Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists

Discussion in 'Brixton' started by teuchter, May 8, 2019.

  1. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    Yes, you are.

    What process exactly do you want? You want more consultation but you don't like the way consultations work. You want issues that are totally outside the scope of this funding to be addressed as a condition of accepting the scheme that has funding. How does this all come about, in pragmatic terms?
     
    thebackrow likes this.
  2. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    Look at the comments on the website.

    Its not just me.

    Btw the scope is quite broad:

    Key aims for our engagement are:

    If I read this and lived on estate with serious drug problems I would think commenting on that in line with this project.
     
    toblerone3 likes this.
  3. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    I've already said I think Railton road has become a rat run and measures to stop that are needed.

    Its not my idea to dress this up as Liveable neighborhood bringing communities together, considering the needs of the whole community, promote social inclusion and community safety.

    This is TFL/ Lambeth council.

    Its them bringing in wider issues not me.
     
  4. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    I'm afraid I've written another overlong post in a final attempt to get people to reconsider how air quality should be approached in the short term- ie this local funding round.

    It's hard to say without more detailed proposals. There are three routes suggested for active travel with no or low vehicle use:
    Barrington Rd, which I don't really use enough to have a view about.
    Ferndale Rd, which is the only cross route through a big block, and is already one way at BR. It never seems that busy to me tbh, but I guess displaced traffic will end up on Clapham Rd or Acre Lane. Or on Landor Road, which is already pretty clogged and could be another candidate for active travel.
    Railton Rd, which has a parallel route, along Effra & Dulwich Roads though that includes the Morval/Water Lane oneway system, which will be an obvious pinch point. Other drivers might prefer Shakespeare or Milkwood Roads and Loughborough Rd, with a pinch point at LJ and possibly more queuing at Herne Hill.

    Between them closing those routes will push quite a lot of through traffic onto main roads and probably produce worsened congestion/pollution hotspots. Most of those main roads are conveniently outside the project area.

    In terms of winners and losers, well a lot of properties on newly quieter streets will get a windfall equity boost based on their improved quality of life. A few people will be encouraged towards additional active travel journeys. People who live on Dulwich, Effra and other affected main roads will see their quality of life and air deteriorate. Those who live, work or spend time at the hotspots and on the main roads will bear the brunt. Pretty much all displaced traffic will end up on the main stretch of Brixton Road or perhaps at Loughborough Junction. Some small percentage of vehicle journeys won't be made.

    But there are so many if's involved it's hard to guess what this will actually amount to. I'm not convinced that simply closing off Railton is a great plan- it may be, but without more detail it's too hard to guess.

    You think it's all so simple, don't you? Force everyone out of their cars, get them to walk or cycle and we'll all live a happily ever after. No downsides, only positives.

    Earlier you were moaning that the use of satnav meant other people were using your street, which didn't used to happen. With realtime routing round obstructions software finds the quickest route, so when it sends cars down your street it's because the main roads are choked. I understand you don't much like that, you presumably chose to live on a quiet residential street to avoid it. The people who live on busy main roads, particularly those in flats above shops, don't tend to have that choice, they're where they are because the properties are not so desirable, which means they're cheap(er).

    I fully understand you're campaigning to reduce car use, and seek every incremental gain, but in the here and now, do you really feel comfortable about pushing the whole burden onto those who live on the main roads, in order that your street is quiet? It's not only those who live there, of course, it's also those who work there, in retail or offices, who have to sit in stationary buses, who just use the busy pavements and so on.

    All sorts of initiatives have been tried over years or decades: the traffic hasn't evaporated. I know I keep going on, I'd intended to stop but you asked and I really will quit after this, but in this crowded, realworld city of the here and now if you improve your own quality of life by reducing the traffic in your street you will necessarily inflict a lower quality of life on someone else.

    We all want cleaner air for ourselves and any children we have. To be direct but not intentionally personal as I have no idea about your circumstances, every home owner who is pushing for their street to be made traffic free, or non porous, needs to have a long, hard look at their motivation. No-one will admit to calculating the improved equity, but that doesn't mean they're not doing it.

