Southwark Streetspace dashboard

[Rockets]

Ex- thanks for responding, that's really interesting and useful.

 

I can see that this will also leave councils in a bit of a bind as when they switch to a new system if that new system demonstrates there were inaccuracies in the old system it will likely fan the conspiratorial flames with those opposing LTNs saying - told you they were lying to us!

 

Although I have also seen those on the anti-side saying that many of the modelled estimates for cycles etc (because of the weaknesses of the tubes to record those) were wildly optimistic and inaccurate after councils published better quality/realistic data from the Vivacity sensors.

 

It will be interesting to see whether Southwark plans to update the dashboard and if they do whether they rely on the old systems or the new ones and whether the transition throws-up any anomalies.

[heartblock]

Thanks Ex, interesting information. I think ideally I would like Southwark to concentrate on publishing activity that leads to poorer health outcomes.

 

1. Peak levels of NO2 and PM 2.5 during rush/school run

"Exposure to PM2.5 can cause illnesses like asthma, COPD, coronary heart disease, stroke, and lung cancer. There is also evidence that links PM2.5 to low birth weight, diabetes and diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson's"  - "the current UK limit is four times more than the updated level recommended by the WHO" Taskforce for Lung Health

2. Congested (idling) traffic on each road and timing

 "Traffic congestion increases vehicle emissions and degrades ambient air quality, and recent studies have shown excess morbidity and mortality for drivers, commuters and individuals living near major roadways" Zhang K, Batterman S. Air pollution and health risks due to vehicle traffic. Sci Total Environ. 2013 Apr 15;450-451:307-16. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.01.074. PMID: 23500830; PMCID: PMC4243514.

3. The percentage of individuals diagnosed with asthma on roads that have the highest levels of congestion and PM2.5 and NO2 within Dulwich/East Dulwich compared to the roads with the lowest levels of PM2.5 and NO2 during peak rush hour/school run.

 

The Taskforce for Lung Health also stated - 

"The quality of air pollution monitoring varies by area, and there is a lack of accessible information for people to view air pollution in their local area.

The public accounts committee reported in October 2022 that it is ‘too difficult for the public to find information about the air quality in their local area’.

Everyone deserves to know if the air in their local area is safe to breathe. We need to make sure we all have information to help protect our heath. The government must act to ensure that people are aware of the pollution where they live and the risk they are at."

I think that East Dulwich residents have a right to accessible and accurate information.

[ab29]

@Admin: before you move a thread to 'lounge' you should exercise your right to reprimend people. Someone who admits not living in Dulwich, left alone Southwark should not be commentig on how the LTNs affect the local residents. 

 

 

 

Edited May 15, 2023 by ab29

[malumbu]

Snitch!

 

(well in your defence it did tickle me, I assume you were teasing and not being serious)

[first mate]

5 hours ago, heartblock said:

Thanks Ex, interesting information. I think ideally I would like Southwark to concentrate on publishing activity that leads to poorer health outcomes.

 

1. Peak levels of NO2 and PM 2.5 during rush/school run

"Exposure to PM2.5 can cause illnesses like asthma, COPD, coronary heart disease, stroke, and lung cancer. There is also evidence that links PM2.5 to low birth weight, diabetes and diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson's"  - "the current UK limit is four times more than the updated level recommended by the WHO" Taskforce for Lung Health

2. Congested (idling) traffic on each road and timing

 "Traffic congestion increases vehicle emissions and degrades ambient air quality, and recent studies have shown excess morbidity and mortality for drivers, commuters and individuals living near major roadways" Zhang K, Batterman S. Air pollution and health risks due to vehicle traffic. Sci Total Environ. 2013 Apr 15;450-451:307-16. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.01.074. PMID: 23500830; PMCID: PMC4243514.

3. The percentage of individuals diagnosed with asthma on roads that have the highest levels of congestion and PM2.5 and NO2 within Dulwich/East Dulwich compared to the roads with the lowest levels of PM2.5 and NO2 during peak rush hour/school run.

 

The Taskforce for Lung Health also stated - 

"The quality of air pollution monitoring varies by area, and there is a lack of accessible information for people to view air pollution in their local area.

The public accounts committee reported in October 2022 that it is ‘too difficult for the public to find information about the air quality in their local area’.

Everyone deserves to know if the air in their local area is safe to breathe. We need to make sure we all have information to help protect our heath. The government must act to ensure that people are aware of the pollution where they live and the risk they are at."

