LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[rupert james]

No matter how long these conversations go on for, i.e. the CPZ's, Southwark will always push it through if that is the plan.

No different to this.

[rupert james]

duplicated

[Rockets]

DC - we all want traffic reduction - it's just some of us want genuine area-wide (and beyond) traffic reduction, not just a reduction in traffic on a few roads at the cost of many other roads. I really struggle to see why many on the pro-LTN side of the argument can't see that what is happening today is not progress nor is it part of an ongoing process.

So many councillors have responded to questions from local constituents about increases in traffic on their streets by saying - "well do you want road closures on your road then"? The council's strategy seems to be (like many things like CPZs) to say if we create enough chaos here someone there will be forced to ask us for more.

If the on-going process involves making things a lot worse for many more people then surely that can't be right can it? I am sure you might say "well let them bed in" but there is no proof from anywhere that any LTN has delivered anything close to what was sold for them (look at Waltham Forest for example)- what there is though clear evidence that LTNs created displacement, a reduction of traffic within the LTN but significant increases of traffic, congestion and pollution outside of the LTN (which negate the benefits of the reduction inside the LTN), zero reduction in car ownership within LTNs and huge amounts of revenue for councils.

And for what? Seemingly a single figure percentage increase in cycle journeys within the LTN - most likely stimulated by people like yourself whose children used to walk along Calton but now cycle instead. Do you really think that that is progress and is going to have any discernible impact on climate change?

[heartblock]

DC - what is this data you keep bringing up?

The official Southwark data is 28% more traffic on EDG and 200% more at the LL junction. As I say - the not caring about 1000's of children isn't really the case and rather a bit of incorrect whataboutery that is also not helpful - but obviously a forum is a place to express one's thoughts, so all healthy expression I suppose.

I do look forward to this drop in pollution and traffic on ED Grove that you seem very sure of - I await.

[malumbu]

DC - I try to get a discussion going on the evidence of the impact of pollution and you move the conversation back to the data on traffic levels. Surely there is no more that can be said on this - whatever your perspective. As people have time to crawl through the data I thought that they'd similarly like to go through the evidence on public health impact - I've re-attached the expert committee report from 2018. Too many people are spouting on about toxic air without knowledge of the impacts. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/734799/COMEAP_NO2_Report.pdf Yes it is harmful, but meeting the legal limits for concentrations of pollution do not make the air 'safe'. There is still harm.

Some more interesting views for you. Both the public and motor manufacturers carry significant blame. The public for not demanding cleaner conventional vehicles, the manufacturers for not providing them. So market failure. An example of markets working better is safer cars. Volvo put in additional features decades ago that gave them a market advantage in terms of protecting the occupants. Some (but not all) motorists bought Volvos due to this reason. Other manufacturers aiming at the mature motorist followed suit. Eventually the authorities caught up.

But did we go to the dealership and say - how low are your emissions? Do you do a car with lower emissions? Pre ULEZ few were bothered and would have been met with the response - we meet government limits, which aren't well enforced and we know ways of getting round this on the test track (VW blatantly cheated but most/all other manufacturers new tricks to get through the test cycles). Wouldn't it have been nice if one had said - look at our independent testing, we have half the pollution emissions of the other manufacturers. Or even - don't buy that large unnecessary large SUV if all you do is drive around town - buy this small petrol car (petrol Fiat 500/Cinquecento has to be the perfect city car - certainly pre EV (I'd go for the Leaf)). Top Gear did a test on City cars a few years ago and ended the article with a street full of Fiats - for once I agreed with Jezza.

There is an independent data base by the way of emissions from various vehicles. Check it out: https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/very-cleanest-cars-revealed-new-a-rating-from-the-equa-index Met the chap who is behind this.

A final thought, vehicles are getting cleaner. The latest emission standards for diesels are effective. ULEZ is kicking out some of the worst. But ultimately we need interventions to encourage cleaner vehicles and less vehicles on our road. As said without these the public or the car manufacturers will not deliver.

[oimissus]

I agree with you, malumbu. Because of the ULEZ we bought a new (secondhand) car that would be OK - though our old car was on it's last legs anyway, having been bought brand new 16 years previously.

My car now has such low emissions that I don't pay any vehicle tax. But I would still be fined for driving in the LTN. That is making traffic, rather than emissions, the issue. So I can see why so much discussion is around traffic data. And that is surely down to the cycling lobby, rather than public health with regards to pollution.

If we want the conversation to be about pollution, emissions, public health and climate change, LTNs are not the answer. Because they penalise the 'cleaner' cars as much as the 'dirty'.

[DulwichCentral]

Even if all new cars were electric now it would still take 15-20 years to replace the world's fossil fuel fleet.

All vehicles even electric and hydrogen - produce non-exhaust emmissions (particles from brake, tyre and road surface wear known as Particulate Matter - PM2.5 or PM10)

These can enter all major organs of the body - not just the lungs, heart and brain but also the placenta, affecting the life chances of unborn children.

