FOI responses or research on braking and turning around LTNs and School Streets

[springfleur55]

Apologies if this has been asked before but is anyone aware of published research or Southwark or TFL FOI responses relating to the possible extra particulate pollution resulting from braking, turning and idling at the entrance to LTNs or school streets? I've witnessed so much of it and it would seem to negate so much of the benefit, particularly for school streets where there are usually children walking past reversing cars.

Edited Friday at 20:45 by springfleur55

[beansprout]

You having a laugh?

[Sue]

37 minutes ago, beansprout said:

You having a laugh?

It seems like a perfectly sensible question to me in relation particularly to school streets, given the effect of pollution on children.

[springfleur55]

I'm considering making such a request but don't want to waste council resources if it's a question that's been asked and answered before.

[beansprout]

You really think the  council  has done proper research? If so you have more faith than I….and probably fixed anyhow… 

[Sue]

4 hours ago, beansprout said:

You really think the  council  has done proper research? If so you have more faith than I….and probably fixed anyhow… 

Springfleur55 doesn't know whether anybody - not  the council - has done research.

That's why they are  asking the question. It's an important issue.

They are also asking about council or TFL  FOI responses.

What do you think could be "fixed"?

Edited Saturday at 11:00 by Sue

[beansprout]

Well let’s face it,

ask what they want but don’t listen…just do their own thing… 

[Penguin68]

To be fair, this is both a very valid issue to raise, and one which would be very difficult to research, not least because there are no valid measurements for emissions at the key 'manoeuvre' spots before the introduction of the changes for comparison. Face validity would suggest that there must be some additional emissions, but exactly what, and what the implications of these are, will be very difficult to measure in a way which can't be reasonably challenged.

[malumbu]

Oh please, not another anti LTN thread.....

So the hidden agenda (is it hidden?) is that the OP wants school lanes reopened.  That is a very sad view that motorists come before school childrens' safety.

As for the post, fire away with an FOI.  Don't just talk about it.  Be my guest.

As someone who has worked in transport I can tell you some more.  I've posted many times on this forum, and in the past before COVID we had some interesting conversations on the Lounge.

Firstly - you could ask the question about congestion as a whole.  London has had road congestion even in the days of the horse and cart (where at one point there was a worry that we'd have roads full of horse manure).

Local authorities may have in-house expertise or use traffic consultants, I expect the latter.  Standard transport assessment models are likely to be used developed by academics and consultancies.

Reduction of soot emissions from cars (fine particulate matter) has been significant in the last 30 years as emission standards have become more effective.  Particulates come from a variety of sources and since the reduction from transport other sources, in particularly combustion - and in this respect wood burners, are now the main areas of concern.

Modern petrol and diesel cars come with stop start so should not sit their idling unnecessary whether you are on a main road or a back road.  UNLESS YOU TURN THIS OFF.

I haven't a clue why turning would be an issue,  When you drive you often turn round bends, at junctions etc. Odd question.

Brakes produce larger particulates, the size that will not pass through the lungs into the cardiovascular system.  The average driver cannot drive smoothly, have a look at any speed bump and nine out of ten will speed up, brake, speed up, brake. If drivers thought about the waste of fuel, wear and tear on the car and impact on their passengers the world would be a better place.

Your time would be better spend on how you could encourage less and smarter driving.

The main issue from transport emissions is from oxides of nitrogen.  Post VW scandal newer diesels are far cleaner. 

If we are truly interested in improving our air the best thing all drivers could do living in towns and cities is to consider drive less, followed by driving better and driving a better car in terms of the environmental impact. I've long since worked that out.

Edited Saturday at 17:13 by malumbu
A few typos but it wasn't patronising enough so I added a few more words to show my expertise and superiority. I am the peoples' poet.

[Sue]

2 hours ago, beansprout said:

Well let’s face it,

ask what they want but don’t listen…just do their own thing… 

Can you explain?

What post are you referring to, and what parts of it?

[Spartacus]

On 07/02/2026 at 14:00, malumbu said:

Oh please, not another anti LTN thread.....

.

Oh please, not another anti anti LTN post 🤣

[alex_b]

Adys Rd used to have queuing traffic 8-9am right outside St John’s and St Clements. The reduction of that traffic must far outweigh the few cars stopping and turning/reversing to avoid the restriction. 
 

Just be honest, you just want to be drive wherever you want whenever you want and are looking for any justification to validate your pre-existing view. 

[beansprout]

Funny isn’t it.. During Covid, people walked.. and talked to neighbours/strangers..cycling reached a high… cars moved freely.. non of this happened or did.. have we learnt nothing? Clearly not.. 

[malumbu]

Which was why Johnson brought in LTNs, and many local authorities bid for the money.  Yes, a shame, how quickly things reverted back to the bad old days...

[Huggers]

Better unambiguous signage giving cars plenty of advance warning of a school street would solve this.
I’ve brought this up before (and emailed the council) but cars coming down Nutbrook street encounter a sign that looks like it’s pointing cars in the wrong  direction. They can’t escape down Amott Road as it’s part of the scheme so they three point turn. This sign replaced a perfectly adequate sign. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Don't know about particulate pollution, but there is published data on local NO2, which shows pollution falling year on year. 

A year of monitoring traffic on boundary roads to the Dulwich LTN post implementation, showed a decrease in the number of vehicles on average. 

Think this is all I can find on particulates across Southwark:

 https://www.southwark.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-10/Air Quality Status Report Southwark 2023.pdf

I would suggest writing to your councillor, before putting in an FOI personally. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

1 hour ago, Huggers said:

Better unambiguous signage giving cars plenty of advance warning of a school street would solve this.
I’ve brought this up before (and emailed the council) but cars coming down Nutbrook street encounter a sign that looks like it’s pointing cars in the wrong  direction. They can’t escape down Amott Road as it’s part of the scheme so they three point turn. This sign replaced a perfectly adequate sign. 

You have raised a useful pount. 

Here, and other areas, signage is often positioned too close to the road closure, not giving drivers sufficient warning to take another route to avoid it. An example I saw last year was where you only saw the "school street" signage as you turned into the school street itself thus potentially incuring a fine. 

Clear and early signage is always helpful to reduce transgressions and /or unexpected 3 point turns at the restriction entrance.