LTN Discussion

[DulwichCentral]

WOW!!! Such a great result - good to see the majority support low traffic measures. Unless people have suggestions on how to further reduce car journeys and increase sustainable travel I guess this thread is pretty pointless now?

[heartblock]

The 'point's do appear to lack clarity. I mean they do realise traffic can go down on one road, but increase on another?

Despite all these lovely LTNs, the number of trips by walking, cycling and public transport as a proportion of all trips - is estimated at 58.3%, down 5% from 63.2% in 2019 in London.

[ohthehugemanateeLTN3]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Ahh Sea-Cow

Huge Sea-Cow if you don't mind, though it is technically inaccurate as Sea-Cow includes dugongs which are not manatees.

> the originator of the poooooooo

> analogy.

Seems I've finally found something you can grasp. Well not literally. Unless you want to of course. You do you: I won't judge. Well OK I will, but not much.

> So are we supporting pollution monitoring

> and WHO levels of air quality for all roads in ED

> or not?

This is one of the most biazarre "checkmate!"s I think I've ever encountered. I thought I was pretty clear: who would be against that? I'm not. It's surreal that you think that I'd be against measurement and lowering pollution. I'm not a 1D'er after all!

> Well 8am yesterday I posted "Then some actions - the money made by Southwark to be invested

> in ways to encourage less car use by parents taking children to school,

Well, timed and permanent closures seem to do a pretty good job of discouraging parents from driving as much. I presume you mean something less effective. I'd love to know what.

> pressure on the private schools to make it an admission rule,

Is that within their power to enforce?

> more EV charging points and a local network of green buses."

EV charging points won't discourage car use, so those green buses will be just as stuck in traffic as they always were. More bus gates like the one on DV, however will give nice traffic free areas that buses can breeze through during rush hour.

> But I can give more if you like?

Please do! So far there's nothing you have given that would make the tradeoff between driving and walking or cycling tip in favour of not driving. And it all sounds like the sorts of wish-washy things that might apply to "other people". I'm starting, just starting I say, to think you might not be in favour of having your habits changed.

[Rockets]

Rahx3 let me break it down for you.

You, and the council, are claiming that, because of the LTNs, traffic is down by 21,000 a day. This was central to the LTN monitoring report was it not?

But all traffic everywhere is down by around 15% because people's travel has changed due to lockdown - more home working etc. Traffic patterns have changed because of the pandemic.

But the councils monitoring does not take this into account and they just compare pre-pandemic monitoring with post pandemic monitoring and hail the LTNs are a great success because traffic is down on some of the monitored roads. But even without the LTNs traffic would have been lower (by 15% and probably 21000 journeys) because of the post pandemic travel changes.

Hurrah, we all say, traffic is down because of the pandemic but this is where it starts to become problematic because that reduction in traffic is no longer evenly distributed because some roads have been closed.

So we see some roads that, despite the 15% reduction in traffic overall, are seeing increases in traffic when compared to the pre-pandemic numbers. And then you look at the roads showing a reduction and you realise that they are coming in at levels that if you factor in the 15% would actually be higher than pre-pandemic levels.

This is because of the displacement caused by the LTNs forcing more traffic down fewer roads so some roads are not seeing the benefit of the overall decrease in traffic.

So, in others words, if the LTNs had been put in and there had been no pandemic most roads would be seeing a significant increase in monitored traffic.

I hope that clarifies things for you, any thoughts on the above?

[Bic Basher]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

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

> WOW!!! Such a great result - good to see the

> majority support low traffic measures. Unless

> people have suggestions on how to further reduce

> car journeys and increase sustainable travel I

> guess this thread is pretty pointless now?

I thought earlier in this thread, another of the pro-LTN members said it wasn't a referendum on LTNs?

[heartblock]

What habit of mine would you wish me to change oh Large Mammal of the Sea?

[legalalien]

Well I?ve learned something new. Always thought that dugongs and manatees were the same thing but in different locations. Both Sirenians apparently but different tails and teeth. Went down an internet wormhole and was astonished to find out how important marine viruses are to the planetary ecosystem. Two hours I won?t get back but always good to learn something new.

