LTN Discussion

[Lebanums]

Agreed Spartacus!

And with all the bike thefts who wouldn't want to purchase one, pay a subscription for a bike hangar and wait in anticipation for it to be stolen and nothing is done about it. There are lots of improvements to be made before a mindset shift can be made.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets raises a good point

Someone truly independent of both camps needs to conduct an independent study using their own measuring equipment to truly put the argument to bed one way or the other.

Having councils, who have a vested interest, supply data is part of the issue and using people who are pro one view to write the study will always result in questions over impartiality.

 

This is exactly what has happened. Independent consultants have been commissioned to do the monitoring, modelling and reporting.

Researchers have studied the results across a number of schemes.

The problem is that as long as the council commission the work, people determined to ignore any evidence that doesn't confirm to their prejudices, will dismiss it.

So who is going to pay to assess the success of such schemes if not the council?

[Rockets]

Rahx3 - the council pays companies to collect the data and then the data is analysed and presented by the council to support their narrative that the LTNs are a good thing.

That data is then collected by active travel lobbyist and ex-LCC policy chief Rachel Aldred and used to create reports (funded by TFL and active travel lobbyists) to try and prove LTNs are working. In these reports she makes huge leaps of faith on the validity on the data being presented to her by councils whose interests it is to prove LTNs are working.

That's not close to being independent - you know, I know it, everyone knows it and it is laughable that anyone would even try to claim as much.

At what point has anyone been involved in the process that can actually claim they have no vested interest in the outcome?

[DuncanW]

What I still don't really understand is what is the assumed vested interest of the council, to implement traffic reduction schemes that have the opposite effect?? Why would they want to do that?

[Rockets]

Because it is a strategic policy and the far-left of the Labour party always struggle to admit they get anything wrong.

And also because I think they really believe that short-term harm will deliver long-term benefits - that they have to live with the harm as the measures "bed-in". But the belief that "evaporation" not "displacement" takes place is looking more and more misguided.

I truly believe when Cllr McAsh described what success for LTNs looks like he really thought they would deliver that but they clearly haven't and clearly won't.

[Spartacus]

Sack him now

The Mayor has gone too far with this clip from a people's question time which I believe was today.

Inciteful language.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64833644

[first mate]

"Clean air is a human right, not a privilege"... interesting in the context of LTNs.

[DuncanW]

Because it is a strategic policy and the far-left of the Labour party always struggle to admit they get anything wrong.

And also because I think they really believe that short-term harm will deliver long-term benefits - that they have to live with the harm as the measures "bed-in". But the belief that "evaporation" not "displacement" takes place is looking more and more misguided.

I truly believe when Cllr McAsh described what success for LTNs looks like he really thought they would deliver that but they clearly haven't and clearly won't.

 

Thanks for coming back to me on this Rockets - I appreciate it.

But when you answer the question by saying "Because it is a strategic policy" I'm none the wiser... the question remains; why would an elected council pursue a strategic policy that produces the direct opposite effect of it's stated aim.

And are you really trying to characterise LB Southwark , and by extension all Labour run councils in London, as 'far-left' ?

[Rockets]

Oh my....the fact that Sadiq used that to demonise anyone who objects to ULEZ is absolutely outrageous and you can actually see it in his eyes as he says it that he thinks it might have been a mistake playing that card at that time and could backfire and galvanise even more opposition, I haven't seen the full session but I very much suspect he went to "far right. Covid deniers, Tories etc" to distract from the pounding he was taking from the residents affected by it who were giving him a hard time.

Given we have a mayoral election again next year Sadiq might be feeling the pressure a bit as his policies come back to bite him.

