LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[redpost]

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Nope - the increases in car ownership isn't to be

> applauded.

>

> I think it is due to the lack of investment in

> public transport so many poorer families end-up

> spending a bigger proportion on a car than a

> wealthier family as it gives them access to wage

> increases, cheaper food shopping and the ability

> to make multiple journeys in a time poor day.

> The car is seen as a way to improve income and

> access.

> I would much rather Boris and his chums were

> investing in local transport links that provided

> families/ elderly and the less mobile with easy

> access to schools, work, health hubs,

> supermarkets, caring responsibilities etc.

> Sadly the defunding of PT by this and past

> governments has made the car the king - this is

> why LTNs are ridiculous - car ownership/road

> building all promoted by government, while also

> creating gated communities for the wealthy

> multi-car owning house-holders.

>

> It allows the new puritans to howl at Mums taking

> kids to school in some old rubbish car, or a

> cleaner driving to multiple house-holds to be

> accused of being a car-owning, petrol head,

> carbon-lover while actually not tackling the real

> issues of lack of investment and inequality.

>

> Boris has pulled a fast one and Southwark

> Councillors fell for it.

It's never the car owners fault is it?? It's always because theres not a circular bus, or empty trains running metro frequency every 3m or no tunnels under melbourne grove.

The 42 is 99% empty down EDG, yet it's still not enough.

Yet to see the 37 above 80% capacity.

Take a look at the decimation of the bus networks across ex-london UK, people simply don't want to use public transport when they can jump in their car and mutter to themselves "if only public transport was properly funded, then I wouldn't have to do this".

[heartblock]

Thanks redpost - such a perfect example of

It allows the new puritans to howl at Mums taking kids to school in some old rubbish car, or a cleaner driving to multiple house-holds to be accused of being a car-owning, petrol head, carbon-lover while actually not tackling the real issues of lack of investment and inequality.

The 42 is the most useless bus ever -rubbish route - the 40 was always full all along it's whole journey, but Southwark made less fuss about it being cut than the fuss they have made over parklets.

[Spartacus]

Duncanw

God help you if you ever wrote an academic paper

Because the sky is blue this proves my theory that the moon is made of cheese because everyone can clearly see that.

As I said, much like a lot of people on here,failing to provide a source or genuine reference and asking the reader to google it, is quite simply poor evidence

PS if you type "is the moon made of cheese" into goggle it actually tells you it is, thus proving my point, go ahead and try...

[goldilocks]

In Heartblocks world - to square off her dislike of LTNs shes constructed a parallel universe where drivers are mostly 'busy mums taking kids to school and then going onto their 'little job' or care workers. Completely ignoring the fact that car ownership is a luxury and one that many of the poorest cannot afford. I'd also like to know where all these 'mums' are working where they can drive to work - and why that should be preserved. I work in central London, I don't expect to be able to drive to work because it isn't practical in a city of this size. The same is true of zone 2.

[DuncanW]

Spartacus,

Luckily, I'm not in the market for writing academic papers. I'm certainly not qualified to do so, but don't believe that disqualifies me from posting on this thread.

I did what you said. It doesn't - if only you had posted a link to support that unfounded claim.

More saliently, the moon is not made of cheese, the sky is blue (or certainly appears to be today) and car ownership is more prevalent amongst richer households than poorer ones, quite markedly so - much as that goes against the narrative...

I did post the evidence to support that.

[Spartacus]

The evidence was national not local (which is what I asked for)

Try searching for London specific evidence and posting it as we are

A) in London

B) looking at local not national issues

As said, I can find evidence (although somewhat shaky) on Google that clearly states the moon is made of cheese and that astronaut go to the moon to make cheese sandwiches.

When presenting facts, simply saying them does not make them true. They need to be backed up with actual evidence and references, sadly a concept that eludes both sides of the LTN narrative so I'm not just picking on one person here.

Now if you can find me genuine London or south London evidence that backs up your statement then I'm happy to accept it but as you have waved a national level study and said "see" then it's not going to be enough to make me believe

Right, time to jump in my space ship and make a cheese sandwich, want me to pick you one up ?

