LTN Discussion

[Rockets]

  Bic Basher said:

  Quote

2. Pollution from vehicles must not be downplayed. It’s been 10 years since the death of 9 year old Ella because of acute asthma caused by air pollution. We should all know better by now. Clean air should be a human right for everyone. Hopefully a future Labour government will take decisive action on this. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/17/labour-plans-to-make-clean-air-a-human-right-with-new-legislation

 

The mother of Ella has said she's against LTNs because they drive traffic onto main roads such as the South Circular which was the cause of her daughter's death.

Dulwich Common (and Lordship Lane at the junction of it) have seen increased traffic since the Dulwich Village LTN was introduced as cars which used to filter down Court Lane now get stuck in queues reaching to/from the Village.

 

And forcing yet more traffic down main roads (which I remind you some of our local councillors have suggested is the rightful place for displaced traffic) is going to mean there are many more children suffering from the effects of increased pollution who happen to live on them - this is a point often overlooked/ignored by the pro-LTN lobby - we can't use some roads, and the people who live on them, as collateral damage in the fight for a reduction in pollution - how on earth is that fair?

[Earl Aelfheah]

I think most people would agree with the aim of reducing car use, pollution and congestion, and increasing the number of people who walk and cycle short journeys (clearly not everyone on this thread, but hopefully most). All the data gathered suggests that broadly, the Dulwich LTN has achieved these aims. It's not a panacea, and I'm only talking in aggregate (clearly there are some areas which have seen bigger reductions than others). But overall, it is very difficult to argue that it has not reduced the number of car journeys, and increased the number of people walking and cycling. I find it very difficult to understand people who would reverse those gains. Debate further localised improvements for sure - but those who just want more cars everywhere... I don't get it.

[malumbu]

Its called satire, irony, self deprecatory humour, banter etc my good person- surely I am not that subtle. Equating a survey of two as definitive fact, clearly isn't definitive fact.

Here's a comedy sketch to help me explain.

[heartblock]

Where is the up to date data? Currently not published.

I’m not sure this broadly successful holds. What is the particulate measure on boundary roads at peak travel time, what are the actual traffic numbers, now we are all aware that pneumatic traffic counters are inaccurate for idling traffic, as outlined by the manufacturers.

What has Southwark put in place for boundary roads - remember all the promises before the local election?

[Bic Basher]

We'll never know the truth because the counters don't add those stuck in traffic such as those outside my flat every day.

[ab29]

Petition to parliment for an independent review of so-called LTN:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/632748?fbclid=IwAR2p_ms8oI9Dv7NbEsjNydDUaVC01rPvFjH931sOudMWfZvasyWrXLzxb24

[KidKruger]

The problem is not just the traffic being forced onto main roads.

As those main roads become (have become) more congested than previously, they become less viable routes so alternative routes are taken by drivers in order to address the persistent delays on main roads.

This means that other (previously quieter) roads become more congested, with drivers rushing to make-up time and experiencing frustration (associated behaviours) as these smaller roads are clogged with cars coming both ways in their quest to achieve something like a reasonable journey time.

While I agree we all want a cleaner and safer environment, I do wonder where this displacement is acknowledged in the portrayal of 'success' of these schemes.

I am not convinced the measuring of these consequentially affected outlying roads was conducted before, or after, the schemes were implemented and therefore feel that declaration of success, failure, or any other outcome cannot be taken seriously. Increased traffic volumes, speeding increases and pressure points, on school / nursery roads no less, is not a win.

This is not withstanding other unmeasured / incorrectly sampled aspects of these schemes.

 

  Quote

  Bic Basher said:

  Quote

2. Pollution from vehicles must not be downplayed. It’s been 10 years since the death of 9 year old Ella because of acute asthma caused by air pollution. We should all know better by now. Clean air should be a human right for everyone. Hopefully a future Labour government will take decisive action on this. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/17/labour-plans-to-make-clean-air-a-human-right-with-new-legislation

 

The mother of Ella has said she's against LTNs because they drive traffic onto main roads such as the South Circular which was the cause of her daughter's death.

Dulwich Common (and Lordship Lane at the junction of it) have seen increased traffic since the Dulwich Village LTN was introduced as cars which used to filter down Court Lane now get stuck in queues reaching to/from the Village.