    Like I've said a few times, a little girl with asthma lived beside the S Circular, and over a period of years her hospital admissions coincided with peaks in pollution. Eventually her asthma killed her.

    The effect of non-porous neighbourhoods is to push yet more traffic onto main routes.

    here

    The Brixton Road air monitor has recorded 62µg/m3 as the current annual mean for 2019. So as an average that's 50% higher than the legal limit, with peaks higher still.

    We can all throw statistics around, and these are not of the highest quality (because that monitor has been out of action a lot) but please would you recognise that I'm trying to highlight something serious here. When you push all the burden onto a few people you are likely to cause them harm, and pointing to longer term gains for a wider population doesn't change that.

    One comment from the consultation, as food for thought.
    upload_2019-5-24_10-39-54.png

    You also complained about Uber using your street. Well that's just your neighbours calling a car from point A to drive to their home to take them to point B and then drive back empty to somewhere near A, where the driver bases themselves. It's a grossly inefficient way to transport individuals, yet for lone women travelling at night or people with mobility issues or shopping or kids to carry the availability of cheap cabs is a good thing, not a bad one. I don't know how many of the millions and millions of Uber/minicab journeys those or similar justifications apply to, nor what proportion are just adults who can't be bothered to walk, cycle or get a bus. The mini-Holland type schemes encourage active travel but at a scale that merely scratches the surface of the huge uptake of private hire journeys over the past few years. That's is likely to continue, even in Livable Neighbourhoods, until there's a major change in attitudes. (A couple of weeks ago I overheard a 20-something whinging that his Uber was late, I don't know anything about his mobility but he seemed to want to go from Josephine Avenue to the tube; JA is in a previously traffic calmed area.)

    There's also the massive increase in online shopping with delivery vans servicing most of us. Cutting out the rat runs forces all of them onto the main roads. Consider the logistics of a van with a few drops in the streets between Dulwich and Railton Roads: making them non-porous will not change the requirement, but will increase the complexity and the number of turns into and from Dulwich Road.

    I've yet to see anyone come up with serious ideas about how to incentivise, nudge, persuade or prevent people using cabs or home deliveries within these non-porous areas.

    So I'm afraid I don't see any of this as being simple, and I don't see Livable Neighbourhoods as proposed as being unquestionably good for everyone. That's just in terms of transportation- without mentioning the wider issues Gramsci has raised.

    London has to change, everybody knows there has to be a reduction in traffic & pollution. Starting (IMO) by getting diesels off the road asap and quickly expanding the ULEZ, with scrappage incentives for drivers to change to electric vehicles; with disincentives for, in particular, commuters and the school run; with integration between Oyster, road pricing (based on occupancy and impact) and parking charges that doesn't simply ignore those who choose to not have a car but somehow rewards them; that incentivises active travel and public transport journeys; that reverses the trend for those that can afford it to take cabs everywhere and encourages parcel collection rather than home delivery; and with nuanced polluters pays road pricing which recognises that simply enabling the richest to rush about more quickly in electric cars while no-one else can afford to use the roads is not the solution.

    That's me done, I've bleated the same things too many times now.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2019
    Gramsci likes this.
  5. thebackrow

    thebackrow Well-Known Member

    edit to delete
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2019
  6. thebackrow

    thebackrow Well-Known Member

    Thanks - this is a really thoughtful post. I'm still going to tackle a few of the things you've said but there's a lot of sense here.

    Maybe produce some hotspots. There is research on this - the minor roads don't take much traffic in reality and because they're narrow quickly get congested. Theres often this idea that they act as a 'safety valve' for the main roads when there are roadworks or a closure. It's not true - they very quickly become blocked themselves. When there was a nasty collision at the top of Brixton Hill the other year the roads in the ward became horribly congested and driver behaviour was terrible - during the few hours of closure of Brixton Hill there was a hit and run on a child on New Park Road....

