LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Metallic]

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Well. It?s complex and expensive I suspect

> (challenging powers that be is ever thus). Is

> anyone in touch with those working on the case in

> Ealing? If not happy to track them down and give

> them a call. No need to reinvent the wheel...

And Lambeth are doing it too.

[KidKruger]

There's a lot of hypocrisy anyway, people who flaunt their 'values' in one area, fail badly in others, so overall they're just chatting sh*t. Yet above we have cheap shots and generalisations as a mechanism to pretend to reinforce a point - BS.

How many showers a day does one have, how many times a day flush the loo, how much junk ordered via internet, how often one buys new clothes, how much meat one eats, how much one has the heating on when they could wear thermals and a jumper and wooly hat, how long their tap runs when washing up. we can all play virtue signals.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Thanks KidKruger, my thought exactly. I am pro

> reducing car travel, reducing pollution, I have

> campaigned in fact for green policy for many of my

> 55 years on this planet. I have a plant based

> diet, avoid plastic, recycle and upcycle. Have

> driven twice in the last 10 years and own a bike

> that is used often and walk as much as I can. The

> road closures for roads that in the 30+ years I

> have lived in East Dulwich have never been as

> polluted or busy as East Dulwich Grove, which now

> has an extra school, nurseries, a health centre

> and is a major road for pedestrians and cyclists.

> This road can accommodate a cycle lane with a bit

> of imagination and financial input from Southwark.

> The current closures are cheap, lazy and represent

> poor planning. Pedestrians and cyclists now both

> use a crowded and polluted pathway during the

> school rush, cars idle and braver cyclists use the

> right hand lane at high risk. East Dulwich Grove

> is also a high density residential area, less

> affluent than the gated communities and with a

> higher burden of health inequality. Very poor

> Southwark Council, very poor.

[dougiefreeman]

What worries me most is that the cycling lobbyists? holier-than-thou attitude has the ear of the council, whilst the rest of us do not.

And I don?t currently see a way to remedy that.

[exdulwicher]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Can anyone show any scheme which has SIGNIFICANTLY reduced motor volumes? The best even the most pro-scheme lobbyist can show is a maximum of 11%.

NO IT ISN'T!

Back on page 41, I posted a link to a meta-analysis study which had looked at 60 traffic reduction schemes worldwide to assess various measures and outcomes.

Obviously very few people actually bothered reading the thing and someone asked about overall reduction - I copied and pasted an extract from the report which stated a MEDIAN (not a maximum) outcome across all these various schemes in several different countries of 11%. In fact the exact phrase I posted is here:

The mean average was a reduction of 21?9% and the median ? which is a better measure of central tendency here, given the variability of results ? was a reduction of 10?6%.

In other words, in half the cases, over 11% of the vehicles which were previously using the road or the area where

roadspace for general traffic was reduced, could not be found in the surrounding area afterwards.

Now in that context, median is kind of the best statistical tool to use (rather than mean) because it takes account of outliers. Depending on what the scheme is, where it is, the control measures introduced etc, it showed a wide range of outcomes but this time, you can actually go back and read it yourself because it's very clear that the 11% figure has been held up as some kind of absolute gold-plated figure for all schemes everywhere and it's "only" 11% (and therefore not worth doing??)

What's even more telling is that the meta-analysis got shouted down as being:

old / out of date (apparently science done before 2000 is no longer valid?!)

flawed (go, on, tell me HOW it's flawed, I'd love to hear it)

biased (no it's not, the whole point of meta-analysis is that you're looking at previous studies and studying their methodology, not the original raw data)

And yet all the people saying that the study was rubbish simultaneously grabbed the 11% figure that came from that same study like a dog with a bone and now won't let it go and are twisting it to their own ends.

[Dulwichgirl82]

I think 11% would be great if it was simpley that traffic was lost and no harm came to anyone else..

But if we take the 11% figure does that not mean the other roads now have to accept 89% of diverted traffic? And its not like these are empty major roads they are residential roads with schools nurseries and health centres on them.

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > Can anyone show any scheme which has

> SIGNIFICANTLY reduced motor volumes? The best even

> the most pro-scheme lobbyist can show is a maximum

> of 11%.

>

> NO IT ISN'T!

>

> Back on page 41, I posted a link to a

> meta-analysis study which had looked at 60 traffic

> reduction schemes worldwide to assess various

> measures and outcomes.

>

> Obviously very few people actually bothered

> reading the thing and someone asked about overall

> reduction - I copied and pasted an extract from

> the report which stated a MEDIAN (not a maximum)

> outcome across all these various schemes in

> several different countries of 11%. In fact the

> exact phrase I posted is here:

>

> The mean average was a reduction of 21?9% and the

> median ? which is a better measure of central

> tendency here, given the variability of results ?