 

And forcing yet more traffic down main roads (which I remind you some of our local councillors have suggested is the rightful place for displaced traffic) is going to mean there are many more children suffering from the effects of increased pollution who happen to live on them - this is a point often overlooked/ignored by the pro-LTN lobby - we can't use some roads, and the people who live on them, as collateral damage in the fight for a reduction in pollution - how on earth is that fair?

[heartblock]

Yes interesting, since the LTNs there have been three serious accidents on East Dulwich Grove, so in the space of three years...in the preceding 30 years only one. As I do not deal in flawed statistics as some might, to ‘prove’ a belief it may be a correlation rather than causation.

Also an earlier poster used a tactic beloved of the right-wing of the LP - smear those you disagree with rather than argue your point and listen to the evidence from the opposing view. I can certainly say that the people I know are fully-vaxed, environmentally conscious and left- leaning individuals.

Silly smearing campaigns from either side of the discussion don’t elevate any discussion or solution. Ella’s Mum and the London Mayor disagree fundamentally on LTNs and the Silvertown tunnel but you do not see either of them smearing or insulting each other on MSM or SM, while they both strive to reduce air pollution via their belief about was is best.

[Earl Aelfheah]

What flawed statistics? You mean specific local vehicle counts, or the body of academic research on LTNs in general (all of which points to reductions in traffic and pollution where LTNs have been introduced...for example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920922003625)

[rjsmall]

  Quote

What flawed statistics? You mean specific local vehicle counts, or the body of academic research on LTNs in general (all of which points to reductions in traffic and pollution where LTNs have been introduced...for example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920922003625)

 

I don't see the problem with flawed statistics with that paper as they will just analyse the data provided to them. The issue is more likely to be with "traffic volume data provided by the local authority" If Islington have done similar to Southwark where traffic counters are placed in locations where traffic is too slowly moving to record accurate counts then it is worthless. The "garbage in - garbage out" principle applies.

[heartblock]

Exactly..the data set is flawed. I know that Rah x 3 would like think otherwise, but with some in-depth research of primary data and collection methods - they might see that if you count 500 rather than 1000 on an hourly basis during idling traffic at 'rush -hour' this may be flawed data in this instance.

It would be similar to researching a drug that 'cures' heart disease but only being able to measure an improvement in 20 -50- year-old-men, so ignoring all women and men over 50 and claiming success as over the whole population an improvement .... but maybe ignoring that actually all women and all men over 50 die at least two years earlier...or have no improvement and continue to suffer.

That is why Ella's Mum calls LTNs - lung apartheid - her words not mine. If you do not want to engage with why she believes this is her truth....then look at yourself.

[Rockets]

It is telling that in Aldred's latest LTN report she acknowledges the fact Enfield admitted that their counters were not recording accurately under 10kph but she stated that it was presumed other councils has not situated counters close to junctions and therefore the data supplied by the council's for her report was correct.

Perhaps she should spend some of the £1.5m she was given to prove LTNs are a rip roaring success checking where the monitoring strips are located and whether, as result, council data is accurate.

Anyone can take a brisk walk around Dulwich and see for themselves......

[Rockets]

  Quote

It is telling that in Aldred's latest LTN report she acknowledges the fact Enfield admitted that their counters were not recording accurately under 10kph but she stated that it was presumed other councils had not situated counters close to junctions and therefore the data supplied by council's for her report was accurate.

Perhaps she should spend some of the £1.5m she was given to prove LTNs are a rip roaring success checking where the monitoring strips are located and whether, as result, council data is an accurate reflection of what is happening or not.

Anyone can take a brisk walk around Dulwich and see for themselves that most monitoring strips are located close to junctions and choke points to ensure a lot of traffic is moving at under 10kph when it crosses them......

[Bic Basher]

Clean Air Dulwich want the chicane at Greendale removed, which will only increase the amount of mopeds using it as a ratrun.

What next? Remove the chicanes at both ends of Fireman's Alley?

[Earl Aelfheah]

  Quote

Exactly..the data set is flawed. I know that Rah x 3 would like think otherwise, but with some in-depth research of primary data and collection methods - they might see that if you count 500 rather than 1000 on an hourly basis during idling traffic at 'rush -hour' this may be flawed data in this instance.

