LTN Discussion

[Penguin68]

There are a few myths going around on these pages which do need a tad of busting:-

(1) The figures Southwark (and their friends) quote for e.g. travel and car ownership reflect the whole borough (made up of the old boroughs of Southwark and Camberwell). Old style Southwark is relatively flat and very well supplied with public transport options, including rail, tube and bus services (with many buses coming in from more distant parts of South London and coalescing towards the centre). Old Camberwell borough has no tube, and much poorer bus services, and indeed flakier rail services, and is relatively hilly. This means that the need for private vehicles (and the ability to walk or cycle for those less able) is different between the two old boroughs. What works in the north may not in the south of the combined borough. As others have said, Old Camberwell is far closer in nature, and need, to Bromley than to old Southwark.

(2) London, as a city, is very extensive and covers a wide range of topology. To compare walking and cycling in many other European cities to London (i.e. Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Berlin) is not to compare like with like. I have regularly (when I was fitter) effectively walked across many European cities without too much difficulty, something I would not even consider attempting in London.

(3) Many people write as if all those now living in Dulwich LTNs support these, implicitly at the expense of those not in LTNs. In so far as any proper polling (or consultation) was done, there is significant evidence (if not too strong a word) that this is not so. Many LTN-ers have indicated that they did not want, and now do not want, these restrictions. Indeed, I believe that in some areas a majority of those responding indicated that they were, and are, against the plans.

(4) And finally it is worth noting that some at least of the LTN cheerleaders on these pages do not even now live in Dulwich (though they may have done so in the past). As this is a very local issue (and arguments about LTNs elsewhere do not necessarily contribute helpfully to our local issues) their views should not, perhaps, carry the same weight as those who do live in Dulwich. (For the record, I do live in (East) Dulwich but I do not live in an LTN)

[DuncanW]

London LTNs: Motor traffic reduced by 47%, study finds

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64319027

Although I'm sure this will be dismissed as just part of the misinformation campaign by the Pro Cycling Lobby/LTN Cheerleaders/Anti-Growth Coalition/Whatever...

[rjsmall]

I think the key passage in that BBC story is "Traffic data from 46 LTN scheme across 11 boroughs reported the mean percentage reduction of traffic on streets within them was 46.9%" It isn't really a surprise traffic is down when the road is inaccessible to vehicles for some or all of the time.

The story goes on to note that 96 LTN schemes were introduced which means 50 have been discounted from the study. Hardly a complete picture.

[letfordj]

But it also shows traffic ISN'T pushed on to boundary roads.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/19/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-boundary-roads-london

[CPR Dave]

Shows nothing of the sort, letford:

"traffic flow at the boundaries increased by 1.3%"

[first mate]

Nice use of weasel words in article title:

"LTNs appear not to"

As we know, appearance and reality not always the same.

[Rockets]

Leaves this here with no comment......

https://www.westminster.ac.uk/about-us/our-people/directory/aldred-rachel

[Rockets]

London LTNs: Motor traffic reduced by 47%, study finds

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64319027

Although I'm sure this will be dismissed as just part of the misinformation campaign by the Pro Cycling Lobby/LTN Cheerleaders/Anti-Growth Coalition/Whatever...

 

47% reduction of traffic within LTNs (that's the key here) probably explains why congestion is up by 5% in London and why it is now the most congested city in the world......Aldred just provided the missing link! ;-)

In all seriousness has Aldred and her team ever said anything even slightly negative about LTNs in any of their "research"?

I presume this is the output from the £1.5m Aldred and the UoW was awarded to prove LTNs are working:

https://www.westminster.ac.uk/news/university-of-westminster-to-lead-major-ps15m-new-study-on-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-in-london

I am sorry but any research from Aldred that gets regurgitated, sorry I meant published, by the Guardian's political correspondent Peter Walker has to be taken with a massive pinch of salt........

Also, is anyone surprised the 47% figure isn't higher? Most LTNs cut off supposed through routes (Court Lane, Calton, Melbourne Grove, Fentiman etc) so I would have expected the reduction in traffic to be significantly more - perhaps the "rat-run" narrative didn't exist as much as the pro-LTNers would have liked to have believed.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Rockets

[Rockets]

There are a few myths going around on these pages which do need a tad of busting:-

(1) The figures Southwark (and their friends) quote for e.g. travel and car ownership reflect the whole borough (made up of the old boroughs of Southwark and Camberwell). Old style Southwark is relatively flat and very well supplied with public transport options, including rail, tube and bus services (with many buses coming in from more distant parts of South London and coalescing towards the centre). Old Camberwell borough has no tube, and much poorer bus services, and indeed flakier rail services, and is relatively hilly. This means that the need for private vehicles (and the ability to walk or cycle for those less able) is different between the two old boroughs. What works in the north may not in the south of the combined borough. As others have said, Old Camberwell is far closer in nature, and need, to Bromley than to old Southwark.