> was a reduction of 10?6%.

> In other words, in half the cases, over 11% of the

> vehicles which were previously using the road or

> the area where

> roadspace for general traffic was reduced, could

> not be found in the surrounding area afterwards.

>

> Now in that context, median is kind of the best

> statistical tool to use (rather than mean) because

> it takes account of outliers. Depending on what

> the scheme is, where it is, the control measures

> introduced etc, it showed a wide range of outcomes

> but this time, you can actually go back and read

> it yourself because it's very clear that the 11%

> figure has been held up as some kind of absolute

> gold-plated figure for all schemes everywhere and

> it's "only" 11% (and therefore not worth doing??)

>

>

> What's even more telling is that the meta-analysis

> got shouted down as being:

> old / out of date (apparently science done before

> 2000 is no longer valid?!)

> flawed (go, on, tell me HOW it's flawed, I'd love

> to hear it)

> biased (no it's not, the whole point of

> meta-analysis is that you're looking at previous

> studies and studying their methodology, not the

> original raw data)

>

> And yet all the people saying that the study was

> rubbish simultaneously grabbed the 11% figure that

> came from that same study like a dog with a bone

> and now won't let it go and are twisting it to

> their own ends.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> Rahrah

>

> I?ve a question to ask the pro closure lobby and

> you seem

> To be a strong advocate of this.

> If you believe:

> 1. Traffic on these side roads was terrible

> before, with high volumes etc

> And

> 2. There is no increase in traffic on the

> displacement roads since they were closed.

>

> There seems to be a paradox, unless you are saying

> that all those cars previously using the side

> roads have disappeared they must have gone

> somewhere.

>

> Do you think that the closures are enough that all

> those people have chosen to walk/cycle or not make

> the journey?

> It just doesn?t make sense from a logical point of

> view.

>

> And no I don?t think all roads should have high

> traffic in the spirit of fairness, I just done

> think the affluent should get to send their

> traffic to the poorer roads to protect themselves.

>

>

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > What do people think will actually be achieved

> by

> > allowing cars to fill up side roads as well as

> > main ones? Do they honestly believe that the

> > traffic on main roads won?t just increase to

> > previous levels again within weeks? Is it just

> a

> > the case that they want every road is dominated

> > with traffic in some strange idea of

> ?fairness??

> > How will this help anything?

I think that there is some displacement yes. I think there is also modal shift, with people switching for some journeys because of the increased inconvenience of driving and improved environment for cycling / waking scooting whatever. If you create a little more capacity, it quickly fills and you?re back where you started. There is lots of evidence for this. As stated, if you remove the filters and allow cars to use side streets as cut throughs, it may create some temporary relief to main arteries, but it won?t last more than a few weeks and you?ll end up with both congestion on the main roads and traffic on back streets.

[Dulwichgirl82]

Ok so a second question do you think it?s fair that those living and using facilities on the displaced roads accept the extra pollution to protect those roads which are closed. Is it ok that if you get some modal shift which helps some, others loose out significantly (and I?d imagine overall more loose than gain)

Also If you acknowledge there is displacement if the roads are opened then the ?displacement roads? will have less traffic. The amount of traffic that was there before would go back to its previous state I would imagine, not suddenly create more.

Bearing in mind that these roads were open and the change has been closing them, moving their traffic elsewhere.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Rahrah

> >

> > I?ve a question to ask the pro closure lobby

> and

> > you seem

> > To be a strong advocate of this.

> > If you believe:

> > 1. Traffic on these side roads was terrible

> > before, with high volumes etc

> > And

> > 2. There is no increase in traffic on the

> > displacement roads since they were closed.

> >

> > There seems to be a paradox, unless you are

> saying

> > that all those cars previously using the side

> > roads have disappeared they must have gone

> > somewhere.

> >

> > Do you think that the closures are enough that

> all

> > those people have chosen to walk/cycle or not

> make

> > the journey?

> > It just doesn?t make sense from a logical point

> of

> > view.

> >

> > And no I don?t think all roads should have high

> > traffic in the spirit of fairness, I just done

> > think the affluent should get to send their

> > traffic to the poorer roads to protect

> themselves.

> >

> >

> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > What do people think will actually be

> achieved

> > by

> > > allowing cars to fill up side roads as well

> as

> > > main ones? Do they honestly believe that the

> > > traffic on main roads won?t just increase to

> > > previous levels again within weeks? Is it

> just

> > a

> > > the case that they want every road is

> dominated

> > > with traffic in some strange idea of

> > ?fairness??

