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

[malumbu]

That view is really sad.  That streets could be so much nicer, people walking more yet you dismiss this.  If you recall it continued when the social distancing rules were progressively relaxed during lock down.

Don't you think that this was a good thing?

I hate to tell you the Dulwich LTN is here to stay for the foreseeable future.  Well I don't actually hate telling you. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

13 hours ago, Rockets said:

Come on @Earl Aelfheah I have explained this to you so many times before - previous council active travel interventions, namely the Dulwich OHS intervention whilst Calton/Court Lane DV junction was still open to traffic INCREASED pollution at the junction. How do we know know that....because it was part of the council's report into the measures when they used to monitor such things....

Increased congestion means an increase in pollution....and what does LTNs create....congestion....

This is absolute nonsense.

There is no evidence that the LTN increased congestion. Vehicle counts show the opposite - traffic decreased in the year after the LTN was implemented. 

There is no evidence that the LTN increased pollution, air quality modelling pre-implementation predicted a fall in pollution, and air quality monitoring post implementation confirmed that pollution did indeed fall.

15 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Of course, Rockets will be here to tell you again (with no evidence at all) that pollution has increased. It hasn't.

It's as predictable as it is tedious.

12 hours ago, malumbu said:

Don't be silly, you well know that the mayor exaggerated the impact of ULEZ. 

Something Rocks made a big thing about, but now washes over for convenience. Much like he smears academics, who he then quotes as authoritative sources when it suits his predetermined view on something. He's not remotely interested in good faith debate.

[beansprout]

Funny isn’t it, when you look back.. Govt says only 1 hour walking in fresh air a day, stay  away from people, don’t mingle or make contact with other people and we as a nation do exactly, in the majority of cases as they state.. and yet, as pandemic was being eased and managed by other countries a darn site better than us.. we still just do as we are told! Lambs to the slaughter springs to mind..

Now a days, hate driving in London… always jams, roads being closed off for whatever reason. Much faster to walk… not stuck in jams be it cars or buses with germs and bugs all round as few people wear masks these days and those  that I have seen who do tend to be from Asian cultures..

Goes to show, what we as a nation have not learnt re mask wearing… common sense — 

 

[Rockets]

40 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This is absolute nonsense.

But, again, you are wrong @Earl Aelfheah. The original redesign of the junction (I remind you, and just to be 100% clear, this was BEFORE the junction was closed to traffic - you seem to be confusing the OHS intervention with the LTN) led to an increase in pollution because of the traffic queuing to turn right from DV onto Calton. The council actually called it out in their own report (probably the last transparent report around an active travel intervention they published).

40 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

There is no evidence that the LTN increased congestion.

Except of course the daily lines of queuing traffic on Dulwich Village or heading out on Lordship Lane towards the Grove Tavern to name but two. But, you know, if the council's monitoring says it is not happening then we must all believe everything they say and not question it. Ever. For they have spoken and everything they say if the absolute truth.

The number of vehicles on London's roads has been decreasing for years yet congestion gets worse and worse and, ahead of their transport hearings, the London Assembly quoted a figure of £3.85bn, which was the estimated cost of congestion in 2024 in the city.

Edited yesterday at 08:17 by Rockets

[ianr]

6 hours ago, Rockets said:

you seem to be confusing the OHS intervention with the LTN) led to an increase in pollution because of the traffic queuing to turn right from DV onto Calton. The council actually called it out in their own report (probably the last transparent report around an active travel intervention they published).

Quotation and/or reference please.

Edited yesterday at 14:46 by ianr
(?) Typo / unnoticed auto-completion

[malumbu]

7 hours ago, beansprout said:

Funny isn’t it, when you look back.. Govt says only 1 hour walking in fresh air a day, stay  away from people, don’t mingle or make contact with other people and we as a nation do exactly, in the majority of cases as they state.. and yet, as pandemic was being eased and managed by other countries a darn site better than us.. we still just do as we are told! Lambs to the slaughter springs to mind..

Now a days, hate driving in London… always jams, roads being closed off for whatever reason. Much faster to walk… not stuck in jams be it cars or buses with germs and bugs all round as few people wear masks these days and those  that I have seen who do tend to be from Asian cultures..

Goes to show, what we as a nation have not learnt re mask wearing… common sense — 

 

What have your conspiracy theories got to do with LTNs?

Whoops shouldn't have asked that as I can feel Lawrence Fox, Piers Corbyn and Katy Hopkins prepared to answer.  I'm certainly not coming to your imaginary dinner party.  https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/editors-letters/london-mayor-elections-laurence-fox-piers-corbyn-b1813707.html

 

[Sue]

32 minutes ago, malumbu said:

What have your conspiracy theories got to do with LTNs?

