LTN Discussion

[first mate]

Hopefully we can now have a proper, democratic consultation on LTNs.

I think the vote for Labour has not been one generally in favour of LTNs but a response to recent events on the national stage.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Labour win in Dulwich Village, in a contest widely

> touted by ?One? supporters as a referendum on

> LTNs. Hopefully we can now focus on making

> improvements to existing schemes rather than

> trying to scrap them in favour of more traffic,

> and look to make further improvements to local

> transport and environment.

[exdulwicher]

I think the vote for Labour has not been one generally in favour of LTNs but a response to recent events on the national stage.

A few pages ago, the local elections were being touted as a referendum on all things LTN. In fact the Conservative and Liberal Democrat campaigns played very heavily on the LTNs, promises to remove them and so on.

Now that Labour have had a significant win, it's suddenly not about LTNs, it's a response to national politics?

Can't have it both ways.

Enfield and Ealing had the same - high profile anti-LTN campaigns from Con & Lib Dem, Labour got a significant win. Outside London, Oxford had a similar story, some high-profile anti-LTN campaigning going on from independents, not one of whom won a seat on Oxford City Council.

Anti-LTN campaigning is generally a very poor mast to attach your flag to, the general rule of thumb (in spite of Twitter / One[borough] etc) is that it's about 6:1 in favour of traffic reductions schemes; that's an average national picture. It really is a "vocal minority" who want them scrapped.

[goldilocks]

Welcome to the parallel universe that is the East Dulwich Forum. Pages and pages of the elections will show just how unpopular these measures are etc etc and its a chance for everyone to show they want labour out.

Oh look - Labour have been re-elected. In Dulwich Village with a larger share of votes than in 2018 despite massive amounts of campaigning from Lib Dems and the Tories with the Tories essentially running on a single issue.

There is a difference between people who post a lot and wider public opinion.

first mate Wrote:

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

> Hopefully we can now have a proper, democratic

> consultation on LTNs.

>

> I think the vote for Labour has not been one

> generally in favour of LTNs but a response to

> recent events on the national stage.

>

>

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Labour win in Dulwich Village, in a contest

> widely

> > touted by ?One? supporters as a referendum on

> > LTNs. Hopefully we can now focus on making

> > improvements to existing schemes rather than

> > trying to scrap them in favour of more traffic,

> > and look to make further improvements to local

> > transport and environment.

[Rockets]

Ex, indeed and look Wandsworth had their LTNs removed and they voted Labour who will probably bring them straight back in again! ;-)

And to your point Labour made the local elections about everything but the LTNs and elevated it to a national level issue - which, whilst I thought might backfire on them actually worked as they galvanised the local protest vote against the national perspective. But as I said earlier I do worry that actually dilutes the office their councillors are now filling.

[eastdulwichhenry]

first mate Wrote:

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

> Hopefully we can now have a proper, democratic

> consultation on LTNs.

>

> I think the vote for Labour has not been one

> generally in favour of LTNs but a response to

> recent events on the national stage.

Speaking personally it was the opposite. I voted for Labour because they're the party most likely to keep the LTNs, even though they're unimpressive on the national stage.

And I'm not particularly surprised they kept quiet about it on their campaign, from a pragmatic point of view it's clearly a hot potato right now that might turn voters off, but hopefully over time the issue will recede into the background as people realise the LTNs are here to stay. Sometimes the right thing to do and the popular thing to do aren't aligned.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The 'anti low traffic' folk touted this as a 'referendum on LTNs' and campaigned hard in Dulwich Village. Labour got twice as many votes as LibDems and Conservatives on a 61% turnout. And now the same people who chose to make it about LTNs, say it's nothing to do with them.

You can't have it both ways. Had the vote gone the other way, Rockets etc. would be calling it definitive proof that LTNs are unpopular and have no legitimate mandate.

For what it's worth, I don't think anyone can say the results were about just one issue. But they do suggest (at the very least) that people are not as strongly opposed as a vocal minority would have us believe.

There is now clear data showing reduced traffic and increased active travel. I really hope that people can focus on making improvements to the local LTN instead of trying to reverse it, as well as making further improvements to local transport and environment.

[ohthehugemanateeLTN3]

Dulwich had a very high turn out for the local election.

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-elections-2022-labour-tightens-its-grip-on-the-council-with-convincing-win/

The silent majority have spoken: we like the LTNs. For the first time ever in my entire life I voted Labour. For me it was a single issue vote, without the LTN, I'm sure I would have voted otherwise.

Turns out the local council IS listening to its residents. It's just that "listening" is not the same as "doing what the most noisy people on a small forum which bans dissenters want". Who knew?