[DuncanW]

I would love a moon-cheese sandwich... :)

My point was only ever that it's true on a national level. I didn't make any claims about how that translates locally to back up??

Though given the wide diffrence in car ownership between richer and poorer households, I would be really surprised if that trend was reversed in a city where car ownership is significantly lower than it is nationally.

[ab29]

This is true re: nr 40. They stopped it from going to London Bridge, which is handy for Guy's hospital and where you can change for tube, trains and other buses. There was a petition, we asked the council & councilors to get involved, wrote to TfL but got no help or response.

It seems as surreal as LTNs - perhaps the same kind of genius is behind both.

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thanks redpost - such a perfect example of

>

> It allows the new puritans to howl at Mums taking

> kids to school in some old rubbish car, or a

> cleaner driving to multiple house-holds to be

> accused of being a car-owning, petrol head,

> carbon-lover while actually not tackling the real

> issues of lack of investment and inequality.

>

> The 42 is the most useless bus ever -rubbish route

> - the 40 was always full all along it's whole

> journey, but Southwark made less fuss about it

> being cut than the fuss they have made over

> parklets.

[Rockets]

goldilocks Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In Heartblocks world - to square off her dislike

> of LTNs shes constructed a parallel universe where

> drivers are mostly 'busy mums taking kids to

> school and then going onto their 'little job' or

> care workers. Completely ignoring the fact that

> car ownership is a luxury and one that many of the

> poorest cannot afford. I'd also like to know

> where all these 'mums' are working where they can

> drive to work - and why that should be preserved.

> I work in central London, I don't expect to be

> able to drive to work because it isn't practical

> in a city of this size. The same is true of zone

> 2.

Goldilocks - you work in central London. You live near a railway station that takes you into central London in under 15 minutes, so maybe having a car is a luxury for you but a lot of people don't work in central London. I used to work in Hammersmith and getting there by public transport from East Dulwich was a nightmare. So I used to cycle but a lot of people can't cycle those type of distances so for them a car is not a luxury but a necessity.

This is the folly of the pro-LTN lobby - they lump everyone in a car as the category of "making an unnecessary journey or a journey that could be done in something other than a car" and, unfortunately, the world isn't as straight-forward as they would like it to be.

A bit like the woman my wife argued with in Dulwich Square whose response to being presented with the dilemma that some people work a long way from where they live in parts of London other than central London was to say: "well they should move closer to where they work then".....

[goldilocks]

I don't actually work anywhere at all convenient from London Bridge station - but where I work isn't relevant here - we live in a city with millions of other people so having individuals commute in private cars is just unfeasible.

Hammersmith is a bit of a hassle to get to on public transport I agree, but thankfully advances in ebikes mean that cycling is becoming more accessible for a much wider group of people and lots of people aren't really making 15km trips, more the under 5km ones that could easily be swapped (and yes there is loads of data on the average trip length in London).

[heartblock]

ab29 they can?t hear you above the noise of how terrible all car drivers are.

[Rockets]

goldilocks Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't actually work anywhere at all convenient

> from London Bridge station - but where I work

> isn't relevant here - we live in a city with

> millions of other people so having individuals

> commute in private cars is just unfeasible.

>

>

> Hammersmith is a bit of a hassle to get to on

> public transport I agree, but thankfully advances

> in ebikes mean that cycling is becoming more

> accessible for a much wider group of people and

> lots of people aren't really making 15km trips,

> more the under 5km ones that could easily be

> swapped (and yes there is loads of data on the

> average trip length in London).

But it is relevant because any journey to the centre of London is easy - journeys across London are not easy because that's not the way the transport system developed - it followed lines in and out of the city not across it - it's why Crossrail has been demanded/mooted/needed for years.

Commuting in cars is not unfeasible it is certainly unwelcome but it is, I am afraid, a reality of the city we live in. And life revolves around realities not fantasies and ebikes are not going to make much of an impact in terms of converting people from longer commutes in cars. We have to ground the debate on what is feasible and take a pragmatic approach to dealing with these issues and no-one ever accused the council of taking a pragmatic approach to LTNs!