Back on topic, someone mentioned to me recently that DPL no longer runs the minibus service to the school that they used to operate. As I suspect DPL is a much bigger contributor to traffic than, for example, DC (their lower school is bigger and they have a lot of children coming from Clapham/ Balham / Wandsworth and those cars end up on the South circular or Croxted Road) I?d be interested to know why that was the case. The service was well used and the foundation school coaches aren?t as convenient for DPL pupils. Does anyone know why the service was cancelled?

[Rockets]

And I am wondering where Manatee went from August of last year (their last post) to a few days ago. Has never posted a single thing about anything other than LTNs I thought they had got themselves banned again when they sunk off the forum in August of last year - do manatees hibernate?

I do think the schools are massive contributors to the problem but I am not sure tbe council really wants to engage with them and nor do the schools want to engage with the council given most of the councillors seem to be sworn enemies of private schools and want to see then abolished.

[Moovart]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> I do think the schools are massive contributors to

> ......given most of the

> councillors seem to be sworn enemies of private

> schools and want to see then abolished.

Unlike many senior Labour MPs who do NOT have the courage of their convictions on education and instead choose to send their children to fee paying independent schools. This is one big reason why there will never be truly equal access to good education.

[Earl Aelfheah]

As far as that analogy works (which it doesn?t really). It would go more like this: The council?s campaign to reduce dog poo has been successful in changing people?s behaviour to a degree. The amount of poo has gone down everywhere. But I can?t help noticing that some streets still have more poo than others. We could think about targeted interventions to further address the issue on those streets, but I?d rather just encourage more poo everywhere. No, no, it?s fairer. No, it?s nothing to do with my not being keen on picking up after my dog.

[Earl Aelfheah]

My thought in the above btw Rockets is that the latest data shows traffic down at every monitored site except On the section of EDG between Melbourne grove and LL (EDG East). This is the result of cars no longer being able to turn off EDG early onto Melbourne Grove North, passing the entrance of ED Charter. Cars now have to stay on and turn a little later at LL. We could ?solve? this ?problem? by having them drive past the school gates. So that?s a legitimate debate to have. But we?re talking about roughly a 250m stretch of road and there is a clear rationale for why you might want traffic to avoid the school entrance. Otherwise, traffic is down at every other monitored site.

You seem to be arguing that we should have more traffic everywhere, equally distributed across all streets. This is frankly bizarre to my mind. But sure, fill your boots arguing for more traffic everwhere on grounds of ?fairness?

[ohthehugemanateeLTN3]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> What habit of mine would you wish me to change oh

> Large Mammal of the Sea?

I'm sure that whatever I pick I'd soon discover that either you don't do it or couldn't possibly change, almost as if you're holding committing on anything until you know where it's going. A fun game, to be sure, oh speaking of which:

Rockets Wrote:

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

> And I am wondering where Manatee went from August

> of last year (their last post) to a few days ago.

... I got bored of playing the game. But recent events seem to have improved the discourse on the thread, so I'm back.

I still invite you to you and our esteemed Heartblock answer the questions or comment on the suggestions I posed above.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> My thought in the above btw Rockets is that the

> latest data shows traffic down at every monitored

> site except On the section of EDG between

> Melbourne grove and LL (EDG East). This is the

> result of cars no longer being able to turn off

> EDG early onto Melbourne Grove North, passing the

> entrance of ED Charter. Cars now have to stay on

> and turn a little later at LL. We could ?solve?

> this ?problem? by having them drive past the

> school gates. So that?s a legitimate debate to

> have. But we?re talking about roughly a 250m

> stretch of road and there is a clear rationale for

> why you might want traffic to avoid the school

> entrance. Otherwise, traffic is down at every

> other monitored site.

>

> You seem to be arguing that we should have more

> traffic everywhere, equally distributed across all

> streets. This is frankly bizarre to my mind. But

> sure, fill your boots arguing for more traffic

> everwhere on grounds of ?fairness?

