Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins

[irf520]

That's right, the facts are there to show that it can work. But you prefer to disregard those inconvenient facts, right?

Well, yes, you could stop people driving. You could ban it altogether. Or you could fuck up the roads so badly that every car journey is a guaranteed nose to tail traffic jam from beginning to end. But then commercial vehicles will be stuck in the jams and there would be corresponding cost increases in goods and services, and general adverse effects on the economy.
I don't think adding a few minutes to car journeys here and there will stop people driving. I haven't reduced my car use as a result of this scheme. What it does do is annoy people and, I suspect, cause an increase in accidents due to frustration.

 

[irf520]

If you are trying to make cross-town journeys that cut through multiple residntial areas with narrow streets, then the whole point of schemes like this is to discourage you from doing that.

It's not just residential areas. Every time there's a 'junction improvement' on a main road, the accompanying blurb states that it will increase journey time by a few minutes. If you keep on doing that it soon mounts up. Plus, as I've pointed out before, journey time is a nonlinear function of traffic volume, so reducing capacity will at some point have a catastrophic effect.

 

[irf520]

I know Teuchter, you believe that a significant proportion of the drivers will simply stop driving, and that's how it will improve air quality. Feel free to facepalm me as much as you like but I'm still not at all convinced by that in this very local instance.

But there is also the possibility that this scheme is the thin edge of a very large (and non-local) wedge, as I've pointed out before. The cycling campaigners (who appear to have the ear of those in power) want wide area closures.

 

[critical1]

Amazingly I know there's not many jobs in Detroit. Maybe he should spend his days walking... His family life must be great Zzzzzzz

It also says a lot about how important transport infrastructure is.

A grass-roots online campaign far surpassed its $25,000 goal to provide a vehicle that lets Detroit tradesman James Robertson reach his Rochester Hills workplace without lengthy bus rides and walks.

The impromptu GoFundMe drive, kindled by a front-page Free Press article on Sunday, exceeds $43,000 in under one day as more than 1,300 people make small and large credit card donations.

Getting to and from his factory job 23 miles away in Rochester Hills, he'll take a bus partway there and partway home. And he'll also walk an astounding 21 miles. . . .

New Update: Online Crowd Gives $43,000+ For Car-Needing Commuter

 

[teuchter]

teuchter I would be interested (genuinely seriously) in seeing a study that demonstrates how a scheme of this scale (ie shutting one road and a few directly connected sidestreets) has been proven to push a significant number of people to give up driving and take up alternatives instead.

You could read this:
www.onestreet.org/images/stories/Disappearing_traffic.pdf

Altogether, evidence from over 200 transport professionals and about 150 published documents was collated to provide information on about 100 case studies from across the world. About 60 provided sufficiently detailed evidence for in-depth analytical review. The key findings were as follows.

1. (a) When roadspace for cars is reallocated, traffic problems are usually far less serious than predicted.
   
   
2. (b) Overall traffic levels can reduce by significant amounts.
   
   
3. (c) Traffic reduction is partly explained by recognising that
   
   people react to a change in road conditions in much more complex ways than has traditionally been assumed in traffic models.

You also have a look at

www.ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/streets_people.pdf

Budapest example confirms that traffic restriction does not cause chaos (Hungary) | Eltis

 

[critical1]

You could read this:
www.onestreet.org/images/stories/Disappearing_traffic.pdf
You also have a look at
www.ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/streets_people.pdf
Budapest example confirms that traffic restriction does not cause chaos (Hungary) | Eltis

Say it all really...

"well-designed and well implemented schemes to reallocate roadspace away from general traffic can help to improve conditions for pedestrians, cyclists or public transport users, without significantly increasing congestion or other related problems."

As opposed to the LJ road madness resulting from lack of consultation an implemented against the wishes of those who took the time to comment on it.