> > > How will this help anything?

>

> I think that there is some displacement yes. I

> think there is also modal shift, with people

> switching for some journeys because of the

> increased inconvenience of driving and improved

> environment for cycling / waking scooting

> whatever. If you create a little more capacity, it

> quickly fills and you?re back where you started.

> There is lots of evidence for this. As stated, if

> you remove the filters and allow cars to use side

> streets as cut through a, it will create some

> relief on side streets, but it won?t last more

> than a few weeks and you?ll end up with both

> congestion on the main roads and traffic on back

> streets.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> I think 11% would be great if it was simpley that

> traffic was lost and no harm came to anyone else..

>

> But if we take the 11% figure does that not mean

> the other roads now have to accept 89% of diverted traffic

It?s not an 89% increase to traffic on main roads because they are filtering smaller streets and there are only a handful of them, mostly in different places. Also, the congestion that is caused at junctions are reduced, significantly improving ?flow? (a good example is where EDG meets Melbourne Grove - previously a nightmare where cars and vans used to get blocked as create tailbacks).

[Penguin68]

As stated, if you remove the filters and allow cars to use side streets as cut throughs, it may create some temporary relief to main arteries, but it won?t last more than a few weeks and you?ll end up with both congestion on the main roads and traffic on back streets.

But this rather begs the question, what are side streets and what are 'main arteries'. There are NO 'main arteries locally - even the South Circular is no more than a 2 lane highway for much of its length - and many of the 'side streets' are no less wide than the 'not' side streets. Furthermore, if you're driving about SE London the 'obvious' way to get somewhere is through the 'side streets' which are direct links - and, as I've said, hardly less wide, sometimes the same width, as the 'main' streets. If we had something like the North Circular running past I'd direct all through traffic onto that, but, of course, we don't. That's both the charm and the drawback of where we live. A picture is being drawn by the pro-closure people of medieval side streets leading into dual carriageways - but it ain't like that at all.

[Rockets]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > Can anyone show any scheme which has

> SIGNIFICANTLY reduced motor volumes? The best even

> the most pro-scheme lobbyist can show is a maximum

> of 11%.

>

> NO IT ISN'T!

>

> Back on page 41, I posted a link to a

> meta-analysis study which had looked at 60 traffic

> reduction schemes worldwide to assess various

> measures and outcomes.

>

> Obviously very few people actually bothered

> reading the thing and someone asked about overall

> reduction - I copied and pasted an extract from

> the report which stated a MEDIAN (not a maximum)

> outcome across all these various schemes in

> several different countries of 11%. In fact the

> exact phrase I posted is here:

>

> The mean average was a reduction of 21?9% and the

> median ? which is a better measure of central

> tendency here, given the variability of results ?

> was a reduction of 10?6%.

> In other words, in half the cases, over 11% of the

> vehicles which were previously using the road or

> the area where

> roadspace for general traffic was reduced, could

> not be found in the surrounding area afterwards.

>

> Now in that context, median is kind of the best

> statistical tool to use (rather than mean) because

> it takes account of outliers. Depending on what

> the scheme is, where it is, the control measures

> introduced etc, it showed a wide range of outcomes

> but this time, you can actually go back and read

> it yourself because it's very clear that the 11%

> figure has been held up as some kind of absolute

> gold-plated figure for all schemes everywhere and

> it's "only" 11% (and therefore not worth doing??)

>

>

> What's even more telling is that the meta-analysis

> got shouted down as being:

> old / out of date (apparently science done before

> 2000 is no longer valid?!)

> flawed (go, on, tell me HOW it's flawed, I'd love

> to hear it)

> biased (no it's not, the whole point of

> meta-analysis is that you're looking at previous

> studies and studying their methodology, not the

> original raw data)

>

> And yet all the people saying that the study was

> rubbish simultaneously grabbed the 11% figure that

> came from that same study like a dog with a bone

> and now won't let it go and are twisting it to

> their own ends.

Ex- we understand that of the 60 LTN programmes analysed globally the median average was 11%. Do you have any other stats that show average traffic reduction that would lead anyone to believe we could expect "significant" reduction from these measures? And significant would need to be far higher than the 11% median.

[Dulwichgirl82]

But according to the pro closure lobby the traffic was terrible on these side streets.. so must have been fairly significant to need closing?!? And edg is supposed to absorb 89% of this terrible traffic from 5 roads? It?s not like edg is the south circular it?s a residential road with nurseries and schools along it.

