LTN Discussion

[DuncanW]

They're not narrow margins - even in Dulwich Village

[Jellybeanz]

march46 Wrote:

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

> I notice that as well as the Dulwich schemes being

> made permanent, there are several other London

> boroughs announcing similar this week. A positive

> start to 2022.

>

> Lambeth - Railton and Oval

> https://twitter.com/lambethlivingst/status/1478727

> 399298809858?s=21

> Lewisham - Lewisham and Lee Green

> https://twitter.com/lewishamcouncil/status/1478450

> 423484792849?s=21

> Enfield - Bowes

> https://twitter.com/enfieldcouncil/status/14783257

> 82736945160?s=21

I think the principle idea of LTNs is a good one BUT I do not think they work in certain areas / for certain streets. In ED they have undoubtedly caused more traffic and pollution on the main roads, which are jammed esp at peak times.

Yes you can argue more people now walk or cycle but was that just a lockdown effect when many (myself included) could work from home as the office wasn't open and thus have more time as no longer commuting.

Monitors are showing pollution has increased on main roads and as we know Lordship Lane and many other well used roads, especially A roads like the south circular, have residents who deserve consideration too, as they will be breathing in more heavily polluted air.

We used to live near the junction of Lordship Lane and Dulwich Common and my husband had heart problems as a result of breathing polluted air. The health issues disappeared when we moved on to a side road.

I think we all need to be more understanding towards the other side here and those who have "won" on having LTN road closures made permanent need to check themselves (why are you in favour? is it personal gain as you live on a road that has been closed to vehicles or is it because you think the wider population has benefited?) and look at what those against or in favour (depending on your side) are saying.

Many businesses have been badly affected by LTNs. Callow Locksmiths for example have moved from Melbourne Grove to Lordship Lane as they weren't getting the passing trade. Yes the kids at Charter East benefit from walking down a safer road but once they have walked a few minutes they are back on Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove / Grove Vale anyway.

I personally am against the LTNs as they slow down public transport having caused more vehicles to use main roads. I like the idea of less traffic but LTNs do not force people to stop using their cars, they simply take a different route.

[kissthisguy]

Ahem. 260ish votes is a narrow margin in Southwark. In 2018 DV was a fairly even three-way split owing to brexit. The Tory vote took a big ding (Windrush also a factor), the LDs made a good showing based on an explicit anti brexit platform and the jury was still out (or rather the Labour party was fence-sitting) on their version of Brexit. Many people 'lent' Labour their vote that time round. Obviously LTNs are a divisive policy. Those on closed road win with lowered air pollution, a house price boost and the ability to have an even better car-owning experience (car ownership on those roads is high). Those on displacement routes suffer from worsened air quality, noise pollution and a very real possibility of worsened physical and mental health. Others who do not directly benefit or lose out may be impacted by longer bus journey times etc. As Rockets says, it will matter for some how cllrs have handled an admittedly difficult issue and I get the feeling that in DV people are pretty fed up - and in that context, 260ish votes is a margin that begins to look uncomfortably thin.

DuncanW Wrote:

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

> They're not narrow margins - even in Dulwich

> Village

[kissthisguy]

@jellybeanz agree with all you have said above. In addition: making journeys longer (and often slower) cannot possibly be a climate emergency measure, as claimed.

[ab29]

Wholeheartedly agree with the below, being negatively impacted by the road closures.

"Monitors are showing pollution has increased on main roads and as we know Lordship Lane and many other well used roads, especially A roads like the south circular, have residents who deserve consideration too, as they will be breathing in more heavily polluted air."

"Those on closed road win with lowered air pollution, a house price boost and the ability to have an even better car-owning experience (car ownership on those roads is high.

Those on displacement routes suffer from worsened air quality, noise pollution and a very real possibility of worsened physical and mental health. Others who do not directly benefit or lose out may be impacted by longer bus journey times etc."

[Rockets]

kissthisguy Wrote:

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

> Ahem. 260ish votes is a narrow margin in

> Southwark. In 2018 DV was a fairly even three-way

> split owing to brexit. The Tory vote took a big

> ding (Windrush also a factor), the LDs made a good

> showing based on an explicit anti brexit platform

> and the jury was still out (or rather the Labour

> party was fence-sitting) on their version of

> Brexit. Many people 'lent' Labour their vote that

> time round. Obviously LTNs are a divisive policy.