 

[bimble]

Thanks teuchter for the above will have a proper read a bit later, with beady eye out for the answer to the question I asked, which was particularly about whether projects of this scale (ie one main rd & couple of adjoining ones) have been proven to move people to alternative transport

 

[Burn:Cycle]

You could read this:
www.onestreet.org/images/stories/Disappearing_traffic.pdf


You also have a look at

www.ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/streets_people.pdf

Budapest example confirms that traffic restriction does not cause chaos (Hungary) | Eltis

Teuchter, those reports are interesting - but nearly all of them are reports on schemes that were undertaken in the late 80's and 90's up til about 2001 (the Vauxhall scheme). Only the Budapest scheme seems to be newer. I would suggest that these examples are now a little dated. If the professionals in the traffic management "industry" are using schemes of 15 years ago to justify the concept of traffic "evaporation" can I suggest they come down to CHL in 2015 for a wake-up call.

 

[Brainaddict]

I imagine the largest reduction in road carrying capacity in London was the introduction of bus lanes. There must be studies on the effect of that on overall traffic congestion.

 

[teuchter]

If I remember correctly, london's road capacity has been reduced by around 15-20% in the last decade, at least some of that to do with bus lanes, and amount of traffic appears to have adjusted to it, without significant increase in congestion (in fact I think there are signs that congestion has reduced slightly in the last few years). Would have to dig out relevant links to make sure I've got that tright.

 

[teuchter]

Teuchter, those reports are interesting - but nearly all of them are reports on schemes that were undertaken in the late 80's and 90's up til about 2001 (the Vauxhall scheme). Only the Budapest scheme seems to be newer. I would suggest that these examples are now a little dated. If the professionals in the traffic management "industry" are using schemes of 15 years ago to justify the concept of traffic "evaporation" can I suggest they come down to CHL in 2015 for a wake-up call.

They are up until 2001 because that's when that review was done. What do you think has changed to make findings from 15 years ago invalid? Has the basic nature of roads and cars changed in a way that means effects are going to be wildly different now? The Budapest example seems to suggest not.

 

[CH1]

Just re-read this.

So you are saying the area is "well and truly kettled" whilst describing that it was entirely possible for you to get to your destination by car.

And you were delayed by 10-15 minutes as a result of several abortive attempts to find a route. So you now know the route - which means next time your car journey might take 5 minutes longer than before the closures, because it is slightly less direct. Not exactly a big deal is it?

You speak as a pedestrian/public transport user - and say the area is "kettled", yet by foot or public transport it is every bit as accessible as before.

Pedantry beats common sense - again.

I was with a driver and we needed to make a call on the Minet Library - starting at SW9 8SE if you want to check it on your Google Map find a route thingee.

With only partial knowledge on my part and no knowledge on the drivers part we got in a pickle.

Good job we weren't an ambulance.

 

[teuchter]

Some more reading
Taking Road Space Away From Cars Won't Create Traffic Jams

Popular changes in recent years, like the part-pedestrianisation of Trafalgar Square, the closure of side roads at one end through whole areas to stop rat running past people’s homes, and lots of smaller measures, have subtly but significantly changed London’s streets. TfL estimates that, in total since 2000, roads in central London have lost around a third of their traffic capacity and that inner London’s roads can carry a sixth fewer vehicles (PDF). Yet despite warnings that reduced capacity would be a disaster, average traffic speeds have largely been maintained.

End of the car age: how cities are outgrowing the automobile


This has some discussion about effects observed during major events, when special bus lanes are introduced, or other restrictions to private car travel. Generally the predicted chaos does not materialise. In some cases congestion is dramatically reduced (as in 1984 LA games). People change their travel habits. London's 2012 games lanes system is mentioned:

Easing traffic congestion may be most enduring Pan Am legacy

 

[teuchter]

Pedantry beats common sense - again.

I was with a driver and we needed to make a call on the Minet Library - starting at SW9 8SE if you want to check it on your Google Map find a route thingee.

With only partial knowledge on my part and no knowledge on the drivers part we got in a pickle.

Good job we weren't an ambulance.

I don't get your point. Why do you say pedantry?

You didn't have the route knowledge and got in a pickle. Next time you will have the knowledge, and won't get in a pickle. Exactly the reason why things need to be given time.

 

[CH1]

Some more reading
Taking Road Space Away From Cars Won't Create Traffic Jams
End of the car age: how cities are outgrowing the automobile
This has some discussion about effects observed during major events, when special bus lanes are introduced, or other restrictions to private car travel. Generally the predicted chaos does not materialise. In some cases congestion is dramatically reduced (as in 1984 LA games). People change their travel habits. London's 2012 games lanes system is mentioned:
Easing traffic congestion may be most enduring Pan Am legacy

I'm reading a very interesting book on Monomania - would you like the reference?