And at the lordship lane end or edg there are 5 roads in very close proximity closed(both sides of Melbourne grove, Derwent, Elsie and tintagel) and while I?m sure the Melbourne grove junction is much better the edg/ll is much worse. Maybe ask the nursery at that end how they like having idling traffic outside all the time.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I think 11% would be great if it was simpley

> that

> > traffic was lost and no harm came to anyone

> else..

> >

> > But if we take the 11% figure does that not

> mean

> > the other roads now have to accept 89% of

> diverted traffic

>

> It?s not an 89% increase to traffic on main roads

> because they are filtering smaller streets and

> there are only a handful of them, mostly in

> different places. Also, the congestion that is

> caused at junctions are reduced, significantly

> improving ?flow? (a good example is where EDG

> meets Melbourne Grove - previously a nightmare

> where cars and vans used to get blocked as create

> tailbacks).

[Earl Aelfheah]

How about showing the evidence that allowing cars to use any street they wish as a cut through won?t negatively impact the lives of those living on those streets, or the people wishing to travel along them by foot or by bike?

[legalalien]

Dulwichgirl82, I suspect that the answer is that you?re basically collateral damage. The policy agenda seems to be driven by professional and well funded lobby groups who are focussed on the big picture: if a relatively small number of people on some roads have to suffer to enable the ?modal shift? then so be it.

I suspect that given the degree of regulatory capture, the way forward is to appeal to the (local) democratically elected representatives. Southwark Cyclists have helpfully issued instructions to people wanting to lobby new cabinet members about how good the closures are - if anyone wants to pass on their views the info is here

https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/southwark-councils-new-cabinet/

[Dulwichgirl82]

I think this is what?s sad, those living on those roads have been effectively sacrificed and they were likely already having lower health outcomes. I also think that the total collateral damage is probably greater than the benefit as it?s communal areas which are harmed. I don?t actually

Live on the affected roads but my background is looking at health inequalities so that?s why I find it so difficult to see what the council are thinking, I would think improving the health of the worse off should come first.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Dulwichgirl82, I suspect that the answer is that

> you?re basically collateral damage. The policy

> agenda seems to be driven by professional and well

> funded lobby groups who are focussed on the big

> picture: if a relatively small number of people on

> some roads have to suffer to enable the ?modal

> shift? then so be it.

>

> I suspect that given the degree of regulatory

> capture, the way forward is to appeal to the

> (local) democratically elected representatives.

> Southwark Cyclists have helpfully issued

> instructions to people wanting to lobby new

> cabinet members about how good the closures are -

> if anyone wants to pass on their views the info is

> here

>

> https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/southwark-council

> s-new-cabinet/

[heartblock]

Exactly Dulwich girl, the impact of more pollution is on people in higher density housing with less access to gardens and open space. This council has shat on the most vulnerable residents.

[Earl Aelfheah]

This isn?t true. The truth is that if you make it easier for people to drive, the net effect is more suffering. The idea that it?s only fair to allow every road to be dominated by traffic doesn?t make sense. Neither am I convinced that main roads are significantly more congested as a result of efforts to create some space, some where for people to walk and cycle. Most people don?t have access to a car.

[Dulwichgirl82]

Ok but you have acknowledged there?s been displacement, Is it fair for some to benefit and some to suffer? And those suffering already in a likely worse health position than those benefiting? No ones saying cars should run freely anywhere, but I didn?t think we lived in a society where people?s health was considered collateral damage.

The space for people to walk and cycle benefits some, the worsened traffic harms others. Can you at least acknowledge this?

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> This isn?t true. The truth is that if you make it

> easier for people to drive, the net effect is more

> suffering. The idea that it?s only fair to allow

> every road to be dominated by traffic doesn?t make

> sense. Neither am I convinced that main roads are

> significantly more congested as a result of

> efforts to create some space, some where for

> people to walk and cycle. Most people don?t have

> access to a car.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The poorest households in London are generally less likely to own and drive a car. So I don?t buy the idea that allowing the people of Dulwich to cut through side roads in their SUVs is some sort of equality issue. I think a lot of the noise is people concerned about personal inconvenience and not a grand concern for the greater good, for BAME communities, or the poorest in society as often claimed. I think those living on main roads are exposed to more pollution, yes. The problem is too many cars. If you make it easier to drive and less pleasant / safe to use alternatives, you?ll increase the number of car journeys. As I said above, I don?t believe that opening every street to cars in an attempt to be ?fairer? (I.e. ensuring everyone has increased exposure to pollution), will make very much difference to main roads for more than a few weeks. You increase capacity, it fills up. We know this. But even if you?re right to some extent, I don?t support a levelling down agenda. Let?s try to improve main roads rather than creating problems everywhere

[Metallic]

One could almost forget this is a free country!