I think that East Dulwich residents have a right to accessible and accurate information.

In the Environment and community engagement scrutiny session (link posted earlier)  Cllr Rose talked about the need to better identify gaps in air quality data to get a more nuanced picture and understand where to place monitoring. They are also looking at air quality text alerts to help residents make choices about times and routes of travel etc.

Edited May 15, 2023 by first mate

[heartblock]

 

I could quote a whole lot of words from Southwark, about what they are going to do, which just end up as empty rhetoric.

So at the moment it would be nice, for the simple act of updating the dashboard. The ATCs are still I in place and I would assume collecting data - so can they please just publish the data and make it accessible to residents in East Dulwich. 

 

[CPR Dave]

There's no reason why they shouldn't publish all their data all the time.

That way people could see how truly congested all our roads and that would actually prompt people to use more active travel measures.

If the private school parents got a li e daily  picture of how much pollution they were generating every day right next to their children's classrooms it might shock them into changing their behaviour 

[exdulwicher]

1 hour ago, CPR Dave said:

There's no reason why they shouldn't publish all their data all the time.

Process of validation, time, resources, the fact that most people don't understand data anyway and it needs to be worked up into a presentable format showing clear information about pollution/traffic trends... Quarterly updates are about as precise as you need to be and to factor in seasonal variations, school holiday periods etc but annual works just as well for that. Air pollution in particular is not easy to monitor or model because it's so weather dependent (although as a general rule the fewer emissions going into the air from whatever source - transport, heating etc, the better...)

1 hour ago, CPR Dave said:

That way people could see how truly congested all our roads and that would actually prompt people to use more active travel measures.

If the private school parents got a li e daily  picture of how much pollution they were generating every day right next to their children's classrooms it might shock them into changing their behaviour 

That's been tried - every day people can see how congested the roads are and every day, they choose to contribute to it. Every school has notices outside saying "do not idle your engine" and "do not drop your kids here" and every day there are 4x4s all over the pavements, double yellow lines, blind corners etc dropping the kids off. And everyone thinks it's OK for THEM - their child is carrying a cello/tuba/harp, their child can't walk far, their child is running late. THEY are only dropping the kids off like this cos it's on the way to work, it's all these OTHER parents who should be ashamed of themselves. THEIR car is electric, it's fine to drive cos it doesn't pollute...

THEIR journey is essential, everyone else should/could walk/cycle. The problem is EVERYONE thinks like that.

[rjsmall]

10 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

Process of validation, time, resources, the fact that most people don't understand data anyway and it needs to be worked up into a presentable format showing clear information about pollution/traffic trends... Quarterly updates are about as precise as you need to be and to factor in seasonal variations, school holiday periods etc but annual works just as well for that. Air pollution in particular is not easy to monitor or model because it's so weather dependent (although as a general rule the fewer emissions going into the air from whatever source - transport, heating etc, the better...)

I agree with that approach as long as the council made the raw traffic count and pollution data available to the public (who are paying for it to be collected after all) - not sure if it would be covered under the Freedom of Information Act.

I think doing that would allow independent analysis of the data and would show that the council is not manipulating, skewing or cherry picking data.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The raw traffic count data has been made available as I understand it. The problem is that people who don't like LTNs, don't believe the data. There is absolutely nothing that could be done to satisfy them, except to publish made up numbers showing an increase in traffic. Anyway, there is a thread on all this in the Lounge for the usual suspects to talk ad nauseum about how it's all a conspiracy and how making driving as easy as possible somehow reduces car use. 

[Rockets]

Ex- what do the Vivacity monitors look like - are they the little square greyish/white boxes fixed on top of road signs and traffic lights?

 

Earl - a clarification - the traffic data from the pneumatic tubes has been published - and the issue people have with that is, per the aforementioned thread, the data is unreliable and the manufacturers of the tubes recommend only using them in areas of free-flowing traffic (not close to junctions as they don't properly record crawling traffc) and Southwark has put a lot of them very close to junctions. That isn't a conspiracy theory - just walk around Dulwich Village and see where the tubes are positioned for yourself and ask yourself - is that an area of free-flowing traffic - if not then do you think he data that has published is accurate?

