LTN Discussion

[mr.chicken]

5 minutes ago, first mate said:

Marvellous for some, really bad for others.

You're saying it's exactly like heavily polluted, congested car dependency. Marvellous for some, really bad for others.

This way though less pollution is being dumped into the air in London: relative to the control areas LTN traffic is down heavily and the controversial boundary road traffic is down slightly. Personally I'd rather have that than have things be marvellous for the lucky few who get to have 3 Canyoneros and who are annoyed they can't take a quick jaunt to Lordship Lane.

 

5 minutes ago, first mate said:

Not equitable and ceratinly not democratic.

Definitely equitable: less than half the households in Southwark have access to cars and those who do not skew towards poorer socioeconomic demographics.

And it's also 100% democratic: The Tories AND Lib Dems both ran on anti-LTN platforms and both got mashed in the last election. And since the Lib Dems also did badly you certainly cannot blame it on anti-Tory sentiment.

Democracy doesn't mean that you and your echo chamber get exactly what you want.

 

[Bic Basher]

Are Mal and Chicken the same person with multiple accounts?  The same old rhetoric from both of them.

[snowy]

Its not though is it - its the basis for traffic management applied globally.

Also, I'm Spartacus

[exdulwicher]

16 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

Glad they're finally looking into all these schemes.

They're not - they're saying anything they think can get them some positive press, trying to spin the "we only just held onto Uxbridge" win as something something ULEZ, anti-green policies, we must be more pro-motorist...

LTNs have been extensively looked into for decades, the research is always the same - broadly speaking they work well (better if you use them in conjunction with other measures such as CPZ, bus priority, neighbouring LTNs etc).

You can have as many independent reviews as you like and all that'll happen is it'll show the same - at which point the small minority of very vocal people actively opposed to them will claim they're not independent and that the data is wrong.

And a lot of it is not even in the hands of Government to dictate anyway.

I think the oil, gas and auto industry donors must have been on the phone to Rishi recently as he seems to be taking ever more private jet and helicopter flights to appear for a photo op somewhere saying how he's going to max out the oil and gas reserves, end the "war on the motorist" and other vague soundbites that all lead to more pollution and more emissions. Quick, burn what's left of the planet while the donations keep coming!

[Spartacus]

32 minutes ago, snowy said:

Its not though is it - its the basis for traffic management applied globally.

Also, I'm Spartacus

We're all Spartacus 

[malumbu]

47 minutes ago, Bic Basher said:

Are Mal and Chicken the same person with multiple accounts?  The same old rhetoric from both of them.

Nope, we do try to take it in turns but Mr C sets a very high bar in terms of debate which I just can't match.

Never really understood what 'rhetoric' refers to.  I expect it is a casual insult.

If it means my views are unfounded that is certainly incorrect.  The facts are the UK is failing to meet air quality standards so needs to take more action as people are suffering poor health, some dying earlier and some if these cases could be avoided.  So fact number 1, reinforced by the courts.

Secondly climate change is, and will, screw up the planet.  CO2 emissions have to be reduced.  Fact #2.  I frequently ask what are the alternatives to current and proposed  measures.  A question that is conveniently avoided by most. 

Elsewhere I was accused of wanting a dictatorship rather than a democracy.  Thanks Ex for responding on this subject.  If we put everything out to a referendum then we'd never do anything on the environment as someone is bound to be inconvenienced or have to spend more.  We'd have bought back capital punishment, and in the 60s repatriated many who emigrated from the commonwealth.  We'd probably even have voted to leave the EU, yes I know that sounds daft.  Fortunately our elected representatives were more sensible, well apart from the last issue.

 

[redpost]

44 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

They're not - they're saying anything they think can get them some positive press, trying to spin the "we only just held onto Uxbridge" win as something something ULEZ, anti-green policies, we must be more pro-motorist...

LTNs have been extensively looked into for decades, the research is always the same - broadly speaking they work well (better if you use them in conjunction with other measures such as CPZ, bus priority, neighbouring LTNs etc).

You can have as many independent reviews as you like and all that'll happen is it'll show the same - at which point the small minority of very vocal people actively opposed to them will claim they're not independent and that the data is wrong.

And a lot of it is not even in the hands of Government to dictate anyway.

