London Carfree Association Launch September 14th Lambeth Town Hall

[fjydj]

if you look at all the old movies of London in the 1900\s its jam packed and congested with horse drawn vehicles... cities are by their very nature congested. Its what makes them vibrant and exciting places to live.

However I would like to see the whole of Soho made largely car free, as its infested with crazy speeding black cabs and its horrible to walk and cycle around. Except for picking up disabled people everyone should walk to proper cab ranks outside of Soho.

 

[fredfelt]

IMHO overemotive nonsense.

Overemotive nonsence? In what way?

One study from the BMJ attributed 59 lives lost due to passive smoking in the UK.

Whereas this EU paper estimates that 39,000 lives are cut short every year in this country from air pollution - most of which is from traffic (page 109)

http://www.cafe-cba.org/assets/baseline_analysis_2000-2020_05-05.pdf

 

[Cobbles]

Overemotive nonsence? In what way?

One study from the BMJ attributed 59 lives lost due to passive smoking in the UK.

Whereas this EU paper estimates that 39,000 lives are cut short every year in this country from air pollution - most of which is from traffic (page 109)

http://www.cafe-cba.org/assets/baseline_analysis_2000-2020_05-05.pdf

What's the prime agent? - particulate matter - generated by large diesels - simple solution - ban all large diesel engines (including buses) from our city centres.

 

[teuchter]

What's the prime agent? - particulate matter - generated by large diesels - simple solution - ban all large diesel engines (including buses) from our city centres.

Solution: replace older buses with new ones with much improved particulate emissions.

Which is exactly what is happening.

Would you like to provide some stats comparing:
- emissions from a modern London bus
- emissions from all the cars that would be driven by the passengers on a bus, if they had to go by car instead (including consideration of the time sat idling in the massive traffic jams that would result)?

No, didn't think you would.

 

[fredfelt]

What's the prime agent? - particulate matter - generated by large diesels - simple solution - ban all large diesel engines (including buses) from our city centres.

Possibly, another less draconian option is simply to give more people the option to live in areas where traffic is removed from the immediate surroundings.

 

[Cobbles]

Solution: replace older buses with new ones with much improved particulate emissions.

However, they still pump out particulates and vast amounts of No2.

If someone wants to endorse private transport free zones (e.g. "car" free) on the bais of:"koz cars kill - innit", then perhaps providing a paper that supports that argument would have been wise.

In Edinburgh, for example, the Council's mad anti-car strategy has totally backfired as the Council's own statistics show that the removal of private vehicles from specific areas (through the introduction of bus priority or bus only routes) has generated areas of worsening pollution (despite the investment of large amounts of cash in cleaner buses).

It would appear that private vehicle catalysts had been doing a good job of cleaning up the mess generated by large diesels.

May 2008

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/latestnews/Air-pollution-at-city-centre.4050517.jp

"Latest figures released by the city council under freedom of information laws show emissions levels across the city have got worse. Average levels of nitrogen dioxide on Torphichen Place and West Maitland Street, close to Haymarket Station, and at a westbound section of St John's Road in Corstorphine, came in at more than twice the EU target."

If you check the relevant Council report, you'll see, for example that in West Maitland Street, 10% of the vehicle traffic (buses) generated 62% of the NO2.

http://www.scottishairquality.co.uk...7_City_of_Edinburgh_Round_1-Stage4_Report.pdf

(Traffic data starts at p 17)

By September 2008 it would appear that the Council had at last recognised where the problem lay:

Councillor Aldridge: "We've been tackling this and the agreement we have with Lothian Buses to reduce emissions from its buses will be extended to other operators. We'll also be working with freight companies to do the same, especially for 'hotspots'."

When asked if he thought Edinburgh would meet the EU targets by 2010, Cllr Aldridge said: "I am not sure if we will, but clearly Edinburgh is not alone in this regard. Banning vehicles is not realistic because the traffic will find other ways and you will just displace the problem."

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinburgh/You-must-be-choking-as.4494760.jp

 

[fredfelt]

If you check the relevant Council report, you'll see, for example that in West Maitland Street, 10% of the vehicle traffic (buses) generated 62% of the NO2.

Just curious - Does the report mention what % of people are transported by the buses?