    People do make rational decisions about their journies. If they get too long they don't make them, if they get easy/shorter they make more. Every bypass or motorway expansion scheme to 'reduce congestion' or 'remove a bottleneck" fails - within a year or so more people make more trips locally, they move a bit further from their job to a cheaper house because the commute just go shorter. Local people drive to the other side of town by nipping round the bypass and it all chokes again.

    It's not a small percentage. 15% less traffic across the area in Waltham Forest zone 1 after a year. Trend seems to be continuing. 70% of London car trips under 5 miles. 40% under 2. 25% of morning traffic is school run
    Most of those trips really can come out of cars. It's not about banning all car trips, or all car trips for poor people - the target is stopping the really antisocial, un-necessary, trips in the first instance and that would make a huge difference.

    to be direct, you can just fuck right off with this line of attack. I've lived in Brixton for pretty much all my adult life and have lived or worked in every one of the wards in the zone. If my house price went up i could sell and...what? buy a house in a shittier street and then campaign to improve that? I'm beyond the boundary of the scheme as it's drawn but almost any trip i make would go through part of it - the stuff being proposed will benefit me every time I commute to work, go to the park, go to the shops in the centre, visit friends. Some of it might well make traffic on my street worse and I'll be campaigning in future to have build on this scheme and get the benefits over a wider area.

    For sure. I'm pretty sure I"m developing asthma myself - on high pollution days i get a tight chest and wheezy when i'm out on the bike. But that's off the main roads - the pollution isn't that localised. We need to reduce trips by car. Simple as that. Benefits city wide

    The effect of non-porous neighbourhoods is to push yet more traffic onto main routes.

    Uber is an aberation at the moment. It's running at a loss, subsidised by VC funding and can't continue. It needs to be taxed (somehow) to raise the trip cost. However, as I understand it they don't base themselves anywhere - their next trip is picked up fairly close to where they are so, much as I think they are a problem, in many ways the trip allocation system is preferable to either black cabs (also circling the streets, well over half the time empty?) or trad office based minicabs whose return trip was always empty.

    For Uber making the area less porous makes short trips longer, more expensive, and less advantageous. That seems to work
    Home deliveries - I tracked a package of mine recently and was amazed to see just how small the delivery drivers area was - all his deliveries for the day were basically in the same ward. He wasn't rat runnning through the area so won't necessarily make a difference all to his distance travelled. (more work needed here). Also, these things really do seem a primary target for electric vans or even large electric cargo bikes doing the local distribution - they all drive 'transit' sized vans but theyre rarely even part full as their limiting factor is numberof drops not amount they can carry.

    we can shake hands on that except "scrappage incentives for drivers to change to electric vehicles". Fewer cars is the answer, not different cars. 50% of particulate pollution is brakes and tyres - just as much of a problem with electric cars. They still spend 90+% of the time parked taking up (usually) public space on the street. They still cause congestion. The bizarre current incentives (free parking in some boroughs, low cost parking permit - it's cheaper to park an e-car on street in Lambeth than to have 1/6th of a car parking space in a bike hanger, no congestion charge, 'free' fuel) create more trips. I have a neighbour with one who now drives into central London as he can do so for free - the marginal cost of travel drops so he drives *more*

    How about scrappage incentives to get rid of a car and not replace it - eg give up your right to an on street parking permit? buy an electric cargo bike? have the space outside your house replaced with a bike hanger...
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2019
    teuchter and snowy_again like this.
  7. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    It's not all about you personally, as I made clear.

    Anyway that's not statistically what happens. When the time comes the sale will most likely lead to leaving this area (and probably London), not moving around within it.
    Equity based self-interest if a key factor in all neighbourhood improvement schemes. It has to be identified and called out.

    I'm sad to hear you're developing breathing difficulties, you're by no means alone, and many of us are likely to have reduced life expectancy as a result.