> Those on closed road win with lowered air

> pollution, a house price boost and the ability to

> have an even better car-owning experience (car

> ownership on those roads is high). Those on

> displacement routes suffer from worsened air

> quality, noise pollution and a very real

> possibility of worsened physical and mental

> health. Others who do not directly benefit or lose

> out may be impacted by longer bus journey times

> etc. As Rockets says, it will matter for some how

> cllrs have handled an admittedly difficult issue

> and I get the feeling that in DV people are pretty

> fed up - and in that context, 260ish votes is a

> margin that begins to look uncomfortably thin.

>

>

> DuncanW Wrote:

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

> -----

> > They're not narrow margins - even in Dulwich

> > Village

Many fail to realise that a lot of the people who are supposed to be benefitting the most (i.e. those living within the area seeing a reduction in traffic) are actually against the measures. There is a lot of anti-LTN sentiment on Woodwarde, Dovercourt, Druce, Court Lane etc and if that translates into votes against the incumbent councillors then those majorities become negligible.

I also think there will be a bigger turnout on the basis of the LTNs and if the 2/3rd against ratio seen in the consultation turns into votes then it's goodbye Labour councillors. People aren't as protective with their council votes and people flip-flop between parties a lot more than they do in general elections and often use their votes to send a message to the national parties.

What is clear is that the LTNs have massively damaged Labour councillor's reputations in the area - not only in the implementation but also in the way they are dealing with constituents who don't agree with them. Cllr Leeming's twitter feed is a salutary lesson in how not to win friends and influence people over LTNs!

[goldilocks]

As its been a while...

this is your regular reminder that (if you're using this thread as any kind of source of info rather than just the usual suspects arguing) there is no council data showing increased pollution on major roads.

Some groups opposed to LTNs have done their own monitoring, and some people have used individual peak data and quoted this against maximum averages.

Caveat emptor

Jellybeanz Wrote:

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

> march46 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I notice that as well as the Dulwich schemes

> being

> > made permanent, there are several other London

> > boroughs announcing similar this week. A

> positive

> > start to 2022.

> >

> > Lambeth - Railton and Oval

> >

> https://twitter.com/lambethlivingst/status/1478727

>

> > 399298809858?s=21

> > Lewisham - Lewisham and Lee Green

> >

> https://twitter.com/lewishamcouncil/status/1478450

>

> > 423484792849?s=21

> > Enfield - Bowes

> >

> https://twitter.com/enfieldcouncil/status/14783257

>

> > 82736945160?s=21

>

> I think the principle idea of LTNs is a good one

> BUT I do not think they work in certain areas /

> for certain streets. In ED they have undoubtedly

> caused more traffic and pollution on the main

> roads, which are jammed esp at peak times.

>

> Yes you can argue more people now walk or cycle

> but was that just a lockdown effect when many

> (myself included) could work from home as the

> office wasn't open and thus have more time as no

> longer commuting.

>

> Monitors are showing pollution has increased on

> main roads and as we know Lordship Lane and many

> other well used roads, especially A roads like the

> south circular, have residents who deserve

> consideration too, as they will be breathing in

> more heavily polluted air.

>

> We used to live near the junction of Lordship Lane

> and Dulwich Common and my husband had heart

> problems as a result of breathing polluted air.

> The health issues disappeared when we moved on to

> a side road.

>

> I think we all need to be more understanding

> towards the other side here and those who have

> "won" on having LTN road closures made permanent

> need to check themselves (why are you in favour?

> is it personal gain as you live on a road that has

> been closed to vehicles or is it because you think

> the wider population has benefited?) and look at

> what those against or in favour (depending on your

> side) are saying.

>

> Many businesses have been badly affected by LTNs.

> Callow Locksmiths for example have moved from

> Melbourne Grove to Lordship Lane as they weren't

> getting the passing trade. Yes the kids at Charter

> East benefit from walking down a safer road but

> once they have walked a few minutes they are back

> on Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove / Grove

> Vale anyway.