 

[bimble]

If I remember correctly, london's road capacity has been reduced by around 15-20% in the last decade..and amount of traffic appears to have adjusted to it, without significant increase in congestion (in fact I think there are signs that congestion has reduced slightly in the last few years). Would have to dig out relevant links to make sure I've got that tright.

I've only just started my studies of your documents teuchter but I note that congestion actually seems to be the key to evaporation theory? ;"

“The capacity of individual car users to change their travel behaviour in a range of creative ways, when faced with the problem of severe traffic congestion, presents real opportunities for urban planners who seek to optimise the use of space and quality of life in the city”
?

 

[Brainaddict]

I'm reading a very interesting book on Monomania - would you like the reference?

Your point was not a good one CH1. Obviously people get confused about routes when they first change. Over time they learn the new routes, googlemaps and satnavs get the new info and so on. You're talking about a temporary inconvenience, but seem under the impression that an inconvenience to you should be enough to condemn the scheme.

 

[CH1]

Your point was not a good one CH1. Obviously people get confused about routes when they first change. Over time they learn the new routes, googlemaps and satnavs get the new info and so on. You're talking about a temporary inconvenience, but seem under the impression that an inconvenience to you should be enough to condemn the scheme.

My point was that even for me - a lifelong pedestrian - I can see why it's a pain in the ass. And for zero benefit to me, speaking as someone who has lived on Coldharbour Lane for 29 years and never known congestion or pollution worse.

 

[CH1]

You didn't have the route knowledge and got in a pickle. Next time you will have the knowledge, and won't get in a pickle. Exactly the reason why things need to be given time.

So you expect anyone driving in the affected zone to have done The Knowledge, whether it be Aunt Matilda from Bournemouth or the rookie Police Cadet answering an emergency call?

 

[teuchter]

My point was that even for me - a lifelong pedestrian - I can see why it's a pain in the ass. And for zero benefit to me, speaking as someone who has lived on Coldharbour Lane for 29 years and never known congestion or pollution worse.

You are still ignoring the fact that we can't necessarily assume the current increased congestion on CHL is permanent. I am doing my best to provide lots of reference to research and precedent which shows that reducing road capacity does not necessarily lead to a long term increase in congestion and can often alleviate it, and to show why I want this experiment to be given a chance.

As I've said many times over, we can't know for certain what will happen in the very particular circumstances of this scheme. Which is why there is an experimental period to find out. It needs to be given a suitable amount of time before we jump to conclusions. And you along with other posters seem to be trying to ensure that we are not given the opportunity to find out what will happen.

If it becomes clear that this particular scheme creates problems that outweigh its benefits then I will agree that it should not be continued. And long term congestion on CHL that obstructs buses would qualify as one of those problems.

 

[Burn:Cycle]

A little anecdata with some additional research;

I had to head to Streatham this morning (by car, full-load inc 4 people if you want to judge) and was pleasantly surprised that the normal hell of Denmark road followed by the queue at the CHL/LR lights did not present a problem. Then it occurred to me. It's half-term. No school-run traffic - and I do think this is a significant component of the traffic volumes we see locally. This would also account for the somewhat "delayed reaction" of the chaos build-up - where the early days of the experiment didn't show much traffic impact. Things only became hellish from around the end of the first week in September, once all the schools were back.

I don't want to get into an education system debate here - but LJ sits immediately to the north of Dulwich- an area with an unusually high density of schools including state and private. These schools draw pupils from a wide catchment - including much of south and central London; from Bromley to Wimbledon, Kensington to Tooting. I think the main (largest) four; Dulwich College, Alleyns, JAGS and Charter, must have around 5000 pupils between them, and this doesn't include any of the Dulwich/Herne Hill primary schools, nurseries etc that probably add another 1500.

Trying to determine the effect on traffic - and how all these kids get to school is quite hard, but JAGS does have its recent (2014) "Travel Plan" available online (thank you Google) and maybe the others do to? http://www.jags.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/School_Travel_Plan_-_10_April_2014.pdf.