It would be similar to researching a drug that 'cures' heart disease but only being able to measure an improvement in 20 -50- year-old-men, so ignoring all women and men over 50 and claiming success as over the whole population an improvement .... but maybe ignoring that actually all women and all men over 50 die at least two years earlier...or have no improvement and continue to suffer.

 

 

So where is the academic research that suggests LTNs are increasing pollution on boundary roads, or leading to increases in traffic, or reductions in active travel? There is a fairly significant (and growing) body of evidence pointing to the benefits of LTNs, but no academic papers that I have seen that have reached the opposite conclusion. Whilst you might reasonably critique any particular, individual piece of research, are you going to ignore the evolving and quite clear picture across a whole body of analysis? The paper I linked to actually took particulate counts as well as vehicle counts. Are you dismissing that data as 'faulty'? And yet you've posted links to unsourced pamphlets on this thread and presented it as 'evidence' whilst talking about academic rigour. Your confirmation bias is so clear for anyone to see.

[Earl Aelfheah]

...if you dismiss vehicle counts taken before, during and after implementation. And dismiss particulate monitoring. And ignore modelling. It is very difficult to see what evidence you would possibly accept. All that is left is your conviction that LTNs don't work. I accept that from some people, but you have repeatedly played up your academic / scientific credentials.

[Rockets]

  Bic Basher said:

Clean Air Dulwich want the chicane at Greendale removed, which will only increase the amount of mopeds using it as a ratrun.

What next? Remove the chicanes at both ends of Fireman's Alley?

 

Clean Air Dulwich are just never happy are they - all that moaning about everything must be very emotionally draining? ;-)

Do they ever stop to consider why barriers like that were put there in the first place?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Irony is not dead eh Rockets.

[Rockets]

  Quote

...if you dismiss vehicle counts taken before, during and after implementation. And dismiss particulate monitoring. And ignore modelling. It is very difficult to see what evidence you would possibly accept. All that is left is your conviction that LTNs don't work. I accept that from some people, but you have repeatedly played up your academic / scientific credentials.

 

Rahx3 - there is no research on that because no-one has paid Rachel Aldred to research it and come to that conclusion! ;-) She is paid to come to the opposite conclusion.

The challenge remains that Aldred's research is based on numbers given to her by councils (who are keen to show the LTNs are working) based on monitoring that she, herself, suggests may not be accurate if the monitoring strips are placed close to junctions (she doesn't say this directly but that is the clear from her last report). It's a mystery to me why academics working on this can't ask the councils for details of where the strips are located and determine this - surely that should be part of the due-diligence of any piece of research - there seems to be a lot of "trust in the numbers" which may not be warranted?

It's clear a lot of the Dulwich LTN monitoring strips are placed close to junctions and Enfield is the only council to admit that their data is not accurate on the basis of that. So there is a more than a chance, wouldn't you say, that Southwark's monitoring numbers may not be a true reflection of reality and therefore Aldred's research based on potentially inaccurate date?

[Rockets]

  Quote

Irony is not dead eh Rockets.

 

Can anyone hazard a guess as to why the barriers might have been put there in the first place?

[Spartacus]

Rockets raises a good point

Someone truly independent of both camps needs to conduct an independent study using their own measuring equipment to truly put the argument to bed one way or the other.

Having councils, who have a vested interest, supply data is part of the issue and using people who are pro one view to write the study will always result in questions over impartiality.

[heartblock]

That piece of research would be expensive and longitudinal .... it will not happen as anyone with meat in the game has no interest in ‘proving’ LTNs do not reduce pollution as over a Null hypothesis.

[Bic Basher]

  Quote

  Quote

Irony is not dead eh Rockets.

 

Can anyone hazard a guess as to why the barriers might have been put there in the first place?

 

It's the wrong type of barrier for them. They want cargo bikes to have full access to Greendale, yet it raises concerns of anti-social behaviour with mopeds being worse as it gives out the wrong message to them.

So it's fine for petrol mopeds to speed up and down a path shared by pedestrians and cyclists, but not for emergency services and blue badge holders to use the Calton Avenue/Court Lane junction.

[first mate]

This reminds me of one of the early cycling activists on here who objected to mobility scooters in cycle lanes, as this would slow down cyclists. They felt mobility scooters should go into bus lanes or on footpaths!

[Spartacus]

Guess the Mayor really is making it easier to give up your car 🫣

BBC News - London buses: 12 million miles cut since 2016, data shows

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64743139