Electric vehicles still cause congestion and road danger, they do nothing to encourage space or transport equity and they compound the inactivity crisis and social isolation in our communities.

So no - the answer isn't just newer cars - but fewer cars.

(credit: www.wearepossible.org)

[heartblock]

Indeed particulates are extremely dangerous - constant accelerating and braking in idling traffic causes much wear and tear - road humps also a problem on tyres. I would much rather see a full bus than one person in a car, which is why public transport that is based within the local needs of an area can help. Obviously cycling and walking for those than can and very importantly want to - making a road more pleasant to walk on is an advantage on closed roads (obviously isn't nice on ED Grove and Croxted at school rush - this morning it was so bad I was asthmatic for the first time in ages)

Fossil fuels need to be left in the ground and we need far bigger changes to reverse climate change.

A colleague of mine posted an excellent run down of how particulates interact with the body's cells - I was trying to find it for malumbu, I will post it if I find it again.

[heartblock]

https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(18)30029-0/fulltext

Anyway for anyone interested - a 2017 article on the inflammatory aspects of PM.

Please do not burn logs in your homes or rubbish in your garden - it creates harmful PM.

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> Even if all new cars were electric now it would

> still take 15-20 years to replace the world's

> fossil fuel fleet.

>

> All vehicles even electric and hydrogen - produce

> non-exhaust emmissions (particles from brake, tyre

> and road surface wear known as Particulate Matter

> - PM2.5 or PM10)

>

> These can enter all major organs of the body - not

> just the lungs, heart and brain but also the

> placenta, affecting the life chances of unborn

> children.

>

> Electric vehicles still cause congestion and road

> danger, they do nothing to encourage space or

> transport equity and they compound the inactivity

> crisis and social isolation in our communities.

>

> So no - the answer isn't just newer cars - but

> fewer cars.

>

> (credit: www.wearepossible.org)

There was an interesting debate on Radio 5 about this this morning featuring a pragmatic transport specialist who spent time debunking some of the myths around the electrification of transport. He said that many who oppose electrification use the brake pad argument but he pointed out that the levels of such things in electric cars are no more than petrol cars and such emissions are a small percentage of overall emissions and the fastest way to address emissions is through a combination of electrification and modal shift. There was also an anvironmentalist who was saying changing the way we live (citing Paris' 15 minute city initiative as an example) and massively reducing car use was the only viable solution. The BBC presenter did challenge the environmentalist on the fact many people live out of cities and the 15 minute city could not apply there.

I would like to see the council put more energy into electrification and the infrastructure needed. It seems clear that is a short term win waiting to happen but the council seems reluctant to pursue it because they have been lobbied to believe that eliminating vehicle use, rather than manipulating it's omission output is key.

Apparently over the course of its lifetime an electric vehicle (including manufacture which emits far more when manufacturing an electric car) will emit between one quarter and one third of a fossil fuel vehicle.

Why are the council so opposed to embracing this?

[goldilocks]

This! - for pm2.5 its so incredibly important that we stop burning stuff. Particularly wood. No one should be burning wood in cities. Our homes are heated in other ways, wood burning is horrifically polluting! There is no safe option. If you think 'its ok, I have an eco burner'- you don't, its a greenwash!

heartblock Wrote:

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

> https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(18)3

> 0029-0/fulltext

> Anyway for anyone interested - a 2017 article on

> the inflammatory aspects of PM.

>

> Please do not burn logs in your homes or rubbish

> in your garden - it creates harmful PM.

[ab29]

Today is the last day to object to the Dulwich Streetspace traffic orders.

There is no option to object to the scheme as a whole so a separate email needs to be sent for each traffic order.

The orders (which can be found at www.southwark.gov.uk/trafficorders) are:

Dulwich Streetspace: Calton Avenue area (TMO2122-015_DS Calton Avenue area)

Dulwich Streetspace: Champion Hill (TMO2122-016_DS Champion Hill)

Dulwich Streetspace: East Dulwich area (TMO2122-017_DS East Dulwich area)

Dulwich Streetspace: Melbourne Grove south (TMO2122-018_DS Melbourne Grove south)

Dulwich Streetspace: Timed bus, cycle and taxi only routes (TMO2122-019_DS bus cycle taxi routes)

Please note that no. 3 covers Derwent Grove, Elsie Road, Grove Vale and Tintagel Crescent, and no. 5 covers Burbage Road, Dulwich Village, Townley Road and Turney Road.

More at [www.onedulwich.uk]

[Chris_1]

Someone made a comment earlier that Lambeth aren?t engaging over Croxted - this is a lie. Lambeth councillors have repeatedly raised to Southwark how bad the situation is and how residents on Croxted, Guernsey, Hawarden and Dalkeith all started complaining about how bad it was when timed restrictions were brought in.

