heartblock

When someone publishes research with: empirical data and double-blinded analysis on a pre and post methodology that proves that pollution over a specified area that includes boundary roads and LTNs, proves a significant drop in overall car, exhaust and tyre wear pollution post implementation - I will cross the Rubicon and become a very vocal advocate of LTNs.

I think the onus is on those applying the 'treatment' to prove that it does no harm, not on the patient who has been forced onto the treatment without consent. You sound like an ancient quack blood-letting to do some good. 'go on, prove that this doesn't work' - Good try Dr. Sea-lion. But....... as you asked so nicely, Prof. Alfred and Dr. Goodman's Longitudinal study into mini-Holland scheme, the 'poster-boy/girl' of every subsequent scheme found........ No evidence either way of change in car use associated with interventions So, that's one for you Dr. Sea-Lion. Do you want the link? I'm sure you have already read it though.. I bet you loved the bit where they talked about 'perceived' improvements in cycling. We love it when 'perception' replaces actual data... especially when applying leeches.

Mr. Chicken seems to be a seal-lion and not poultry. 'Lessons learnt' in both the articles that are available are not primary research, but conclusions based on meta-analysis (the third article appears to be a Childs drawing) and neither article is about LTNs but a variety of measures to reduce car use - many of them seemingly very sensible. Again do upload the primary, empirical research that proves LTNs reduce pollution and car-miles travelled. As this is a health-intervention - as promoted by LTN advocates - then we should all expect the same research standard as a pharmaceutical drug or procedure. First do no harm. Second have a positive effect.

Remind me of the research that empirically proves LTNs reduce pollution and car USE/ congestion and pollution? Car use was dropping in London pre-Covid (TFL data) and cycling was increasing (TFL data), traffic was not increasing on minor roads TFL data in response to FOI request when ‘increasing traffic on minor roads’ was used by Councils to justify LTNs on minor roads - TFL later admitted the ‘increase’ was due to an administrative exercise and in fact traffic on minor rds was stable and in some cases reducing. There was an increase in traffic and congestion on larger rds though.... LTNs really are green-washing, and actually make an excuse that something is being done, it’s a bit like huge companies having carbon offsets to excuse their polluting activities, bring in ULEZ, bring in cheap, reliable publicly owned and I would encourage free at the point of use public transport, also close all private schools and get kids to go to fully funded and locally accessible state run schools. LTNs are centrist pish.

There is NO evidence that School streets and LTNs discourage parents of private schoolchildren to drive. The older ‘research’ on evaporating traffic was based on local car ownership and interviews with local residents active travel. Not ACTUAL traffic on boundary rds. The recent research that claimed traffic reduction on boundary rds was flawed as many rds inside LTNs were erroneously classified as boundary rds outside of LTNs. Pish

The thing is..it’s not simple because parents, carers do. The whole evaporation thing is complete pish. I cycled or walked to school, the problem here in ED is the private school catchment area and poor PTAL in that same catchment area. Southwark Council did not factor in private school traffic in their ‘plan’ because there was no plan. I never see kids dropped off at the non-private school on ED Grove but JAGs, Alleyn’s and the School on Half Moon are a joke....parents parked illegally and idling in their very large cars, transporting one child. The parents are not local and really don’t care about polluting my road. The real story is that In ED and Dulwich there has been high levels of active travel for years, which has been increasing steadily. School streets are a great idea, but when mixed with large numbers of poorly conceived LTNs and selfish non-locals transporting one child to a private school it impacts residents negatively.

It's always framed as 'anti' or 'against' when anyone dares mention traffic on another road, parents terrible parking, idling engines. School-streets well planned - great. School streets poorly planned with no mitigation for parent's selfishness - not so great. It's important to understand cause and effect. It's also important to understand the major schools streets in ED are Croxted and East Dulwich Grove - so what has been planned for these roads to help with routes to school....mmmhhh?

Professor Aldred was on the LCC committee that promoted and pushed for LTNs. The minutes also describe the 'sacrificial roads' indicating that traffic should be diverted to these areas to give cyclists roads with no or very little traffic. In those minutes 'evaporation' not mentioned, but increasing traffic on larger (and residential roads with low income, high BAME residents and low car ownership) roads deemed suitable for increased traffic and pollution, so that mainly white. middle-class and wealthier cyclists could have low traffic journeys. Safe routes - yes, increase in PT - yes, planned areas of low traffic - yes, encourging walking, cycling and PT use- yes. Diverting polluting traffic to poorer and high density housing areas with high BAME... go reflect on yourself. Do the research - the minutes exist.

I thought that cars evaporated.....

