LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[andrewc]

How do you ban cars?

[malumbu]

You close the streets to cars, as they have done on Rye Lane, and Central Oxford did about 30 years ago.

[heartblock]

Central Oxford put a public transport network in and cars were not 'banned' per se. Rye Lane closure just diverts traffic to another part of Southwark.

[andrewc]

If cars are reduced in activity in a certain area wont they always be diverted?

[Pugwash]

If i recall correctly - Brighton has a majority green council and isn't Caroline Lucas their Green MP?

[Earl Aelfheah]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> I don't have any issue with banning cars - if

> there is a decent public service and no closed

> roads - the problem is that LTNs DO NOT reduce car

> use...or pollution.

You keep saying that LTNs don't reduce car use, but all the available evidence suggests that they do. We have very good public transport compared to 90% of the country - several train stations, lot's of buses, electric hire bikes, and thanks to the introduction of a small number of LTNS, even a few, relatively quiet walking and cycling routes.

[heartblock]

No evidence whatsoever that LTNs reduce car use...none. PTAL for DV and ED one of the worse in London.

Next?

[andrewc]

I think of all the studies published about road closures there is no evidence that they don't reduce car use. These studies were shared early on in this thread. I could post them up again? They might not be fair though!

[heartblock]

There is no evidence that LTNs reduce car use (traffic on the road) and pollution

There is a difference between how much traffic goes down a road i.e. - an increase in traffic on East Dulwich Grove of at least 36% and on the junction 200% after an LTN and car ownership of local residents - which is not the same thing...at all.

For example - if a study 'finds' that less people who live on ED Grove now have a car - so ownership has gone down- it doesn't mean that traffic on the road has decreased (Southwark's measurement shows it increased).

The studies certain individuals cling to are based on active travel increases (cycling has now gone back down across the country to pre-emergency temporary road closures) and car ownership - no study shows a drop in traffic across an area and a drop in pollution...none.

[Earl Aelfheah]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> No evidence whatsoever that LTNs reduce car

> use...none.

I know you keep saying this, but it?s not true.

>PTAL for DV and ED one of the worse in

> London.

> Next?

And even so, public transport is still better here than probably 90% of the country.

We have three train stations in Dulwich, and several on its borders. We have regular buses and electric hire bikes and scooters for ?last mile journeys. From Central London you can connect to several international airports and almost every corner of the country by train. It?s not perfect, but it?s not bad. At what point would it be good enough that you would consider it legitimate to start discouraging car use?

As for your support for banning cars- are you serious about this? It?s a bit all or nothing no?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Also, we don?t have ?one of the worst PTALs in London?. We score a 3, which is ?moderate?. And compared with almost anywhere outside of London, is unimaginably good.

[ab29]

So wanting to ban cars is too much and over the top but wanting to close roads which causes other streets to be more congested and polluted is fine- yeah.

Typical: I will not give up anything for the cause but happy to sacrifice others' health and well being.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I don't have any issue with banning cars - if

> > there is a decent public service and no closed

> > roads - the problem is that LTNs DO NOT reduce

> car

> > use...or pollution.

>

> You keep saying that LTNs don't reduce car use,

> but all the available evidence suggests that they

> do. We have very good public transport compared to

> 90% of the country - several train stations, lot's

> of buses, electric hire bikes, and thanks to the

> introduction of a small number of LTNS, even a

> few, relatively quiet walking and cycling routes.

They reduce car journeys (not use - that is an important qualification as there is no proof that people living within them use their cars any less) WITHIN the closed area but increase car journeys OUTSIDE of them.

That, in a nutshell, is the Achilles heel of every LTN.

And Rahx3 - have you been smoking something strong with your suggestion we have good public transport links - even the council admits the transport links in Dulwich are "poor" - their words not mine?

[ab29]

The attitude of the pro-LTN crowd here is quite remarkable - if you live on one of the main roads you should just shut up and lump it. More cars, more noise, more air pollution - nobody cares - just shut up.

You cannot buy a house on a quiet street because you don't have enough money? Tough, you are a looser, a second class citizen and you can perish today for all they care.

And why?

Because five more people can now cycle for ten minutes longer on the closed roads! Aww - isn't this just lovely.

[Rockets]

Rahx3 - stop this nonsense about good transport links - you know that is not true.

Southwark's own words......

PTAL is a measure of accessibility used by TfL based on distance and frequency of public transport. The areas with a high level of public transport accessibility usually score 5, 6a or 6b on the PTAL scale, whilst areas with very low levels of public transport accessibility will score 0, 1a or 1b.

The Dulwich area has a low level of public transport accessibility. Areas around the main stations only reach a PTAL 3 and The Village a PTAL 2 whilst the main commercial area around East Dulwich has a PTAL 3. Other parts of Dulwich, particularly those where schools are located have a level 2 of accessibility translating into a higher use of car and coach for pupils outside of Dulwich.

[heartblock]

Not content with the Council keeping LTNs, that increase traffic and pollution on residential roads, with no evidence of any significant longterm rise in active travel or reduction in traffic overall due to these LTNs

- the advocates for the minority of 800 responders also want the advocates of the 4000+ who want them to be removed to agree that LTNs are 'great' and reduce traffic and pollution, so much so that there is dubious information about PTAL being high for Dulwich and research that proves traffic reduction flung around, when PTAL is poor and no such evidence exists.

I don't get it? You still have your beloved closed roads, so no need to try and prove that they 'work', when they don't. We know it...you know it.

[andrewc]

Why would people want to prove something doesn't work when they know it doesn't?

[heartblock]

Why indeed....something we often discuss in medical ethics.

[andrewc]

Maybe people believe different things?

[ab29]

Like unicorns?

[heartblock]

Well I believe in evidence based medicine, so if I apply the same rigour to unicorns 🦄 or proof that LTNs reduce traffic and pollution/increase active travel and do not negatively impact people with reduced mobility - I cannot believe in either premise.

[andrewc]

Is this thread dedicated to evidence based approaches?

[heartblock]

Why have LTNs if there is no evidence that they reduce traffic, pollution and increase active travel. Is it just doing stuff because we believe it? How quaint.

[ab29]

- Two-thirds (between 64% and 69%) of those living and working in all three Dulwich LTNS who answered Southwark?s survey rejected the measures by opting in each case for ?return it to the original state'. The Council is ignoring this and offering just minor tweaks to the scheme. Why?

- The majority of survey respondents did not feel the scheme was achieving the Council?s aims

- The Council has offered no evidence that the scheme improves air quality

-Inequality: it depends where you live/work/go to school whether you benefit

- The scheme still displaces traffic and pollution on to residential streets with schools and health centres

- The scheme still discriminates against those with protected characteristics (especially older people and people with disabilities)

- The scheme still damages the viability of local shops and businesses

- The scheme still delays health care professionals, like community midwives and carers

- Even though these were promised in July, the raw data and methodology are still missing, so impossible to work out the basis for Southwark?s claims

[DulvilleRes]

What is consistently ignored in quoting the statistics for local people opposing LTN's is that One Dulwich was recommending at the time of the consultation that if respondents had some objection to some aspect of the LTN's, such as ambulance response time, or Blue Badge Holder concerns, they should tick the box for 'return to original state'. That does not necessarily translate to a blanket rejection of the LTN's. To completely ignore this feels a tad disingenuous to me.

Now the council has made some sensible adjustments, such as making accommodations for both ambulances and Blue Badge Holders, how many of those people who ticked the 'return to original state' box would be happy with the LTNs? Only time will tell after the new measures have had a chance to bed in, and conditions have returned to something near normal after the pandemic.