LTN Discussion

[Spartacus]

Let's not forget that there was little or no baseline survey data taken before implementation so the council can't prove that it has or hasn't worked compared to pre implementation.

There's also that TfL report that the councillors tried so hard to bury, that proves it has slowed bus times down.

@march46 you are using the "I'm alright jack so everyone else should be" argument, but others aren't as lucky as you to live in an LTN.

[malumbu]

19 minutes ago, heartblock said:

There has been no data published for over a year from Southwark and as it did not measure congestion or traffic travelling below a certain speed (often quoted as 10-20km/hr), only registering traffic that was free-flowing with ATCs placed in incorrect areas (near junctions).

My lived experience along with residents and bus users say different, as does TFL about our bus routes on residential red routes. It is a failed experiment, poorly designed.

The BBC reported Newcastle, but there is also Ealing and Tower Hamlets where LTNs were seen as flawed and creating congestion and pollution in the poorest communities. 

 

So no restriction on where we are allowed to drive then?  Let's open up all closed roads, make two way one way, get rid of those pesky speed bumps and narrowed sections, and whilst we are at it paint over double yellow lines. Drivers should be trusted to do the right thing.  There is loads of evidence to show that if you do this, perhaps in rural Sweden, that driving speeds come down and everybody shares the road with a smile on their face.  Ah, I remember, I saw a documentary on this, believe it was called to the Truman Show.

So serious question - does society need controls on where and when motorists drive, what they drive and how they drive?  For many on this site it appears not.

Here's the evidence for you to peruse

 

[first mate]

32 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Let's not forget that there was little or no baseline survey data taken before implementation so the council can't prove that it has or hasn't worked compared to pre implementation.

There's also that TfL report that the councillors tried so hard to bury, that proves it has slowed bus times down.

@march46 you are using the "I'm alright jack so everyone else should be" argument, but others aren't as lucky as you to live in an LTN.

It feels like the two months McAsh said he would need to look at the data may soon be up, if not already, so we should hear soon.

[exdulwicher]

2 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Let's not forget that there was little or no baseline survey data taken before implementation so the council can't prove that it has or hasn't worked compared to pre implementation.

That's not quite true - there's plenty of baseline data from various sources, the issues are around trying to sort out correlation and causality from factors such as Covid (far and away the main one) but also things like schools, general demographics, car ownership, changes in how data is gathered/interpreted and where/how that baseline is actually taken cos it's a moving target.

New AI-powered sensors and video feeds are giving councils huge amounts of extra data that they never had before so there's definitely a learning curve in how all that gets interpreted and factored into the bigger picture - you can sort of model it backwards a bit once you've got some trendlines and cross-reference it with previous data from automated traffic counts, manual counts, mobile phone data to double check previous baselines - stuff I've seen has generally been within a few %, it's rare to get anything truly out of whack. It's important to get a sense of other goings on as well and factor those into occasional days or weeks of abnormal counts. Roadworks is the big one - LL is going to show a dramatic drop in traffic this week! - but stuff like accidents , building works and so on can also feed in. 

3 hours ago, Spartacus said:

There's also that TfL report that the councillors tried so hard to bury, that proves it has slowed bus times down.

The TfL report that basically said "bus times are a bit slower and we fixed it by altering the traffic light timings at Herne Hill". That one? The kind of thing that TfL do dozens of times a week. Although to be fair, HH is a nightmare junction, massively constrained by the railway bridge and the sheer number of drivers jumping the lights and then getting caught in the middle of the junction.

[Spartacus]

Ahhh

ExDulwicher has put us all right using his mastery of spin from the council book of doubletalk. 

Baseline data that isn't the same as counted result data is like comparing swedes with apples, both are round but different contents and one will leave a bitter taste in your mouth. 

The TFL report caused quirte a stir internally at the council if I remember so not quite as low key as you try and suggest.

[Rockets]

And, if I am not mistaken, the TFL report in question said that bus delays were being caused by congestion caused by the Dulwich LTNs....it was that that sent the councillors into a rage....

[first mate]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

And, if I am not mistaken, the TFL report in question said that bus delays were being caused by congestion caused by the Dulwich LTNs....it was that that sent the councillors into a rage....

And allegedly made TFL employees cry. It is hoped not a weekly event...but who knows.

[Rockets]

And led Will Norman to have to intervene to get some control and calm things down a bit.

[Spartacus]

 

 

[malumbu]

This thread does not seem to be a discussion, worse is when people just post a link without any explanation 

[Rockets]

On 05/09/2023 at 19:29, exdulwicher said:

It's why the Loughborough Junction attempt a few years ago failed dramatically, because it was one tiny intervention on its own with no complementary or supporting measures.

No it failed because it caused such heavy congestion on surrounding roads that the local MP had to intervene, at the behest of the emergency services, because the council were ignoring their pleas that response times were being massively impacted.

 

A combination of bad planning, bad design, bad implementation and a blinkered self-serving determination to not alter the design come hell or highwater- even when lives were at risk.

23 hours ago, malumbu said:

Therefore the Beeb is totally against LTNs.

Oh my...