Avoiding the question again Rahx3.....it's pretty clear what I am saying, you just chose not to hear it/acknowledge it/accept it..

But is that traffic down due to post Covid traffic adjustments or the LTNs....deep down you know the answer? Sometimes the truth hurts....

The fact you are going to great lengths to avoid the answer that is staring us all in the face in the councils numbers speaks volumes: the traffic reduction hailed by you and the council in relation to the LTNs is nothing to do with the LTNs and everything to do with the pandemic and the overall reduction in traffic due to the inapct of it on everyday life.

[ohthehugemanateeLTN3]

rahrahrah, traffic isn't down!

But if it is, it's not due to the LTNs.

But if it is due to the LTNs, it's still bad.

But if it's actually an improvement we should still scrap it in the interests of fairness because no one wants it.

But it turns out most people do want it, there's nothing we can do to fix it.

But if we can fix it we still want to drive 3 minutes to the shops.

And that's the important thing, so really 1D was right all along.

Right rockets? ;-)

[heartblock]

"Traffic has been rising across Southwark since the end of the 2021 COVID-19 lockdown, and was at 92% of pre-COVID levels in November 2021 at count points in the north of the borough, and above pre-COVID levels on the TfL network near Dulwich" - Southwark Council Dashboard.

LTNs do not reduce driving, but they do create lovely quiet car storage on closed roads.

[Rockets]

ohthehugemanateeLTN3 Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah, traffic isn't down!

>

> But if it is, it's not due to the LTNs.

>

> But if it is due to the LTNs, it's still bad.

>

> But if it's actually an improvement we should

> still scrap it in the interests of fairness

> because no one wants it.

>

> But it turns out most people do want it, there's

> nothing we can do to fix it.

>

> But if we can fix it we still want to drive 3

> minutes to the shops.

>

> And that's the important thing, so really 1D was

> right all along.

>

> Right rockets? ;-)

Manatee, do you think the reduction in traffic is due the LTNs or the fact there are many fewer cars on the road because of the pandemic....?

LTNs have never created traffic evaporation they just move the traffic from one street to another. They have been, and always will be, a very blunt instrument that does not address the fundamental issue of reducing vehicle use.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> "Traffic has been rising across Southwark since

> the end of the 2021 COVID-19 lockdown"

Rockets Wrote:

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

> the reduction in traffic

🤔🤣🤣🤣

[Rockets]

DKHB could it be that the council's "reduction" numbers were built on the pandemic reduction in vehicular traffic and now, as vehicle use starts returning, the council's monitoring numbers are starting to reflect the fact that LTNs have no negligible positive impact on reductions in car use?

Perhaps it is time for the sheeple of the pro-LTN lobby groups to actually analysing the numbers (instead of taking them at face value) to work out the story for themselves.....- now I don't profess to being the sharpest tool in the box but I have been able to work out what is going on here...;-)

[exdulwicher]

do you think the reduction in traffic is due the LTNs or the fact there are many fewer cars on the road because of the pandemic....?

As of September 2021, when schools properly re-opened and a lot of restrictions were lifted further, traffic returned to more or less pre-pandemic levels with some regional variations. In fact this rise was seen from mid-2021 although with schools off over summer it was a relatively gradual rise initially.

There's some easy-to-read info in various places:

https://www.brake.org.uk/how-we-help/raising-awareness/our-current-projects/news-and-blogs/the-return-of-rush-hour-are-traffic-levels-at-pre-covid-levels-or-higher

https://fleetworld.co.uk/uk-road-traffic-back-at-pre-covid-levels/

Bus, train and tube ridership continues to be below pre-pandemic levels (again with regional variations in bus and train), it's hovering at about 70%-ish.

But to all intents and purposes, (for travel at least), Covid is over, people are going about their normal lives again.

As traffic levels on roads rose, the active travel dropped off again - much of this is attributed to people simply being unwilling to cycle on roads dominated by car traffic which is why active travel interventions are necessary.