 

And remember, the data had been moving in the wrong direction for the council as many of the streets on the dashboard were red so I posted this thread because I was interested to see whether the red trend continued and when we could expect another update from the council on the dashboard. The longer it goes on the more people rightly should question why the council isn't publishing the data and has removed many of the the tubes (maybe because they are using the Vivacity sensors and will publish that data in due course - but no-one has heard anything from the council so we are all left guessing).

[heartblock]

Please keep the thread on topic, this is about the Council publishing data on traffic and pollution levels in East Dulwich for local residents.
 

Trying to get this lounged by going back to you know what’s that are now a permanent feature is just trolling - so do go away if you are not interested in pollution and traffic congestion in East Dulwich. 

Quarterly figures would be fine I think, as long as the Council added some analysis around peak pollution levels. People can find the raw data once it’s published. I think the issue at the moment is none of it is accessible at the moment - last update was Sept 22 I think, so where is Dec 22 and March 23? 

[zerkalo]

Would the Southwark council's pollution data be similar or the same to the data published on the Londonair website? They seem to have very up to date information published there.

https://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicbulletin.asp?region=&bulletin=daily&site=SKC&bulletindate=15/05/2023&Maptype=Google&la_id=28&zoom=11&lat=51.4742&lon=-0.0740344&laEdge=&Species=All&WhoBulletin=N&VenueCode=

[heartblock]

In itself it is a very informative site, but none of these monitors are in East Dulwich, the nearest is the South Circular, that is weirdly not included in the dashboard if memory serves me right,

So in keeping with this forum, the data from monitors in East Dulwich are relevant to residents rather than sites on The Old Kent Rd and Tower Bridge Rd.

Apparently there are pollution monitors in East Dulwich, but access to data isn’t clear. I’m asking if our Council can publish data for East Dulwich specifically. It is just NO2 tubes... the last time data was published....wait for it ...was.... up to 1992, which is quite shameful. 

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/air-quality/air-quality-monitoring-data

The air pollution data for Southwark for the period 1950 to 1992 can be found in the Air Pollution in Southwark 1950 to 1992 report, which includes the following chapters:

• Chapter 1 Introduction ^{(PDF, 2.8mb)}
• Chapter 2 Sulphur Dioxide ^{(PDF, 1.7mb)}
• Chapter 3 Nitrogen Dioxide ^{(PDF, 1.7mb)}
• Chapter 4 Ozone ^{(PDF, 740kb)}
• Chapter 5 Lead ^{(PDF, 1.1mb)}
• Chapter 6 Carbon Monoxide ^{(PDF, 909kb)}
• Chapter 7 Radiation ^{(PDF, 597kb)}
• Chapter 8 Particulates ^{(PDF, 2mb)}
• Chapter 9 Conclusions Glossary Index ^{(PDF, 1.7mb)}

 

And don’t bother with the excel ‘report’ on the webpage, nothing available as far as I can see.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/7491/NO2-Diffusion-survey-data-2012-2022-all-data.xlsx

Edited May 16, 2023 by heartblock

[Penguin68]

Maybe it’s worth reminding people of a few salient facts and assumptions about air quality.

1.      There are a number of factors which impact local air quality, of which private vehicles (and particularly those which are ULEZ compliant) are only a part. Industry, commercial vehicles, wood-burning stoves, open fires of any sort are all also contributors, as are adverse weather conditions (temperature inversion) which trap particles close to the ground. For many people, pollens (tree, grass etc.) are also pollutants in that they can exacerbate, indeed cause, respiratory distress. As a generalisation, air quality in the winter in cities tends to be worse than in the summer. This means that summer and winter measurements should not be directly compared. Nor of course should spot measurements at different times of day, and on different days of the week, as (at least for traffic) overall volumes will differ. An ‘average’ measurement week on week in similar seasons can be compared, so long as the measurements are being taken at regular and repeated times of each day. This will show change but may not give you an accurate ‘absolute’ measurement.

2.      CO² is not, as regards respiratory health, a pollutant; indeed without it we would have no plants. It does contribute, as a greenhouse gas, to the greenhouse effect which may lead to global warming. Other greenhouse gases exist which are either more potent, or exist in greater volumes  – such as water vapour.

3.      Slow moving and static traffic will, everything else being equal, generate more pollutants in a given locale than swift, or at least unimpeded traffic movement (if you take a minute to cross a mile your minute’s worth of pollutant in that mile will be far less than if you take 7.5 times as long – average speeds across London, at 8mph - mean that, in the city, vehicles tend to pollute seven and half times more densely than in the countryside. 8mph is an average, which means in areas where the speed is below that the pollution will be higher. What this means is that pollution levels on roads with (more) slow moving traffic will tend be higher, where everything else is equal.