DuncanW - these last few posts validate my point completely on why Southway HAVE to make LTNs be seen to be working. To my earlier point this is why even if Southwark had proof that LTNs were increasing pollution they couldn't remove them because they have to toe the party line. If they (and other Labour run councils) were to remove them Sadiq's policy house of cards would come tumbling down.....ah the beauty of politics...it's always the people who ultimately suffer no matter which party is in control ;-)

And yes, I am characterising Southwark council (and Southwark Labour for that matter) as far-left - Southwark have a well-earned reputation for being on the far-left of the party - just look, we have a self-proclaimed Marxist as a local councillor in James McAsh and I refer you to the thread on the in-fighting that went on within the party over Harriet Harman's replacement - https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=2249079&hilit=harriet+harman

And then there's the influence Party HQ tried to exert on trying to ensure a Momentum candidate didn't get selected in that process:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/10/labour-dissolves-harman-seat-selection-panel-in-row-over-candidates

[first mate]

And in that same thread https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=2249079&hilit=harriet+harman

DuncanW was asking in 2021 how far left Southwark CLP was and was told by an insider "very" and who also described it as probably the most far left in the country.

[malumbu]

Oh come on Rocks, surely you must acknowledge that there are some pretty unsavoury characters attaching themselves to your campaign. Rather than label all of us who want firmer action to reduce car use as loony lefties, please understand that some of the libertarians who think the authorities are trying to control us have found another cause.

[Rockets]

Remind me where anyone describes the pro-LTN crowd as looney-lefties......

I can assure you there are unsavoury characters on both sides of the argument but for the pro-LTN lobby and the likes of Sadiq to call it out so frequently is nothing more than a brazen attempt to paint everyone with the same brush in a desperate attempt to kill opposition.

It's a clear sign they can't make the opposition go away so have resorted to nothing more name calling. It's sad to see an elected representative stooping to such levels and I think it could well backfire - but seems to be point one in the pro-LTN playbook - look even you Malumbu have resorted to repeated childish name calling on more than one occasion on here - a sure sign you ran out of rational arguments!

Edited March 4, 2023 by Rockets

[first mate]

Another dodgy deflection attempt there by Mal.

[Spartacus]

This is the problem

"You don't agree with my scheme to reduce traffic that is actually causing problems (be it displacement or financial issues in the middle of a cost of living crisis) then you must be defamed and associated with the darker side of humanity."

Personally in this situation, I think Khan is clearly demonstrating bullying tactics and as such should resign as its unethical politics.

[Rockets]

Lavrov and Khan both had hard times spinning their warped narratives in front of live audiences this week! ;-)

On an unrelated matter I noticed today that there are two sets of monitoring strips in Dulwich village...one close to the lights at Turney and another set up close to the pedestrian crossing at Gilkes Place and it got me thinking as to why there are two strips there.

I can only think that they are monitoring numbers of traffic turning left from Turney to DV but both are regularly under crawling traffic (especially the one closest to Turney) and I wondered whether the placement might have been determined to "inflate" the numbers of cars turning from Turney onto DV - which anyone who spends anytime in DV will know is not traffic heavy.

[Bic Basher]

While it's fair to say that there are some of the more unsavory right-wing activists who have tagged on to the anti-LTN campaign, I don't think it's fair to say that everyone against his ULEZ scheme are far-right.

Outer Londoners, some of which work in the Home Counties shouldn't have to pay the charge, along with those who live in border areas, some of which are rural.

Extending it to places like Croydon or Sutton are fair enough as they're as built up as Inner London, but extending the charge to places like Downe or Chelsfield isn't really worth it.

The anti-LTN support has been from a wide range of people with different political beliefs.

[ab29]

And in a meantime, the rail fares are going up by 5.9%. What a great way to encourage people to ditch their cars and use public transport more.

[Penguin68]

I have just returned from Ljubljana (capital of Slovenia) – which is serious about being ‘green’ (and it’s won prizes for that).

There the (old) centre of the town is blocked to general traffic, with rising pillars blocking each route in – it is one single 24 hour LTN. The pillars drop down automatically for authorised vehicles (police, fire, ambulance etc.) which have sensors within them, and people with a need to enter (builders, tradesmen etc.) can enter a code.

There are no cameras or fines for entry, as without authority you can’t enter, full stop. This area can be readily walked through, but within the area there are free bikes to use, and there are also free to use electric bus/ Taxis (a sort of cross between one and the other). The area enclosed is pretty flat.

This operates as a traffic free area, designed around convenience and equity. There are no ‘special enclaves’ – all suffer (or benefit) equally – and this is not a revenue raising scheme. Proper parking provision (at a price) has been created for those kept out of the area, although private cars can access it with permission.

