Jump to content

LTN Discussion

Administrator

By Administrator
in Roads & Transport

 Share

Recommended Posts

Rockets

Rockets

Posted
Posted

Ex- what I continually marvel at is how often people say - look, here's the facts to back up the council's conclusions and when you take a closer look at said documents it actually massively undermines the results they have come to.


Can anyone explain why the "When Was The Pre-scheme Data Collected" specifically say: call out that "This

data collection all took place outside school holidays" yet that isn't called out at all in the "When Was The Post-Scheme Data Collected". In fact there is no mention of school holidays in the latter - so, are we to presume some data may have been collected during school holidays - or is this another infamous council LTN oversight.......?


I will bet you my bike that the "independent party" who supplied the video of the cyclists was none other than Anna Goodman for her report she created here: https://www.transportforqualityoflife.com/u/files/1_DulwichReport_FINAL2.pdf.


Surely if Systra want us to take their report seriously they should be telling us where that data, that they used to formulate some of their findings came from?

exdulwicher

exdulwicher

Posted
Posted
You do still have manual counts where things are a bit trickier eg I noticed a traffic survey of buses under the bridges at Peckham Rye Station a couple of weeks ago which was being done manually. Could be the video cameras couldn't get a good view, could be the survey was interested in not just number but specific maneuvers into the stops...?


Usually counting people getting on / off at the stops. Sometimes they employ people to sit on buses and do counts as well. Bus journey times are easy to get off GPS but ridership can be more tricky. You can analyse Oyster / contactless data to see how many actual individuals got onto the bus over the course of its full journey but as you don't tap out on buses, it's less easy to tell if someone got on and rode 1 mile or 5 miles. So occasionally they'll use manual counts to build an idea of how busy stops are and when.

legalalien

legalalien

Posted
Posted

is this maybe what you saw Rockets?




I have a practical question. when I walked past JAGS on Friday one lane was temporarily closed, and it seemed (need to go back and check) that there was a traffic counter level with the bus stop (and at that point in time the closure).


If an eastbound car has to swerve around a closure or a bus, and travels eastbound in the westbound lane (ie on the "wrong" side of the road), does the counter count it as an eastbound vehicle or a westbound vehicle?


If the counter can't tell, then it doesn't make sense to locate counters near bus stops?

Rockets

Rockets

Posted
Posted

Legal - I appreciate you coming to my defence!!! ;-)


It was very similar to that one but to another level of granularity that showed postcode by postcode within the WF LTNs. Similar rocketing upward curve mind you. Whomever tweeted the one I saw was using it to dispel Aldred's conclusions that the WF LTN had reduced car ownership - it hadn't, the reverse had actually happened. To be fair to the protagonist they did say that there was rapid gentrification of the closed off roads that drove house prices up and more people/families with cars moved in.

Rockets

Rockets

Posted
Posted

At last! He should have done this ages ago instead of wasting millions on ludicrous schemes like the LTNs that just make the problems worse. I hope the scheme is means tested so everyone pays the "same".


It does look like a bit of a kite-flying exercise and the real story is the clean-air charge - which also is very welcome. Looks like the Clean Air Charge will also prompt a discussion about what councils are doing to encourage and embrace clean-air vehicles and infrastructure as such a move will be the catalyst to get people to look at electric.

Metallic

Metallic

Posted
Posted

Rockets Wrote:

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

> At last! He should have done this ages ago instead

> of wasting millions on ludicrous schemes like the

> LTNs that just make the problems worse. I hope the

> scheme is means tested so everyone pays the

> "same".

>

> It does look like a bit of a kite-flying exercise

> and the real story is the clean-air charge - which

> also is very welcome. Looks like the Clean Air

> Charge will also prompt a discussion about what

> councils are doing to encourage and embrace

> clean-air vehicles and infrastructure as such a

> move will be the catalyst to get people to look at

> electric.


Two words: Silvertown Tunnel. One cost assessed at ?2.2 BILLION. Sometimes Twitter is useful for tracking down Khan's plans.

Dogkennelhillbilly

Dogkennelhillbilly

Posted
Posted
On one hand, big infrastructure is always expensive and if the previous tunnel is any guide, it'll be in use for another 120 years. On the other hand, it might be better simply to reduce demand to match existing supply by increasing vehicle tolls on the existing crossings, or even just let the private sector build the tunnel at its own risk.
keano77

keano77

Posted
Posted

If the charge were to be ?2 per mile and your takeaway comes from a business 1 and a half miles away is ?3 added to the cost of your meal order?


What if that item you ordered from Amazon comes from a warehouse miles away? Is a proportion of the travel charges added to your bill?


Businesses will pass on these costs

exdulwicher

exdulwicher

Posted
Posted

At the moment, it's little more than a "get the ball rolling" conversation. Road pricing / pay-per-drive is gong to have to come in at some point because as the shift to walking / cycling / public transport continues, combined with the rise in EV / hybrid vehicles, the existing Vehicle Excise Duty and Fuel Duty receipts will decrease markedly so the Government has to fill that hole somehow.