    But no, I'm not having that. I've already posted this once, but here it is again, this time with the scale. Most of central Brixton is yellow, NO2 in the 40s; the main road is darkest red, in the 90s at least. Look it up, if your street is pleasingly blue I'd ask you to consider how much time you spend there and how much worse your breathing might be if that time was spent living somewhere dark red.
    upload_2019-5-26_9-30-10.png

    As I've said far too many times now, this should be about social & economic justice and political acceptability as much as cars. People who are driving ancient diesel cars are doing so because they can't afford better, not because they insist on poisoning people. For whatever reason they value their car to the extent they quite possibly (IME) spend a greater proportion of their income on their car than do those with more modern (= expensive), less polluting, ones. Simply forcing them off the road while allowing those who are better off to continue is not acceptable. That's why targetted scrappage schemes are required.

    I agree that the current system is a mess, but to be clear no-one has a right to on street parking as such, there's just an incoherent mishmash of public provision, some regulated and paid for and some not. Those who don't have a car are ignored. Remember my suggestion for a road use ration of half an hour a week per person, to be tradeable? A similar system could apply to kerb space- fairly regulated & charged for those who want it, while those who don't get some sort of compensatory Oyster credit or something. Personally I don't really think anyone should have unregulated off-street parking either but tbh I can't see that argument gaining much traction in the burbs.


    :(
    Government policy is to incentivise electric vehicles but (I just looked it up) the RRP on a new Nissan Leaf is north of thirty grand. So if a relatively modest lack of disincentive, compared to the capital cost of the car, is sufficient to modify his behaviour that's an indicator of how much people value personal mobility (well, and status symbols). Deterrents are needed which outweigh his obvious wealth, but just as pricing the old diesel drivers off the road to make them clearer for him is unreasonable, so is simply pricing him out of his car so someone even richer can get about more easily.

    I'd say you're right to highlight the obvious anomolies and campaign against them- they're pretty ridiculous- but I recognise that congestion per se is a lesser evil than pollution. Reducing (prior to eliminating) exhaust emitted gases and particulates (through regulation as well as e-vehicles) has to be the priority. Electric vehicles have regenerative braking, so PM10 brake lining emission per vehicle will be reduced as well.
     
  8. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    A lot of this argument appears to circle around the fact that you simply don't accept the principle of traffic evaporation. Is that correct?

    The principle is, as far as I am aware, pretty well studied and widely accepted. You are keen to ask for figures on how the traffic would be redistributed following the closure of Atlantic Road; I don't have access to that information and can only say that I trust it to be something that will be investigated if and when the scheme reaches a detailed design stage.

    But as you seem to be challenging what is a fairly well accepted principle of transport design, isn't it up to you to show where schemes implemented in London, which include an assumption that evaporation will take place, have failed to show that effect? You have posted a couple of links to studies but on close examination, neither of them actually show what you claim.
     
  9. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    No, in a word.

    In the course of this thread I've been pointed, by yourself, at a single report that deals with the general claim that evaporation will take place. It's dated 2002 and relies on, among other things, the M4 bus lane, since abandoned, Vauxhall Cross, changed over and again since because gridlock, and a then recent closure of Hammersmith Bridge, which they say wasn't comprehensively monitored and which can be contrasted with the current problems in Putney & Chiswick. Other than that one report, there have been plenty of assertions that traffic will just evaporate, but no actual substance to demonstrate the general case.

    Where I've claimed something I've shown the source and quoted it or provided a screenshot. Mostly it's been ignored or simply dismissed but not actually addressed.

    Obviously I accept there will be some reduction in the number of journeys measured. Unless the measurements take in all potential routes they will necessarily be partial. So,eg, measuring traffic on CHL and BR before and after closing Railton would show one set of results but taking into account Shakespeare, Milkwood and so on will say something else. So there's a question of selectivity in any results as well as confirmation bias in the project teams choices of measurements. But given that no before/afetr study was done for the Herne Hill closure it's probably unrealistic to expect anything at all, let alone full detail.