No, no numbers, bit busy with the full-time job... trying to stop people dying of cardio-respiratory disease... ....but I imagine Southwark haven't researched that piece of work either. One can be a homeowner and still be financially burdened. Weirdly rental is so expensive in ED, I imagine one has to be earning quite a lot. Landlords pass on costs to their renters, so however you look at it, there is an issue. I have asked McAsh about trade permits .. about two years ago, and trade parking spaces... it was all ''yes, yes, a good idea.. yes, yes - I can see it's an issue'' shortly before the Council elections when asking for my vote.... and then... nothing. ED Grove could host about 4 x trade parking spaces very easily and all residents would welcome a few 'free' (well not free, we all pay council tax) guest passes. We all have boilers that break, windows that need fixing, etc. etc. why should people in flats and terraces be charged, while those with off-site parking have the privilege of not paying. Oh if only I lived in Gilkes Crescent - with my three vehicles stored on - the road, my garage and my drive.. and the fourth in my second home in Suffolk/ Lake District/ Norfolk...how lovely, and a lovely traffic free road, with a future park on the corner. Southwark Labour Party Council - serving the wealthiest in the borough, while charging the poorest. It's definitely Marxist ....sorry Socialist...ooooops .. no maybe Centrist?

My main issue with CPZ (and I do support the principle) is that someone with a 2-3 million pound house with off-Street parking and a garage can have a trade come and work on a bathroom, kitchen and not pay for parking. If I or anyone else in a flat with no off-Street parking and work across a month we have to pay guest parking for 20 days. So a tax on the poorest. And no trades will not pay... the customer pays. Southwark should give all residents in flats or terraces with no off-street parking 20 days of free ‘guest’ passes, to at least address some levelling up. The more Southwark Council spends on the community, the more I see benefits for the wealthiest in our Borough and less for the poorest. Labour is no longer a Socialist endeavour.

More money spent on those poor..poor people living in Dulwich Village, for another 'park' in Gilkes Place...well, it's a terrible life owning a 2-3 million pound house, with a garage, 3 cars, an enormous garden and a second home....with an additional car there of course..

Maybe poultry only vote on one policy? It's not a difficult concept - one considers all the policies and one votes for the candidate /party who aligns most favourably. I actually voted for McAsh .... as apart from his stance on LTNs I agreed with almost everything he expressed and at the time I held out some hope he would address the traffic issues and other neighbourhood problems on East Dulwich Grove - all promised at my door pre-local elections. And yes LibDems and Greens far more progressive than Labour now, so it will be very easy to not vote for Kid Starver and the LPs dodgy NHS and fossil fuel policies in the main elections or LP in the Council election. Apart from LTNs I'm very much aligned to the Green Parties policies (I know of course us anti-LTNers are all raving right-wing, petrol guzzling, anti-vax, climate deniers according to some...) As for my Road - even Southwark recorded a 20% increase in traffic on their dashboard and an increase in travel time for the 37 bus.... but that dashboard has now not been updated for over a year... so who knows? Traffic still terrible during school terms. It would be really nice for Southwark to turn its attention to the traffic issues on Croxted, ED Grove, Lordship Lane where people live, walk, cycle, go to school. But no - and this is the issue with LTNs and why they are Green-Washing, shove in an LTN, on some already reasonably traffic free roads (the excuse for LTNs being an 'increase' of traffic on minor roads - debunked by TFL itself as that 'increase' was due to a different counting exercise being introduced - traffic was actually reducing on minor roads before Covid!) and then just ignore issues on roads that actually have high density housing, schools and bus routes and high NOx and PM levels... Job Done apparently - ridiculous policy.

Why would I vote Tory in a Council election, it’s about more than LTNs. I actually voted for two Green Party and one Labour.. but all Green next election. Some people believe that LTNs are green-washing and a diversion from real policies to tackle climate change and pollution - why do you think it was a Conservative policy? Do you really think a Boris policy has rigour and is thoroughly thought out. From all published and observed evidence I have seen, LTNs may even increase pollution due to causing idling traffic and making journeys longer. ULEZ is great, but does need a better scheme for people needing to buy new cars and/or some more thought on local cheap public transport in areas of low PTAL.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day - LTNs are green-washing, Sunak reviewing them for the wrong reasons, but fine by me. Should be reviewing them as no evidence that they reduce air pollution and I have only seen a marked increase in traffic and idling cars on Croxted and ED Grove. Won't make me vote Tory... but will vote Green for some REAL Green policies.

Is there a timeline for the response from James McAsh?