You can't keep claiming that the drop in traffic is solely due to Covid. It was for a few months in 2020, yes. As restrictions eased, it rose again dramatically and is now more or less at 2019 levels, sometimes above it.

That was part of the reason the LTNs were introduced - the Government, in between awarding themselves corrupt PPE contracts and partying, recognised that there would be a significant car-led recovery as people avoided crowded public transport hence providing funding for councils to install pop-up cycle lanes, LTNs, wider pavements and so on.

LTNs have never created traffic evaporation they just move the traffic from one street to another. They have been, and always will be, a very blunt instrument that does not address the fundamental issue of reducing vehicle use.

Data from thousands of "LTNs" or similar schemes worldwide suggests you're wrong on that.

In fact, this document:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213624X22000281

is a meta-analysis of 800 peer-reviewed studies from around the world which summarised the 12 most effective interventions for reducing traffic. As you've noted on here so many times, you're very keen on data so I'm sure you'll read it in full and digest it carefully but as a very brief summary, the top 2 most effective interventions are:

charging and pricing (congestions charging, ULEZ, workplace charging levy)

access limitations (filtered streets, school streets, LTNs)

Repeating "LTNs don't work" doesn't make your belief any more true. It remains as wrong now as it was the first time you typed it.

[diable rouge]

As a neutral on this pro/anti LTN debate I have to concur with what Independent journalist Jon Stone says...

Loud but tiny anti-LTN campaigns have been a huge boost for Labour councils? across London opposition parties have oversestimated opposition to schemes, latched onto campaigns, and lost basically everywhere. Lambeth now has zero Tory councillors for the first time ever!

We've been here before with the anti/pro smoking ban, and likewise the vast majority of people will just get on with their lives as normal...

[ab29]

Majority of people in Dulwich want LTN removed according to the council's own consultation which they chose to ignore. Many of my neighbours - sadly - voted labour, even though they are against LTN. What a complete failure this scheme is - pushing the traffic and all the dirt from your road to your neighbours', pretending it has disappeard. The height of selfishness.

[Rockets]

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> do you think the reduction in traffic is due the

> LTNs or the fact there are many fewer cars on the

> road because of the pandemic....?

>

> As of September 2021, when schools properly

> re-opened and a lot of restrictions were lifted

> further, traffic returned to more or less

> pre-pandemic levels with some regional variations.

> In fact this rise was seen from mid-2021 although

> with schools off over summer it was a relatively

> gradual rise initially.

>

> There's some easy-to-read info in various places:

> https://www.brake.org.uk/how-we-help/raising-aware

> ness/our-current-projects/news-and-blogs/the-retur

> n-of-rush-hour-are-traffic-levels-at-pre-covid-lev

> els-or-higher

> https://fleetworld.co.uk/uk-road-traffic-back-at-p

> re-covid-levels/

>

> Bus, train and tube ridership continues to be

> below pre-pandemic levels (again with regional

> variations in bus and train), it's hovering at

> about 70%-ish.

>

> But to all intents and purposes, (for travel at

> least), Covid is over, people are going about

> their normal lives again.

>

> As traffic levels on roads rose, the active travel

> dropped off again - much of this is attributed to

> people simply being unwilling to cycle on roads

> dominated by car traffic which is why active

> travel interventions are necessary.

>

> You can't keep claiming that the drop in traffic

> is solely due to Covid. It was for a few months in

> 2020, yes. As restrictions eased, it rose again

> dramatically and is now more or less at 2019

> levels, sometimes above it.

>

> That was part of the reason the LTNs were

> introduced - the Government, in between awarding

> themselves corrupt PPE contracts and partying,

> recognised that there would be a significant

> car-led recovery as people avoided crowded public

> transport hence providing funding for councils to

> install pop-up cycle lanes, LTNs, wider pavements

> and so on.

>

> LTNs have never created traffic evaporation they

> just move the traffic from one street to another.

> They have been, and always will be, a very blunt

> instrument that does not address the fundamental

> issue of reducing vehicle use.