4.      Parked cars are not polluting (for the time they are parked).

[heartblock]

Don’t really understand why carbon dioxide is being mentioned?

Nitrogen dioxide NO2 (excuse the lack of subscript) is a very different gas, highly reactive and causes damage to the respiratory tract. It’s a major trigger for asthma and implicated along with PM in the death of Ella Kissi-Debrah in a landmark coroner’s report.

It is important that we know the levels of Nitrous gases and particulates in our local environment in East Dulwich. I am sure that any asthmatic, COPD sufferer or a parent/guardian responsible for a child’s health would like access to this local data. Is anyone actually arguing against residents having access to this information? 

[exdulwicher]

1 hour ago, heartblock said:

Don’t really understand why carbon dioxide is being mentioned?

They're all inter-related. You can't "just" look at CO2 or NOx or particulates on their own.

Transport is the UK's largest emitter of CO2 and, contrary to this:

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

CO² is not, as regards respiratory health, a pollutant; indeed without it we would have no plants. It does contribute, as a greenhouse gas, to the greenhouse effect which may lead to global warming. Other greenhouse gases exist which are either more potent, or exist in greater volumes  – such as water vapour.

it is a very serious problem. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere now is up at 420ppm and that rise has happened in the last 100 years - for the previous 500,000 years it's been around 280ppm. Also in that time we've managed to remove about 50% of the planet's foliage and the temperature rise has now impacted on the ocean's ability to absorb CO2. You're right that CO2 isn't the most potent GHG on it's own but it's the longest lasting. Methane is worse but it degrades much more quickly. 

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

Slow moving and static traffic will, everything else being equal, generate more pollutants in a given locale than swift, or at least unimpeded traffic movement (if you take a minute to cross a mile your minute’s worth of pollutant in that mile will be far less than if you take 7.5 times as long – average speeds across London, at 8mph - mean that, in the city, vehicles tend to pollute seven and half times more densely than in the countryside. 8mph is an average, which means in areas where the speed is below that the pollution will be higher. What this means is that pollution levels on roads with (more) slow moving traffic will tend be higher, where everything else is equal.

No it doesn't:

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/speed-emissions-and-health.pdf

There are numerous other studies about the decreased pollution of lower speed limits. And as before, we're not just talking about CO2 - increased braking and acceleration cycles result in considerably more particulate pollution.

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

Parked cars are not polluting (for the time they are parked).

I'm not sure anyone said they did but that's not the point. They still impede traffic, there's still a huge amount of energy and resources tied up within them. Its like saying the woodburning stoves don't cause any pollution when they're not being used so we can all have one cos they're fine when not lit...

Edited May 16, 2023 by exdulwicher

[Rockets]

Ex- but it is also true is it not that transport includes a broad variety of vehicles beyond the private car and would you not agree that the private car is a problem but not as much as say buses, taxis, PHVs, delivery vehicles or HGVs - that invariably spend far more time actually on the road. I have always felt that for council's to somehow claim that CPZs are implemented to impact climate change is classic greenwashing.

 

Also I must challenge you that even though you say congestion does not contribute to increased pollution yet the report you link to states:

 

Congestion can increase local air pollution but its impacts are complex and depend on several factors.

 

We are all in agreement that a lot has to be done to improve the quality of our air but, by far, the biggest challenge is for things beyond the private car: gas heating, building works and the fact 40% of the airborne pollutants and particles come from outside the city (from agriculture etc).

 

And when I see councillors post things like this: https://twitter.com/margynewens/status/1652724866896805892?t=qXu8rAKfE72AL86zkbOAsA&s=19 it just really frustrates me, especially as Cllr Newens talks about the heavier the car the bigger the problem (which is true but few cars are as heavy as a delivery van, bus or HGV).

 

I also do note with a smirk that Cllr Newens refers to herself on her Twitter bio as a Socialist-environmentalist. Do you remember the time she used to refer to herself, if I remember correctly, as a Sugar Trader - of course sugar production is a really environmentally sound practice.....

