LTN Discussion

[ab29]

The traffic on South Circular has been truly epic througout the day - I really miss ordinary rush hours

[Rockets]

I think there is a problem up towards Dulwich College - I went for a lunchtime stroll through the park and it was nose to tail then heading in the direction from the Grove Tavern to the College.

[Bic Basher]

It doesn't help that Google Maps and Waze send drivers along Underhill/Overhill/Belvoir/Wood Vale during the evening rush.

I was in a cab on Thursday going to Lower Sydenham and the driver was sent along all of those roads at 5pm to avoid The Grove junction.

Pre-LTN, the driving map apps would also send cabs down Melbourne Grove to avoid Goose Green and the main shopping area on LL.

[Rockets]

Has anyone got a link to the latest Aldred report (full report not press release), I can't seem to find it on either the Possible or UoW website?

[legalalien]

There’s a link in this Forbes article

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2023/01/19/study-londons-ltns-reduce-motor-traffic-on-residential-streets-but-not-main-roads/?sh=72b8c48f42e7

The authors make some interesting observations about the quality of data collection and analysis by local authorities.

[malumbu]

Just wondering whether anyone with a reasonable sized car can help transport some furniture to our French holiday home, in return I'll be offering a free stay. Sadly the area does not have great public transport, but traffic is very light and unlike the Brits the French give a lot of respect to cyclist so it is lovely to walk and cycle. An alternative to driving to Brittany is to cycle down, which I have a couple of times. Happy to provide advice on routes, ferries and how to combine cycling with trains as necessary.

Not sure why my French interests were put up on the LTN thread but thanks for the free publicity.

[Rockets]

Thanks Legal,

I want to take a look for myself as there is a lot of analysis going on that suggests the authors have cleverly used mean and medians to create some of the more pro-LTN headlines and actually the detailed in the report paints not such a rosy picture (especially on boundary roads).

Interesting that their data has been taken from councils themselves and that Enfield, where the whole " we can't count anything under 10kmh" debate has thrown the validity of their monitoring numbers into account has been included (I have seen that someone suggests the report acknowledges this and I want to take a look myself.

And Malumbu, if you can't work out why your "anyone drive my furniture to France for me" was flagged for it's hypocritical position then I am afraid you are very much part of the problem not the solution! ;-)

[legalalien]

I have a whole new respect for,Cllr Newens for her suggestion of a mayoral electoral bike

At 3:43:45, the feedback from others made me smile.

She was closed down on various other budget related issues on the basis that she was raising “policy issues “ so is probably in trouble with the powers that be, but I think it’s great to see local councillors speak up and say what they think.

[legalalien]

I have a whole new respect for,Cllr Newens for her suggestion of a mayoral electric bike

At 3:43:45, the feedback from others made me smile.

She was closed down on various other budget related issues on the basis that she was raising “policy issues “ so is probably in trouble with the powers that be, but I think it’s great to see local councillors speak up and say what they think.

[first mate]

Well yes, the Council response clearly signalling that a normal push bike and even electric would not do at all, as Tooley St to Dulwich is "a long way" and the Mayor may have health issues and not be "proficient at cycling".

[Penguin68]

Well yes, the Council response clearly signalling that a normal push bike and even electric would not do at all, as Tooley St to Dulwich is "a long way" and the Mayor may have health issues and not be "proficient at cycling".

Considering that the ordinary punters (sorry, electors and their families) are expected to be able to cycle everywhere (that they cannot readily walk), without in Dulwich, the benefits of much public transport (and no tubes) - reduced bus services and very uneven train services I think this is a little rich. We may also have health issues and not be proficient in cycling, but we don't get the option!

Shame we cannot pray-in-aid this argument when it comes to resisting the roll-outs of anti car use measures across our bits of the borough. But what's sauce for the apparat is verboten for the ordinary joe.

[legalalien]

Credit to Cllr Newens, the LDs bring the electric bike up again in Tuesday’s meeting and she sticks to her guns (at 1:38)

Fair play to her (some of her colleagues not so much)

[malumbu]

Hats off to Penguin for some honesty - yes for many this thread is simply anti-bike and pro car and should be re-labelled as such. Others pretend to support environmental friendly transport but then put up barriers (oh public transport isn't good enough, cycle infrastructure isn't good enough, the pavements aren't good enough etc) when I expect you are closet piston heads.

Anyway some banter for the weekend not light the blue touch paper and retire.

But what does puzzle me is the nonsense at my expense. In my 4000 plus posts where do I say cars should be banned?, I don't live in any sustainable living community where I grow all my own food, extract minerals and metals, fabricate these into every day consumer objects, shelter etc. I think that may have ended after the iron age.

