestion will not improve at all. Neither will pollution. But at least traffic won't just be contained to the main roads, so I guess it will be more equal in the sense of levelling down.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> I guess what I want to ask is do you think the

> traffic which uses these roads only appears and

> disappears if they are open or not? Otherwise if

> the same(ish) traffic is either using 5 roads or 1

> road then clearly

> There would be less congestion using 5 though I?d

> imagine not evenly distributed.

> I don?t think Closing these roads has made the

> cars which used them previously disappear, so they

> logically have been diverted onto other roads to

> the detriment of those living and using those

> them.

It is easy to underestimate the number of short journeys ("rather than walk, why don't I drop you off at the station" for example). If you open up the side streets, more people use them for short journeys, they might otherwise have walked. There is so much evidence of this. Small increases in road capacity lead to more car journeys and make almost no difference to levels of congestion, in a very little time.

[Dulwichgirl82]

I think that?s fair but I?d imagine it would be very small as I honestly done think these measures are inconvenient enough to prevent car use. Also the journeys would be both shorter and likely with less idling which might counteract it a bit.

Regarding levelling down it isn?t really correct if the currently worse off routes improve their levels

Of congestion/pollution.

[exdulwicher]

ali2007 Wrote:

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

> I haven't been following this thread so apologies

> if I'm repeating what's already been said.

1. drivers not being able to take the most direct route to their destination INCREASES pollution, it doesn't decrease pollution

No, it encourages shorter journeys to be made on foot, by bike etc. If you're on Calton Avenue and you need to go to Dulwich Village, the easiest / quickest option is now to walk / cycle / scooter through the planters, not to drive the long way round.

2. A cabby just told me that the reason the side roads are being blocked is because Sadiq is extending the Ultra-Low Emission Zone up to the North and South Circular boundary in 2021. The mayor can't afford to put cameras on every side road - and therefore is having to push all traffic onto main roads which is where cameras will be placed.

Sensationlist cabbie conspiracy theory bollocks. Cabbies should be in favour of things like this. It is in the interests of every cab driver out there to minimise private car use. Drivers don't get taxis. Pedestrians do though. More walking and less traffic is good for cabbies. Plus they make a few extra quid out of a slightly longer route!

3. A fire engine got trapped by one of the 'covid road blocks' and was unable to get to their destination

No it didn't. The Fire Brigade were within a few metres of their actual destination (someone locked out of their house), they were blocked by a badly parked car and they do actually have the authority to shunt things like that if required. London Fire Brigade have been quoted several times saying they're in favour of the LTNs and actually their response times have dropped slightly in areas where these have been introduced. Check out their Twitter feed. The article you saw was in the Daily Mail which automatically places it as more sensationalist bollocks.

4. Paramedics have been unable to get to patients because of the road blocks

Source? Actual cases where this has happened?

5. Wandsworth protested about the road closures and they have been removed.

I posted about this either earlier on here or on a related thread. Wandsworth messed up big time on a variety of issues, they've utterly screwed themselves over. Catastrophic local government short sighted stupidity.

IMO the road blocks don't benefit anyone apart from the coffers in the mayors office.

Why? It's costing Government to put these in, TfL aren't making any profit from it. With public transport usage curtailed due to Covid / social distancing, if everyone jumped in their car to make journeys that they previously did by public transport, the roads would be gridlocked, this was known about coming out of lockdown hence the rapid need to encourage alternative transport.

[Earl Aelfheah]

There are some links to studies on the effects of LTNs here: https://londonlivingstreets.com/2019/07/11/evaporating-traffic-impact-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-on-main-roads/

I do accept the LTNs are not a panacea - there will be some issues and some displacement (particularly in the immediate term). But this has to be offset against the improvements to residential / side streets, the increase in walking and associated health impacts and the alternative of doing nothing / allowing traffic to slowly take over every street.

[Dulwichgirl82]

But I think what you are wanting to offset is other people?s homes and lives. It?s a nursery which has increased levels of pollution, a playground and park.

Also I think for me the ultimate issue is that this doesn?t feel like a low traffic neighbourhood it?s a few low traffic streets, with busy roads at either end of them. if something would genuinely reduce the overall car use of be thrilled.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

"Unfortunately, Southwark Council seems intent on listening to lobbyists from outside the area, and a vocal minority who personally benefit from road closures, rather than the majority who live and work in and around Dulwich."

This is completely made up xenophobic rubbish - that shadowy OUTSIDERS are imposing things on the right-thinking stout yeoman residents of Dulwich. It's an assertion without any evidence, and about as reliable as the suggestion that "thousands" of people were demonstrating against LTNs. There are reasonable people who have reasonable objections to the traffic changes - but there's an increasingly unhinged conspiracy theorist wing that's progressively losing the plot.

