LTN Discussion

[andrewc]

A report on LTNs in London.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/09/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-report-london-ltn-schemes?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[Spartacus]

Interesting

From experience around here we know one of the conclusions in it isn't true

"They also said they had found no evidence that LTNs slowed down emergency vehicle response times"

Seems a very biased piece 😉

[Rockets]

"Exclusive" penned by Peter Walker....read into that what you will....surprised it doesn't mention Rachel Aldred anywhere in it....

[exdulwicher]

I pretty much knew that as soon as that Guardian article was linked, Rockets would be along with more "written by Peter Walker..."

You could try reading the original piece of research rather than the summary notes in the newspaper:

https://www.centreforlondon.org/publication/london-low-traffic-neighbourhoods/

[heartblock]

When is the peak pollution data for ED Grove going to be published...interested in what I?m breathing in every morning.

[bobbly]

where can you find the LTN Route map

before travel?

[Rockets]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> I pretty much knew that as soon as that Guardian

> article was linked, Rockets would be along with

> more "written by Peter Walker..."

>

> You could try reading the original piece of

> research rather than the summary notes in the

> newspaper:

>

> https://www.centreforlondon.org/publication/london

> -low-traffic-neighbourhoods/

And lo and behold looking at the original report makes you realise why they took it to Peter Walker as an exclusive?.because they knew he wouldn?t give it any proper scrutiny and basically write what the authors wanted him to write??

Look at his article and the way he spends certain parts. Take the emergency service part. Let?s look at that section in the report?.

Peter Walker says: They also said they had found no evidence that LTNs slowed down emergency vehicle response times, or that the schemes disproportionately benefited wealthier areas, saying people living inside LTN boundaries tended to have a similar demographic profile to those on boundary roads.

But despite his claim this is what the report says?

The London Fire Brigade reports that ?traffic calming measures? have been identified as the main reason for vehicle delay 3,035 times in 2021, up from 2,145 times in 2020.

However, according to research on the response times conducted between October 2020 and February 2021 (after the introduction of the 2020 LTNs), LTNs didn?t lead to longer response times ? and this was

true whether they used physical traffic filters or cameras.39

So, rather than Peter?s claim that the authors found no evidence of that LTNs slowed response what he should have said is that the report dismisses the Fire Brigades claims?.perhaps Peter didn?t read the report.

Then you follow the links to the sources for the ?facts? they are reporting and you realise a large percentage of them come from fellow cycle lobbyist Rachel Aldred??.it?s basically an Aldred report by proxy. I very much suspect because her name has been tarnished by her pro-LTN funded research the approach is now to regurgitate her reports under someone else?s name. I wonder if some of this report was funded by the ?1.5m her university was awarded in January for more LTN research.

In that vein you see who funded the report the Foundation for Integrated Transport, another pro-cycle lobby group whose mission statement opens with?.Humans Have A Right to Get About Without a Car??(under an image of a bike).

Oh and it was part funded by Enfield and Lewisham councils?.big fans of LTNs.

Come on Ex- it?s a fairly good indicator on the ?independence? of a report if Peter gets the exclusive and this is another good example of that. I honestly don?t know whether Peter actually sees the reports before he writes his stories as his stories paint a very different picture?.emergency services delays being a classic case in point.

[legalalien]

The roll out of CPZs begins, starting with Old Kent Road, with the council making it crystal clear that whether or not residents want them is irrelevant in light of the Council?s commitment to rolling out a borough wide CPZ, although there may be some discussion to be had on timings of restrictions.

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s107370/Report.pdf

Interestingly the report is very clear that the cabinet minister was briefed in advance of the consultation and that ward councillors were also told in advance. I might be reading too much into those statements (which I haven?t seen in previous papers of this type), but it does read as though council officials anticipate a backlash and are putting in defences/ making it more difficult for councillors to make a u-turn for political reasons if things get ugly...

[Rockets]

And so it begins.....the confetti from their councillor victory parties not yet cleared away and here come the CPZs....at least some of us can say "Told you so..."

How big is the zone they are brining in - Old Kent Road is a long road....I wonder what the traders there think.

This is telling.....both in sense that of those that responded lot of people don't want it and that it looks like it will be 7 days a week after 6/12 months...

Analysis of the responses shows that 65% do not support the introduction of

a CPZ, while 35% are in support of the proposals. In response to the

questions about operational hours, the majority of respondents preferred a

scheme that operates from 8.30am to 6.30pm. Officers propose that the CPZ

operates on weekdays only, subject to a review six to 12 months post

implementation.

And then this...

The Council must prioritise kerbside space. Approximately 72% of trips

starting in Southwark are by walking, cycling and public transport, with

only 25% by driving. Providing space for those commuting into or around

the borough with private cars is not a recognised priority.

They don't say anything about anyone who might need their car for their job - visiting health workers, delivery drivers etc. They seem to be playing the "commuters driving from outside the area to commute nonsense" again.

[Rockets]

One Dulwich update:

As you know, Labour councillors were re-elected to all Dulwich wards last month. Because the Dulwich LTNs are supported by all Labour councillors, the Council is likely to see these results as a mandate for keeping the road closures.

Our Labour councillors will be in post for the next four years. We hope that they will work with the local community to resolve the serious problems caused by the LTNs.

For example, Southwark's own figures show that there is now much more traffic at peak times on roads where thousands of children are walking and cycling to school.