[ohthehugemanateeLTN3]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> Hi Admin, the above is obviously a fake account.

Well, it looks like the anti-LTN crowd are getting ever more brazen about trying to get those who disagree with them banned. How, precisely, is the account fake other than you not liking what I say? I can assure you that the account is very real and there is a very real person behind it.

Bringing it back on topic, I did vote, and I placed my vote definitively for the LTNs. I am looking with interest what the more detailed breakdown of the voting share was, beyond just the winning candidate votes. Some astonishingly dedicated soul has already created the wikipedia page, but sadly it has not been populated yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Southwark_London_Borough_Council_election#Dulwich_Village

[Spartacus]

Whilst on the huge mantle has been banned in the past, they do make an interesting point that those who voted to give the tories a kicking may have also kicked themselves in the pants as labour now has a mandate to deliver more of the things we all moan about

In a few years when a Borough wide CPZ is introduced, council estate green spaces are concrete jungles and its impossible to drive out of your own road. Don't come on here crying as "You had your chance to change the narrative 🤨"

[ohthehugemanateeLTN3]

> Whilst on the huge mantle has been banned in the past,

Have I? I suppose I have, though no reason was ever given and they decided to let me be on this account after a while.

> they do make an interesting point that those who voted to give the tories a kicking

Haha nice try but no. The libdems didn't to well either. People it turns out on the whole like the LTNs. Don't confuse the enforced echo chamber here with broader consensus.

> In a few years when a Borough wide CPZ is introduced,

Would that be bad? Sounds like a good thing to me. Rather than people clogging up streets driving places, then clogging them up when they arrive, people will have more incentive to walk, scoot or bike. Plus with less car traffic, the buses would work better. Perhaps we'd get more local shops within walking distance if people are walking more.

> council estate green spaces are concrete jungles

And that's why it's striking how many people piled on Labour. They don't have a great record, but they do support LTNs, so weighing everything up...

> and its impossible to drive out of your own road.

Already is: Like the majority of southwarkers, I don't own a car.

[SE22_2020er]

I voted Labour for the first time in my life (I've always voted for the Conservatives) because I support the LTNs. Had the Conservatives supported the LTNs, I would have voted for them.

[mrwb]

Given fuel costs and the probable economic situation going forward, LTNs might become less of an issue because there will be much less traffic in any case.

[heartblock]

I just hope that something is done about the congested traffic on EDG, Croxted on school mornings. Life in an LTN must be lovely, so I'm happy for you...now might be a time to think about others.

[redpost]

I voted labour to keep the LTNs and I live on red post hill which sees significant rush hour traffic.

How can anyone possinly vote tory to cut traffic pollution? ... we're talking about the party that hasn't put fuel tax up for 20y which has seen the cost of driving drop in real terms year on year.

I'm sorry for those who think LTN is making things worse for them, but in aggregate and given sufficient time for evaporation, they cut traffic, nudge behaviour and bring cleaner air to more of us.

[ab29]

What evaporation? There is no such thing - how can traffic simply disappear? Where to? Only because you don't see it near you, it doesn't mean others don't.

[Rockets]

Heartblock - let's hope the council do start thinking about everyone and not just the few benefitting the most from the closures and do something to address those roads that have had increases in traffic since the LTNs went in.

I think even the most showboating of pro-LTN supporters coming on here to have their say can, hopefully, at least subscribe to that.

[redpost]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> What evaporation? There is no such thing - how can

> traffic simply disappear? Where to? Only because

> you don't see it near you, it doesn't mean others

> don't.

You agree induced demand exists? e.g. suppose LL was widened to a motorway with 6 lanes then more cars will flow down it?

Then the opposite evaporation must exist if you constrain road capacity

[Rockets]

Redpost - not necessarily and what you see from the council's data is that for evaporation to take place on some roads there has to be absorption on others. Traffic doesn't just disappear - it goes a different way. That's always been the Achilles heal of every LTN - remember Waltham Forest and that scary stat that a road 3.1 miles away from the LTN saw a permanent increase in traffic after the LTNs went in.

[ab29]

The traffic in front of my place has not evaporated - on the contrary, since LTN were introduced, it is much worst. How long to wait for this miraculous evaporation? How long people living on the main roads / boundary roads are going to be treated with increased pollution, dirt and noise? The more roads closed, the heavier traffic on the remaining few.

[exdulwicher]

I just hope that something is done about the congested traffic on EDG, Croxted on school mornings. Life in an LTN must be lovely, so I'm happy for you...now might be a time to think about others.

