LTN Discussion

[ab29]

BB it's the Thames Water - there is hardly a week without TW digging a hole in Forest Hill area and causing a mayhem on South Circular. They should be renamed to Waste Water.

 

School holidays are usually a delight for those of us who live on main roads, but at my end of LL we've had to put up with roadworks by Hornimans AGAIN which caused jams back to near the library and even today and yesterday cars piling up to turn right into Dulwich Common which used to be much easier when Court Lane/Calton Avenue were open.

[malumbu]

Something we all agree on ☺️

[ArmandHelpen1]

Can I politely ask in a nutshell what the objection to the LTNs is? Not intending to be at all inflammatory as I am conscious it appears to be an issue that generates huge upset locally. I have never really understood why….and I’m keen to. Isn’t reducing traffic and pollution by encouraging walking/cycling/public transport hugely beneficial to all? Not looking for any hostility, but genuinely keen to understand what it is am I missing?

[Spartacus]

Can I politely ask in a nutshell what the objection to the LTNs is? Not intending to be at all inflammatory as I am conscious it appears to be an issue that generates huge upset locally. I have never really understood why….and I’m keen to. Isn’t reducing traffic and pollution by encouraging walking/cycling/public transport hugely beneficial to all? Not looking for any hostility, but genuinely keen to understand what it is am I missing?

 

It's multifactorial

The way it was implemented by the Council despite overwhelming objections in a consultation

The closing of a major junction that used to allowed traffic to escape when the south circular was closed or restricted

The knock on effect of traffic and pollution on roads around the area due to traffic not evaporating as the council theorised

The constant deaf ear of councillors to local views including the disabled who have been stopped from driving through the junction

The virtual cutting off of the village from East Dulwich to those who need to drive

Oh and the simple fact that not everyone can cycle or walk.

What is needed is fair and open consultation and not the current blinkered approach by the council.

[ab29]

Where’s the data?

Southwark hasn’t released any recent data on either traffic counts or NO2 emissions in the Dulwich area. The Southwark Highways map shows NO2 readings up to 2021, but only as annual averages (and many are missing). The traffic data (with many broken links) consists of average weekly traffic counts. Averages, as we all know, hide key data – for example, congestion and pollution at peak hours when children are walking and cycling to school.

Given that the Council is about to launch Phase 3 of Dulwich Village Streets for People, should it not be releasing comprehensive information about the effect of the LTNs on the area as a whole? Closed roads, obviously, have much less traffic. But has traffic increased as a result on roads like Lordship Lane, East Dulwich Grove, Half Moon Lane, Croxted Road, Burbage Road and Dulwich Common (the South Circular)? If so, is the Council happy that these residential roads are now more congested and polluted?

Ella’s Law

On the tenth anniversary of her daughter’s death from air pollution, Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, who was awarded a CBE in the New Year Honours list, is calling on MPs to introduce the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill, also known as Ella’s Law.

In a recent BBC news report, she said that LTNs show the division between the most and least deprived Londoners. “Certain people have lobbied their council and have managed to get LTNs in [their area] and have pushed all the traffic on to areas like the South Circular where the most deprived live.” Read the full report here.

Petition to parliament

Please sign up to the new petition asking parliament to carry out an independent review into Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. More than 7,000 have signed so far. At 10,000 signatures, the government will respond.

Thank you for your support.

The One Dulwich Team

[Rockets]

Full court press on the demonisation of anyone daring to protest in Oxford LTNs coming out from the usual suspects.......it almost feels co-ordinated.

[Rockets]

Can I politely ask in a nutshell what the objection to the LTNs is? Not intending to be at all inflammatory as I am conscious it appears to be an issue that generates huge upset locally. I have never really understood why….and I’m keen to. Isn’t reducing traffic and pollution by encouraging walking/cycling/public transport hugely beneficial to all? Not looking for any hostility, but genuinely keen to understand what it is am I missing?

