LTN Discussion

[ab29]

Agree Heartblock - time for a change.

[Waseley]

My earlier post about single issue politicians referred to Martin Bell. I am surprised that this didn't get many of you excited, as he stood on an anti-corruption platform (Neil Hamilton). The chap successfully campaigning on a local hospital was Richard Taylor in the Wyre Forest.

If I have confused you scroll back to my last post

[redpost]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> More than half of Londoners use the bus at least

> once a week. Research shows that people on lower

> incomes, people of colour, women and younger

> people, rely on the bus more than anyone else.

>

> But of course Southwark Council ignores this and

> cycling is the only measurement that matters.....

> No plans for bus lanes, no plans for local green

> buses - but LTNs implemented that slow down bus

> journeys and leave buses idling in stationary

> traffic - just consider Croxted - next it will be

> bus lanes swapped out for cycle lanes. It's time

> for this Council to be voted out.

>

> https://twitter.com/LonTravelWatch/status/15069565

> 52695173123?s=20&t=fQvGtrewvwN-StkkcTiwgw

I would take your comments more seriously if just *once* you would criticise frivolous car use - which is by far the largest impediment to bus usage

[CPR Dave]

No one can take that seriously though Red Post because for people in your campaign there is no such thing as non-frivolous car use.

You won't accept any scenario that doesn't involve people exclusively riding around on bicycles.

It's a frivolous position that merits no response whatsoever.

[heartblock]

Frivolous car use....what does that actually mean?

But no I don?t think condemning people whose circumstances are unknown to me helps.

[legalalien]

It?s up there with those ? frivolous bicycle ways? innit.

https://daily.jstor.org/the-moral-threat-of-bicycles-in-the-1890s/

Also found this article about jaywalking an interesting read

https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

[heartblock]

Even with the extra money announced by the government analysis by the Campaign for Better Transport shows there's still almost 1,500 zero emission buses missing from the Government's 4,000 target and a remaining 66% of the current fleet - more than 25,000 buses - to convert to low emission.

LTNs and the very narrow focus on cycling is a Tory diversion to stop us all concentrating on the main polluters of the environment and the real solutions to encouraging less car use.

The oil industry is big money for many wealthy investors and the Conservative party and green, cheap, efficient public transport is the answer to less car use.

Labour Councils enabling Tory Central green-washing policy - I have no issue about voting them out.

If you really want solutions - follow and support https://bettertransport.org.uk https://www.medact.org/get-involved/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw_4-SBhCgARIsAAlegrVP_iTUQ_ArTFTPWdx4rQl9Kz7WYDWca0GLMrRZ_Ea6ZpcVP9oNBVoaAq-aEALw_wcB

[Spartacus]

Whilst it's not ED ltn specific, the Beech Street (Barbican) trial of zero emission vehicles access only has just concluded.

Great study on reducing pollution by 58% however the trial cost ?1.8 million in total.

I'm lost for words on how schemes like this, on a very short stretch of road, can cost so much (are the road signs Gold Plated?) and makes me wonder how much schemes like LTNs actually cost and could they be implemented in a more cost effective manner?

[redpost]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Even with the extra money announced by the

> government analysis by the Campaign for Better

> Transport shows there's still almost 1,500 zero

> emission buses missing from the Government's 4,000

> target and a remaining 66% of the current fleet -

> more than 25,000 buses - to convert to low

> emission.

> LTNs and the very narrow focus on cycling is a

> Tory diversion to stop us all concentrating on the

> main polluters of the environment and the real

> solutions to encouraging less car use.

> The oil industry is big money for many wealthy

> investors and the Conservative party and green,

> cheap, efficient public transport is the answer to

> less car use.

> Labour Councils enabling Tory Central

> green-washing policy - I have no issue about

> voting them out.

> If you really want solutions - follow and support

> https://bettertransport.org.uk

> https://www.medact.org/get-involved/?gclid=Cj0KCQj

> w_4-SBhCgARIsAAlegrVP_iTUQ_ArTFTPWdx4rQl9Kz7WYDWca

> 0GLMrRZ_Ea6ZpcVP9oNBVoaAq-aEALw_wcB

yes, buses are the real pollutors of the environment here

[Waseley]

Are you suggesting that we ditch buses for private cars Redpost? How much additional carbon will that mean?

[heartblock]

Buses are great...clean, efficient and accessible.

[alice]

70+ people can travel in the space taken by 2 cars or 3 bikes.

Buses are brilliant - now remind me where are these efficient buses lanes in Dulwich LTNs.

[Bic Basher]

I'd like to know what frivolous car use actually is? People use them locally to take people to GP/hospital appointments, work and to carry the weekly shop in. With petrol prices being at their highest, it'd disingenuous to say that car drivers are basically using them for very short journeys or to play around with like toys.

What this is all about is that the pro-cycling movement want to see all cars somehow abolished even for those who really need to use a car to get around in. Of course we should be encouraging cycling, walking and using public transport, but cars as they evolve to being fully EV will still be around.

Even if we went 100% EV, I suspect the cycling/green lobbyists would still go for LTNs because it's their ideology to remove cars and vans regardless if they become greener.

