LTN Discussion

[Rockets]

Where does it end tough? Southwark labour council is damaging environment and making peoples' lives miserable - how can this be remedied, who do we ask for help?

 

They know what is happening but are wilfully standing by and letting it get worse - it's criminal. They have dug themselves a huge hole and are digging it deeper and deeper. Interesting to see what is happening in areas like Tower Hamlets, London Fields and Haringey where people power is starting to make councils rethink their flawed LTN policies.

[CPR Dave]

Reminder that the monitoring data doesn't cover roads like mine that are now used as so-called rat runs to avoid Lordship Lane and have approximately 300% more traffic and congestion since the LTNs went in.

[Rockets]

Also remember the council never followed through on their commitment to monitor Underhill Road and Barry Road, both of which are major LTN displacement routes, with Underhill taking a lot of additional traffic as it tries to cut round congestion on Lordship Lane at the Grove Tavern junction.

[Bic Basher]

Also remember the council never followed through on their commitment to monitor Underhill Road and Barry Road, both of which are major LTN displacement routes, with Underhill taking a lot of additional traffic as it tries to cut round congestion on Lordship Lane at the Grove Tavern junction.

 

The section of Underhill between LL and Melford Road is atrocious, especially during the peaks. But even further along Underhill it's certainly busier than pre LTN.

[Rockets]

The council were forced to do some monitoring on Underhill, published one set of results as an addendum to one of their reports (which concluded that traffic was lower on Underhill and Barry Road than before the pandemic) but it looks like that was it. It does seem ludicrous that little monitoring is being done on streets east of Lordship Lane which are soaking up much of the displacement. Also not sure how the council and it's pro-LTN supporters can claim area-wide traffic is down when there is no areawide monitoring.

[heartblock]

This is what our MP sent to me after I asked a question

“My understanding is that the council made a decision earlier this year to permanently close the southern end of Calton Avenue to traffic and this decision will not be revisited as part of the current consultation.”

Is this accurate?

[Spartacus]

Yesterday Kieron Williams was on the BBC London news stating that after being allowed to raise council tax by 5%, Southwark were still going to have to make budget savings and possibly cut services.

Perhaps if they stopped implementing cockamamie traffic schemes or host unwanted (and leading) consultatuons, they could save money to be spent on essential services like libraries or social care. 🤔

[Rockets]

The big problem for the council is that roads is the very area where they do have money because they are making so much from fining people for driving through the LTNs in Dulwich Village and they have to spend that money on roads as it cannot be invested elsewhere. It's why they so love LTNs cos they make them huge amounts of revenue. I suspect they will be making a play to be able to divert the money elsewhere at some point. LTNs are like cat-nip to councils everywhere as a revenue generating programme.

[CPR Dave]

CPZs too. They make huge amounts of money from those.

[Bic Basher]

Considering the revenue gained from the LTN, some of that money could be used to repair the potholes on LL?

[exdulwicher]

Considering the revenue gained from the LTN, some of that money could be used to repair the potholes on LL?

 

Different funding streams.

Councils have 15+ funding pots provided by DfT to bid for - it's a confusing mess of very specific pots of money, a lot of which is allocated according to factors of work already done by the council, ongoing work, a "deprivation weighting", the possibility of match funding from other sources and so on. There is a General Fund which is often used to backfill shortfalls from other, more specific, pots of money - for example if DfT give you £150,000 for streetlamp repair and maintenance (and yes there is a specific Streetlamp Fund) but you need £200,000, you can take £50,000 from the General Fund.

Also, LL is a TfL road, not solely owned by Southwark Council so it's not entirely up to them.

 

CPZs too. They make huge amounts of money from those.

 

No they don't, they're not allowed to. CPZ, once you factor in the back-office stuff, admin etc are broadly cost-neutral.

Surplus always comes from short-term parking costs (ie the on-street machines where people are paying for parking of 2hrs or so) and parking fines (which is allowed but also has to be proportional / reasonable - ie, you can't charge a parking fine of £10,000!)

The provision to put a CPZ in comes from the Road Traffic Regulation Act; the RTRA 1984 is not a revenue-raising or taxing statute and does not permit the Council to use that provision to raise surplus revenue for other transport purposes funded by the General Fund.

The exact wording in the RTRA that covers CPZ etc is to allow the council to "secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) and the provision of suitable and adequate parking on and off the highway…"

So for a CPZ, the purpose is to temporarily limit the parking supply to prevent the residential areas around schools and stations in particular from turning into Piccadilly Circus for 2hrs every morning and evening.

[Spartacus]

Ex, I have to ask, do you work for a council as you seem to respond with a council style rhetoric?

Fines and parking fees are exactly what makes CPZs catnip to councils which is why they employ so many enforcement officers to ticket violations.

[Bic Basher]

Also, LL is a TfL road, not solely owned by Southwark Council so it's not entirely up to them.