[goldilocks]

The reality is that we aren't going to get masses of east - west train / tram transport in the coming 5-10 years, so whats the alternative. Busses are the most obvious, but we need far fewer private cars on the road to make busses feasible and fast enough. Otherwise we're stuck with more and more congestion.

Car travel is the reality because frankly its quicker than public transport and much more comfortable. Until that changes then there is little incentive to stop driving. ULEZ will help eliminate some journeys for those with non compliant cars as there is an assessment of whether its worth paying the fee, but don't expect it to make huge differences locally (although would love to be wrong on that.

The route you mentioned to Hammersmith in the realm of 'longer commutes' is only 15km each way - thats under an hour on a normal bike and far less on an ebike with no need to be 'fit enough' to do the journey (but with the added benefit of still adding some built in exercise). The majority of journeys carried out in London are shorter than that and I would imagine from the area we live in (zone 2) shorter still than average.

[heartblock]

Bus routes are usually on ribbon roads that currently have displaced traffic on them, I?m all for reducing car use, it?s a shame that despite me asking for someone to convince me with evidence so I can see that LTNs reduce traffic, car use and pollution, no one has yet supplied....I await the change.

Out of interest why does Mal consider me Male and GL Female?

[goldilocks]

the bit where you assume everyone is like you- apparently it extends to naming interpretation too

[heartblock]

Nah..I love difference..is what makes the world go round.

[heartblock]

So any evidence to convince me?

[Rockets]

goldilocks Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The reality is that we aren't going to get masses

> of east - west train / tram transport in the

> coming 5-10 years, so whats the alternative.

> Busses are the most obvious, but we need far fewer

> private cars on the road to make busses feasible

> and fast enough. Otherwise we're stuck with more

> and more congestion.

>

> Car travel is the reality because frankly its

> quicker than public transport and much more

> comfortable. Until that changes then there is

> little incentive to stop driving. ULEZ will

> help eliminate some journeys for those with non

> compliant cars as there is an assessment of

> whether its worth paying the fee, but don't expect

> it to make huge differences locally (although

> would love to be wrong on that.

>

> The route you mentioned to Hammersmith in the

> realm of 'longer commutes' is only 15km each way -

> thats under an hour on a normal bike and far less

> on an ebike with no need to be 'fit enough' to do

> the journey (but with the added benefit of still

> adding some built in exercise). The majority of

> journeys carried out in London are shorter than

> that and I would imagine from the area we live in

> (zone 2) shorter still than average.

Buses needed fewer LTNs......;-)

What you say is absolutely right but the only thing that will get people out of their cars is when road pricing comes in - everything else is just window-dressing.

You don't have to convince me of the merits of cycling to Hammersmith I did it for years but there were plenty of times when I couldn't feel my fingers in the dark depths of winter that I longed to be in my car with the radio on! That also plays a big role - even though the stats are something like if you cycled every working day for an hour each way for a year you would only get rained on 12 times the long dark winters are enough to test the hardiest cycling soul - it's why there is such a pronounced drop off during the winter months.

And right now so much money has been invested in cycling infrastructure the bigger concern is that if cycling levels have indeed returned to below pre-Covid levels then has it all been wasted - are people just not willing/able to embrace cycling beyond the hardy few? Maybe the reasons are far more deep-rooted in lifestyle - the fact cycling boomed when everyone was forced to be at home might give some clues as to why the growth has completely reversed.

[DulwichCentral]

You're painting a very negative picture @rockets if I may say so. Once people start cycling it can become quite addictive. Like any exercise you feel the benefits of feeling fit, improved circulation, serotonin levels go up, it's good for balance which is important for older people, good for immunity, good for weight loss... all those benefits become integrated into your lifestyle. Cycling in the winter is tougher but once it's become your transport of choice it seems odd to get in the car especially for short journeys. There's the social aspect too - feeling connected to the world around you. Once people make that switch - and if they want to do it for environmental reasons as well - I'd say it's a habit for life.