Whoops shouldn't have asked that as I can feel Lawrence Fox, Piers Corbyn and Katy Hopkins prepared to answer.  I'm certainly not coming to your imaginary dinner party.  https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/editors-letters/london-mayor-elections-laurence-fox-piers-corbyn-b1813707.html

 

I'm confused, mal.

Can you explain? Is there something I missed in beansprout's post?

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, ianr said:

Quotation and/or reference please.

Here you go - see attached. Page 3. Thank goodness for the internet as the report has been long since removed from the council website! As I said, probably the last report the council put out that wasn't selectively plucking data that validated their position and was based on robust, consistent and local monitoring. One wonders why they decided to take a different approach when the LTNs went in....... 

Air Quality: comparing before and after data shows that there has been a moderate increase in NO2

QW7-Dulwich Village junction Monitoring Report May 2019 (4).pdf

[Earl Aelfheah]

16 hours ago, Rockets said:

As I said, probably the last report the council put out that wasn't selectively plucking data that validated their position

The absolute irony. Ignoring all the modelling and several years of air quality monitoring data, to pull out a single line, in a single report from 2019 when the junction was still open to motor vehicles. And that line is the only thing that should be given any weight in a discussion about the impacts of closing the junction to motor vehicles - referring to anything more relevant or recent is evidence of selective use of data to validate a position? No self awareness at all. 

16 hours ago, Rockets said:

Thank goodness for the internet as the report has been long since removed from the council website!

This is of course not true. It's freely available on their website.

Edited 11 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[fishboy]

I think there is an argument that any restrictions will just move the same amount of traffic (& emissions) to different roads. The discussion really should be about changing people's habits of the need to drive & park / stop as close to their destination as possible. 

When I walked my kids the 624m / 8-10 minutes to school, we would pass many empty parking spaces en route. However, there would always be the scrum of cars trying to park, and often double parking, right outside the school. I'd point out to these angry, entitled drivers that there were loads of spaces just two minutes' walk away, I'm sure you can guess the responses... 🤬

[Earl Aelfheah]

16 hours ago, Rockets said:

Here you go - see attached. Page 3. Thank goodness for the internet as the report has been long since removed from the council website! As I said, probably the last report the council put out that wasn't selectively plucking data that validated their position and was based on robust, consistent and local monitoring. One wonders why they decided to take a different approach when the LTNs went in....... 

Air Quality: comparing before and after data shows that there has been a moderate increase in NO2

QW7-Dulwich Village junction Monitoring Report May 2019 (4).pdf 336.14 kB · 1 download

A genuine question - doesn't this relate to monitoring that took place when the junction was still being used by motor traffic? I believe Calton Avenue was first closed to through traffic on June 25th 2020. So how is this remotely relevant?

1 hour ago, fishboy said:

I think there is an argument that any restrictions will just move the same amount of traffic (& emissions) to different roads.

Yes, that's the argument made by some, but it's not what the data shows.

Edited 10 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

A genuine question - doesn't this relate to monitoring that took place when the junction was still being used by motor traffic? I believe Calton Avenue was first closed to through traffic on June 25th 2020. So how is this remotely relevant?

@Earl Aelfheah do you ever bother actually reading the posts people make on the forum? If you actually bothered taking the time to read what I have said then it would all be very clear to you. I have always been very, very clear that the increases in pollution in this case were in relation to an active travel intervention before the junction was closed. The point being that often all these interventions do is create more congestion and increase pollution - which is EXACTLY what the 2019 intervention did.

Of course, now the council doesn't do the same granular monitoring it used to do (as it did in 2019 in Dulwich Village) instead preferring to lean-in on bold "area-wide" statements about what a rip roaring success these measures have been - that folks like you regurgitate as proof of the "success" and use a tool to try and minimise any dissent against the council-led narrative.

Meanwhile, the council tries to install an LTN on Ryedale due to the increase in traffic caused by the displaced traffic trying to avoid the congestion (and subsequent increases in pollution) caused by said LTNs.

Now surely even you can see the problem here and dissect what might be going on and why the council is moving away from localised granular monitoring.

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

2 hours ago, fishboy said:

I think there is an argument that any restrictions will just move the same amount of traffic (& emissions) to different roads.

Yes, that's the argument made by some, but it's not what the data shows.