(2) London, as a city, is very extensive and covers a wide range of topology. To compare walking and cycling in many other European cities to London (i.e. Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Berlin) is not to compare like with like. I have regularly (when I was fitter) effectively walked across many European cities without too much difficulty, something I would not even consider attempting in London.

(3) Many people write as if all those now living in Dulwich LTNs support these, implicitly at the expense of those not in LTNs. In so far as any proper polling (or consultation) was done, there is significant evidence (if not too strong a word) that this is not so. Many LTN-ers have indicated that they did not want, and now do not want, these restrictions. Indeed, I believe that in some areas a majority of those responding indicated that they were, and are, against the plans.

(4) And finally it is worth noting that some at least of the LTN cheerleaders on these pages do not even now live in Dulwich (though they may have done so in the past). As this is a very local issue (and arguments about LTNs elsewhere do not necessarily contribute helpfully to our local issues) their views should not, perhaps, carry the same weight as those who do live in Dulwich. (For the record, I do live in (East) Dulwich but I do not live in an LTN)

 

Here here.....

BTW I saw someone trying to push a delivery cargo bike up Sydenham Hill a few days ago....if there ever was a visual metaphor for the problems people face that was it!

(For the record I do live in Dulwich, within an LTN, I am a cyclist and own a car) - perhaps we can all put our cards on the table....;-)

[malumbu]

Wow Rocks. In the last 3 months you've posted about 90 times about the LTN, vented your anger about Dulwich square and Lime bikes about 20 times, but only a handful of times about other matters. Water mains leaks were a short distraction

With all that drive and determination perhaps devote your times to something positive. I'm saying this as a helping hand rather than a snipe.

By all means critique my posts, which are more varied. I'm off to bother Cat who is worryingly quiet at the moment.

[Rockets]

Malumbu, I am very well thanks, thanks for your concern but I am so sorry I am seemingly living rent free in your head! ;-) My posts are varied, but I do love to highlight the hypocrisy and nonsense spouted by the pro-LTN lobby.

Here's the difference between my posts and yours, I tend to post on matters related to Dulwich whilst you tend to post on a wide variety of things not much of which is actually related to Dulwich....although I am trying to rationalise how someone who is so anti-car like yourself can, without the slightest hint of irony or hypocrisy, post asking for someone to drive a door and a piece of furniture all the way to your holiday home in France in exchange for a free stay in it.....surely easier, and better for the environment, if you just bought the furniture you need for your holiday home in France there?

 

I'm looking to get a piece of furniture and a door down to our holiday cottage, if you can help then in exchange you can stay there free. Shortest distance door to door (via Portsmouth St Malo) is 180 miles. You'd need a decent sized estate or a roof rack, and would lose a seat or two. The new Zafira or an old Galaxy would work fine. DM/PM me if interested, details of the cottage are here https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=2298187&hilit=brittany#p2298187

 

P.S. I hate to break it to you but having a holiday home in France that you actively encourage people to fly or drive to isn't good for your green or environmental credentials.....just saying....people in glass houses and all that....

BTW do you still own your old car you told us about a while ago?

[legalalien]

Why do all these reports / summaries of reports always deal in percentages rather than raw numbers? It makes it so hard to know what is going on. If there were two car journeys in the LTN and 100 on the boundary roads then -1 journey in the LTN would be a 50% reduction and + 1 journey on the boundary roads would be a 1% increase, so comparing 50% and 1% is meaningless. (I made up these percentages to illustrate, they are not taken from the actual article). Am I missing something?

[first mate]

Rockets,

Re the post below that you found from one of our most prolific pro LTN posters.

It really does make the point about how certain members of the pro LTN lobby are so completely at ease with car use when it suits their own agenda,

Come on, this is hypocrisy at its finest.