The more safe routes in place for people to feel confident and safe to make that switch the better.

[Rockets]

DC just being realistic about why a lot of people don't cycle. But I agree but the addiction doesn't seem to have materialised post-lockdown which suggests something bigger is going on. Lots of people cycled during lockdown but now it appears cycling had declined to lower than pre-pandemic levels (which might be of course partly influenced by people, especially in London, no longer travelling to the office every day of the week).

Any ideas why cycling levels are plummeting post-lockdown - bike sales went through the roof, huge amounts of cycling infrastructure went in, roads were closed yet people aren't maintaining the pandemic levels of bike use?

[goldilocks]

I'd imagine that the decline in cycling (which i think is mainly referenceable to the counts in central London rather than areas like Dulwich )is down to people no longer being in the office every day.

Since lockdown I cycle to the office, but only on the days that I go in. I never used to because I thought that cycling the route I needed to was hostile, but have now sorted out better links as cycling during the pandemic meant that I learnt just how easy to get around it was. Its longer so around the 15km mark, but worth it to avoid the worst bits of the route. Linking back to your previous posts though Rockets about how when you're freezing cold it being tempting to get in the car, I think that this is the issue. If I don't cycle my alternative is public transport (which is unreliable at the moment and frequency still down), whereas those going to non central locations still have a viable alternative of driving. Asking people to use other modes of transports has roundly failed, so putting in place methods to inhibit car usage are key.

[malumbu]

"but the only thing that will get people out of their cars is when road pricing comes in - everything else is just window-dressing."

I keep thinking that there is little point in posting but Rocks you then provide me with more ammunition. What a bizarre sweeping statement. I've certainly stopped driving and I can't be the only one over the years due to numerous hard interventions:

- Restrictions on the rat runs that only I and the cabbies knew

- Congestion charging, particularly now it is 24/7 (that goes well beyond road user charging)

- Increased and often 24 hour bus lanes

- More parking restrictions, and more expensive parking

And on the odd time that I have tried to use the South Circ outside late eve through to early morning in recent years, that is enough to put anyone off driving and it is worse than I experienced when I first came to London.

Not sure why you are so blinkered in some aspects of your thinking. You know more about traffic counts than any normal person and by all means talk about that level of detail with others. Not me. But do cut out the knee jerk stuff.

The Hammersmith example is yet another gem. Who on earth, unless your journey is absolutely essential, wants to get stuck crawling around Clapham Common, Earls Court and the A4 in rush hour. Even changing tube in central London cannot be that masochistic. And the air quality is particularly awful in the latter two, and has been so for donkeys years.

Heartblock, on a lighter note hadn't realised I had assigned a gender to you, always try to be gender neutral, and similarly keep myself gender fluid.

[heartblock]

Oh I don't mind malumbu, I was more interested in what makes us assign a gender to the unknown, it was interesting that goldilocks 'she'ed' and you on a very few occasions had 'he'ed'... it made me consider why, possibly because I mentioned Mum's and cleaners to goldilocks?

I do respect that you do always try to be gender neutral and hopefully I also try to not label either :)

It's interesting - as someone who only walks or takes public transport in London as a rule these days, I remember having to drive through London at 4:00am on my way up to Papworth once a week - even as traffic free as it was at that time, the thought of doing that now fills me with dread.

[Rockets]

goldilocks Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd imagine that the decline in cycling (which i

> think is mainly referenceable to the counts in

> central London rather than areas like Dulwich )is

> down to people no longer being in the office every

> day.

>

> Since lockdown I cycle to the office, but only on

> the days that I go in. I never used to because I

> thought that cycling the route I needed to was

> hostile, but have now sorted out better links as

> cycling during the pandemic meant that I learnt

> just how easy to get around it was. Its longer so

> around the 15km mark, but worth it to avoid the

> worst bits of the route. Linking back to your

> previous posts though Rockets about how when

> you're freezing cold it being tempting to get in

> the car, I think that this is the issue. If I

> don't cycle my alternative is public transport

> (which is unreliable at the moment and frequency

> still down), whereas those going to non central

> locations still have a viable alternative of

> driving. Asking people to use other modes of

> transports has roundly failed, so putting in place

> methods to inhibit car usage are key.