 

LL is managed by Southwark Council between Goose Green and Melford Road. TfL manage it between Melford and Wood Vale where the speed limit is still 30mph.

[malumbu]

I'd love more enforcement of traffic offences. Too many entitled motorists get away with speeding and irresponsible driving. In an ideal world we'd all behave better but we've had decades of pro driver policy. This is nowt to do with the LTN but daft comments about the 'poor motorist'

[first mate]

EX Dulwicher said: "So for a CPZ, the purpose is to temporarily limit the parking supply to prevent the residential areas around schools and stations in particular from turning into Piccadilly Circus for 2hrs every morning and evening".

But if that is the only reason why are they seeking to extend CPZs everywhere (that is geographically and on timings?).

Back to LTNs, traffic on main roads is worst it has ever been. I have never known it as bad. We need some decent pollution monitoring, as fumes from idling traffic will travel, affecting air quality further afield.

[CPR Dave]

Surplus always comes from short-term parking costs (ie the on-street machines where people are paying for parking of 2hrs or so) and parking fines

 

Tell me, how do you make such surplusses without implementing a money-printing CPZ scheme?

You can't put in a parking meter in uncontrolled parking zones and epxect people to pay.

You can't fine people for parking in a street with no parking restrictions.

The only way the council can make the huge amounts of profit they do from on-street machines and parking fines is to put in a CPZ.

[Rockets]

I'd love more enforcement of traffic offences. Too many entitled motorists get away with speeding and irresponsible driving. In an ideal world we'd all behave better but we've had decades of pro driver policy. This is nowt to do with the LTN but daft comments about the 'poor motorist'

 

Malumbu - your bias is showing again. I want to see enforcement of all traffic offences, not just those driving. There is way too much bad cycling and scooter riding appearing on our streets, to the detriment of other road users, and I sense many of them have caught the entitlement bug and there is little recourse to enforce good behaviour and future consideration to others - so maybe it's time to take the blinkers off and look at the challenges as a whole instead of your continued war on motorists.

[malumbu]

I said 'more', not 100 percent, enforcement. If you drive responsibly then what do you have to fear? The 'poor motorist' being picked on' doesn't wash. Successfully challenging the culture of entitlement is needed before we can move on.

I'm talking about driving standards. It yours is the typical response from the motoring lobby, shifting blame to cyclists.

Cycling standards is a separate issue and can't be used to justify bad driving.

I'm glad to have lost my sense of motoring entitlement many years ago

[dougiebr]

New Crowd Fund appeal has been posted requesting contributions to pay for Dulwich Square Xmas Tree!!!!!! Appeared on the Peckham 'Next Door'site-the poster got short shrift.........

(Unable to post link to either site)

C,mon ED-dig deep!!!

[Rockets]

I said 'more', not 100 percent, enforcement. If you drive responsibly then what do you have to fear? The 'poor motorist' being picked on' doesn't wash. Successfully challenging the culture of entitlement is needed before we can move on.

I'm talking about driving standards. It yours is the typical response from the motoring lobby, shifting blame to cyclists.

Cycling standards is a separate issue and can't be used to justify bad driving.

I'm glad to have lost my sense of motoring entitlement many years ago

 

Malumbu - you're doing it again. Cycling standards are not a seperate issue - when it comes to safety for all it is as much a part of the debate as driving standards or standards of e-scooters etc. If all road-users respected the rules and were courteous to others then surely everything would work perfectly?

I am presuming you would agree that there needs to be better enforcement of all modes of transport not just motorists - who already face enforcement via many different ways already?

You may have lost your sense of motoring entitlement but seem to have more than compensated for it with your over-indexing towards cycling - which highlights one of the major challenges for everyone who isn't a cyclist who tries to use roads or pavements right now - there are many in the cycle lobby who fail to acknowledge the wants, needs and rights of anyone other than cyclists!

[first mate]

Careful, Mal or Claus the Forest Hill Cycle Campaigner (dunno) is easing things away from LTNs again.

[heartblock]

New Crowd Fund appeal has been posted requesting contributions to pay for Dulwich Square Xmas Tree!!!!!! Appeared on the Peckham 'Next Door'site-the poster got short shrift.........

(Unable to post link to either site)

C,mon ED-dig deep!!!

 

Give your money to a homeless charity, not a tree for some of the wealthiest people in this country. Soooooooo entitled it makes my eyes bleed.

[malumbu]

Personal choice. We are not in a one party police state. Joe Lycett gives £10k to charity. Beckham gets 15 million from a state with a dreadful human rights record. Bono laughs all the way to the bank whilst preaching about poverty.

And you make a cheap jibe about a Christmas tree?

[first mate]

Heartblock, Did you ever find out more on this?

 

This is what our MP sent to me after I asked a question

“My understanding is that the council made a decision earlier this year to permanently close the southern end of Calton Avenue to traffic and this decision will not be revisited as part of the current consultation.”

Is this accurate?

[heartblock]

Nope...