Have any efforts been made to introduce cleaner buses in this area?

 

[teuchter]

However, they still pump out particulates and vast amounts of No2.

If someone wants to endorse private transport free zones (e.g. "car" free) on the bais of:"koz cars kill - innit", then perhaps providing a paper that supports that argument would have been wise.

In Edinburgh, for example, the Council's mad anti-car strategy has totally backfired as the Council's own statistics show that the removal of private vehicles from specific areas (through the introduction of bus priority or bus only routes) has generated areas of worsening pollution (despite the investment of large amounts of cash in cleaner buses).

It would appear that private vehicle catalysts had been doing a good job of cleaning up the mess generated by large diesels.

May 2008

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/latestnews/Air-pollution-at-city-centre.4050517.jp

"Latest figures released by the city council under freedom of information laws show emissions levels across the city have got worse. Average levels of nitrogen dioxide on Torphichen Place and West Maitland Street, close to Haymarket Station, and at a westbound section of St John's Road in Corstorphine, came in at more than twice the EU target."

If you check the relevant Council report, you'll see, for example that in West Maitland Street, 10% of the vehicle traffic (buses) generated 62% of the NO2.

http://www.scottishairquality.co.uk...7_City_of_Edinburgh_Round_1-Stage4_Report.pdf

(Traffic data starts at p 17)

By September 2008 it would appear that the Council had at last recognised where the problem lay:

Councillor Aldridge: "We've been tackling this and the agreement we have with Lothian Buses to reduce emissions from its buses will be extended to other operators. We'll also be working with freight companies to do the same, especially for 'hotspots'."

When asked if he thought Edinburgh would meet the EU targets by 2010, Cllr Aldridge said: "I am not sure if we will, but clearly Edinburgh is not alone in this regard. Banning vehicles is not realistic because the traffic will find other ways and you will just displace the problem."

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinburgh/You-must-be-choking-as.4494760.jp

1. The subject of this thread is London, not Edinburgh (clue is in the title). Anyway -
2. You have ignored my request for a comparison between bus emissions and equivalent car emissions if all the bus passengers were to go by car instead. This is the critical comparison
3. As usual you have selctively quoted from that newspaper article. Why didn't you include these bits:

City leaders today said trams and an increased focus on park-and-rides would help cut pollution levels across the city. But opposition and environmental groups said the worsening of air pollution could be traced back to the failure of 2005's road tolls referendum.

Mark Sydenham, spokesman for Friends of the Earth Edinburgh, said: "This probably won't please a lot of people, but air pollution was one of the key arguments for congestion charging in the referendum, and it looks as if the worst that was predicted then is now happening.

"Infrastructure is currently being developed for the introduction of trams which will carry up to 200 passengers at a time with zero emissions. We also try to encourage residents to use public transport, walk or cycle rather than driving."

"It is [a problem] which we predicted during the congestion charge debate," she said. "Sadly I think the chickens are coming home to roost and I still see no way we can make serious inroads into the air pollution problem.

"Congestion charging is off the agenda but I personally feel we will be forced to look again at this."

4. What that council report shows is that where there is a high proportion of buses in the traffic, they will be responsible for a high proportion of the emissions. Where there is a high proportion of cars in the traffic, they will be responsible for a high proportion of emissions. Surprise surprise! One of the test locations shows just that (Queen St).
As the report says -

The above chart and tables show that buses are the largest contributors to NOx levels
within the AQMA at the following locations Haymarket, West Maitland Street, Gorgie Road
and Leith Walk / Mc Donald Road junction. It is likely that the majority of NOx on Princes
Street will be attributed to buses since buses are predominant on this road. However, traffic
counters were not installed at this location and therefore traffic data is not available for
assessment. Queen Street has the highest estimated proportion of cars in its total vehicle
fleet and consequently cars are responsible for the majority of NOx emissions on this road.

I don't see any suggestion in that report that the solution to the air pollution problem is to reduce the number of buses and increase the number of cars.


So, basically, the usual old incompetently cobbled-together misinformation from you.

 

[teuchter]

Have any efforts been made to introduce cleaner buses in this area?

Yes they have. He will try and deny it nonetheless though.