Clearly the topography of the area is different (and the entire state has only just over 2 million inhabitants) – but the intent of the scheme is clear, and it has been properly implemented to be a benefit to the inhabitants (or, as I said, to share the disbenefits equally).

This is not an ill thought out scheme on the cheap to act as a source of funds, nor are unreasonable claims being made of it.

It is not, as frankly our LTNs are, a symptom of a ‘broken’ Slovenia. It was implemented because it was understood to be ‘the right thing to do’ – not through ideological hatred of private vehicles or personal choice. It was also 'joined-up' . The restrictions and the public transport mitigations are provided by the same authority - not one element acting with disregard to the other.

[Rockets]

Joined-up is the key here - nothing about what the Mayor or councils are doing in relation to active travel is joined-up and this is why it is proving to be an unmitigated disaster that will actually damage the long-term viability of active travel measures and damage the city we live in.

[Spartacus]

This response to a petition to "Carry out a review into Low Traffic Neighbourhoods" was posted yesterday (7th March)

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/632748?reveal_response=yes

Government responded:

The Department has appointed the University of Westminster to undertake an independent evaluation of active travel schemes funded in 2020/21, including low-traffic neighbourhoods.

Responsibility for traffic management on local roads rests with the relevant local authority as they are best placed to consider how local needs can be effectively met. It is entirely a matter for individual authorities to decide on the nature and scope of policies. The Department is responsible for setting legislation and for providing guidance to local traffic authorities but has limited direct influence over locally managed roads.

To help local authorities make safe provision for pedestrians and cyclists during COVID-19 and to mitigate the lack of capacity on public transport due to social distancing, the Department launched the Emergency Active Travel Fund (EATF). This funding was designed to help local authorities create an environment that is safe for both walking and cycling, allowing people to get around whilst maintaining social distance while also aiding longer term increases in walking and cycling along with the associated health, air quality and congestion benefits. Some local authorities decided to implement temporary LTNs as part of this programme. Many of these were made permanent as part of later funding rounds, where authorities considered that the schemes were working effectively. A number were also removed.

In order to better understand the impact of this funding, the Department has appointed the University of Westminster to undertake an independent evaluation of schemes funded through the second tranche of active travel funding, including a deep dive into the impact of segregated cycle lanes and low traffic neighbourhoods. The results will be published in due course.

The Department has been clear that traffic management schemes should always be developed through consultation and engagement with local communities. As a condition of receiving funding provided by Active Travel England ATE), all local authorities are required to undertake consultation, and monitoring and evaluation work, to ensure that schemes meet the needs of the local area and the people that live there. ATE is an Executive Agency of the Department, based in York. It was launched in August 2022 and is working with local authorities to develop and deliver new high-quality walking and cycling infrastructure schemes.

Department for Transport

I love the latter section that talks about the schemes must meet the needs of the local area and the people who live there, obviously a point that has conveniently slipped the councils mind as they are driving ahead regardless.

[CPR Dave]

Won't that review be carried out by Rachel Aldred then?

[Penguin68]

Won't that review be carried out by Rachel Aldred then?

 

So we know the findings already. Full steam ahead!

[Rockets]

It's a self-fulfilling cycle of spin - it's laughable that they call Aldred's work independent.....I do think it is interesting that they refer to the work as evaluation rather than research - at least that is accurate because all the UoW is doing to taking the council's numbers and presenting them in a different form than the councils presented them - it appears UoW is doing zero of their own research - just marking the council's homework and saying...jolly well done your answers are right (and we don't care that you haven't provided any of your workings out so we have no idea how you got to the correct answer)!

[ab29]

Best to contact [email protected]

It is ridiculous, like asking a vegetarian if they like meat-free meals!

[malumbu]

Have any of you complained to DfT? Or if you are unhappy with any response the National Audit Office or the Public Accounts Committee. You could also lobby your MP and look into any work by select committees - here's a recent one although this focuses on public transport rather than more interventionist measures to drag people out of their cars. https://houseofcommons.shorthandstories.com/pandemic-air-quality-EFRA-report/index.html

Government goes through high levels of scrutiny. You are now saying that DfT is biased by appointing a (your words) non-independent academic. The argument all looks a bit silly to me.