"cabby just told me that the reason the side roads are being blocked is because Sadiq is extending the Ultra-Low Emission Zone up to the North and South Circular boundary "

Cabby talking conspiracy theory bollocks shocker. There's no point in closing roads well inside the South Circular in order to save money on cameras along the South Circular - for obvious reasons.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> But I think what you are wanting to offset is

> other people?s homes and lives. It?s a nursery

> which has increased levels of pollution, a

> playground and park.

>

> Also I think for me the ultimate issue is that

> this doesn?t feel like a low traffic neighbourhood

> it?s a few low traffic streets, with busy roads at

> either end of them. if something would genuinely

> reduce the overall car use of be thrilled.

I think this is where we disagree though. A nursery on a busy main road is likely to suffer from pollution. I'm not saying that's a good idea of course, but it's a separate issue. I don't believe that removing the planters will improve the situation on those main roads, certinaly not for more than a few weeks. What it will do, is expose people (including nursery aged children) living on residential side roads to higher and higher levels of pollution over time as well. And it's not just about pollution, it's also the experience of growing up on a street with speeding cars, excessive noise of motorbikes, the disinsentive to walk and cycle, the loss of community that comes from a road dominated by traffic etc. etc. Again, the arguement in favour of high traffic neighbourhoods is one for levelling down.

[Dulwichgirl82]

But there?s the fundamental difference i don?t feel it is a separate issue. I think that the pollution has worsened near the nursery(As one example but a particularly heartbreaking one to me) , and would improve if the planters were removed(and the comments on the street space from parents seem to agree) . If we are to do something to improve this it should be for everyone rather than just those living on a few roads. I think all children(And people) should have the benefit and experience you describe as much as possible. The worsened health outcomes associated with lower socioeconomic status (and the reciprocal) are well documented and this is a good example of that being exacerbated

Similar for the park and lordship lane. And Oxonian and Matham as an aside.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > But I think what you are wanting to offset is

> > other people?s homes and lives. It?s a nursery

> > which has increased levels of pollution, a

> > playground and park.

> >

> > Also I think for me the ultimate issue is that

> > this doesn?t feel like a low traffic

> neighbourhood

> > it?s a few low traffic streets, with busy roads

> at

> > either end of them. if something would

> genuinely

> > reduce the overall car use of be thrilled.

>

> I think this is where we disagree though. A

> nursery on a busy main road is likely to suffer

> from pollution. I'm not saying that's a good idea

> of course, but it's a separate issue. I don't

> believe that removing the planters will improve

> the situation on those main roads, certinaly not

> for more than a few weeks. What it will do, is

> expose people (including nursery aged children)

> living on residential side roads to higher and

> higher levels of pollution over time as well. And

> it's not just about pollution, it's also the

> experience of growing up on a street with speeding

> cars, excessive noise of motorbikes, the

> disinsentive to walk and cycle, the loss of

> community that comes from a road dominated by

> traffic etc. etc. Again, the arguement in favour

> of high traffic neighbourhoods is one for

> levelling down.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Traffic has gone up all over London following the pandemic. Let's see what happens in Tooting where they have removed the planters. So far, it doesn't appear to have done anything to reduce congestion on the main roads, but perhaps it will change in time.

[Dulwichgirl82]

But there was a noticeable difference the day the plantars went in. A stepwise increase which has been noted by the residents on east dulwich grove who have written on here and the street space.

I also don?t think the tooting example is all that relevant. Whether it goes up or down it a a different area and from what I?ve read with other factors in play. I think this is a case by case basis as each area has different traffic. Flows and closures. What we really need it an expert ( of which I?m not) to do something to genuinely reduce our local traffic! Hopefully the ulez may help somewhat 🤞🏼

[Earl Aelfheah]

The ULEZ next year, should also help air pollution generally, and may even reduce the amount of traffic on main roads.

[exdulwicher]

There is ONE thing that reduces pollution.

Fewer cars (or fewer journeys, depending on how you phrase it).

LTNs help with that by deterring (some) car use. It takes time to bed in, it sometimes requires additional interventions like setting up bike or scooter hire schemes or better parking for them, Walking Buses for kids to get to school, pop-up cycle lanes, 20mph zones and so on, sometimes it'll largely achieve the desired effect on its own.

The roads aren't closed - residents, emergency services, deliveries etc can all reach all houses and businesses so it's an important phrasing distinction between "closed road" and "filtered road" (where through traffic is prohibited).