 

[Cobbles]

1. The subject of this thread is London, not Edinburgh (clue is in the title).

Indeed but whatever failed in Edinburgh will also fail in Lunnun.

a4. What that council report shows is that where there is a high proportion of buses in the traffic, they will be responsible for a high proportion of the emissions. Where there is a high proportion of cars in the traffic, they will be responsible for a high proportion of emissions. Surprise surprise! One of the test locations shows just that (Queen St).

Queen Street is the only E/W route available to non-buses.

However, in all other monitored areas (see chart 6.2), it's the buses that produce by far the worst pollution (e.g. around 60% of the NO2 emissions even if they're only 10-20% of the traffic).

Haymarket 11% buses generate 63% contribution
Leith Walk 8% buses generate 58% contribution
west Maitland Street 10% buses generate 62% contribution

Even in Queen Street where buses are only 1% of the traffic (tour buses), they still manage to punch way above their weight with a 10% contribution.

I note that you missed the principal conclusion:

"The traffic data collected has demonstrated a strong relationship with ambient NOx concentrations, monitored from nearby real – time analysers, thereby directly confirming traffic emissions as the major source of NOx, and hence nitrogen dioxide, in Edinburgh.

The estimated contribution of NOx from the various vehicle categories has identified that a considerable portion of NOx is derived from buses."

"Considerable" is a bit of an understatement.......

 

[Cobbles]

Yes they have. He will try and deny it nonetheless though.

LRT started upgrading their fleet of coal burners long before the figures were produced.

Thankfully they used to make a profit so these were purchased without any raping of the public purse. Now, with the pointless tram works in place, they have managed to make a loss so that spending plans will have to be curtailed - even further in future as the Tram's annual operating deficit will have to be subsidised by any profits that buses may be able to generate,

 

[fredfelt]

LRT started upgrading their fleet of coal burners long before the figures were produced.

Thankfully they used to make a profit so these were purchased without any raping of the public purse. Now, with the pointless tram works in place, they have managed to make a loss so that spending plans will have to be curtailed - even further in future as the Tram's annual operating deficit will have to be subsidised by any profits that buses may be able to generate,

And for this reason you object to people being able to choose to live in a community without cars in the immediate area?

 

[teuchter]

Indeed but whatever failed in Edinburgh will also fail in Lunnun.



Queen Street is the only E/W route available to non-buses.

However, in all other monitored areas (see chart 6.2), it's the buses that produce by far the worst pollution (e.g. around 60% of the NO2 emissions even if they're only 10-20% of the traffic).

Haymarket 11% buses generate 63% contribution
Leith Walk 8% buses generate 58% contribution
west Maitland Street 10% buses generate 62% contribution

Even in Queen Street where buses are only 1% of the traffic (tour buses), they still manage to punch way above their weight with a 10% contribution.

I note that you missed the principal conclusion:

"The traffic data collected has demonstrated a strong relationship with ambient NOx concentrations, monitored from nearby real – time analysers, thereby directly confirming traffic emissions as the major source of NOx, and hence nitrogen dioxide, in Edinburgh.

The estimated contribution of NOx from the various vehicle categories has identified that a considerable portion of NOx is derived from buses."

"Considerable" is a bit of an understatement.......

You are still avoiding my question regarding equivalent emissions for a busload's worth of people travelling by car. What is the average loading of a bus in central edinburgh?

 

[teuchter]

You are still avoiding my question regarding equivalent emissions for a busload's worth of people travelling by car. What is the average loading of a bus in central edinburgh?

Here we go: average car occupancy in Scotland is 1.58. (Lower than that for cummuters)

Average bus occupancy in the UK seems to be about 9%. That presumably includes lightly loaded rural routes. London bus occupancy is around 15%. I'd guess central Edinburgh lies somewhere in between. Nonetheless we will use the 9% figure.

So if we use the "worst-case" scenario from the figures in that report (Haymarket) we have 63 units of NOx units per bus compared to 14 units per car (if I understand correctly).

63 / 9 = 7 units of NOx per bus passenger
14 / 1.58 = 8.9 units of NOx per car passenger.

And that's before we even start to consider the increase in emissions due to congestion and stationary traffic if each bus was replaced by at least 6 cars.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's due to planning policy having allowed it to happen. There's no need for an industrialised society to be a car-dependant one.