 

In addition to Spartacus' comments I would say:

 

• The LTNs were rejected by locals
  
  when they were first presented during the OHS consultations which happened before the pandemic

• The council then used the cover, and guise, of COVID and the need for "social distancing" to roll-out the OHS plan without the need for a further consultation due to emergency powers

• There isn't an LTN anywhere that hasn't caused significant displacement of traffic and many of us were concerned, from the outset, that for some of us to have nice quiet roads some of us would have to have even busier roads

• Not enough "evaporation" of traffic occurs to prevent other roads from experiencing significant increases in traffic, congestion and pollution

• Since the LTNs went in the council has done everything in its power to suppress any negative sentiment towards the LTNs and has failed to engage with local constituents

• Local Labour councillors stated, very clearly, that if the LTNs did not lead to a reduction in traffic for every street in the Dulwich area then it would not have been a success - this is clearly what has happened

• Since the LTNs went in the council has manipulated the monitoring process, reports and and output to create a rosier picture than actually exists

• The council has divided our community (physically and metaphorically) with these measures and has driven a serious wedge between the council, the Mayor's office and TFL and has been accused of bullying members of TFL - something I would never had expected from a Labour run council

• At the end of the day LTNs don't ever solve a problem, they make it worse and we should not live in a society where we are happy to move cars and pollution from one person's street to another in the name of "progress" in the fight against climate change

[first mate]

Clearly, absolutely anyone that dares so much as question LTNs is a fascistic-climate-denying-antisemite-anti-vaxxer-hip-hop-loving-petrol-headed- mansplainer...and that includes the women too!

[ArmandHelpen1]

Thanks for taking the time to explain the objections.

I can see how it would feel unfair if the result is to push traffic to other areas rather than reduce it. I thought the idea was to reduce traffic overall which I would find (personally) hard to argue against. How hard would it be to secure data re: pollution and traffic levels that people would trust?

I can see why public transport or walking may be difficult for people with mobility issues. For those mentioned who can’t walk/but can drive, does that just mean a longer journey time for them now or inability to use their car at all?

One last question; what is the purported reason the council is so keen to push this through/would be manipulating evidence? What does the LA gain from the LTN agenda?

Thanks for humouring my questions so late in the day; I have always been curious at the strong feeling this generates and as a result felt too nervous to ask for fear of offending. I assumed I probably just didn’t have the full picture because I’ve never quite understood the Vitriol.

[Spartacus]

Clearly, absolutely anyone that dares so much as question LTNs is a fascistic-climate-denying-antisemite-anti-vaxxer-hip-hop-loving-petrol-headed- mansplainer...and that includes the women too!

 

I always wanted to get into hip hop but was never trendy enough...

Joking aside it is sad that the pro lobby feel that they have to resort to "smearing" those who object to LTNs.

It's almost as if they have run out of implausible arguments as to why LTNs work and now try to make out those against them are conspiracy nutters.

[DuncanW]

That’s what Will Smith is for, no..?

So, are you saying that Lozza Fox, David Kurten and members of patriotic alternative were not present at that event, or that you think that is entirely normal?

[Penguin68]

What does the LA gain from the LTN agenda?

 

Quite significant fine revenue (allegedly £3m in the first weeks of operation) and it forms part of a concerted effort to drive private use cars out of Southwark - which actually makes more sense in the north of the borough (where car ownership is lower, and where public transport is much more effectively offered, with e.g. tubes as well as trains and buses - which tend to converge on the North of the borough). Additionally of course it is far flatter there, making bike travel more easy, for those who can manage bikes. But Tooley St has always considered the old borough of Camberwell as its cash cow. That is also why it has plans to turn all roads, eventually, into CPZs, if it can. CPZ revenue and motoring fines are not capped. (Neither is revenue from charging for garden rubbish collection - again Camberwell is a better source for that than 'old' Southwark).

[Spartacus]

That’s what Will Smith is for, no..?

So, are you saying that Lozza Fox, David Kurten and members of patriotic alternative were not present at that event, or that you think that is entirely normal?

 

I'm not saying anything DuncanW, but if they were it doesn't mean that they represent the views of everyone who was there so saying that all anti LTN supporters are anti everything is a real leap in your conclusion.

Its akin to someone saying that because Jezzer didn't act on antisemitism then all Labour supporters must agree with him... which of course the don't.🤔

[malumbu]

Armand, you need a bit of balance on this issue. I meant to post this much earlier but didn't hit submit.

The idea is to discourage short journeys, or longer ones such as school run and commute, where there are alternatives, including active travel.

Air pollution is responsible for 10000s of deaths each year and one of the principle sources is nitrogen dioxide, particularly from older diesel cars. Wood burners, as discussed elsewhere, are becoming a bigger sources of small particles (aka soot or PM10/PM2.5), due to increased popularity and ironically as most diesel cars are now fitted with a filter and hence transport is a lower proportion.