As I've posted numerous times it's about smarter car use, less car use etc. How much this is done by penalising 'unecessary' car use (and how this is defined)/promoting alternatives is up to our elected representatives coupled with good citizenship. After 60 years of pro car culture the latter is one hell of a challenge.

So gone are the days where we should drive how we want, where we want, when we want, want we want, how we want. The latter being exemplified by falling vehicle occupancies ie cars that are on average only 2/5ths full.

Anyway I'll leave you to continue to debate corruption in City Hall and the town hall, incompetence, manufactured cultyure wars and misuse of data. Or whatever.

Edited to add - most people can cycle if they chose to. Go back 70 years and many did out of economic necessity.

Edited January 27, 2023 by malumbu

[first mate]

Malumbu wrote "So gone are the days where we should drive how we want, where we want, when we want, want we want, how we want. The latter being exemplified by falling vehicle occupancies ie cars that are on average only 2/5ths full."

Unless you are needing a car to transport a door to your other home in France!

[Rockets]

Ouch!!! ;-)

Edited to add - most people can cycle if they chose to. Go back 70 years and many did out of economic necessity.

But 70 years ago the distances people travelled for work and play were much, much lower - London was a lot, lot smaller and it had grown north and south along railway lines. And anyway it seems that if the mayor cannot cycle, for a variety of reasons (per the councillors on the meeting), then there is a pretty good chance your assumption that "most" can may be a little off!

[Penguin68]

You (Malumbu) don't say cars should be banned, but it is formal Southwark labour policy to work towards removing private vehicles from Southwark. They are formally and officially anti car, even if you are not. And it is them calling the shots.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Southwark do not want to ban cars either.

They do want to reduce the number of car journeys, reduce congestion, pollution and road casualties, and increase the amount of active travel. These are all aims that everyone on here (and even the most vociferous anti-LTN folk) say they support too.

You can't have it all ways. If you make it super easy and convenient to drive, with no restrictions on how, when or where people use their car, you wont' progress those aims.

The problem, as with all things, is that we want others to change, not ourselves.

[Rockets]

So I had a look at Aldred's latest report and a number of things stand out:

 

• 
  [list=]
• The data analysed seems to have been for the period between July 20th and Feb 22 - so the full period of lockdown measures

• The report acknowledges that Enfield council admitted that the poor recording of vehicles travelling under 10km/h by monitoring strips but they left the data in there - the question is does Enfield use the same strips as every other council and if so, what does that mean for the accuracy of reports from other councils too

• Linked to the above point the report does state that "parked or very slow moving vehicles may affect the results.....but that.....in most cases count sites are placed away from junctions - now this is interesting as many of the Dulwich count sites are close to junctions - in fact the one on Lordship lane south was moved closer to the junction of Melford Road - it would be very interesting if someone did an FOI to see where monitoring strips were located initially, where they are now and if any were moved.

 

And there is a lot of debate about how the report has been reported on and spun by both UoW and Possible (clever use of avergae, median & mean to create favourable headlines with regard to boundary roads)

and there was an unholy argument going on between Peter Walker and another journalist because he took offence to someone suggesting he wasn't totally impartial and was suggesting legal issues as a result:

[legalalien]

Just a quick look at the policy documents. The existing 2019 Movement Plan says that " Our aim is to reduce trips made by

car/motorbike to 13% by 2041", but there doesn't seem to be a hard target in the Sustainable Transport Strategy currently under consultation, or in the Climate Change Strategy/ Action Plan, so possibly the 13% aim has been quietly dropped?

 

Southwark do not want to ban cars either.

They do want to reduce the number of car journeys, reduce congestion, pollution and road casualties, and increase the amount of active travel. These are all aims that everyone on here (and even the most vociferous anti-LTN folk) say they support too.

You can't have it all ways. If you make it super easy and convenient to drive, with no restrictions on how, when or where people use their car, you wont' progress those aims.

The problem, as with all things, is that we want others to change, not ourselves.

[legalalien]

ps for those interested in cycle hangars, some info about the retender of the cycle hangar contract

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7806.

Cyclehoop are providing the hangars going forward, maintenance etc is being brought in house (to Southwark). Numbers wise,

"As of 31 October 2022 there are 8,874 requests for a space in a cycle hangar

(each hangar can take six bikes). Only 352 of the 3,582 spaces currently

provided were free (9.82%) at this time. This is a clear demonstration that

there is scope to do much more to encourage cycling in the borough by the

provision of safe and secure storage.

5. In acknowledgement of this the revised council delivery plan (2022-2026)

includes a commitment to deliver 1,000 cycle hangars in the borough by end

of March 2026."