Campaign for MORE interventions, not less. LTNs work best when combined - it's why standalone schemes (the old Loughborough Junction being a prime example) are rarely successful and are ripped out and used as a stick to say "we tried it and it didn't work".

Used in combination with parking restrictions, segregated cycle infrastructure, 24/7 bus lanes, charging (ULEZ / congestion etc) and facilities such as secure cycle parking / storage, delivery hubs (to better manage online shopping / van journeys etc) they work very well to deliver sustainable decreases in traffic. It's not an instant fix but it works and is proven to reliably work.

And unlike options such as trams, more buses, redesigning junctions etc, LTNs are very low-capital schemes, they require relatively minimal investment and can be put in (and changed, and taken out) at relatively short notice.

The more roads closed, the heavier traffic on the remaining few.

It's been explained countless times on this thread and the previous one and there are countless studies on it but here's the basics (again...)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

A simple search for the terms "induced demand" and "traffic evaporation" will give you years worth of reading material which all comes to the same conclusion.

[goldilocks]

There is little point in trying rational arguments here - the data shows that traffic is down in both points raised on this thread yet posters here insist that it isn't.

EDG is congested between 8-8:30, it always was. Hopefully expanding school street hours will help and if greendale becomes a school street too this could help. Better enforcement of the CPZ would be good too. Its also congested around 5-6pm. Again, this isn't new.

EDG congestion on a morning is also worse westbound than east - yet constant insistence that EDG traffic is due to the ED LTNs doesn't make sense.

Thankfully the candidates committing to removing the LTNs have been widely rejected so we can hopefully move forward and improve the existing measures

[Rockets]

Ex- I agree that they need to be used in combination but Southwark haven't done that - they have used LTNs to create a set of streets with less cars at the expense of others who get more cars. They promised fewer cars for all and that, clearly, hasn't been delivered.

When the data supporting that came out showing that displacement was occurring the council told us that "main roads are built for more traffic".

Your list is telling by what Southwark haven't done in Dulwich - no segregated cycle infrastructure, a failure to deliver sufficient cycle parking storage, no sign of any delivery hubs and so the list goes on.

Given we have them for another 4 years I do hope Labour councillors apply a little more grey matter, engage more broadly with all members of the community and finally come up with something that benefits everyone rather than just a few.

[eastdulwichhenry]

Sure, it would be fantastic to do something about the traffic on EDG. It's always been bad, even before the LTN was introduced. Probably road charging is the way forward there, with exemptions for disabled badge holders... because it is a through route, and sometimes people have to use it, but the goal is to eliminate needless travel along that corridor. But reopening Melbourne Grove and Calton Avenue isn't the solution. That would simply mean the overall traffic reductions we've seen would be reversed.

heartblock Wrote:

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

> I just hope that something is done about the

> congested traffic on EDG, Croxted on school

> mornings. Life in an LTN must be lovely, so I'm

> happy for you...now might be a time to think about

> others.

[redpost]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Ex- I agree that they need to be used in

> combination but Southwark haven't done that - they

> have used LTNs to create a set of streets with

> less cars at the expense of others who get more

> cars. They promised fewer cars for all and that,

> clearly, hasn't been delivered.

>

> When the data supporting that came out showing

> that displacement was occurring the council told

> us that "main roads are built for more traffic".

>

> Your list is telling by what Southwark haven't

> done in Dulwich - no segregated cycle

> infrastructure, a failure to deliver sufficient

> cycle parking storage, no sign of any delivery

> hubs and so the list goes on.

>

> Given we have them for another 4 years I do hope

> Labour councillors apply a little more grey

> matter, engage more broadly with all members of

> the community and finally come up with something

> that benefits everyone rather than just a few.

Overall traffic has dropped not increased

A few hundred posts ago you were moaning about the segregated cycle infrastucture at dulwich village lights and how it impeeded the traffic! Imagine the uproar if on-street parking was removed on EDG and replaced with bike lanes, not gonna happen

[Rockets]

Ha ha....that's the only piece of segregated cycle infrastructure they have put in across the whole area and it does impede the traffic by narrowing the lanes to allow only one car to pass and causes a daily tailback in front of Dulwich Hamlets school - thus creating more pollution for the school children. I think you'll agree that's probably not a good thing.

Another classic example of how the "solution" actually becomes the "problem" and how the council seems incapable of addressing the issue despite the bleedingly obvious that it is making things worse.

Yes traffic has dropped - traffic is about 15% lower since the pandemic and that has nothing to do with the LTNs - although the council's monitoring report has benefitted massively from the 15% pandemic decrease!