We're in a situation which was going to arise sooner or later, Covid or not. There's a climate emergency, there's a global pandemic, there's an obesity and diabetes crisis especially amongst children and it's got to the point where we could have made minor changes over the last 20 years, drip fed into the system but we haven't. It's now at the point where it needs dramatic intervention NOW because, if we don't do it, it'll need even further dramatic intervention next year (like the Athens case mentioned above where odd and even-numbered cars were banned from the streets on alternate days - happened in Paris as well: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/07/paris-bans-cars-for-second-day-running-as-pollution-strikes )

The choice now is you can be sort of nudged into making fewer journeys because it's mildly inconvenient to drive or you can wait a year or so and be banned from driving on alternate days altogether.

If you're angry about pollution, look to the people driving short journeys, not the LTNs.

[Penguin68]

I would love to know what are the success (and perhaps more importantly the failure) criteria for this traffic experiment. Of course, we never will know, and indeed I'd be prepared to bet that none have yet (perhaps will ever) be set.

There will be no way, for instance, based on the timing, to differentiate reduction in pollution because of the Ulez, and because of this - each will no doubt claim 100% of any success in that area. But I doubt whether a figure has even been set for a forecast outcome. Probably of either.

And indeed - what base-lines will be being used?

And, based on Southwark's very fast and loose attitude to statistics and measurement - why would we ever believe a word they said?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> I would love to know what are the success (and

> perhaps more importantly the failure) criteria for

> this traffic experiment. Of course, we never will

> know, and indeed I'd be prepared to bet that none

> have yet (perhaps will ever) be set.

>

> There will be no way, for instance, based on the

> timing, to differentiate reduction in pollution

> because of the Ulez, and because of this - each

> will no doubt claim 100% of any success in that

> area. But I doubt whether a figure has even been

> set for a forecast outcome. Probably of either.

>

> And indeed - what base-lines will be being used?

>

> And, based on Southwark's very fast and loose

> attitude to statistics and measurement - why would

> we ever believe a word they said?

This is a big problem.

[Penguin68]

There is ONE thing that reduces pollution.

Fewer cars (or fewer journeys, depending on how you phrase it).

That is simplistic rubbish. The ULEZ assumes that fewer polluting vehicles (those with high emissions) will reduce pollution - if it didn't that would be a con. Which is not the same as fewer vehicles (or trips)

Journeys using electric and hydrogen vehicles (and the same number as before) would very significantly reduce local street pollution.

Why not head for the Attenborough 'what we need is far fewer people overall' remedy - where cousin Covid-19 might have helped, had not those pesky doctors and scientists got in its way.

Fewer car journeys may be one way of reducing pollution, but it is only one out of many, it is not THE one and indeed by thinking that you avoid considering alternatives and indeed things that might work with that remedy, to increase its effectiveness.

You might as well say that staying on your own, together with the rest of the population on their own, in locked rooms, indefinitely, is THE ONE way of beating Covid. It's a way, of course, but are you signing up for it?

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

"Why not head for the Attenborough 'what we need is far fewer people overall' remedy"

TBF with 64,000 deaths a year due to toxic air in the UK, what you're describing is the status quo.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/12/air-pollution-deaths-are-double-previous-estimates-finds-research

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/air-pollution-smoking-deaths-compare-a8818851.html

[Penguin68]

Attenborough wants the world's population reduced by at least a third. The UKs contribution would need to be 20 million. Not even close.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> There are some links to studies on the effects of

> LTNs here:

> https://londonlivingstreets.com/2019/07/11/evapora

> ting-traffic-impact-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-

> on-main-roads/

>

> I do accept the LTNs are not a panacea - there

> will be some issues and some displacement

> (particularly in the immediate term). But this has

> to be offset against the improvements to

> residential / side streets, the increase in

> walking and associated health impacts and the

> alternative of doing nothing / allowing traffic to

> slowly take over every street.

It's that same report that says half the case studies led to a 11% decrease (which leads you to suspect the other half didn't get close to 11%).

Is 11% considered success if congestion increases on other roads as a result?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Remember what it was like before: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1305975194440413184.html

[northernmonkey]

You're absolutely right - there was a huge noticeable difference the day the planters went in - for a couple of days the gridlock on East Dulwich grove was horrific - it was right up past the hospital all the way up to Lordship lane. This was well beyond the normal realms of congestion. Pre lockdown the furthest queues generally went up to maybe Melbourne grove. Had this continued i'd agree that it was unsupportable.

However, after about 2 days that congestion fell away dramatically - if anything ED grove is quieter now than it ever was on the stretch between the hospital and Lordship lane - i expect that some of this is due to cars who would cut through the streets that are now closed, onto ED grove and down Matham to turn right onto the Lane. There are still the occasional snarl ups - this morning there was a random queue (probably someone unloading closer to the junction or delivering), but 5 mins later it was totally gone again.