(So I guess that's 6000 new hangar spaces, but each hangar likely to have an average 10% vacancy rate as demand is presumably not entirely equally distributed about the place. That's assuming no increase in demand by 2026? or alternatively - I haven't checked the council delivery plan it might be that the target is 1000 hangars in total, rather than 1000 new hangars - if that's the case it's a lot less new spaces... as there are already 597 hangars (if my long division skills still work))

[Lebanums]

Just read an article about Oslo having a fully electric public transport system in 2023.

I spent a few years living in Oslo, without a car & borrowing an electric one when required. The public transport system meant I never needed a car (it was also reasonably cheap) & I used a bike in the fair weather. I also grew up in a small town in Scotland where the transport links were good, driving a car was never a second thought.

I never took my driving test until I moved to East Dulwich, the transport links just didn't work for me and still don't. I walk locally or take the bus or train when I go into the city, but I don't work in the city and getting there by public transport takes twice the time and twice the cost. In fair weather I cycle but I can't say I enjoy it, but it gets my exercise out of the way and I have secure storage on site to lock it up.

The council need to invest their money wisely, in councillors with the right skill set and new transport links rather than put blocks in that has us all divided. Each mind set will never see nor empathise with the other.

[Lebanums]

ps for those interested in cycle hangars, some info about the retender of the cycle hangar contract

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7806.

Cyclehoop are providing the hangars going forward, maintenance etc is being brought in house (to Southwark). Numbers wise,

"As of 31 October 2022 there are 8,874 requests for a space in a cycle hangar

(each hangar can take six bikes). Only 352 of the 3,582 spaces currently

provided were free (9.82%) at this time. This is a clear demonstration that

there is scope to do much more to encourage cycling in the borough by the

provision of safe and secure storage.

5. In acknowledgement of this the revised council delivery plan (2022-2026)

includes a commitment to deliver 1,000 cycle hangars in the borough by end

of March 2026."

(So I guess that's 6000 new hangar spaces, but each hangar likely to have an average 10% vacancy rate as demand is presumably not entirely equally distributed about the place. That's assuming no increase in demand by 2026? or alternatively - I haven't checked the council delivery plan it might be that the target is 1000 hangars in total, rather than 1000 new hangars - if that's the case it's a lot less new spaces... as there are already 597 hangars (if my long division skills still work))

 

There has been an empty cycle hangar in our street for over a year & until bike thefts are sorted out I certainly won't be using one any time soon.

[Rockets]

It's clear they want to massively reduce the number of private vehicles on the road and that is something we can all embrace but a bit like Hackney and their recent goals of banning through traffic on 75% of their roads (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64408468) - it's far easier said than done and often leads to problems for neighbouring areas. What the pro-closure lobby fail to acknowledge is that private vehicle ownership and usage has been declining in London yet congestion is getting worse - perhaps they should try to work out why.

If they ban through traffic on 75% of roads in their borough I wouldn't want to live on the 25% that do allow it - sounds terribly socially unjust for anyone who happens to live on or near the 25%. Hackney's grand plan was being discussed on Radio 5 and the same issues seen in Southwark were being discussed - what happens in areas of the borough that aren't well served by public transport?

The problem is these ideological grand schemes don't often work well in practice and I do really worry about the long-term harm these measures that are supposed to do long-term good are actually doing.

Remember London is the only city in the top 10 cities in the UK to see an increase in congestion since Covid yet vehicle numbers are down - go figure what might be happening here....the biggest challenge post- Covid is that London is fast ceasing to function properly.

[Rockets]

Just read an article about Oslo having a fully electric public transport system in 2023.

I spent a few years living in Oslo, without a car & borrowing an electric one when required. The public transport system meant I never needed a car (it was also reasonably cheap) & I used a bike in the fair weather. I also grew up in a small town in Scotland where the transport links were good, driving a car was never a second thought.

I never took my driving test until I moved to East Dulwich, the transport links just didn't work for me and still don't. I walk locally or take the bus or train when I go into the city, but I don't work in the city and getting there by public transport takes twice the time and twice the cost. In fair weather I cycle but I can't say I enjoy it, but it gets my exercise out of the way and I have secure storage on site to lock it up.

The council need to invest their money wisely, in councillors with the right skill set and new transport links rather than put blocks in that has us all divided. Each mind set will never see nor empathise with the other.

 

Spot on! And the council even admits that Dulwich has higher car ownership, in part, because of the poor transport links in the area (when compared to areas in the north of the borough). Correct me if I am wrong but has any part of our public transport network locally actually got better or been improved since these measures were put in?

[CPR Dave]

The councillors themselves will very rarely have any skills that are suited to actually implementing the policies they dream up, unfortunately.

You need to rely on the people with actual qualifications that are relevant to the task in hand who work in Tooley Street for accountability.

What qualifications do any of the ED councillors have to devise a long term traffic management strategy? I would guess they have none whatsoever between any of them.

They must rely on advice from council employees.