    That said, no doubt some journeys will not be made if the hassle is too great. How many? well, one stat in that report purports to shows that a closure of Tower Bridge in 1993 resulted in an 80% reduction in traffic on that and parallel routes. Fine. Evaporation on that scale absolutely shows closing roads works, that 4 out of 5 journeys were not made in vehicles, the traffic just vanished and people used public transport or active travel or simply didn't bother.

    However, common sense suggests that in the years since then loads of roads have been closed, and accelerating numbers of areas pedestrianised, traffic calmed, made less porous and yet here we are, the traffic has not evaporated. It's certainly reduced over time, mostly I think resulting from the TfL bus priority junction design changes. Then that trend apparently started to reverse from about 2015, possibly reflecting the rise in Uber and home deliveries, growth in hybrids and electric vehicles exempt from the congestion charge, and the introduction of 20mph limits. For transparency, I don't know any of that for sure, but it's pretty clear something has caused the changes.

    Lambeth
    upload_2019-5-27_9-31-22.png
    Tower Hamlets
    upload_2019-5-27_9-33-3.png
    What I'm saying is that you need to produce much more recent general research to back up your assertion, and to quantify it. eg, is there any suggestion that those living in non-porous zones use fewer cabs or white van deliveries before and after? Is the generally observed overall evaporation rate 80% (which seems preposterous) or 0% (equally so)? How much displaced traffic gets forced onto main roads and what effect does that have on pollution levels?

    None of us can model the scheme under discussion, and until detailed proposals are published we can't guess. But I think it's fair to say that those endorsing the proposals should at least try to substantiate that the scheme is likely do more good than harm. And you're not going to be able to do that by pretending there will be no significant increase in main road traffic while simultaneously completely disregarding the pollution stats.
     
  10. Winot

    Winot I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint

  11. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    Do you really think a study about the effect of removing the fast lane from urban expressways in foreign cities is directly comparable?

    Or pedestrianising the Paris equivalent of the Embankment?

    upload_2019-5-27_11-32-58.png
    Now tell me about the health effect of concentrating the other 50% on already congested main roads.



    Grand statements have been made about evaporation, now you're saying there's no recent research foundation for them?
     

    Attached Files:

  12. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    Similar to what you did with the other report you posted earlier, where you highlighted numbers that were from a period before the scheme had been fully implemented, in this case you have highlighted figures that come fro the period immediately after the scheme's implementation.

    Those figures come from 2016. This article talks about the change in figures between 2017 and 2018. These figures show that traffic on the 'displacement routes' fell. This is pretty much what is expected in any 'evaporation' theory: some of the traffic will evaporate almost immediately; there will indeed be some level of increase on parallel routes; but this will also fall off over time (it takes a while for people to change travel habits in response to changes in congestion, etc).

    My French is not good enough to do a search for the original source(s) of the statistics (if anyone can, I'd be interested) but below I have tried to summarise what the numbers are. Where they are in brackets I have made an assumption of no change between 2016-2017 and then inferred from precentage reductions given in the articles. I have also used this article.

    So - if you look at the pre-closure figures, with those from Jan 2018, it would appear that:
    - On the 'high' riverbank road am peak traffic has gone up from 1172 to 1441, and the pm peak traffic has hardly changed
    - On Boulevard St Germain, am peak traffic has gone up from 1088 to 1461, and the pm peak traffic has actually reduced.

    In other words, in the evening peak, it appears that around 2600 vph really has nearly all disappeared.
    In the morning peak, we have an increase of around 269 vph on the 'high' river road and 367 vph on the Boulevard St Germain.

    So, yes, it's resulted in displacement of around 600 cars in the morning peak, but that displacement involves losing 2000 cars per hour overall.

    That to me is a sufficiently dramatic reduction to take the view that the displacement is a price worth paying. The next step is to continue with an overall, citywide policy of car traffic reduction to neutralise that displacement gain and carry on to go further, which is what Paris is doing as far as I am aware.