I am not sure it is just people cycling to work that has caused the decline - remember the growth happened after lockdown and even fewer people were in work then. I think what has happened is that people were cycling to the park for exercise etc and did so as many times a day as they were able and now lockdown has lifted their patterns have changed and so just don't cycle as the pressures of life returning to normal means that cycling is no longer the go-to mode of transport for many. Couple that with those that used to cycle to work are doing so less frequently so the numbers have plummetted but, given the amount of money, effort and resources dedicated to increasing cycling it's not a good return on that.

Also is there any proof that inhibiting car use actually works - wasn't it Greece or Turkey who invoked odd and even number plate days for cars and people just bought two cars?

People are tied to their cars, unless you understand why that is you won't ever deal with the issue - just throwing in road blocks won't help, people just drive around them and when you layer in the fact that traffic growth has been driven by PHVs and delivery vehicles you can understand why LTNs are the bluntest of blunt tools.

This is why so many believe LTNs increase pollution not reduce it and all of the evidence suggests they are failing to deliver on their objectives.

Oh and the worst cycling related issue I had was when a pedal sheared off almost exactly halfway home from Hammersmith....during the mother of all rainstorms. After a mile or so I conceded defeat and ordered a cab to get me home.....

[Rockets]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "but the only thing that will get people out of

> their cars is when road pricing comes in -

> everything else is just window-dressing."

>

> I keep thinking that there is little point in

> posting but Rocks you then provide me with more

> ammunition. What a bizarre sweeping statement.

> I've certainly stopped driving and I can't be the

> only one over the years due to numerous hard

> interventions:

>

> - Restrictions on the rat runs that only I and the

> cabbies knew

> - Congestion charging, particularly now it is 24/7

> (that goes well beyond road user charging)

> - Increased and often 24 hour bus lanes

> - More parking restrictions, and more expensive

> parking

>

>

> And on the odd time that I have tried to use the

> South Circ outside late eve through to early

> morning in recent years, that is enough to put

> anyone off driving and it is worse than I

> experienced when I first came to London.

>

> Not sure why you are so blinkered in some aspects

> of your thinking. You know more about traffic

> counts than any normal person and by all means

> talk about that level of detail with others. Not

> me. But do cut out the knee jerk stuff.

>

> The Hammersmith example is yet another gem. Who

> on earth, unless your journey is absolutely

> essential, wants to get stuck crawling around

> Clapham Common, Earls Court and the A4 in rush

> hour. Even changing tube in central London cannot

> be that masochistic. And the air quality is

> particularly awful in the latter two, and has been

> so for donkeys years.

>

> Heartblock, on a lighter note hadn't realised I

> had assigned a gender to you, always try to be

> gender neutral, and similarly keep myself gender

> fluid.

But Malumbu (still waiting for you to answer my questions BTW ;-)) you've stopped driving (but didn't you say you still had a very old car for journeys when you need a car or have you got rid of that now?) but these measures don't encourage enough people to stop driving. Car ownership within LTN areas is not declining nor is car usage around them - so what are they achieving? 60 more cycle journeys in an LTN is not enough to justify the chaos LTNs outside of LTN areas.

Your claim that the Hammersmith example is a gem is more reflective of the parallel universe some of the pro-LTN lobby live in. So you can't understand why people might prefer to jump into their car compared to: walking for 15 minutes to East Dulwich station, jumping on a train to London Bridge, getting on a Jubilee line train to Westminster, change onto the district line to Hammersmith and then another 10 minute walk to the office. And then that all back again on the way home. I decided to cycle when I used to do that journey and on so many occasions there were delays due to the number of changes I had to make.

This is the reality of travel in London. This is why people drive. Maybe you don't have to do that type of journey every day but many people do. There are even more people who rely on vehicles to transport tools or do multiple drops of visits. Again this is why LTNs will never work and were doomed to failure from day one.