"malumbu wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 09:33

I'm looking to get a piece of furniture and a door down to our holiday cottage, if you can help then in exchange you can stay there free. Shortest distance door to door (via Portsmouth St Malo) is 180 miles. You'd need a decent sized estate or a roof rack, and would lose a seat or two. The new Zafira or an old Galaxy would work fine. DM/PM me if interested, details of the cottage are here viewtopic.php?p=2298187&hilit=brittany#p2298187"

[DuncanW]

Hyprocrisy Fallacy

"Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/; Latin Tū quoque, for "you also") is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy."

It's a bit of a stretch to argue that anyone who is in favour of measures to reduce/discourage car use (which is most on this thread) or specifically that the measures under discussion are effective and not counter-productive (less agreement) - is therefore holding the position that ALL car use is out of the window with no exceptions.

[Rockets]

DuncanW - Malumbu doesn't have an argument and, repeatedly, goes out of their way to avoid debating the key points and is more than happy to challenge others on their lifestyles and how they use vehicles.

When I see them post things such as this:

Please accept that less motoring, and where cars are kept smarter motoring, is a necessity

.. just days after they have asked if someone can drive a piece of furniture to their French holiday home for them makes me question whether they truly practice what they preach - they happily criticise everyone else but when it suits them they default to doing exactly what they want others to stop doing.

And that is not Hyprocrisy Fallacy - it's called doing a Gary Neville!

[Rockets]

Why do all these reports / summaries of reports always deal in percentages rather than raw numbers? It makes it so hard to know what is going on. If there were two car journeys in the LTN and 100 on the boundary roads then -1 journey in the LTN would be a 50% reduction and + 1 journey on the boundary roads would be a 1% increase, so comparing 50% and 1% is meaningless. (I made up these percentages to illustrate, they are not taken from the actual article). Am I missing something?

 

Legal - I think it just makes it easier for people to digest but I agree citing a 47% increase within an LTN and comparing it to (as all the media have done) to a 1% increase on boundary roads means nothing - but it does help generate sympathetic headlines and coverage (especially when you seed it to friendly media first who don't scrutinise and will write a positive headline which then helps skew the overall narrative of the story).

For example the BBC and Guardian headlines are actually very misleading:

London LTNs: Motor traffic reduced by 47%, study finds - BBC

LTNs appear not to push traffic on to boundary roads, London study finds - Guardian

If the BBC headline was: London LTNs: Motor traffic reduced by 47% inside LTNs, study finds - that creates very different story.

And the Guardian headline gives the impression they don't push traffic onto boundary roads when even Aldred's report shows it does.

This is why Aldred et al pull the oldest PR trick in the book and always give research (often as exclusives) to those media who are onside and will write the story as they would write it themselves without question.

[zerkalo]

I have refrained from posting anything on this thread yet seeing as it is heavily politicised and taken over, with very few exceptions, by those opposing the LTNs and cycling in general. So let me just add my voice (for what it’s worth) as someone who lives in ED, doesn’t own a car and doesn’t live in a LTN area. I cycle, walk and use public transport everywhere I go. I don’t have a strong view as to whether LTNs have achieved their goal in reducing car traffic within their boundary areas or just pushed it outside. What is clear to me though is that there is a massive issue with the amount of car traffic in the area which is not really a problem caused by the LTNs. If anything, the aim of LTNs is to address this by changing people’s behaviour away from the car and onto other, more active modes of transport.

The fact that there is hardly any cycling infrastructure in ED doesn’t help matters much. I have started avoiding cycling down Underhill RD ad CPR because car traffic there is so bad. How many cars have just one passenger? So rather than blaming LTNs as a proxy for yet another culture war that we don't need, I’d rather see more done to tackle the issue of car use in an area that was never designed to hold as much traffic as it currently does.

Edited January 20, 2023 by zerkalo

[hpsaucey]

I have refrained from posting anything on this thread yet seeing as it is heavily politicised and taken over, with very few exceptions, by those opposing the LTNs and cycling in general. So let me just add my voice (for what it’s worth) as someone who lives in ED, doesn’t own a car and doesn’t live in a LTN area. I cycle, walk and use public transport everywhere I go. I don’t have a strong view as to whether LTNs have achieved their goal in reducing car traffic withing their boundary areas or just pushed it outside. What is clear to me though is that there is a massive issue with the amount of car traffic in the area which is not really a problem caused by the LTNs. If anything, the aim of LTNs is to address this by changing people’s behaviour away from the car and onto other, more active modes of transport.

The fact that there is hardly any cycling infrastructure in ED doesn’t help matters much. I have started avoiding cycling down Underhill RD ad CPR because car traffic there is so bad. How many cars have just one passenger? So rather than blaming LTNs as a proxy for yet another culture war that we don't need, I’d rather see more done to tackle the issue of car use in an area that was never designed to hold as much traffic as it currently does.

