I use the P13 regularly and I know how frustrating it can be. The biggest issue I consistently experience is buses getting stuck when cars are turning out of Ryedale. That is almost always where delays occur.
I struggle to understand how removing one feeder road into Underhill would increase traffic on Underhill itself. The broader point still stands: reducing the ability to cut through residential streets will push drivers back onto larger roads.
Navigation apps like Google Maps have completely changed how people drive. Cut-through routes used to rely on local knowledge, but now they are available to everyone. That behaviour needs to be discouraged, and traffic should be directed back onto main roads where it belongs.
I agree that the lack of improvements to public transport is frustrating, but that should not stop us from making progress where we can.
I’ve just read more about LTNs, and you’re right, I’ve seen them mentioned in the news. So far, I’ve stayed out of the debate because it can feel quite hostile.
I tend to presume councils have their residents’ best interests at heart, because they have no reason not to. Councils aren’t private companies; they exist to represent and look after the community. However, it seems like they haven't been very open or communivative about this. Which is bad.
My faith in humanity aside, the more I read about LTNs, the more I find it hard to see any real downsides, especially when looking at provable, peer-reviewed results rather than local hearsay.
There is actual academic research on whether LTNs in London reduce pollution or just make it worse, and the evidence shows clearly that they do reduce pollution overall, not just push it to other streets. The numbers don't lie.
One study by Imperial College London looked at three LTNs in Islington and found that polution levels dropped by about 5.7% inside the LTNs and by nearly 9% on the boundary streets compared with control sites. Traffic also fell by more than half inside the LTNs and by 13% at the boundaries. This shows the schemes lowered pollution without displacing it to neighbouring roads. So Dunstans would actually see a reduction in both pollution and traffic, not an increase. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/241731/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-reduce-pollution-surrounding-streets/
There is also research on driving behaviour in Lambeth that shows residents in four new LTNs introduced in 2020 cut their driving by about 6% overall, which is roughly 1.3 km less per day per vehicle than people in nearby areas without LTNs. So people would be less tempted to drive locally if they don't need to, leaving the roads clearer for people that may have mobility issues or need to drive. https://www.westminster.ac.uk/news/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-in-london-borough-cut-daily-driving-among-residents-by-13km-research-finds (University of Westminster)
The evidence does not support the idea that traffic will be displaced onto Dunstans. On the contrary, it confirms the intention of the scheme: to encourage drivers using Google Maps to stick to main roads, discourage unnecessary driving, and do so without penalising people who genuinely need to drive.
Either way, I fear they may have cancelled the plan, because I haven't seen any work happening. Which is a shame, because instead of a potentially imperfect plan being trialed, nothing will be done, and the whole area will continue to be a noisy, polluted rat run. Which benefits no one.
So again, if you’ve opposed this plan, I’d genuinely ask you to reconsider and possibly send positive messages/posts. Let’s prioritise the people that live here over convenience for non-residential traffic.