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> But there was a noticeable difference the day the

> plantars went in. A stepwise increase which has

> been noted by the residents on east dulwich grove

> who have written on here and the street space.

> I also don?t think the tooting example is all that

> relevant. Whether it goes up or down it a a

> different area and from what I?ve read with other

> factors in play. I think this is a case by case

> basis as each area has different traffic. Flows

> and closures. What we really need it an expert (

> of which I?m not) to do something to genuinely

> reduce our local traffic! Hopefully the ulez may

> help somewhat 🤞🏼

[AlexandHelenC]

Exactly! From the day that this scheme was imposed the traffic along the displaced routes has dramatically increased and shown no signs of abating.

Funnelling polluting traffic to pass by a nursery and along high footfall areas like Lordship Lane is a terrible thing to do, especially with no prior consultation.

Businesses in areas that have had LTNs in place for longer periods have suffered, compounding the impact of Covid (and in our area, the additional impact of the CPZ).

Surely the extension of the ULEZ area, along with some incentives for switching to lower emission vehicles over time would be a more progressive way of addressing the pollution problem and wouldn?t hammer some unfortunate residents and businesses overnight with poorly thought through ?blunt instrument? measures.

[Dulwichgirl82]

And this is where we disagree, even yesterday at 11.37 (I took a photo and just checked the time hence the rather exact number) it was backEd up along lordship lane and ed grove. As I?ve said I?m not bothered re car journey time from a. Personal perspective but the knock on effects at what concern me. I think the people best placed to comment on this are those living on Ed grove(and probably matham/Oxonian) as they will see it. While those on the closed roads are best placed to comment on how quiet their roads are.

As an aside I used to cross Ed grove twice a day roughly around Elsie road at rush hour to drop/get my children from the nursery (they no longer go there) and I never had to go between standstill traffic in roughly 20 months of doing so. No there seems to be frequently long queues way back down. This is only anecdotal as is everything said on here but it does seem worse.

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> You're absolutely right - there was a huge

> noticeable difference the day the planters went in

> - for a couple of days the gridlock on East

> Dulwich grove was horrific - it was right up past

> the hospital all the way up to Lordship lane.

> This was well beyond the normal realms of

> congestion. Pre lockdown the furthest queues

> generally went up to maybe Melbourne grove. Had

> this continued i'd agree that it was

> unsupportable.

>

> However, after about 2 days that congestion fell

> away dramatically - if anything ED grove is

> quieter now than it ever was on the stretch

> between the hospital and Lordship lane - i expect

> that some of this is due to cars who would cut

> through the streets that are now closed, onto ED

> grove and down Matham to turn right onto the Lane.

> There are still the occasional snarl ups - this

> morning there was a random queue (probably someone

> unloading closer to the junction or delivering),

> but 5 mins later it was totally gone again.

>

>

>

>

> Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > But there was a noticeable difference the day

> the

> > plantars went in. A stepwise increase which has

> > been noted by the residents on east dulwich

> grove

> > who have written on here and the street space.

> > I also don?t think the tooting example is all

> that

> > relevant. Whether it goes up or down it a a

> > different area and from what I?ve read with

> other

> > factors in play. I think this is a case by case

> > basis as each area has different traffic. Flows

> > and closures. What we really need it an expert

> (

> > of which I?m not) to do something to genuinely

> > reduce our local traffic! Hopefully the ulez

> may

> > help somewhat 🤞🏼

[northernmonkey]

And again - it does back up sporadically throughout the day - at weird times too - like 11:37 should not be a peak time, so its generally that a taxi or delivery van has stopped on the single yelows near the junction and that this unloading is causing a weird peak - generally 5 mins later its gone.

[Dulwichgirl82]

But not on this occasion as I walked down there. Or on friday lunchtime when traffic was queueing back to the hospital (I walked all the way to lordship lane and it was just traffic. This isn?t me looking for it, it?s when I happen to walk down there.

Genuine question, if you are saying it isn?t worse do you believe that the traffic that used to use the closed roads has a) evaporated or b) wasn?t there in the first place as it must have gone somewhere? I don?t understand the claims that traffic on the alternate routes aren?t worse as surely that traffic didn?t cease to excist and I?m not convinced the the addition of a few hundred yards and a 5-10 minute increase would discourage all those users.

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> And again - it does back up sporadically

> throughout the day - at weird times too - like

> 11:37 should not be a peak time, so its generally

> that a taxi or delivery van has stopped on the

> single yelows near the junction and that this

> unloading is causing a weird peak - generally 5

> mins later its gone.