 

Bravo!

[ab29]

hpsaucey and the muliple personalities are back :) Edited January 20, 2023 by ab29

[heartblock]

It hasn't changed behaviour, car journeys taking children to school are getting longer, congestion in London has increased.

We need better local public transport, schools within walking distance of the cohort and better cycling infra-structure, but making the bus routes on Croxted Rd and ED Grove unbearably long - which TFL have reported is entirely due to LTNs on non-school , car storage roads - isn't the answer.

[Rockets]

Zerkalo - we all hear what you are saying - most of us posting here are Dulwich residents and embrace the travel choices you do (Dulwich had something like 70% of all local journeys done by active travel before the measures went) and I agree the council has been shockingly absent from providing proper cycle infrastructure - it seems like the LTNs were the only idea and tactic they had to encourage active travel and they have installed them and very little else.

I do note, with interest, you cite CPR and Underhill Road, two of the roads worst affected from LTN displacement traffic. Have you noticed that those roads have become worse since the LTNs went in - it makes total sense why it has got busier as cars try to find a way around the congestion caused by the LTNs on Lordship Lane (Underhill was always busy but seems a lot worse now)? One of the local residents approached the councillors after the measures went in and said the traffic had got worse and was told the solution would be "to ask for your own LTN".

The council steadfastly refuses to monitor Underhill Road - I am not sure it qualifies in their books as a boundary road as it runs away from the LTN which is why they refuse to monitor (although monitoring strips were in place for a long time but the results were never properly published bar one slide in a very early monitoring report that said something vague). But clearly it is soaking up a lot of the traffic looking for ways around the congestion caused by the LTNs - this is one of the reasons why many of us question the council's monitoring dashboard as the picture is not complete as Underhill (and other roads that are impacted by displacement) are not monitored.

[Bic Basher]

I've cycled down Underhill and CPR and don't go thinking about how many passengers are in each vehicle.

As I've started cycling again since last summer, my confidence has grown enough for me to use most main roads including LL, Peckham Rye, Denmark Hill, Camberwell Road, Peckham Road etc, although I still don't have the confidence to cycle towards the Grove from Sydenham Hill to Dulwich Common because of the contraflow to the Common and the built up traffic waiting at the lights to LL.

However it's basic common sense when cycling to share the road with other vehicles either on main roads or side roads. I still have to share the road with cars on Melbourne Grove for example which is inside the ED LTN, so while it's quieter, it certainly is far from the car-free utopia those think it is.

[LEDphobic]

In December 2021 councillor Maggie Browning disclosed to me that traffic for underhill road had increased significantly:

‘ Council officers let me know that the monitoring of traffic on Underhill Road has gone up by 6% (Sept 2021 figures) and had been compared to traffic monitoring that was done in April 2017. I appreciate this is a few years ago but it is from the pre-pandemic period, so seems like a good comparison to use. More traffic monitoring on Underhill Road will take place in April, June and September 2022.

I have written to her subsequently, on multiple occasions, requesting the figures from this proposed monitoring but I have received no response . I’m just disappointed.

[Rockets]

The council should be monitoring and publishing the numbers on Underhill. A significant increase, as Cllr Browning says, may skew their overall numbers for the "success" of their area-wide LTN programme and everyone should be asking them why Underhill is not considered as part of the LTN monitoring.

I suspect they have omitted it very deliberately as they attempt to manipulate the results.

[Penguin68]

As someone who lives in Underhill (and has done for roughly 35 years or so) I can confirm that traffic increases significantly during rush hour, particularly the evening rush when traffic is heading towards the South Circular. (Sometimes I have standing traffic outside my house, something that never used to happen save when there were skip delivery issues). This traffic is caused by other access to the South Circular (East: West routes) being blocked by the LTNs - interestingly Wood Vale (another access route) has latterly been effectively blocked by introducing a short section of single track just by the entrance from it to the South Circular. [The morning rush is less bad as then traffic coming out of the South Circular doesn't meet the hold-ups that accessing the South Circular offer].

Buses that use Wood Vale are introduced to it (or exited from it) via Underhill.

The measurement strip close to my house, only in place for a week, was effectively anyway useless as one of the two pneumatic tubes came loose on about day 2 of the measurement, meaning all measurements (if any were actually made) were invalid.