>

> I personally am against the LTNs as they slow down

> public transport having caused more vehicles to

> use main roads. I like the idea of less traffic

> but LTNs do not force people to stop using their

> cars, they simply take a different route.

[Rockets]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> As its been a while...

>

> this is your regular reminder that (if you're

> using this thread as any kind of source of info

> rather than just the usual suspects arguing) there

> is no council data showing increased pollution on

> major roads.

>

> Some groups opposed to LTNs have done their own

> monitoring, and some people have used individual

> peak data and quoted this against maximum

> averages.

>

> Caveat emptor

>

>

>

>

> Jellybeanz Wrote:

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

> -----

> > march46 Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > I notice that as well as the Dulwich schemes

> > being

> > > made permanent, there are several other

> London

> > > boroughs announcing similar this week. A

> > positive

> > > start to 2022.

> > >

> > > Lambeth - Railton and Oval

> > >

> >

> https://twitter.com/lambethlivingst/status/1478727

>

> >

> > > 399298809858?s=21

> > > Lewisham - Lewisham and Lee Green

> > >

> >

> https://twitter.com/lewishamcouncil/status/1478450

>

> >

> > > 423484792849?s=21

> > > Enfield - Bowes

> > >

> >

> https://twitter.com/enfieldcouncil/status/14783257

>

> >

> > > 82736945160?s=21

> >

> > I think the principle idea of LTNs is a good

> one

> > BUT I do not think they work in certain areas /

> > for certain streets. In ED they have

> undoubtedly

> > caused more traffic and pollution on the main

> > roads, which are jammed esp at peak times.

> >

> > Yes you can argue more people now walk or cycle

> > but was that just a lockdown effect when many

> > (myself included) could work from home as the

> > office wasn't open and thus have more time as

> no

> > longer commuting.

> >

> > Monitors are showing pollution has increased on

> > main roads and as we know Lordship Lane and

> many

> > other well used roads, especially A roads like

> the

> > south circular, have residents who deserve

> > consideration too, as they will be breathing in

> > more heavily polluted air.

> >

> > We used to live near the junction of Lordship

> Lane

> > and Dulwich Common and my husband had heart

> > problems as a result of breathing polluted air.

> > The health issues disappeared when we moved on

> to

> > a side road.

> >

> > I think we all need to be more understanding

> > towards the other side here and those who have

> > "won" on having LTN road closures made

> permanent

> > need to check themselves (why are you in

> favour?

> > is it personal gain as you live on a road that

> has

> > been closed to vehicles or is it because you

> think

> > the wider population has benefited?) and look

> at

> > what those against or in favour (depending on

> your

> > side) are saying.

> >

> > Many businesses have been badly affected by

> LTNs.

> > Callow Locksmiths for example have moved from

> > Melbourne Grove to Lordship Lane as they

> weren't

> > getting the passing trade. Yes the kids at

> Charter

> > East benefit from walking down a safer road but

> > once they have walked a few minutes they are

> back

> > on Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove / Grove

> > Vale anyway.

> >

> > I personally am against the LTNs as they slow

> down

> > public transport having caused more vehicles to

> > use main roads. I like the idea of less traffic

> > but LTNs do not force people to stop using

> their

> > cars, they simply take a different route.

And that might be because the council has not released any pollution monitoring data. The only report on pollution levels they have released is based on modelling and that modelling concluded that there were negligible differences in pollution.

Here is an excerpt:

Using the EPUK IAQM criteria, the changes in concentrations at school locations in the scheme area are classed as Negligible.

For the majority of building fa?ade locations along scheme roads, the changes in concentration are classed as Negligible. Non-negligible impacts at building fa?ade locations are predicted for annual average NO2 concentrations in areas shown in Figure 1.1. Areas where Beneficial impacts (air quality improves) or Adverse impacts (air quality worsens) are predicted include:

? Moderate Beneficial and Slight Beneficial impacts on Grove Vale, from Vale End to Elsie Road and Ondine Road to East Dulwich Road

? Slight Beneficial impact on Melbourne Grove, for an 80 m section of road from the junction with Grove Vale

? Slight Beneficial impact on Calton Avenue, from Court Lane to Woodwarde Road

? Slight Adverse impact on East Dulwich Grove, from Lordship Lane to Matham Grove

What I can?t get my head around is the council is heralding supposed area wide reductions in traffic, what did they claim % wise in their infographic - was it 10%, yet their modelling suggests it is having limited impact on pollution. Surely pollution reductions should be in line with supposed reductions in actual journeys, unless of course there is more congestion? Does anyone know?