There is also growing concern that buses in the Dulwich area are being delayed at peak times because of the displacement of LTN traffic on to bus routes. TfL have now introduced a reduced service for the number 3 bus as a direct result of the traffic congestion and is proposing to cut local bus services further, including plans to get rid of the no. 12 completely. If you would like to object to this, please respond to TfL?s consultation, which runs until 12 July 2022.

Southwark should shortly be starting its own consultation on the layout of the closed junction in Dulwich Village. Head of highways Dale Foden said in April 2022, ?Longer term, it is intended to completely reconfigure and redesign the junction to potentially allow vehicles such as blue badge holders, taxis and SEND vehicles to pass through. It is intended to work closely with the emergency services, local resident and local action groups in the redesign of the junction with this element of consultation initially timetabled for June 2022.'

We hope that Mr Foden's commitment to the community will mean that discrimination against vulnerable groups ? at this location at least ? will be addressed, particularly if the Council allows access not only for blue badge holders, taxis and SEND vehicles, but also for healthcare professionals, including community nurses, midwives, GPs and carers.

[CPR Dave]

They are unbelievable.

We should be in no doubt that they will put the CPZ in here too that was rejected by 68% of the residents.

[legalalien]

Well to be fair, it is Southwark Labour policy, and they have just been voted back in.

[dulwichfolk]

When is the CPZ due to go into townley, court lane and Calton Av?

Where will the older pupils and staff members all park then?!

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

dulwichfolk Wrote:

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

> Where will the older pupils and staff members all

> park then?!

I couldn't give the slightest shit about the car parking requirements of schoolchildren, and I can only assume your comment there is satirical. I am only fractionally more interested in the car parking needs of staff. Practically no-one else in London gets free parking at work.

[Jenijenjen]

Those who work in the businesses in Lordship Lane do, that?s why they?re so vehemently against any CPZ

[Rockets]

Is can hardly be any surprise they are against it - many of them require their cars to get to the Lane to run the shops that we frequent - should we punish them for that? You do realise don't you that many, if not most, of the people working in the shops on Lordship Lane don't live locally?

There is absolutely no need for CPZs in Dulwich, never has been - even with the meddling the council did to try to create parking pressure when they extended the double-yellow lines across the area ahead of the first CPZ "consultation". It's a stealth tax and completely unnecessary especially in light of the poor PTAL scores in Dulwich and the ever-reducing levels of public transport frequency and options in the area.

[Jenijenjen]

Yes, of course I realise that many who work in the businesses on LL don?t live locally to their work but then neither do those who spend an hour each way travelling to central London live locally to their work.

[Rockets]

But getting in and out of London is easy from everywhere isn't it - linear lines of transport grow out from a city - it's why the Elizabeth Line is such a revelation and why it took so long to build because it doesn't go in an out it goes across.

Getting from, say Bromley where I know a few of the shop owners and workers live, to Lordship Lane is not as straight-forward is it?

[Jenijenjen]

Yep, train from Bromley South to Denmark Hill or Peckham (about 20 minutes) then walk or bus

[andrewc]

I wonder how many people are working out how to leave the car at home for short journeys (5 miles) due to the cost of petrol as well as environmental considerations.

I have been using the bus and train much more...even for work, when I don't have to take much equipment with me.

Also just bought a new guitar case which is much lighter so I can get to rehearsals without the car. Small decisions made by a lot of people add up to a big change.

[Rockets]

Jenijenjen Wrote:

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

> Yep, train from Bromley South to Denmark Hill or

> Peckham (about 20 minutes) then walk or bus

And there you highlight the problem....hardly direct is it, and that presumes they live close to Bromley South, what if they have to get bus to Bromley South? Your route presumes a 25 minute train journey and then a change to walk or wait for a bus...London was built to get in and out of the city...it is awful trying to get around the city.

The sooner people stop presuming everyone lives their lives in London like they live in Trumpton or Camberwick Green the better!

So maybe you can understand why people who work on Lordship Lane are so against CPZs. But let's not limit the dislike to CPZs to just those working on Lordship Lane....68% of people said they didn't want it during the last consultation but that, if the council's previous form with the CPZs in Dulwich and now the Old Kent Road CPZs stands for nothing....

[Waseley]

Tried not to post on this matter Mr/Mrs R but this is another level of ridiculousness. Working in London for many years an hour was a reasonable commute. Many spent much longer. You just manipulate everything to justify your immovable views. Hopefully won't post again, but you may put something down even more ludicrous.

[ab29]

Eh?

Waseley Wrote:

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

> Tried not to post on this matter Mr/Mrs R but this

> is another level of ridiculousness. Working in

> London for many years an hour was a reasonable

> commute. Many spent much longer. You just

> manipulate everything to justify your immovable

> views. Hopefully won't post again, but you may

> put something down even more ludicrous.

[Rockets]

Waseley - you're sounding more and more like Malumbu with your I tried not to post.....

How on earth am I manipulating anything...please feel free to point out the manipulation.....are you accusing me of being Peter Walker? Or are you saying that my suggestion that London transport links were built to get people in and out of London was somehow manipulated? Or do you think there is a direct route from Bromley to Lordship Lane? Or that 68% of Dulwich residents didn't respond to the consultation saying they didn't want a CPZ? Or that the council ignored that and went ahead anyway? Or that some people think they live in Camberwick Green or Trumpton - ok you got me on that one, those were children's TV programmes involving puppets so I did manipulate that one but only for the purposes of creating a visual metaphor.....

[diable rouge]

The sooner people stop presuming everyone lives their lives in London like they live in Trumpton or Camberwick Green the better!

Don't bring the CGF into this.

The CGF = LTN Discussion Free-Zone!...