You miss the point. There's a need for an industrialised society to have roads. Car-dependency is an artefact of late 20th-century economic activity, with a little bit of "cocking up of public transport" mixed in.

 

[teuchter]

You miss the point. There's a need for an industrialised society to have roads. Car-dependency is an artefact of late 20th-century economic activity, with a little bit of "cocking up of public transport" mixed in.

How do you go from that to being anti the idea of car-free urban areas?

 

[Cobbles]

And for this reason you object to people being able to choose to live in a community without cars in the immediate area?

There's already a free choiuce for living in a car free community - it's called "buy a smallholding".

 

[fredfelt]

There's already a free choiuce for living in a car free community - it's called "buy a smallholding".

I mistakenly assumed by the context of the thread, and you banging on about buses in cities, that you understood this to be about car free in the urban environment.

 

[ViolentPanda]

How do you go from that to being anti the idea of car-free urban areas?

I'm not opposed to pedestrianisation where it can be done sensibly, a great (and long-standing) example being St. John's Road in Clapham Junction, and another being the York Rd end of Battersea High Street. Pedestrianisation of those roads helped solve major traffic issues and stopped side roads being used as rat-runs and free car parks by commuters.
What I'm against is the idea of pedestrianising whole locales or, as was suggested earlier, whole estates or housing developments, because we live "mixed use" lives. Sometimes you'll need a car or other 4-wheeled vehicle. It's that simple. Thin out the amount of roads that can be used, by all means, incentivise people to use smaller cars and/or public transport, but please don't try to impose a "car-free" environment unless you've already got some solid ideas for how you're going to get around the transport and access issues such an area would create.

 

[teuchter]

I'm not opposed to pedestrianisation where it can be done sensibly, a great (and long-standing) example being St. John's Road in Clapham Junction, and another being the York Rd end of Battersea High Street. Pedestrianisation of those roads helped solve major traffic issues and stopped side roads being used as rat-runs and free car parks by commuters.
What I'm against is the idea of pedestrianising whole locales or, as was suggested earlier, whole estates or housing developments, because we live "mixed use" lives. Sometimes you'll need a car or other 4-wheeled vehicle. It's that simple. Thin out the amount of roads that can be used, by all means, incentivise people to use smaller cars and/or public transport, but please don't try to impose a "car-free" environment unless you've already got some solid ideas for how you're going to get around the transport and access issues such an area would create.

Well I don't think anyone is proposing that that is what would be introduced. There would have to be exemptions for delivery vehicles and also for those for whom walking is not an option (as there are in all the real-world examples provided earlier in the thread). But the idea of car-free living goes beyond just pedestrianising a few streets - more importantly it's about the planning of neighbourhoods so that no-one needs to own a car in the first place - all the services they need access to being easily accessible on foot or by public transport.

For this reason I have to admit (although I am totally in support of the principle) that seeing how it could meaningfully be applied to a part of central London. Because it is very much about the way towns are planned, it works better when applied to a new-build area (as in the case of Vauban). If I am to think of Brixton, for example: in actual fact, most of the residential streets are already fairly quiet in terms of traffic. This presumably is because most people living here don't own cars, or if they do they don't tend to use them for daily journeys to work etc. Where traffic is more of an issue in Brixton is on the main roads like Brixton Hill, particularly where they pass through the town centre. The centre of Brixton could be immeasurably improved if road traffic there could be significantly reduced. The problem of course is that most of this traffic is people trying to get into London from places outside of Brixton. That problem would not really be addressed by making Brixton itself "car-free". It might well be addressed by making the whole of zones 1 and 2 car-free - which in my opinion would be excellent - but I'm not optimistic that anyone is going to be brave enough to try and do that.

So this would in fact be one of my questions to roryer or the London Carfree Association: how would a Brixton Carfree area deal with the fact that such a large proportion of the traffic here is going to and from places outside of that area? Or are they actually suggesting that restrictions be put on the main A23 route through the centre (fine with me but I can't really see it happening)?

 

[Tony E]

Hi Folks

Just to back up everything Rory has said. We are both in carfree families, but in very different generations. My (now young adult) kids have benefited in so many ways because their parents did not have a car: they are fitter and healthier, they have been able to make their way around London (and indeed around Europe) on their own since their mid-teens, there is money saved in their banks accounts...