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

The beneficial or adverse impacts you're talking about above are measured at specific points on specific roads - it's not discussing aggregate pollution going into the atmosphere.

[northernmonkey]

One of the problems of trying to correlate traffic falls and air pollution falls precisely is that there isn?t a 1:1 correlation. Pollution isn?t static, it moves around. It?s affected by the weather, the buildings, tree cover etc. pm2.5 is caused not only by road traffic by locally by burning solid fuels. What is clear is that by reducing traffic we reduce pollution and yes, that?s by eliminating journeys. But as noted above there is no data that shows pollution has increased on the areas suggested in this thread

[Rockets]

But clearly not if the council's modelling is correct: the LTNs aren't delivering against their stated objectives.

There seems to be a lot of ifs, buts and maybes and more caveats than Boris trying to explain who furnished his flat when it comes to objective analysis on whether they are delivering what was promised.

[kissthisguy]

I'm not sure about claims re pollution not increasing. The data picture is very patchy and therefore should come with a serious health warning.

1)The A205 (south circular) was not included in the monitoring and as anyone who has to use it will tell you, it is far worse in terms of congestion since the LTNs. This means that claims that overall traffic in the area is down* comes with a big red flag.

2)IIRC what the (part-modelled? part measured) council monitoring showed was that pollution at was the same or up. If traffic is down, you would expect pollution to also be down. If it's the same or up, that must be attributable to the road closures. No surprise - the LTNs have increased journey miles and emissions and those lengthened miles have not been offset by modal shift.

3)*traffic can appear to go down while pollution simultaneously goes up. This is because what is being measured is traffic flow, ie the number of cars to pass a certain point over a certain time period. So what Croxted road is seeing is "traffic down" as Cllr Leeming has said, but this is because it's often moving very slowly or at a standstill. Emissions / pollutions will be up, significantly so.

But away from the data picking (and the council has clearly been cherry picking to present the best possible case to justify a decision it made when it instituted the closures), what matters is people, and harm. What is not up for dispute is the incredible harm pollution does. There are 85,000 global peer-reviewed, robust academic studies on air pollution, it's effects on physical (cardiovascular, lung etc) and mental health. Even small increases in exposure have significant effects. For example even a 3 microgram increase per m3 in NO2 has serious implications for mental health conditions such as depression and psychosis - according to a study conducted in 2020 in Lambeth and Southwark) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/24/small-increases-in-air-pollution-linked-to-rise-in-depression-finds-study So we know that small increases are damaging; they often happen on roads that are already illegally polluted, therefore harm is compounded. Lessening pollution on side streets (with within legal limits of air pollution) to further harm those so clearly already in danger is an odd thing to condone and justify.

[kissthisguy]

Northern monkey is right about pollution not being static of course. There's evidence to show that pollution's effect on London's TFL red routes extend to 150m each side of the road. If you live at either end of Melbourne Grove / Derwent you probably have worse pollution owing to the congestion created on Grove Vale / EDG.

[heartblock]

"This is because what is being measured is traffic flow, ie the number of cars to pass a certain point over a certain time period. So what Croxted road is seeing is "traffic down" as Cllr Leeming has said, but this is because it's often moving very slowly or at a standstill. Emissions / pollutions will be up, significantly so."

Exactly right - if traffic is moving slowly, static and/or idling, emissions go up but traffic counts go down - this is why traffic counts are used to prove that LTNs 'work' but the journey times of vehicles (including buses) and close monitoring of pollutants are not used.

Much like car ownership reduction being used to 'prove' less car use.

One obviously does not equate to the other.

Thank you admin for the new thread - the old one was becoming littered with personal attacks from all sides. Hopefully we can all keep to the theme and discuss statistics, pollution, consultations in a more considered manner.