TfL is in a bit of a tricky situation - the Conservative Government are trying their best to defund it in order to discredit the Labour Mayor and when they do chuck it another lump sum, they wrap it in caveats. The increased rate of Congestion Charge was a Tory caveat to a previous round of funding (even though they happily sat back and let Khan take the complaints about it).


So if Khan can get this through before the end of his second term it could be a winner for continuing to reduce pollution, driving modal shift, bolstering TfL's finances and a bit of a one over on the Government for failing to start their own road pricing conversation. It could also be a lot fairer than a lump-sum ULEZ fee of ?12.50 which applies if you drive any non-compliant vehicle in the zone whether it's a 15-min drive to the supermarket or a 6hr trip of multiple deliveries.


Have to see how it ties in with proposed tolls on (eg) Blackwall / Silvertown Tunnels as well.

keano77

keano77

Posted
Posted

Whatever the rights and wrongs of LTNs and any justifications for the greater good and so on, Mayor Kahn?s proposals raise very serious questions about the further erosions of our freedoms that we?ve seen chipped away under the pandemic.


I realise mass surveillance already exists in this country and anyone who has banking apps for example and allows access to location is giving up huge quantities of information, including how fast your walking speed is I understand.


Khan?s pay per mile means people will be monitored going about their daily lives. This already happens in China. Are people ready to accept it here?

redpost

redpost

Posted
Posted

keano77 Wrote:

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

> Whatever the rights and wrongs of LTNs and any

> justifications for the greater good and so on,

> Mayor Kahn?s proposals raise very serious

> questions about the further erosions of our

> freedoms that we?ve seen chipped away under the

> pandemic.

>

> I realise mass surveillance already exists in this

> country and anyone who has banking apps for

> example and allows access to location is giving up

> huge quantities of information, including how fast

> your walking speed is I understand.

>

> Khan?s pay per mile means people will be monitored

> going about their daily lives. This already

> happens in China. Are people ready to accept it

> here?


There already is a network of ANPR cameras that will be recording your cars position several times a day. Khan is proposing pay per day not pay per mile.

Dogkennelhillbilly

Dogkennelhillbilly

Posted
Posted

DuncanW Wrote:

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

> The tunnel is being financed by a private sector

> consortium - they will be paid back over a 25 year

> period with that money being generated by

> user-charging.


Yes - the private sector will get paid no matter how many people use it. The Mayor will be torn in two directions: to reduce traffic for environmental and congestion reasons on one hand, and to induce and maintain traffic to keep paying off the construction and maintenance cost on the other.

exdulwicher

exdulwicher

Posted
Posted
Khan?s pay per mile means people will be monitored going about their daily lives. This already happens in China. Are people ready to accept it here?



Every single time you use a mobile phone, a satnav, a bank card, a supermarket loyalty card, an Oyster card etc "the system" knows where you are and quite often where you've come from, where you're going to and how you're getting there. Have a look at your location history on Google Maps sometime.

Supermarkets and online retailers know what you like to buy and when.

The Government know where you live, what you do and how much you earn.

You're on CCTV (including private CCTV / doorbell cameras / dashcams etc) dozens of times a day whether you know it or not.

Anytime you use an online streaming service, it build a picture of what you watch / listen to.

Every time you use a car, your journey can be plotted by ANPR hits.


The existing ULEZ and Congestion Charge works off exactly the same principle, the only thing it doesn't do is charge by distance / time of day / type of road, it just bills you a lump sum.


Part of living in a large society is that we have to pay taxes - this is just a more efficient way of paying a tax. I mean, we could go back to mediaeval times and pop a toll booth at every gate to the city if you'd prefer?



Why not, he won't be paying pay by mile for his Range Rover plus deputy dogs riding behind him. We will


When he walks, cycles, using inadequate public transport perhaps people will relate. Mans a joke



You mean we shouldn't protect democratically elected leaders from lunatics? I mean, I'm not a fan of Boris Johnson but he (quite rightly) gets a security detail that ultimately we, the taxpayer, foot the bill for. I assume you don't object to the vast security operation surrounding members of the Royal Family? If you got half the death threats and despicable racist abuse that SK gets, you'd want an armoured car too.

And if you want to see what lunatics do, look at Sir David Amess MP and Jo Cox MP.

keano77

keano77

Posted
Posted

Sadly exdulwicher your examples are true. Of course most of them are providing a service and selling on the meta-data to others to number crunch.


Sadiq though is providing no service - just fleecing motorists for tax. It?s an admission that ULEZ has been a complete failure as a revenue source

Dogkennelhillbilly

Dogkennelhillbilly

Posted
Posted

No, it's not. ULEZ was designed to reduce usage of older, dirtier vehicles inside rhe zone - which it has done very successfully, by 37%, at a stroke.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ulez-expansion-tfl-diesel-polluting-sadiq-khan-north-south-circular-b971107.html?itm_source=Internal&itm_channel=homepage_banner&itm_campaign=breaking-news-ticker&itm_content=4


If it had been designed merely to raise revenue, it have been priced cheaper so that more people continued driving in and paid extra. The price wasn't just plucked out of the air.


No-one ever said that ULEZ was going to fix all of London's traffic and pollution problems and that we would never need to do anything else.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...