Jump to content

LTN Discussion

Administrator

By Administrator
in Roads & Transport

 Share

Recommended Posts

slarti b

slarti b

Posted
Posted

march46 Wrote:

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

> ...other people see the huge increase (7 times) in children using Calton to safely get to school.


Where does that figure come from? Is it the Goodman propganda piece where she made up the base numbers? Or the Southwark stats where they claimed a 300% increase by comparing cycling figures form Dec with June, and ignored a direct before and after comparison ?

ab29

ab29

Posted
Posted
I like Heartblock's ideas. Agree with Rockets: LTN segregates children and people in general into the better ones, deserving cleaner air and those who don't. I don't see anyone from the pro LTN commando commenting on that; what a surprise - they don't want better air quality for everyone, only closed roads for themselves..
heartblock

heartblock

Posted
Posted

They also have fast electric trams. I have always thought the comparison of Amsterdam to London by some authors is a bit of a stretch for a variety of variables.

The LibDems thought about Trams, considering LL and Dog Kennel Hill both used to have Trams, I can't see a valid reason not to re-introduce. Although cycling has increased gradually over the last 10 years (LTNs really haven't made any difference if you consider the background increase and the blip during hard lockdown) - the pressure should be excellent public transport. I think the issue is that Southwark/Lambeth cosied up to LCC and Sustrans and certain researchers - all of whom appear to have a very weird dislike of buses, trams and trains and think everyone is a fit and healthy soon to be born again cyclist.

Maybe....just maybe....not everyone wants to cycle?

It's like pushing a fervent religion.

Offer excellent cheap alternatives to driving

Make cycling and walking safe


If I have to pay ?600 for 4 of us to visit friends by train in Devon....and the train is awful, with very poor links either end, so I have to then pay ?60 for a taxi. I'm going to drive.

Raeburn

Raeburn

Posted
Posted

Amsterdam? The entire city is now pretty much one-way, creating neighbourhood cells and preventing through traffic. Roadspace for vehicles is minimised, giving priority to walking, cycling and active travel.


It's the gold standard for healthy street design - projects based on it are literally called 'mini-Holland'.


https://robertweetman.wordpress.com/2019/03/19/i-want-my-street-to-be-like-this/


Fifty years ago Stop Killing Children' protests occurred across Holland, including Amsterdam, where residents closed residential roads to through traffic, and prevent drivers killing more kids;

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/amsterdam-children-fighting-cars-in-1972/


That's why you were able to enjoy cycling in the city so much.

ed_pete

ed_pete

Posted
Posted

Getting to the Traffic Counts data

Here are some instructions on how to use the Southwark Maps Portal to get a list of the published Traffic Counts.


Go to Southwark Maps Portal here: https://geo.southwark.gov.uk/connect/analyst/mobile/#/main?mapcfg=Southwark%20Highways&lang=en-gb

It'll flash up Pitney Bowes (who I guess are hosting this map software) then bring up a map centred on the Old Kent Road.

You'll need to drag the map to the location you want or use the search in the top left.

The link above should load the Southwark Highways map configuration - if not you'll need to make sure that's selected top right.

Then click on the folder icon next to "Traffic Counts" and select the Checkbox next to "Traffic counts (2016-now)"

This should highlight on the map the places where a traffic count is/has been located.

If you click on an individual blue spot it opens a panel on the left with details of each count and a link to each counts spreadsheet.

To get them all this way is laborious so if you instead click the three dots next to the "Traffic counts (2016-now)" checkbox it opens a little menu starting with "Multi Select".

Click on the "See tabular results" and it opens a pane on the left with a list of all the traffic counts Southwark has (2000+).

(You can limit it to those shown on your map using the Query option but this is more advanced).

Then, if you select the three dots next to "Traffic counts (2016-now) in [All data]" at the top of the list you get an option to "Export all pages as CSV".

This will download a CSV file which contains the same data in the list including a link to each spreadsheet containing the count data.

Some of these are publicly available - those starting with https://geo.southwark.gov.uk - and some are not.

East Dulwich Grove is attached.


Now you just need to download the spreadsheets and wrangle to the data.

Dogkennelhillbilly

Dogkennelhillbilly

Posted
Posted

scrawford Wrote:

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

didn?t come across any closed roads

> like the nonsense in ED.