So why are people like us - almost the majority in areas like Lambeth - forced to live in streets and on estates where we have to inhale the fumes from the exhausts of others, be exposed to the risk of injury from motorists, be woken up by traffic noise?

Come along to the Town Hall on Monday Sept 14 (7.30pm) and add your voice to the demand for carfree neigHbourhoods!

Tony

 

[Tony E]

 

[Tony E]

Well done, Rory, for getting this discussion going.

I suggest that young families like Rory's, who benefit us all by not having a car, have a right to live in a car-free estate or street if they choose to do so.

tony e

 

[teuchter]

Well done, Rory, for getting this discussion going.

I suggest that young families like Rory's, who benefit us all by not having a car, have a right to live in a car-free estate or street if they choose to do so.

tony e

I'd be interested to hear your, or roryer's, responses to the questions I asked earlier in the thread:

Brixton, for example: in actual fact, most of the residential streets are already fairly quiet in terms of traffic. This presumably is because most people living here don't own cars, or if they do they don't tend to use them for daily journeys to work etc. Where traffic is more of an issue in Brixton is on the main roads like Brixton Hill, particularly where they pass through the town centre. The centre of Brixton could be immeasurably improved if road traffic there could be significantly reduced. The problem of course is that most of this traffic is people trying to get into London from places outside of Brixton. That problem would not really be addressed by making Brixton itself "car-free". It might well be addressed by making the whole of zones 1 and 2 car-free - which in my opinion would be excellent - but I'm not optimistic that anyone is going to be brave enough to try and do that.

So this would in fact be one of my questions to roryer or the London Carfree Association: how would a Brixton Carfree area deal with the fact that such a large proportion of the traffic here is going to and from places outside of that area? Or are they actually suggesting that restrictions be put on the main A23 route through the centre (fine with me but I can't really see it happening)?

 

[fredfelt]

For anyone interested here's a link to an article from the Guardian Bike Blog published today about Car Free Communities.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2009/oct/29/car-free-cities-neighbourhoods

 

[ajdown]

I suggest that young families like Rory's, who benefit us all by not having a car, have a right to live in a car-free estate or street if they choose to do so.

What about the rest of the residents on that street or estate who do not wish to participate in this scheme?

New estates, yes, of course they can be built with this in mind, so people moving into them are doing so knowing that they're going into a 'car free community' but to impose such measures on existing communities is, I believe, a backward step in a modern society.

 

[fredfelt]

What about the rest of the residents on that street or estate who do not wish to participate in this scheme?

New estates, yes, of course they can be built with this in mind, so people moving into them are doing so knowing that they're going into a 'car free community' but to impose such measures on existing communities is, I believe, a backward step in a modern society.

Read the blog I posted the link for. It addresses your question head on.

 

[ajdown]

I just see all the usual loony ideas of increasing charges for parking and generally inconveniencing drivers more and more to force them off the streets, rather than anything particularly practical or useful.

I detest cyclists and the chaos and disruption they cause to other traffic and pedestrians, and if I had my way I'd make them pay their way instead, plus bring in licensing, training and insurance like car drivers have to suffer.

 

[fredfelt]

I just see all the usual loony ideas of increasing charges for parking and generally inconveniencing drivers more and more to force them off the streets, rather than anything particularly practical or useful.

I detest cyclists and the chaos and disruption they cause to other traffic and pedestrians, and if I had my way I'd make them pay their way instead, plus bring in licensing, training and insurance like car drivers have to suffer.

Bonkers isn't it.

If you find yourself massively inconvenienced when driving a car my practical and useful suggestion to you would be to do it a little less. Maybe you could replace some of your journeys by bike - you'll soon find you are a little more relaxed and generally start to feel better.

Perhaps you'll attain a healthy level of smugness when passing all those loony people hanging out in their vehicles who I can only conclude must enjoy being stuck in traffic jams every day.

 

[teuchter]

For anyone interested here's a link to an article from the Guardian Bike Blog published today about Car Free Communities.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2009/oct/29/car-free-cities-neighbourhoods

I'd like to visit Vauban some day. It sounds good.