    The alternative approach is to decide that that gain makes the whole scheme a failure, and re-open the lower river roads, to neutralise it. At the cost of re-introducing 2000 extra vehicle movements per hour overall. That's effectively what you are arguing is the better policy.


    **********
    am = vehicles per hour, am peak
    pm = vehicles per hour, pm peak

    Pre Sept 2015
    Low river road 2600
    High river road 1172 am, 1824 pm
    Boulevard St Germain 1088 am, 1856 pm

    Post closure (2016)
    Low river road 0
    High river rd 2023 am, 2066 pm
    Boulevard St Germain 1538 am, 1930 pm

    Jan 2017
    Low river road 0
    High river rd (2023 am, 2066 pm)
    Boulevard St Germain (1538am, 1930pm)

    Jan 2018
    Low river road 0
    High river rd (1441 am 1838 pm)
    Boulevard St Germain (1461am, 1785 pm)

    Screen Shot 2019-05-27 at 15.21.09.jpg
     
  13. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    I was pointed at a source and commented on it. if I was supposed to comment on something else that should have been made clear.
     
  14. thebackrow

    thebackrow Well-Known Member

    Traffic evaporation is the counterpoint of induced demand (create more space and trips grow to fill it). The effect is the same whether it's a lane on the M25 or a backstreet in Brixton.

    Disappearing traffic? – Rachel Aldred

    I'd point at the quote -
    "induced traffic has been understood theoretically for at least one-and-a-half centuries and demonstrated empirically in several studies over the latest eight decades

    Strangely enough, once a theory has been comprehensively proven further research tends to drop off a bit. What do you think has altered in human behavior since 2002, or 2014 or Paris last year to mean that the research doesn't apply to Brixton?

    Should also be aware of Braess's paradox - Braess's paradox - Wikipedia

    "a proposed explanation for the situation where an alteration to a road network to improve traffic flow actually has the reverse effect and impedes traffic through it.... Dietrich Braess noticed that adding a road to a congested road traffic network could increase overall journey time, and it has been used to explain instances of improved traffic flow when existing major roads are closed"

    It's completely possible that closing Atlantic Road will reduce congestion on the other roads in the area...
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2019
    Winot, teuchter and snowy_again like this.
  15. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    One reason there's a lot more research/evidence on induced demand, than its counterpoint, is that we spent most of the last century and a half building new roads and increasing traffic rather than closing them.
     
  16. Winot

    Winot I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint

    thebackrow likes this.
  17. urbanspaceman

    urbanspaceman Well-Known Member

    I suggested this - what do people think ?

    "The pavement on the east side of Brixton Road, running underneath the railway bridge just to the north of the Atlantic Road junction, is narrow, gloomy, congested and polluted. This constricted right-of-way effectively cuts in two the northern and southern town centre commercial areas on Brixton Road. Open up both sides of Arch 585 so that pedestrians can pass much more freely, and are safely separated from traffic."
     
    thebackrow and newbie like this.
  18. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    Yes, interesting. As with Paris I know nothing about Barcelona so it's hard to contextualise but they are at least considering gentrification & social equality even if they have no real proposals other than build more housing.

    Their challenges are very different from London, are you proposing to start a 16 year reorganisation of public transport as a precursor to redesigning how the city works?
     
  19. toblerone3

    toblerone3 Grrrrr

    greenness on its own is no good. Need some form of socialist fairness and activism to go with it.
     
    newbie likes this.
  20. Crispy

    Crispy The following psytrance is baṉned: All

    Would be great and have thought the same for a long time, but NR would never give up the rental.
     
  21. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    This is getting boring. Every time you post you make sweeping assertions yet when I comment on them - as with your "pollution isn't localised" statement- you completely ignore what I said and just make another grand claim or two without anything to substantiate it.

    In this case, please prove it.

    upload_2019-5-28_21-47-39.png


    Anything is possible. Please demonstrate your hypothesis by modelling how you think that will happen.
     