What's interesting is that this report does give some qualitative data for the numbers of pupils who travel to school by private car (or car share). I think it reasonable to assume (although Teuchter would probably disagree!) that one could extrapolate the percentages in the JAGS report and apply these for the other schools in the area. 23% travel by car (32% if you include car share). Assuming that a typical school-run generates 4 individual journeys (home-school; school-home, twice a day) that means in excess of 6000 car trips are being made to/from Dulwich each day during term time.

Not all through CHL/LJ of course, but even if it were only 15% of the total, that would by 900 trips - or 7% of the quoted CHL traffic volume of 13000. That's a significant chunk.

This isn't including staff numbers (JAGS 150 people). The JAGS report goes on to explain some of the reasons different travel methods are chosen and how they try to change/influence this behaviour away from car use.

All interesting stuff.

 

[teuchter]

I've only just started my studies of your documents teuchter but I note that congestion actually seems to be the key to evaporation theory? ;"

“The capacity of individual car users to change their travel behaviour in a range of creative ways, when faced with the problem of severe traffic congestion, presents real opportunities for urban planners who seek to optimise the use of space and quality of life in the city”
?

Correct. Continue with your reading.

 

[Brainaddict]

So you expect anyone driving in the affected zone to have done The Knowledge, whether it be Aunt Matilda from Bournemouth or the rookie Police Cadet answering an emergency call?

Obviously people get confused about routes when they first change. Over time they learn the new routes.

 

[CH1]

A true non sequitur if ever I saw one.

 

[teuchter]

There are loads of similar closed-off roads, one-way systems or no-entry points all over London, many of which have been in operation for years without the world ending or everythng coming to a standstill. It's not like this is some new and untested concept

 

[bimble]

If it becomes clear that this particular scheme creates problems that outweigh its benefits then I will agree that it should not be continued. And long term congestion on CHL that obstructs buses would qualify as one of those problems.

Excellent. To me that's the main point, I'm interested in the whole evaporation theory (will continue my studies later) but it is important, whatever lens you are viewing this particular scheme through, to try to evaluate it on its own de/merits, not to assume it must be a good or a bad thing according to whatever preconceptions.

 

[AlexH]

I don't think the review that's coming up (the one that was brought forward) will make the changes permanent. It will either conclude that the 'experiment' should be terminated early or that it should continue to run for the planned six months.

Yes that's right. Once a decision is made to make it permanent in February 2016 (if that happens) that will be the time to consider a JR of that decision. One of the points of challenge can be the failure by the Council to engage in a 6 month consultation at all (because it has not really done much to consult since it started over 2 months ago), and it's unlikely to be able to rescue that position by sticking up a survey monkey questionnaire during a half-term week, but not publishing it on the Lambeth Consultations part of the website. Particularly if they ignore the 3300 petition signatures calling for stopping the closures along with the detailed comments posted on the reasons why. Will this really satisfy a High Court Judge?

 

[teuchter]

Excellent. To me that's the main point, I'm interested in the whole evaporation theory (will continue my studies later) but it is important, whatever lens you are viewing this particular scheme through, to try to evaluate it on its own de/merits, not to assume it must be a good or a bad thing according to whatever preconceptions.

I trust you will be opposing calls to terminate the experiment before it has had long enough for longer-term merits and de-merits to become apparent and allow a meaningful assessment of them, then.

 

[critical1]

I really struggle to see how local businesses who are suffering at the moment and will suffer closure will ever be compensated, not one mention by anyone! or is that the plan.. lets wait and see?

Silent Corporate Takeover

 

[teuchter]

I really struggle to see how local businesses who are suffering at the moment and will suffer closure will ever be compensated, not one mention by anyone!

It's not possible to respond to this without knowing the details of which businesses say they are affected and why.

As I have said before, these businesses should be listened to. Closer examination might reveal that some are overstating the effects. Some might have entirely valid complaints and in these instances attempts should be made to make adjustments to the scheme to reduce the impact on them. It might be that there are some cases where it would be fair to compensate.

At the same time, there will be some businesses which will benefit.