[Penguin68]

It's simple. Your use is frivolous. Mine is necessary.

[redpost]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> It's simple. Your use is frivolous. Mine is

> necessary.

Exactly, that's how people think when roadspace is an 'all you can eat' resource

When scarcity and recovery of environmental costs are introduced, people are forced to think if the car journey is really necessary. That's what LTNs and road pricing do

[legalalien]

Herne Hill forum arranging some sort of election hustings

Not sure which candidates have said they?ll attend, just says candidates have been invited from Lambeth/ Southwark. I assume Village Ward but given HHF proposals for changes to the junction at HH have potential knock on effects for East Dulwich I think relevant? Guess I might get deleted again if admin thinks otherwise!

[Rockets]

redpost Wrote:

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

> Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > It's simple. Your use is frivolous. Mine is

> > necessary.

>

> Exactly, that's how people think when roadspace is

> an 'all you can eat' resource

>

> When scarcity and recovery of environmental costs

> are introduced, people are forced to think if the

> car journey is really necessary. That's what LTNs

> and road pricing do

But LTNs only do that when there are viable alternatives...and it is clear in Dulwich with its low PTAL scores that there aren't enough other viable options for the types of essential journeys being made. And anyway, I think I can honestly say that the last frivolous car journey I made was when I was 17 after passing my test and I used to think....oooh, I might go for a drive....but that novelty soon wore off.......

[Waseley]

This all goes to show how difficult it is to get many to use their cars less. An easy no brainer example is that you need to drive your kids to school. OK no doubt you have a good reason. It would be a no brainer to share that task with other parents. But most don't or won't.

I expect most angry on this thread are those that suffer from congestion rather than cause it. But please get real. The utopian world wanted by Mr/Mrs Rockets ain't going to happen and even then we all know people that would still refuse to use public transport

Ps written upstairs on number 12 bus

[dougiefreeman]

Waseley Wrote:

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

>

> Ps written upstairs on number 12 bus

..which is conveniently having its frequency cut yet again. #progress

[Spartacus]

[heartblock]

Ha ha.....what fools we are. 🤣

[Waseley]

I put all my money into pork bellies' futures, and the Italian spaghetti harvest. My hopes for a soft rock revival and demand for Spandex aka Lycra have yet to be realised

[Rockets]

It's funny - you refer to some of us wanting a utopian world yet it is the pro cycle/LTN lobby that are often utterly misguided in their views on what is possible. Many of us just want a pragmatic, balanced approach to managing the issues of traffic and pollution - that is not utopian. What is utopian however, is the clamour of some groups of people to want to live in a car-free enclave whilst everyone else soaks up the displaced traffic - which is actually very dystopian.

It seems that many of the pro-LTN/pro-cylce lobby (and I very deliberately intertwine the two as it was the cycle lobby who were responsible for pushing the LTN narrative) hold a utopian view of how living in certain parts of London should be.

They crave a Trumpton like existence - living in a vehicle-free urban village complete with (organic) butcher, (artisan) baker and (expensive) coffee shops and high house prices. They rarely need to leave this urban village because they are wealthy, have everything delivered and have a big car for those jaunts to the big country hotel or pad. Their biggest decision of the day is if they get their coffee from expensive coffee shop X or Y.

It's no co-incidence that many of the most controversial LTNs are in areas of wealth or significant gentrification (Dulwich, Islington, London Fields) as local politicians pander to the whims of, more often than not, middle-class lobby groups who are quite happy to put their wants and desires over everyone else.

So really it is not us who crave a utopian world but those encouraging and supporting these unfair and unjust schemes.

P.S. I noticed at the weekend that North Dulwich to London Bridge trains has been reduced by 50% as well

[Waseley]

Are you misinterpreting my points on purpose, not reading them or simply so full of your own views you can't consider others?

1. There are simple no brainer things that some motorists could do now.

2. No matter how good public transport is some motorists will still not use it. I expect we all know people like this

Surely, surely, you can't disagree with these facts. This is not an invitation to go down another pro LTN/cyclist lobby diatribe

[DulvilleRes]

Here we go again with the bogus class war narrative from the anti LTN lobby on the LTNs issue.

The average house price last time I looked for all properties sold on East Dulwich Grove - one of the supposedly blighted boundary roads - is ?808,950. That is up from ?717,000 last June. A good swathe of the houses on East Dulwich Grove sporting anti LTN posters are in the ?2m + price category. This suggests to me that a good part of the social inequality argument that so much of the anti-LTN lobby arguments play on isn't moored in reality.

The characterization of people who support LTN's, who according to Rockets apparently want high house prices and to live in some kind of bubble, feels equally untethered to actual people, motives and facts. I certainly don't recognize any of it from anyone I know. I do know a lot of people, however, who are looking to do something about the kind of world they will leave their kids.

I recognise that any local issue will have a range of views, and I've respected the views of many of the people who have posted here, who ultimately I wouldn't agree with. But what is the purpose in generating such divisive and frankly in my view unpleasant content, especially when it doesn't stack up? Why not stick to the real issues of the best ways to reduce traffic and car use?