  22. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    this
     
  23. Winot

    Winot I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint

    I’m not proposing anything. I don’t know all the facts and propose to leave it to the experts.
     
    teuchter likes this.
  24. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    thebackrow simply said that it's possible that closing AR could reduce congestion in other roads. Not that it would happen, that it could happen. Links have already been given to examples of where this has happened.

    No-one can model with full accuracy what would/will happen. Where's your modelling for the significant increase in localised pollution that concerns you enough to oppose this scheme?
     
  25. Winot

    Winot I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint

    This thread really does exemplify the saying “the perfect is the enemy of the good”.
     
    thebackrow likes this.
  26. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    I've described what I think will happen to the traffic in pretty good detail, for both closing Atlantic Road and for reducing the traffic on Railton Road. No-one has addressed that at all. Just as no-one has grasped the nettle of the level of pollution on the main road- it's like the real local detail doesn't matter, there's a point to prove.

    I've been repeatedly asked to accept waffle that relies general statements that are supposed to be applicable in all cases, - like "pollution isn't localised", "The effect is the same whether it's a lane on the M25 or a backstreet in Brixton", and that the traffic will evaporate. Yet, as I've just quoted, the academics who research this stuff are much more circumspect, and want to consider each case individually.

    Which is what I've been saying throughout- that this specific scheme has to be looked at on its merits, and that it's for those proposing it to demonstrate that it will not do more harm than good.
     
  27. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    This is nonsense. Somewhere upthread is a whole post where I took the numbers you were suggesting would be displaced, and set out some alternative ones based on another scheme elsewhere in London.

    Anyway, none of us here has the data or modelling expeetise to do anything other than speculate based on general observations of what tends to happen when this type of scheme is implemented.

    No one is pretending to be able to say what exactly will happen and neither is anyone trying to deny that effects will vary according to specific locations.

    The predictions and models will be done by TfL when the scheme comes to a detailed design stage and mitigations will be part of the design. This has been explained by toblerone3 over several posts.

    If you want to see that detail and data then you'll need to ask them at that stage.
     
  28. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    I probably will. Until then none of us can quantify this. It appears 'model' was the wrong word, for which I'm sorry, and 'describe' would have been be better. I've agreed "It's completely possible that closing Atlantic Road will reduce congestion on the other roads in the area", but I'd like a narrative description of how that could happen, just as I'd like one to show how there could be no increased pollution burden on main roads. It's frustrating that no-one will attempt it, because it's what I've been asking for since page 1.

    We've discussed numbers based on reports about places elsewhere in London & Europe that neither of us know in detail. However what no-one else has done for this specific scheme is to describe where traffic will go at the various affected junctions, nor how drivers will achieve their objectives if their current routes are closed off.

    According to the proposal some 6,000vpd use Atlantic and Railton Roads. Unlike all other contributors to this thread, I've discussed potential alternative routes for commuters, Ubers and delivery vans as three specific categories that are part of that 6,000. I do not feel personally able to make suggestions about how the school run or short local journeys will be affected.

    IMO it is up to those promoting this scheme to describe what will happen for all those journey types.

    The contention that all the traffic is simply going to evaporate needs to be substantiated for this particular proposal. The behaviour of drivers that are displaced needs to be considered, for each of the different journey types, in particular the routes and junctions they will use, with at least some recognition that there will be junctions and roads adversely affected by this scheme. IMO those who live, who work or who regularly use those places will be adversely affected. No-one has addressed those people at all. No-one but me has mentioned residents, bus transit times, retail and office workers or anyone else. There's just been a grand, generalised, assumption that all will be good.
     
  29. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    What do you mean, no narrative has been provided as to what will happen to traffic if existing routes are closed off? It's repeatedly been perfectly clearly set out. Fine if you think that it's not going to happen in this specific case, but it's a lie to say no explanation has been given.
     
  30. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    Please point to the posts that describe what I've asked for, the local detail.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice