Share this article share on facebook icon share on twitter icon

To go to the full forum thread, click on its title.

    • Year-on-year increase in cycle lanes usage
    • 9000 trips is impressive in a month of dark nights and poor weather, and a big increase over previous years. And numbers will increase as more low traffic neighbourhoods roll out - these give safe(r) routes for residents to access C20 and C1 main cycleways. We've already seen more cyclists in the Fox Lane LTN and the Connaught LTN will deliver more. Luckily central, regional and local strategy is to dramatically increase cycle lanes and encourage active travel.
    • In Traffic, Roads and Parking / Cycle Enfield
    • Author Adrian Day
    • 14 Jan 2021 10:38
    • Young climate activists quizz Enfield North MP on ...
    • For incinerator related issues linked to post #5842 plus more, submissions from both Extinction Rebellion and Stop the Edmonton Incinerator, as well as those from all other consultees to the latest stage of the North London Waste Plan, are now available via https://www.nlwp.net/examination/ . That from the North London Waste Authority certainly stands out, for while claiming to have no plans for the Pinkham Way site, their own submission focuses on nothing other than problems they may encounter when developing the same. Draw your own conclusions.
    • In Other Subjects / Environmental Issues
    • Author Karl Brown
    • 09 Jan 2021 10:36
    • Young climate activists quizz Enfield North MP on ...
    • https://greenworld.org.uk/article/government-action-efw-plants-too-little-too-late New incinerators threaten to add up to 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per year in the UK - yet the North London Waste Authority, with the support of all the boroughs involved, insists that its Edmonton vanity project is environmentally friendly. Evidence, if we needed any, that Energy From Waste (ie incinerators) is reducing the likelihood of curbing greenhouse emissions comes from the government's own official Climate Change Commission: “If EfW plants under construction and granted planning approval in the UK were all built, and plant utilisation rates remained unchanged, this would add 3-10 MtCO2e/year to UK emissions. To prevent this major increase, either a substantial fraction – potentially a majority – of the EfW plant pipeline will have to remain unbuilt, EfW fleet utilisation rates will have to fall, or else carbon capture and storage (CCS) will need to be installed on plants from the mid/late-2020s onwards to mitigate the additional emissions.” What Jenny Jones, a Green member of the House of Lords, is saying here applies totally to the Edmonton...
    • In Other Subjects / Environmental Issues
    • Author Basil Clarke
    • 09 Jan 2021 00:08
    • London's Budget
    • As it's inevitably better to try and steer policy direction before it is set than rebel afterwards, there is a chance to comment on the London budget 2021/22. Earlier consultations have apparently identified Londoners wishes as: • Protecting jobs and businesses • Supporting the most vulnerable Londoners • Keeping young people safe • Narrow social, economic and health inequalities • Cleaner, greener London Much more detail, including nine proposed missions, as well as supporting research is available via https://www.london.gov.uk/talk-london/economy-skills-work/have-your-say-proposed-london-budget-2021-2022 Deadline is 22nd January.
    • In Planning and Development / Planning & Development: Miscellaneous subjects
    • Author Karl Brown
    • 06 Jan 2021 11:33
    • Will low-traffic neighbourhoods reduce net polluti...
    • I don’t believe I can add significantly to my earlier comments other than perhaps suggesting not getting too focused on one simple scenario of one strand of what is an immensely complex system. One risk of that route is to generate the doubt / distraction / uncertainty which can divide people and seems to be what is trying to be avoided. Spending time on the numerous informing reports, data, public hearings and such of the transport element of the London spatial strategy in particular but also that of HMG which led in the round to the current policy implementation may be useful. London’s latest transport strategy was agreed in 2018 but the overarching London Plan has been held up by the Secretary of State over housing matters for a long while. His latest two Directives have however just been answered by the GLA which should theoretically see it signed off very early in 2021. You would then have a 6 week window to challenge it legally. All that said, with 100+ live LTN trials of this part of the UK’s / London’s strategy roll out, plus other equivalent UK experiences, there is shortly going to be more than enough experiential data to powerfully inform future iterations of...
    • In Planning and Development / Quieter Neighbourhoods
    • Author Karl Brown
    • 30 Dec 2020 10:26
    • Will low-traffic neighbourhoods reduce net polluti...
    • You seem to be drawing this debate to a conclusion. To be clear the assumptions made by me were the pro LTN best case scenario for the claims of reducing short journey traffic. Every assumption made was generously in your favour. More pollution will be produced whether these cars return to the road or not, if the traffic that remains is delayed, or caused to drive further, for just one minute. You have resorted to unsupported assumptions that a significant number of longer journeys will not take place to account for the extra pollution produced. Your evidence for this is " I seen enough evidence of vehicle numbers expanding/contracting in line with road capacity over the years". I have provided you with evidence that between 2015 and 2018 when Waltham Forest implemented several LTN schemes and closed off a significant number of roads to through traffic, Dept of Transport statistics show the borough's traffic volumes went up considerably more than its neighbouring boroughs. This is not consistent with claims of traffic evaporation or traffic expanding/contracting with road capacity as you claim.
    • In Planning and Development / Quieter Neighbourhoods
    • Author Peter Payne
    • 29 Dec 2020 01:22
    • Rapid coronavirus testing now available at Southga...
    • There is now a rapid coronavirus testing station at Southgate Library High Street N14 6BP with 12 booths in operation for speed. Open 9am to 6pm (New Year's Day 10.30am to 6pm). No booking required, just turn up. [Information from ] IMPORTANT: If you have Covid-19 symptoms, do not go to a rapid testing station. Self-isolate and book an appointment for a PCR test by phoning 119 or visiting www.gov.uk/get-coronavirus-test.
    • In Other Subjects / Health Services
    • Author PGC Webmaster
    • 26 Dec 2020 18:50
    • Will low-traffic neighbourhoods reduce net polluti...
    • Karl. Again thanks for a broad view response with which to debate. It’s true I am coming at this predominantly with a view to urban pollution and it is interesting that you say that HMG and The Mayor are not funding this with the primary objective of air quality. But if the net effect of the changes worsen pollution can this even legally go ahead ? “Improve air quality” is mentioned in the paragraph you quote from the London Plan suggesting it is at least a secondary objective. Suggesting encouraging physical activity but in dirtier air seems contraindicative. You say “The point here is the focus on benefit of investment changes to people rather than where it has long been – drivers.” But surely for many years investment in London’s transport has financially been hugely in favour of public transport (as I agree it should be) Crossrail alone probably would cover the whole road budget and most of the non maintenance spend on roads has been geared to buses and cyclists. I agree pollution isn’t only just localised but you will know from existing data and future modelling that NO2 and NOx have reduced greatly in the last 10 years, and will continue to do so, not due to...
    • In Planning and Development / Quieter Neighbourhoods
    • Author Peter Payne
    • 24 Dec 2020 17:46
    • Will low-traffic neighbourhoods reduce net polluti...
    • I'm merely making different assumptions to you in the modelling. You assume no one driving over 2km will amend their journey - I seen enough evidence of vehicle numbers expanding/contracting in line with road capacity over the years to believe that a proportion of drivers will not make the same journeys given a more 'difficult' route. Someone with more time than me will need to analyse the detail of what you say but in the interim, some good news here on Railton Road LTN where traffic numbers have fallen for both 'intra' and peripheral roads https://love.lambeth.gov.uk/new-independent-analysis-shows-traffic-levels-cut-by-a-over-a-quarter-in-railton-area/? fbclid=IwAR1ck_SOiPnUM3V9_Ao42SA2QqoVMVGo2lT58QoZaOr2fNT6ws4gHSEsfzg
    • In Planning and Development / Quieter Neighbourhoods
    • Author Adrian Day
    • 24 Dec 2020 11:25
    • Will low-traffic neighbourhoods reduce net polluti...
    • It’s probably useful to start from where policy is and has been for a while, that is to reduce traffic volume and encourage a commensurate increase in active travel. One strong rationale has been finite city space and simply too many vehicles looking to use it. Many benefits, eg less unhealthy inactivity follow. HMG and the Mayor, from all I’ve seen and read over years, are not funding LTN’s with the primary objective of reducing air quality. The Healthy Streets Approach outlined in this plan puts improving health and reducing health inequalities at the heart of planning London’s public space. It will tackle London’s inactivity crisis, improve air quality and reduce the other health impacts of living in a car-dominated city by planning street networks that work well for people on foot and on bikes, and providing public transport networks that are attractive alternatives to car use. It will also ensure that streets become more social spaces. (Published London Plan 1.3.4) The point here is the focus on benefit of investment changes to people rather than where it has long been – drivers. On air quality it’s worth not falling into traps assuming vehicle pollution and its...
    • In Planning and Development / Quieter Neighbourhoods
    • Author Karl Brown
    • 23 Dec 2020 18:11
    • Will low-traffic neighbourhoods reduce net polluti...
    • Karl. Thanks for your detailed reply. I agree that long term fiddling in the micro isn't going to get to the bigger picture and for me the macro approach to do anything significant for urban pollution is to get on investing in the Electric Vehicle infrastructure and stop wasting money on these local LTN schemes which will likely add to pollution. I agree if you took out 20% of ALL car journeys this would be significant but my original post was to do with the removal of a best case scenario of 55% of short car journeys that could be walked or cycled. The point being that if you have to cause the remaining traffic to do longer journeys in more congestion you will not make a saving in pollution and likely increase it. Furthermore the additional pollution is concentrated in a queuesmog. The implication of pollution as a contributory factor in the death of Ella Kissi-Debra was precisely because she lived and schooled in an area of non dispersed pollution. The LTNs are doing just this. Removing pollution from one area and adding more net pollution in a concentrated area on perimeter roads. Adrian. You say my assumption is wrong in that although the short journey removal discussed is...
    • In Planning and Development / Quieter Neighbourhoods
    • Author Peter Payne
    • 22 Dec 2020 23:28
    • Will low-traffic neighbourhoods reduce net polluti...
    • I’m not specifically looking to engage on LTN’s because there’s a live trial and associated consultation underway, and I belief that’s where all comments are best served. We’re currently one of many areas sitting at the end of a big HMG LTN roll out and even if the present Johnson / Khan / Caliskan political axis becomes one of Starmer / Bailey / Laban I really wouldn’t envisage too much change in the overall direction towards less car with a commensurate focus on people. On air quality, go back a few years on the site and you’ll see me raising the issue before it was common currency. I haven’t considered an individual LTN viewpoint because it’s systemic rather than local and so needs to be treated that way, and that to me means tackling the related traffic strand at the macro level rather than fiddling in the micro. Take out 20% of cars / journeys? Bank it. Good luck with arguing that losing 20% of UK cars / journeys will have no visible effect on air quality. At the margin and at the very simplistic level presented, yes the maths might work but this is a hugely complex system, one that planners have tried, and failed as best I understand it, to accurately...
    • In Planning and Development / Quieter Neighbourhoods
    • Author Karl Brown
    • 22 Dec 2020 14:04

Recent forum topics

Forums index