The 'car' liberated many women. When the privileged among us had the carriage .... the poor wouldn't travel, women didn't travel on their own - it's a complicated relationship with the internal combustion engine. I support Just Stop Oil and other environmental lobby groups - at the same time despair at this Greenwashing Boris driven policy - supported by a mainly white, male, middle-class LCC types. It's bizarre that anyone really committed to green issues and a reduction in car use and pollution, supports LTNs when one looks at the actual raw data. Get PT sorted, support trams. buses, trains etc. LTNs .... pah! A diversion... CPZ and ULEZ .. yes, but PT has to improve and the reduction of petrol engines to electric - compensated appropriately / free parking for services / wider application of disability and mobility rights - HAS to happen.

There is no process even now - a bit of greenwashing here, a parklet there.. cuts to buses, privatisation, expensive train travel. Labour ditching the New Green Deal. LTNs were put in to placate a few residents on some 'nice' rds, that's all - and now that data is being collected from places like Haringey the true picture of abject failure is clear. I wish it had worked, I wish that there was a noticeable decrease in car use on my road, I wish the 37 bus route wasn't negatively effected - but it really hasn't improved the lives of those living on Croxted/ED Grove/Grove Vale/ LL/Crystal Palace Rd/ Barry Rd... need I go on. So - it's good that McAsh has met with OD, I hope that the data is scrutinised, that plans are put in place for all these roads and that future interventions do not make traffic even worse.

I'm fine with CPZ, the ability for parents to park or drop off at JAGs and Alleyn's with one child from the back of a huge SUV or 4-wheel-drive Range Rover also needs to be tackled - extraordinary parking tactics every morning. On BBQs- it's not a whataboutary - I was challenged about being a liar... so I responded to the feathered-troll. It's also very salient. BBQs cause fires, produce particulates and are highly polluting, the LFB want's them banned - They attended more than 1,000 grass and open land fires in the first two months of Summer in 2022, I would happily have them banned from all private gardens and public parks in Southwark.

LTNs = Greenwashing. It was a Tory invention taken up by some very foolish Labour Councils to please residents with privileged access to Cllrs living in already relatively quiet rds. So far no empirical peer reviewed evidence to equate the LTN intervention with any reduction in harmful pollutants and the data coming out of Bounds Green shows a complete failure - but the spin from Haringey is fit for a Boris Johnson party denial. Increases in accidents and traffic on boundary rds, cycling down by 22% with residents saying LTNs discourage cycling...speeding up in both LTNs and boundary ads. At least they conducted a review - all be it without EqIAs. McAsh also needs to review the current state in ED and come up with ideas to reduce traffic and car use across the borough

Yep I would - I have, on this forum (suggesting local electric buses, support ULEZ, suggested banning all petrol engine cars London-wide, banning BBQs and wood-burners are a few) - a simple search of my past posts will be testament et to this. Outside of this forum as a cardio-repirtory specialist and activist promoting lung and heart health and researching into the diagnostics and therapies of pathophysiology of diseases caused by inflammatory response to infection, toxins (including pollutants) aging and familial traits.... .....but thank you for telling me what I think and do. I must remember that you know me better than I know myself... Now everyone on this Forum will recognise you as a troll, you are exposed as an arrogant poster and not a serious person to have any discussion with. I can only imagine also probably someone who enjoys mansplanning to whoever can cope with listening to you drone on about how you know best. I’ll add you to my Troll section who no longer illicit or trigger any reply from me. (I imagine a cage with Goldilocks, Mal and a rather scruffy and disappointed-with-his-life, old rooster) Thank you Rockets, I couldn’t recall where the parking thing originated from.

Wasn’t there data that showed that application for parking spaces had increased in an LTN area in a London Borough and there is little to no peer reviewed evidence that car ownership is decreasing anymore in London than it was post LTN. Also cycling increase that was occurring pre-LTN and continued at the same rate post LTNs is now flattening off and in some cases decreasing. Also the Bounds Green LTN data is showing an increased in miles driven and an increase in bus journey times, although they are not publishing the data on pollution ... one wonders why. The ‘spin’ that is attached to this negative data is also a joke. i would love car use to reduce on East Dulwich Grove, Croxted, Lordship Lane and Grove Vale... wasn’t it supposed to ‘evaporate’ . Cllr McAsh promised us that if our roads did not see a benefit, if traffic didn’t evaporate the ‘experiment’ would be judged a failure and they would be removed. Of course nobody said they would use a method of counting traffic, that could not accurately measure traffic that was log-jammed, idling and polluting our residential school streets. yes less cars and traffic please... but on all roads, not just the the rds with individuals with privileged access to Southwark Council.

'Straightforward falsehoods' - so we are liars according to the Southwark arm of the LCC - nice. I like the 'without knowing the details' bit as well... jeez...

Where can one do this on East Dulwich Grove? I couldn't see how to pay for them to park and pick me up? Interested to know.