[heartblock]

If you want to discuss carbon dioxide emissions (yes globally important) go to the lounge. This is about East Dulwich Dashboard - traffic and pollutants locally and as CO2  not measured locally - then not relevant. (happy to discuss CO2  in the lounge - the main human activity that emits CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) for energy and transportation and Just Stop Oil have a point....).

 

But again this is a thread asking for transparency and publication of data that was promised by the Council - what is the argument against?

Edited May 16, 2023 by heartblock

[heartblock]

and .....an idling engine burns fuel less efficiently and can produce up to twice the emissions of a car that is moving. It pumps out unnecessary sulphur dioxide, particulate matter and nitrogen oxide into the atmosphere, but of course stop-start technology and electric 'engines' are reducing this.

What does cause more pollution is vehicle miles traveled being a strong correlate, but that might be for the 'you know what' in the lounge thread.

[malumbu]

Brief response to Heartblock and Penguin on some of the points raised.

1.  Many (or most) drivers do not like stop start technology, and some will switch it off.  Virtually all drivers will sit in traffic/lights etc with engines running.  Ten years ago TfL had an anti idling campaign.  Little impact.  And few enforcement officers will take action when drivers are sitting their with engines running.

2.  SO2 emssions, like lead, are a success story in that sulphur (excuse the old school spelling) has been removed from transport fuels.  Pretty irrelevant to the general discussion.

3.  WHO may set lower PM air quality limits but the UK has to meet domestic law, which aligns with the EU and elsewhere, so councils could not go further and I don't see the UK doing this as a Brexit benefit, as it would potentially harm the UK motoring industry (interesting that the VW cheating scandal actually ended up in improving air quality as emissions standards were toughened.  Although having said this there may be tighter targets in the UK - poorly publicised air quality strategy, worth a read as this is directed at local authorities https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-air-quality-strategy-for-england/air-quality-strategy-framework-for-local-authority-delivery

4.  There are many other sources of poor air quality but for NO2 high roadside levels will be predominantly from traffic as other sources will be diluted.

5.  There has been good information through text alerts for those vulnerable to high levels of pollution for a decade or more.  eg https://www.airtext.info/

6.  It's all very complicated eg the effect of Ozone (a photo chemical reaction), still calm weather with low inversion height and low wind speeds that reduces dispersion over winter days and the like.  My understanding is rather rusty and quite peed off that this government are bad in putting information out (worse than earlier ones I dealt with).  You could cut local authorities a bit of slack.

I'm not commenting on Southwark's monitoring, others are far more aware.  But do read the air quality strategy link above, I'll spend some time on this.

 

 

 

 

[heartblock]

Again, if people want to discuss national strategy do this in the Lounge, this thread is about East Dulwich Street space Dashboard and the failure to update this information for over 6 months. Again I cannot believe that anyone living in East Dulwich is not interested in the levels of traffic and pollution on their doorstep. 

I suggest everyone contacts their local Councillor and asks for transparent and up to date information, at the very least on a quarterly basis. 

[malumbu]

Heartblock I was commenting on your earlier post.  Just some information that people may find interesting/helpful.

To correct myself as PM has been cut from motor traffic, other sources, and particularly in winter wood burners, are having a greater percentage impact.  That subject has been covered elsewhere.

The link to the government's air quality strategy is relevant, essentially getting local authorities to do the dirty work.

Worth looking at the national monitoring programme: https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/networks/network-info?view=aurn

Set up initially to determine national compliance with air quality standards. 

For reasons unknown there is no longer a monitoring station in Southwark  https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/interactive-map

And the London air quality monitoring programme https://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicbulletin.asp

Two monitoring stations in Southwark but Honor Oak is the nearest to SE22  - obv Honor Oak is in Lewisham

[CPR Dave]

On 16/05/2023 at 10:45, exdulwicher said:

Process of validation, time, resources, the fact that most people don't understand data anyway and it needs to be worked up into a presentable format showing clear information about pollution/traffic trends...

These are excuses, not reasons.

Put the unmanipulated raw data up and let people figure it out for themselves. 

[heartblock]

It’s important we know the amount of traffic and especially start-stop traffic on our local roads in East Dulwich as electric vehicles still pose a risk to health as they do not necessarily emit less PM2. 5 than internal combustion engine cars. (Although lightweight EVs emit an estimated 11-13% less PM2)

As has already been said - there are no excuses, we have a right to have accessibility to this data.

write to your local councillor demanding visibility and accountability