>

> Data from thousands of "LTNs" or similar schemes

> worldwide suggests you're wrong on that.

> In fact, this document:

> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/

> S2213624X22000281

>

> is a meta-analysis of 800 peer-reviewed studies

> from around the world which summarised the 12 most

> effective interventions for reducing traffic. As

> you've noted on here so many times, you're very

> keen on data so I'm sure you'll read it in full

> and digest it carefully but as a very brief

> summary, the top 2 most effective interventions

> are:

> charging and pricing (congestions charging, ULEZ,

> workplace charging levy)

> access limitations (filtered streets, school

> streets, LTNs)

>

> Repeating "LTNs don't work" doesn't make your

> belief any more true. It remains as wrong now as

> it was the first time you typed it.

But Ex- you claim things have returned to normal - they haven't and that is patently clear. In fact, even the council acknowledges that traffic levels are not back to pre-Covid levels and have been significantly down since the pandemic (yet they were happy to claim the reduction as a direct result of the LTNs).

You quote public transport usage is still down - have you not noticed the lengths some companies are going to try to encourage their staff to travel back into London and to return things to how it was pre-Covid? Life is not back to normal as far as the daily commute (on public transport, cycling or driving) is concerned as people are still not back in offices or places of work 5 days a week as they were before.

So it is utterly incredulous that the council continues to compare pre-Covid traffic monitoring with post-Covid traffic monitoring without factoring in the Covid reduction in traffic. Their monitoring results are deliberately misleading.

LTNs don't work and our local experience is proving that. What they do is make some roads quieter and some roads busier and make some people love them because the traffic no longer goes down their street and some people hate them because more traffic goes down their street - even the most ardent fan of them can realise that reality can't they? The grand plan was to make every road quieter in the Dulwich area and that has clearly failed - massively.

[Bic Basher]

diable rouge Wrote:

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

> As a neutral on this pro/anti LTN debate I have to

> concur with what Independent journalist Jon Stone

> says...

>

> Loud but tiny anti-LTN campaigns have been a huge

> boost for Labour councils? across London

> opposition parties have oversestimated opposition

> to schemes, latched onto campaigns, and lost

> basically everywhere. Lambeth now has zero Tory

> councillors for the first time ever!

>

> We've been here before with the anti/pro smoking

> ban, and likewise the vast majority of people will

> just get on with their lives as normal...

Lambeth gained three Lib Dem councillors and became the official opposition on an anti-LTN ticket, beating the Greens.

People would have voted against the Tories regardless and found Labour to be the alternative regardless of the local politics.

However this is likely to be the last I discuss LTNs at the moment as the electorate have voted to keep the current administration in power and they have four years to prove that they work, otherwise I don't fancy going around in circles discussing the same points.

[diable rouge]

Bic Basher Wrote:

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

Lambeth gained three Lib Dem councillors and became the official opposition on an anti-LTN ticket, beating the Greens.

But that doesn't show the whole picture, in that anti-LTN's were very much in a minority, albeit vocal, which was the point that quote was making...

Labour 58

Lib Dems 3

Greens 2

Conservatives 0

People would have voted against the Tories regardless and found Labour to be the alternative regardless of the local politics.

Which again backs up the quote's point, that despite the vocal rhetoric it wasn't the big issue to buck such trends as it was painted out to be...

[zerkalo]

diable rouge Wrote:

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

> As a neutral on this pro/anti LTN debate I have to

> concur with what Independent journalist Jon Stone

> says...

>

> Loud but tiny anti-LTN campaigns have been a huge

> boost for Labour councils? across London

> opposition parties have oversestimated opposition

> to schemes, latched onto campaigns, and lost

> basically everywhere. Lambeth now has zero Tory

> councillors for the first time ever!

>

> We've been here before with the anti/pro smoking

> ban, and likewise the vast majority of people will

> just get on with their lives as normal...

I would agree with that comment. I have not added my voice to the LTN discussion here as I don't like arguing about such things online but my vote went to those who support the scheme. I hope it can be further improved as traffic really is back to pre-pandemic levels in my experience.