I think the oil, gas and auto industry donors must have been on the phone to Rishi recently as he seems to be taking ever more private jet and helicopter flights to appear for a photo op somewhere saying how he's going to max out the oil and gas reserves, end the "war on the motorist" and other vague soundbites that all lead to more pollution and more emissions. Quick, burn what's left of the planet while the donations keep coming!

As usual, wise and considered words from ex-dulwicher

It's funny how all the conspiracy fodder on here moan about the cycling lobby, biased academia and the "league of lycra" - some shadowy lycra clad organisation behind the scenes pulling the strings over motoring policy in London, when the oil lobby knew about climate change decades ago and has been actively lobbying and spreading climate change denial ever since. The motor manufacturing and road building lobby also spend millions each year.

 

 

 

[CPR Dave]

Hopefully they will also look into how many of the studies that have been published previously on CPZs and LTNs were prepared by activists who have gone around taking down posters opposing these whacky counter-productive schemes, that are more about taxing poor people out of the area than they are about climate change.

Edited August 1, 2023 by CPR Dave

[Jules-and-Boo]

It's almost not allowed to be said - it seems taboo to even criticise the number of cars

There are far too many cars - far too many people who drive when they could take alternative methods of transport.

There are of course people who need their cars for work or who have mobility issues but by and large it is completely unreasonable to say that all car drivers need their cars.

Not everyone who chooses to not have a car is making that decision based solely on affordability. It's very easy to get around London without a car.

[alice]

Dulwich LTNs! it’s nothing to do with cars, that may sound weird.  Those living within them haven’t reduced their car usage or ownership. Those people with more power tend to live in bigger houses in this area that’s Dulwich village. Why wouldn’t they want their area to be greener and more pleasant to live in? That’s totally natural if a bit unfair. But using Cosy images and poor ‘data’ to establish some fake car v active  travel scenario. Very poor. And We see through it. 

[Jules-and-Boo]

LTNs are designed to reduce the traffic through residential areas.

It's certainly aimed at cars.

The fact that this causes high traffic volumes on other roads is proportionate to the number of cars there are.

[CPR Dave]

It's social cleansing, with a facade of greenwashing.

[Bic Basher]

6 hours ago, Jules-and-Boo said:

Not everyone who chooses to not have a car is making that decision based solely on affordability. It's very easy to get around London without a car.

Say that to those who live in parts of Outer London where they're only served by National Rail services by the likes of Southeastern and South West Trains.    Southeastern in particular has a dreadful metro service.   For most of the day, 2 trains per hour only operate on some sections, even West Dulwich has had only 2 trains per hour (4 in the peaks) since the DfT took over the rail franchise.

If you live in a part of London with a TfL operated rail service, then fair enough, but that's not the reality for those in Outer London boroughs where buses don't reach central London or have a poor rail service, so you're going to end up using a car.

Extending the Bakerloo Line to Hayes would help for starters.

Edited August 1, 2023 by Bic Basher

[first mate]

5 hours ago, Jules-and-Boo said:

LTNs are designed to reduce the traffic through residential areas.

It's certainly aimed at cars.

The fact that this causes high traffic volumes on other roads is proportionate to the number of cars there are.

Other roads that are also residential. How can that possibly be viewed as fair?

 

[Bic Basher]

6 minutes ago, first mate said:

Other roads that are also residential. How can that possibly be viewed as fair?

 

Indeed.  Why should someone in a leafy street have the right to reduce the amount of cars going through their road, while those on the South Circular have to tolerate increased traffic when the arteries which help to keep traffic flowing are being clogged?

[Jules-and-Boo]

I didn't say it was fair. I said there are too many cars on the roads and people do not correlate traffic with their own car use, and I said that not all journeys are essential.

While BB comments that outer London isn't well served by trains, it's not affecting this area. ED is in Zone 2, so relatively central and well supported by public transport.

The argument is that trains should be better. They should. Indisputably. They also shouldn't be owned by investors (mainly in overseas countries) and as such driven by responsibilities (i.e. paying dividends) to shareholders.

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Jules-and-Boo

[first mate]

In their manifesto SL made much of how they would work to improve trains and local links...what have they done? So easy for Cllrs to wring their hands and say 'it is all the fault of the fault of the shareholders...not us'.  Why then did they make that a manifesto pledge but not once mention borough-wide CPZs? Not very honest or transparent. There again, they cannot get revenue by improving trains, can they?