That's because they were all closed off 20 or 30 years ago. People seem to imagine that Amsterdam has always been a walking and cycling paradise. It wasn't. In the 70s it was just as traffic-prone as London. 400 kids a year were being killed.


https://www.fastcompany.com/3052699/these-historical-photos-show-how-amsterdam-turned-itself-into-a-bike-riders-paradise

Dogkennelhillbilly

Dogkennelhillbilly

Posted
Posted

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Creative solutions

> 1. Efficient cheap green local transport (PTAL

> Dulwich very poor)

> 2. Reduction in council tax for anyone with no car

> or one car, increase if two cars

> 3. Road tax

> 4. Council 'taxi' service for anyone with mobility

> issues

> 5. Policing of parents parking in no parking zones

> to drop off and pick up kids from schools (rife on

> ED Grove - idling cars every afternoon)

> 6. Open up all roads - stop road parking on at

> least one side of all roads and add an elevated

> cycling lane

> 7. Private Schools insist children must come by PT

> or school coach


I agree with all of this except 4 (because that's what Dial-A-Ride already is), 2 (because it's too modest - second cars and homes need to be taxed much more heavily), and 6 (because it's self-evidently nuts and would induce demand).


I would also add 7) enforcement wardens to be armed with MANPAD style weapons to aid enforcement. The launchers would be loaded with paintball projectiles...for the first three weeks...

goldilocks

goldilocks

Posted
Posted
How would a reduction in council tax for those with one car help anything? Despite this alternate reality where everyone in an LTN owns multiple vehicles, the fact that we live in zone 2 means that very few people use a car for work and the majority of families who drive locally have one car for school runs / kids activities / supermarket / gym trips etc. What council services are people not using by 'only' owning one car?
Spartacus

Spartacus

Posted
Posted

Some interesting points raised so far, and I think to encourage more people to add creative thinking, at this stage we shouldn't raise questions over what's been suggested or its practicality, even if they seem a bit of a stretch at the moment.


The more ideas on the table, the better chance of debating and agreeing to create a realistic concept for how the street space can be shared safely by all.


This is exactly the sort of exercise Southwark should have undertaken rather than imposing something that seems to have drawn so much negative feeling.


Who knows, if there are good alternatives presented the councillors may actually listen to the community 🤔

ed_pete

ed_pete

Posted
Posted
Agreed on car use. What we really need here is the equivalent to the e-scooters/bikes for cars. Reduce the spaces available for privately owned cars and partner with a electric car provider. I'd give up my petrol car if I knew that the chances of me being able to pick up an electric car when I needed one was largely guaranteed.
Waseley

Waseley

Posted
Posted
Feels like there are a lot of gesture politics going on from government. We want people out of their cars using public transport and active travel. But we are going to stop short of making it happen. Across the Western World only Japan does less to subsidise their train network but you could argue it is so good it doesn't need to.
Bic Basher

Bic Basher

Posted
Posted

DuncanW Wrote:

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

> I received a glossy circular from the LibDems

> yesterday.

> No mention of rolling back the LTNs in there.

>

> It does say they would listen to people more, but

> for any anti-LTN voter looking to them for a

> reversal, they are a long way off from committing

> to that.


Both Labour and the Lib Dems have currently sent out their borough wide manifestos, so you're not going to get full commitments on a hyperlocal level as they try and attract voters on generic policies. (The Lib Dems supported LTN schemes in north Southwark, but candidates in Village Ward are against them).


From what I've read of the Labour manifesto, they don't directly mention LTNs either but they seem to be attempting to keep their core voters happy in the centre of the borough.

Bic Basher

Bic Basher

Posted
Posted

kissthisguy Wrote:

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

> Tbh James Barber was quite useful. Not necessarily

> because he was a LD of course. The party

> nationally seems in a rut.

>

> Waseley Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Is there any point of the Lib Dems? A serious

> > question.


Considering their party won Tory safe seats in North Shropshire and Chesham and Amersham in two by-elections, I don't think they're in a rut.


The real question is can they penetrate what has become a Labour fiefdom in Dulwich again?

northernmonkey

northernmonkey

Posted
Posted
I?d imagine looking at the candidates overall, that if you?re against the LTNs it?s down to a straight choice between the Tories and the Lib Dems. The Tories would be the only ones on the council whereas the Lib Dems have more potential to influence together with the likely other Lib Dem cllrs from Borough and Bankside.
Spartacus

Spartacus

Posted
Posted

Just read that Uber has been granted a new two and a half years licence to operate in London.


Thinking about how to safely share streets, it has been muted that ride hailing apps like Uber have contributed to reduced bus usage and more journeys being made by car.


Wouldn't it have been an ideal opportunity to add a clause into the high level Uber licence limiting the number of individual private hire licences associated with them and also substantially reducing the overall number of private hire licences across London as a whole?


Whilst it's a bigger issue than Dulwich or Southwark, it could be something that our councillors should be championing.

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...