[march46]

?Congestion created? - odd comment given data shows Grove Vale traffic volumes are significantly down, 14% from memory.

kissthisguy Wrote:

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

> Northern monkey is right about pollution not being

> static of course. There's evidence to show that

> pollution's effect on London's TFL red routes

> extend to 150m each side of the road. If you live

> at either end of Melbourne Grove / Derwent you

> probably have worse pollution owing to the

> congestion created on Grove Vale / EDG.

[Rockets]

Which is what a lot of the anti-LTN voices have been saying since these ludicrous plans were first mooted....if you're not getting significant (as in 50%) reductions in traffic any potential gains are wiped out because more cars are trying to get down fewer roads and travelling more slowly thus creating more pollution.

It didn't take a rocket scientist to predict that would be the outcome and, from the council's own modelling, it looks like it is likely to be happening (despite their head in the sand suggestion in the pollution report that the measures are working).

[kissthisguy]

Not odd in the least - congestion is up therefore counts are registering fewer cars. (As explained above).

Interesting that the council did not release any active travel data, when it has a Vivacity monitor (the machine captures car, LGV, HGV, cycle and pedestrian counts) at Goose Green roundabout. Yet another piece of the jigsaw missing...

march46 Wrote:

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

> ?Congestion created? - odd comment given data

> shows Grove Vale traffic volumes are significantly

> down, 14% from memory.

>

>

> kissthisguy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Northern monkey is right about pollution not

> being

> > static of course. There's evidence to show that

> > pollution's effect on London's TFL red routes

> > extend to 150m each side of the road. If you

> live

> > at either end of Melbourne Grove / Derwent you

> > probably have worse pollution owing to the

> > congestion created on Grove Vale / EDG.

[kissthisguy]

Moral of the story is pneumatic cord ATC counts can only tell you so much. What they don't do is tell you about congestion. Unless you understand congestion, you can't understand harm (aka the most important element of all of this).

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

The problem is not with a lack of data. We are knee-deep in data. The problem is that people don't understand the data and/or don't want to believe the data because it doesn't align with their preferences.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/traffic_flow_and_volume_data_for?utm_campaign=alaveteli-experiments-87&utm_content=sidebar_similar_requests&utm_medium=link&utm_source=whatdotheyknow

[kissthisguy]

Humour me, then, and direct me to congestion data in what you've posted?

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> The problem is not with a lack of data. We are

> knee-deep in data. The problem is that people

> don't understand the data and/or don't want to

> believe the data because it doesn't align with

> their preferences.

>

> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/traffic_flo

> w_and_volume_data_for?utm_campaign=alaveteli-exper

> iments-87&utm_content=sidebar_similar_requests&utm

> _medium=link&utm_source=whatdotheyknow

[northernmonkey]

Sorry what - traffic is down 14% on grove vale and you?re claiming that?s because it?s more congested so not counted?

You?ve got to see that written down that sounds insane?

[heartblock]

Hopefully we can all keep to the theme and discuss statistics, pollution, consultations in a more considered manner.

[kissthisguy]

The reason I'm unconvinced about traffic being 14% down on Grove Vale is that it makes no sense (unless congestion) given daily traffic counts on A2216 Grove Ln Sth are up significantly.

The Champion Hill scheme is interesting in that the council has claimed an increase of just 6% on Grove Lane Sth, which leads on from DKHill. However, this figure fails to take into account the cumulative impacts of the 2019 (approx 600 cars) and later 2020/21 Champion Hill trials (686). The true figure is an increase of approx 1300 cars though some estimates go as high at 1500, or 15.8%. Will look into this discrepancy.

That increase isn't coming from Peckham as there's no right turn from Grove Hill Road. And of course there's no left turn from Champion Hill. It's also not just a southbound increase. So it's coming in part from Grove Vale / DKH. I walk, cycle and get the bus enough in the area to tell you it is far more congested than previously. But happy to be proved wrong if you can show me the congestion data. As I say, ATCs don't tell the whole story.

[kissthisguy]

Amen.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Hopefully we can all keep to the theme and discuss

> statistics, pollution, consultations in a more

> considered manner.

[northernmonkey]

What is the northbound only increase for grove lane south (assume just past the lights at the top of dog kennel hill) for September 2021 please. I haven?t seen the data split out in that way so interested to see the scale of the increase you note.