I found Cllr McAsh's utterly disingenuous performance at the Assembly totally alienating.  He has shown he is politically extremely ambitious and prepared to renege on promises at the drop of a hat.

I apologise for mentioning CPZ on the LTN thread, but in reality they are inextricably linked ( as Ex Dulwicher points out elsewhere) and designed to work as a package.
 

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by first mate

[Jules-and-Boo]

SL? Not sure what you're abbreviating and why

 

What did the Tories manifesto say on the matter? Did it include that they would or would not introduce CPZ/ LTN (ie they ARE transparent)? or were they also silent on the matter?

 

 

 

 

 

[first mate]

Abbreviated as in hurry. SL= Southwark Labour. My concern is with local implementation and a borough -wide CPZ, not national. So referring to local council manifesto of 2022 and their pledges.

Maybe check before you ask about manifesto content to make a point?

Edited August 2, 2023 by first mate

[Bic Basher]

8 hours ago, Jules-and-Boo said:

While BB comments that outer London isn't well served by trains, it's not affecting this area. ED is in Zone 2, so relatively central and well supported by public transport.

Not all of us in the SE22 postcode use the Zone 2 stations.  I live closer to Forest Hill and West Dulwich stations than ED/North Dulwich/Peckham Rye/Denmark Hill.

Forest Hill fortuntely has a decent rail service with 8tph on the Overground and 2tph to London Bridge and Victoria from Southern, yet West Dulwich as I mentioned earlier has trains every 30 minutes, so hardly turn up and go.

The bus connections and frequencies aren't great either.  We've seen dramatic cuts to the 12, with reductions also on the 40 and 176.  Connections between parts of Dulwich and other parts of Southwark aren't great either.  We lost our bus route to London Bridge and the City, rerouting the 40 to Clerkenwell Green, to get from ED to West Dulwich by bus involves plodding about the back streets of ED and then getting stuck on the LTN boundary road at Dulwich Common and that's before if you want to get to Nunhead, you have to get a bus to Peckham Rye. then another into Nunhead instead of a direct bus from ED.   If I want to get from where I live to the Kingswood Estate of which both are in Dulwich Wood Ward, it involves two buses and changing in Sydenham for the 450.   That estate has no direct bus service to anywhere in Southwark, including East Dulwich.

The centre and north of the borough still have either decent bus frequencies despite TfL cuts, while Rotherhithe and Bermondsey also have the Jubilee Line.   Dulwich is still in comparison poorly served by public transport despite how close we are to central London.

Edited August 2, 2023 by Bic Basher

[malumbu]

It's a matter of perspective.  I use many of these services and feel I am well provided for.  Live in many areas outside of the capital and you may feel the same.  The Mayor's one hour at one price has made bus travel even more exciting 

[Bic Basher]

42 minutes ago, malumbu said:

It's a matter of perspective.  I use many of these services and feel I am well provided for.  Live in many areas outside of the capital and you may feel the same.  The Mayor's one hour at one price has made bus travel even more exciting 

I don't know where you live exactly, but you're going to have a different perception of the bus system if you live in Peckham or Camberwell which have many more bus routes than here.

Dulwich is still a car area despite the LTN, because we still don't have the level of public transport that the rest of the borough has.

[malumbu]

Nonsense I'm afraid.  Just excuses.  Not just perspective it is attitude.  Hope you start to see things in a different way.  

[Bic Basher]

2 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Nonsense I'm afraid.  Just excuses.  Not just perspective it is attitude.  Hope you start to see things in a different way.  

I cycle and still use public transport and my perception hasn't changed.   

My interest in public transport and mobilty go back decades and have built up an understanding of how transport patterns are.  This area has more in common with outer London suburbia than Brixton which has a much better transport service than we do.

If you really want to reduce car use, stop being ideological and think of practical solutions that actually benefit everyone instead of punitive punishments which divide the community.   A community that works together for the benefit of all works better than one who puts one side against the other which is what we have currently.  It means the Council working with One Dulwich as well as Clean Air Dulwich.

[first mate]

You have hit the nail on the head. What it needs most of all is transparent and open dialogue between Council and communities they serve. That is just not happening, instead we have manipulation and paternalism.