Whose data might that be - I refer my right honourable friend to my previous comments? I think @fishboy is spot on and this is exactly what LTNs do - this is why London is one of the most congested cities in Europe - there is less and less traffic but it is being forced down fewer and fewer roads and so congestion is increasing. But Aldred and co aren't being funded by TFL et al to show that - they are being funded to show how successful they are - and when a report was being written that cast doubt on the "everything is awesome" narrative look what happened  it - it got killed.

I am finally glad to see that so much of the nonsense spouted by the active travel lobby is being utterly dispelled by reality rather than the fantasy they were allowed to peddle (no pun intended) post Covid. You can't spin your way out of issues like decreasing bus times - eventually the truth will come out and we are now heading back in the right direction with the rational folks really questioning what is actually going on.

Edited 9 hours ago by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

31 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I have always been very, very clear that the increases in pollution in this case were in relation to an active travel intervention before the junction was closed.

I pointed out that modelling prior to the LTN suggested that it's introduction would reduce pollution, and that air quality monitoring post implementation showed improvements in air quality. 

I also jibed that:

On 09/02/2026 at 16:13, Earl Aelfheah said:

Of course, Rockets will be here to tell you again (with no evidence at all) that pollution has increased. It hasn't.

You responded right on cue, with a link to a single sentence in an irrelevant report from before the LTN was introduced (whilst accusing others of selectively plucking data that validated their position 🤣)

You're relying on the fact that people won't read the detail, leaving with the impression that pollution has risen, or at least that it's somehow a disputed fact. It is not.

Edited 9 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Pollution did rise when the council put in the active travel intervention before they closed the junction. That is absolute fact.

You don't like it and I would suggest it is not me that is trying to deliberately mislead people.

7 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I pointed out that modelling prior to the LTN suggested that it's introduction would reduce pollution, and that air quality monitoring post implementation showed improvements in air quality. 

And I pointed out that congestion along Dulwich Village increased massively post closure which would suggest an increase in pollution was likely to be occurring on that stretch of road would it not? 

Yes, air quality monitoring in all locations (not just those around the LTN) have shown improvements have they not (thanks to ULEZ per Sadiq) so unless someone has modelled against a control group you can try to claim this has anything to do with the LTNs?

And anyone who spends anytime around that junction knows that there is more queuing traffic there now than prior to implementation especially just before the DV timed closures come into effect and weekends seem to be particularly bad heading towards Red Post Hill (it was diabolical after the original installation of the cycle lane at the DV/Red Post junction and since the installation of the right turn green light - to try and mitigate the impact of the cycle lane - it is still bad).

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 minute ago, Rockets said:

Pollution did rise when the council put in the active travel intervention before they closed the junction. That is absolute fact.

You responded to a post pointing out that pollution has fallen post LTN, with a single sentence from a 2019 report that was commissioned before the LTN was created (and the road was still open to motor traffic). It's a non-sequitur / totally irrelevant. It's very clear what you're trying to do. It's entirely misleading.

You have repeatedly claimed that the LTN increased pollution, with no evidence whatsoever. It is not true.

[malumbu]

Good Heavens Rockets, Fishboy makes some good comments but you cherry pick the one that suits your agenda.

@fishboy Thanks for your post in particular as I have been saying for years "The discussion really should be about changing people's habits of the need to drive & park / stop as close to their destination as possible."

I also share your disgust for those who drive their kids short distances to school for no good reason apart from habit/laziness and worse still park illegally.  I see this many days of the school week.  This week I've been cycling through Honor Oak Park and stunned at the numerous drivers running the red lights at the Thames Water works, today it just led to grid lock.

I'd happily discuss your views about displacement, hard measures such as road restrictions and charging compliment softer measures in encouraging behaviour change.  Just such a hard nut to crack.  Congestion charging and the high cost of parking in central London have had an effect in reducing traffic.

[Rockets]

6 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You responded to a post pointing out that pollution has fallen post LTN, with a single sentence from a 2019 report that was commissioned before the LTN was created (and the road was still open to motor traffic).

Yup because it is not about the LTN and I made that very, very clear - you just chose to ignore that part....but we know the M.O by now! 😉

6 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You have repeatedly claimed that the LTN increased pollution, with no evidence whatsoever. It is not true.

But they did increase congestion didn't they...and what does that mean? The answer can be found in that oh so telling but incredibly important and damning "single sentence" in that report from 2019 before the LTNs went in (just to be 100% clear you cannot try to twist my words). Increased congestion means increased pollution.

Do you think you have evidence they didn't increase pollution on the roads with increased congestion........?