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

This thread does not seem to be a discussion, worse is when people just post a link without any explanation 

It's a joke Malumbu....using a cultural reference to a regular sketch from the Harry Enfield Television Programme called The Scousers....;-)

[mr.chicken]

I love the cognitive dissonance on this subject. The council is wildly incompetent at everything but especially LTNs, with two notable exceptions:

1. Running conspiracies

2. Implementing LTNs ironically: you see when the council puts one in they do a perfect job so if it doesn't work perfectly then no fixes could possibly help and the only path is removal.

It can't be both, except here it apparently can!

[first mate]

Can you quote where anyone who is against local LTNs has said the "Council do a perfect job of implementing LTNs"?

Sorry, cannot resist, is "implementing LTNs ironically" now Southwark Council policy? It's a fascinating idea and may well be true. Please tell us more about the aims and objectives of implementing traffic flow measures ironically?

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, mr.chicken said:

I love the cognitive dissonance on this subject. The council is wildly incompetent at everything but especially LTNs, with two notable exceptions:

1. Running conspiracies

2. Implementing LTNs ironically: you see when the council puts one in they do a perfect job so if it doesn't work perfectly then no fixes could possibly help and the only path is removal.

It can't be both, except here it apparently can!

Mr Chicken this comes down to a mix of council incompetence, ideological blinkeredness and a failure to admit they can get anything wrong - those things are very dangerous when combined and can probably explain why we are where we are.

 

But I do love the idea of an ironic implementation! 😉

[first mate]

Inspired by Malumbu's Peter Skellern post on another thread, I wonder if we can fashion some Alanis Morrisette style lyrics in tribute to Chicken's latest and revelatory post

"LTN Ironic"?

An LTN was opened in 2021

Despite flawed data it's still going strong

But the council are determined 'cos it's worth a few pence
On the boundary it brings exhaust fumes to your white picket fence

And isn't it ironic, don't you think?

It's like acid rain on your wedding day 
It's free parking when you've already paid 
It's the weasel words that you just couldn't take 
And who would've thought, it figures

Edited September 7, 2023 by first mate

[malumbu]

Crazy Horses, by the Osmonds, decrying gas guzzlers and pollution in 1970s USA.  I expect future generations will look at us with the same words "see what they've done"

Edited September 8, 2023 by malumbu

[heartblock]

LTN quiz!

Who said:

"Complaining that the South Circular has traffic on it is ridiculous. It the job of the south circular to carry traffic. Complaining about that is like going into a vegetarian restaurant and complaining that there’s no steak on the menu."

a. Boris Johnson

b. Simon Munk

c. Rosamund Kissi-Debrah

d. Richard Leeming

Edited September 11, 2023 by heartblock

[ab29]

This is too easy: out of touch with real world?  dangerous hardline ideologue?  pandering to the rich of East Dulwich? manipulating data? bulling TfL staff? my way or the highway? if you live on South Circular you can die from air pollution for all I care? Ladies & gents, southwark LABOUR council very own comrade Leeming!!

Edited September 19, 2023 by ab29
.

[Rockets]

Yes you have to admit that when you hear the likes of Cllr Leeming spouting forth this nonsense you know full well that the hole they have dug themselves is so deep that they have to abandon the socialist ideology that they purport to champion.

[Penguin68]

10 hours ago, Rockets said:

Yes you have to admit that when you hear the likes of Cllr Leeming spouting forth this nonsense you know full well that the hole they have dug themselves is so deep that they have to abandon the socialist ideology that they purport to champion.

I'm afraid if you look at Bolshevik history you will find that class hatred, bile and murder are high up on the list of their 'socialist' group think. When you want to review their 'socialist' ideology, don't look to William Morris as their ideologue. 

[mr.chicken]

I love the anti-LTN "logic".

Too many cars on the south circular? I know let's have more cars!

 

[Penguin68]

I believe it was the LTN designers that forced more traffic onto the south circular - by blocking off other east: west routes - and not the anti-LTN campaigners. There is no anti-LTN logic that argues that there are too many and there should be more. It is the pro-LTN argument that the east west traffic displaced by the LTNs has 'disappeared', and has not turned up anywhere else. Which is self-evidently a lie.

[Rockets]

The traffic "evaporated" apparently.......and then condensed again onto roads like the South Circular, Croxted and East Dulwich Grove......the "main roads are built for it" was the nonsense narrative the council tried to peddle when their promise of less traffic for all never materialised.

[Spartacus]

Looks like Tower Hamlets are the latest to remove LTNs 

BBC News - Tower Hamlets Council to scrap LTN road closure scheme
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66872320

The main reason quoted by their Mayor is "While LTNs improve air quality in their immediate vicinity, they push traffic down surrounding arterial roads, typically lived on by less affluent residents"

Sounds familiar ? 

[first mate]

Interesting to see. However, also of note is that the council ( Aspire party) is also overriding resident opinion and removing LTNs against their wishes. I was impressed by a piece Legal Alien wrote on another thread suggesting our council is extending its scope to interfere in traffic measures in ways that may not be legal. That aspect deserves greater scrutiny.