Pretty sure the letter the Thurlow Park ward labour Cllrs wrote is in the public domain, or should be anyway. It calls for some kind of northbound corridor to deal with the morning chaos. They reaffirmed this request again post the minimal changes that were announced.

If our village Cllrs are saying different, it?s just not true.

And as for the more not less argument that keeps popping up? we keep asking for anyone to do something here on CR, and all we get are commitments to have more meetings at some point later down the line.

[Rockets]

Chris - do you have a copy of the Thurlow Park ward councillors letter (if it is in the public domain)? It would be interesting to see if Labour councillors are fighting each other over these measures - probably reflective of how bad, and self-interested, the measures are.

[heartblock]

I think they are fighting each other in Southwark ... let alone between neighbouring Councils!

[legalalien]

The agenda for this month?s Council Assembly is up, together with the ?Member?s Questions? - the theme is ?Climate Justice?. As usual - this thing is a bit like PMQs - the Labour councillors? questions are carefully curated to allow the Council to make statements about its successes in different policy areas, and the opposition questions are designed to do the reverse (what effect is the delay in the Bakerloo line extension going to have on Southwark) or specific resident concerns (eg the CPZ at Surrey Docks)

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7043

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s102930/Report%20Members%20question%20time.pdf

I was heartened to see this one from Cllr Al-Samerai

?Can the leader confirm that every council report since July has taken the climate emergency into account, as was agreed at Council Assembly that month? Can he give details of how that is being monitored by each department, and how the impact of any report is assessed by each department??

I would add the same thing regarding the new socioeconomic duty that was added to the constitution earlier in the year.

From what I?ve seen in reports (including on the Dulwich LTN report) there?s always a heading and a brief mention of climate change or socioeconomic effects, but then a brief one liner eg ?our policy is designed to address climate change, active travel is good? rather than any suggestion that any in depth analysis of the effects of particular policies is going on. I do wonder what (if any) training council officers have been given on how to assess the climate impacts or socioeconomic impacts of the proposals included in reports - as it doesn?t seem like an easy task to do (and presumably doing it properly in each case would involve meaningful cost). Do they have specialist climate change officers that things have to be run past, or something like that?

I get that including these things in the constitution has a political feel good factor, but once they?re in they should be treated properly. Especially considering the Council?s stance that if the report to the decision maker mentions these issues, the decision can?t be called in even if there is concern that these issues haven?t been looked at properly.

[Rockets]

Does anyone have more info on tbe council admitting to residents on Turney Road that the monitoring data in the LTN review was wrong and instead of that road having a 61% decline it actually saw an 18% increase?

[northernmonkey]

Where did you get that from Rockets? Whilst I guess it?s not impossible, it would seem unlikely on a road that is partially restricted

[Spartacus]

It will be interesting to see what the additional effects on congestion around the Grove Tavern will be when the Christmas Tree sellers are back opposite the Grove Tavern on the south circular.

[ab29]

Yesterday was awful: a traffic was building up all the way to Wood Vale and beyond and was hardly moving at times while before the LTN it would flow freely. This is how the weekends look like now.

[Otto2]

?Children are a kind of indicator species. If we can build a successful city for children, we will have a successful city for everyone.?

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/28/child-friendly-city-indoors-playing-healthy-sociable-outdoors

[hpsaucey]

Otto2 Wrote:

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

> ?Children are a kind of indicator species. If we

> can build a successful city for children, we will

> have a successful city for everyone.?

>

> https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/28/chi

> ld-friendly-city-indoors-playing-healthy-sociable-

> outdoors

Thanks for posting @Otto2. Really positive changes to cities/ infrastructure are absolutely possible and frankly essential. Brilliant to see some examples here. This summed it up for me:

'Society?s mistake, argues Gill, is that our planning systems are geared around cars, housebuilding and the economy ? rather than the environment, health and quality of life.'

[northernmonkey]

Yesterday dulwich college had entrance tests for 11 plus and 16 plus, NCC auditions and sports - there was so much extra traffic

[Rockets]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> Where did you get that from Rockets? Whilst I

> guess it?s not impossible, it would seem unlikely

> on a road that is partially restricted

From what I understand they didn't compare like with like on Turney and that's why their numbers are wrong and have now been adjusted - I am trying to find out more but I think they mixed up the monitoring results, one from the end with the restrictions and one from the end without the restrictions to achieve the 61% reduction.

Apparently some Turney residents have been informed which is why I wondered whether anyone had the correct back-story to this.

If this is correct then it may mean there has been no area-wide reduction as the council claims.

Traffic was very heavy today along EDG towards the Red Post Hill and DV junction today and also through the village to tbe same junction. Is it just me or does traffic seem to be a lot heavier at weekends?

[heartblock]

EDG and Half Moon Road absolute nightmare at 7:30 -8:00 when I walked to Herne Hill station today. Lots of cars parked all over the show dropping kids off at schools. When is it evaporating again?