[Dulwichgirl82]

I agree re improving main roads, but think that should be done first. It would likely benefit the side roads too. I also agree the poorest are less likely to have cars, and yet are the ones being harmed by this. The residents of the closed roads now drive via the displacement roads.

As I?ve said before I don?t really drive but do walk around with small children, use the health centre and the parks which have been harmed by this. It?s absolutely nothing to do with driving convenience for me and that seems to be the default position of the closure party.

It?s not about levelling down? Those roads were open and have closed (temporarily apparently) so have managed to get their traffic diverted away at the expense of those less likely to own cars as you point out.

But I guess the difference if that I?m not happy to accept harming the more vulnerable and I assume you are if you consider it the greater good(or I?m guessing personal benefit of you live on one of these closed roads)

ahrahrah Wrote:

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

> The poorest households in London are generally

> less likely to own and drive a car. So I don?t buy

> the idea that allowing the people of Dulwich to

> cut through side roads in their SUVs is some sort

> of equality issue. I think a lot of the noise is

> people concerned about personal inconvenience and

> not a grand concern for the greater good, for BAME

> communities, or the poorest in society as often

> claimed. I think those living on main roads are

> exposed to more pollution, yes. The problem is too

> many cars. If you make it easier to drive and less

> pleasant / safe to use alternatives, you?ll

> increase the number of car journeys. As I said

> above, I don?t believe that opening every street

> to cars in an attempt to be ?fairer? (I.e.

> ensuring everyone has increased exposure to

> pollution), will make very much difference to main

> roads for more than a few weeks. You increase

> capacity, it fills up. We know this. But even if

> you?re right to some extent, I don?t support a

> levelling down agenda. Let?s try to improve main

> roads rather than creating problems everywhere

[first mate]

?No ones saying cars should run freely anywhere, but I didn?t think we lived in a society where people?s health was considered collateral damage. The space for people to walk and cycle benefits some, the worsened traffic harms others.?

This is the central contradiction. The stated aim is to reduce or even completely remove motorised vehicles because they are harming our health. In the meantime, it is viewed as completely acceptable to harm health by blocking or slowing down emergency services, actively harm the freedoms and well being of vulnerable sections of the community, cause major levels of stress by limiting necessary journeys and modes of transport.

If you object you are labelled a ?petrol head?, ?entitled? and told you have a ?choice?. I am tired of the myopia and fanaticism of the pro cycling, pro CPZ lobby and most of all this dogmatic council. The current interventions are not working overall. Proper consultation is needed immediately. Lets have properly considered and monitored interventions for the good of the many, not the few.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don?t live in one of the filtered roads. I live just off Lordship Lane (apparently one of the negatively impacted streets, although it doesn?t seem much different to before the lockdown to me... I know, I know, others will swear it?s completely changed). The roads which have seen significant increases in traffic over the last few years are back streets NOT main roads. This is the result of apps and sat navs. There is research by tfl showing this. I am in favour of the LTNs because I have seen more people walking and cycling and I think that?s positive. I myself am walking more and I think this has to be a good thing. I don?t buy it that if you remove the filters it will improve the main roads. I just think it will be surrendering to the idea that cars have a natural ?right? to dominate almost every public space, and it can?t be challenged.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I don?t live in one of the filtered roads. I live

> just off Lordship Lane (apparently one of the

> negatively impacted streets, although it doesn?t

> seem much different to before the lockdown to

> me... I know, I know, others will swear it?s

> completely changed). The roads which have seen

> significant increases in traffic over the last few

> years are back streets NOT main roads. This is the

> result of apps and sat navs. There is research by

> tfl showing this. I am in favour of the LTNs

> because I have seen more people walking and

> cycling and I think that?s positive. I myself am

> walking more and I think this has to be a good

> thing. I don?t buy it that if you remove the

> filters it will improve the main roads. I just

> think it will be surrendering to the idea that

> cars have a natural ?right? to dominate almost

> every public space, and it can?t be challenged.

I am afraid you are deluding yourself if you think traffic in Dulwich is not worse since the lockdowns went in. Even one of your most vocal supporters in the council Cllr McAsh admits there are problems being caused by the closures. Or perhaps he has turned to the dark side?

[Nigello]

Rah x 3 talks sense.

[Rockets]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Rah x 3 talks sense.

.... if you happen to be so inclined to the stuff they talk....

I think the majority actually want all road users to be considered and not have a lot of roads closed to one section of road users....now that's sense!

It seems that anything other than an A road is considered by Rahrahrah as a side street and somehow should be for the exclusive use of cyclists only....