The big issue is how do you discourage car use and support alternatives. Walking and cycling is the obvious alternative but many come up with the spurious objection that not all can walk or cycle. The vast majority of us can, and therefore you look to alternative solutions for such vulnerable groups. We also have the most comprehensive, and affordable, public transport in the country.

Government talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk and generally looks to local authorities to implement measures. The concept of the LTN is a good one, looking at the rat runs and introduce measures on these roads. There have been measures like this for many decades - one way streets, no through roads and the like, but LTN was rather a big bang and anything that restricts personal mobility will disadvantage some over others. [interestingly Rocks picks up on the Oxford LTN - Oxford City Centre has been virtually car free for 30 years now, so restrictions are nothing new]

The difference between now and earlier generations is Sat Nav, in the past the rat runs were generally limited to locals and cabbies. There are some, and let's pick on an easy target, some of those driving their kid (sometimes more than one) to private school, where it is very difficult to get them out of their cars. I remember a chat with someone at one of the schools on the south circ, and they said whatever they did to prevent unsocial parking, some parents found ways round it. Of course some state school parents do similar.

We've had 60 odd years of pro-car governments (apart from a blip under Blair, reversed following the effectively anti-environmental fuel protests). Central government action to nudge people out of their cars, or use more interventionist approaches, are generally seen to be vote losers (the same with the opposition parties). The best way of tackling this is a road user charge, but this is seen to be too unpopular even though there is support across the political spectrum (from greens to free marketeers). Now fuel costs are well down from their high, the government should reverse the temporary cut in fuel duty, but hasn't/wont. Fuel duty is general taxation ie can contribute to schools, hospitals, social care etc.

Those most against LTNs repeat their arguments, constantly, that Southwark is corrupt, incompetent and in the hands of the rich in leafy Dulwich Village. Going off on one about 'pro's vs antis', manufactured 'car vs bike' culture wars are not helpful in a proper discussion.

You probably know most of this already, and can make your own mind up about Southwark, Lewisham, Tower Hamlets, Croydon, Lambeth etc etc. Tends to be a common theme, Labour run councils.

Wow that's a long post from me. Hope you found this useful .

[Rockets]

That’s what Will Smith is for, no..?

So, are you saying that Lozza Fox, David Kurten and members of patriotic alternative were not present at that event, or that you think that is entirely normal?

 

I'm not saying anything DuncanW, but if they were it doesn't mean that they represent the views of everyone who was there so saying that all anti LTN supporters are anti everything is a real leap in your conclusion.

Its akin to someone saying that because Jezzer didn't act on antisemitism then all Labour supporters must agree with him... which of course the don't.🤔

 

It's clear there are unsavoury types who will grasp onto any protest to try and get some publicity and Lozza Fox, David Kurten and Piers Corbyn are very unusual bed-fellows (and who have views that 99.9% of people do not agree with) but there is a concerted effort to paint anyone and everyone who is associated with anti-LTNs as some sort of fascist, Covid-denier, lunatic - a tactic even seen by some pro-LTN supporters on here over the last couple of years - especially around the Dulwich Square protest.

The likes of Peter Walker and Jeremy Vine know, all too well, that protests can attract a weird bunch but are more than happy to amplify the narrative that demonises anyone with an anti-LTN agenda - they make "observations" from their keyboards, in their guise as "journalists", without actually being on the ground themselves and determining what the make-up of the group actually was - happily demonising people and fanning the flames because it suits their personal agenda and then, glibly, suggesting if they were an anti-LTN protestor they would be worried that the cause was being taken over by extremists etc.....

Meanwhile, there was a counter-protest in Oxford at the same time and look, those pro-LTN supporters seem to have swapped cargo bikes for balaclavas...;-)

We see the same demonising tactics with the likes of the Dulwich Roads twitter account locally where every accident is blamed on bad driving before the owner of the twitter account has even tried to ascertain what has happened - demonising all drivers involved in accidents as "bad drivers".

[DuncanW]

Spartacus,

That analogy sort of works, but less so if you give it much thought. In as much as many in the Labour Party (including me) were deeply uncomfortable about the antisemitism issue. It was a long, difficult and quite possibly ongoing struggle to remedy it but action was taken, and rightly or wrongly, JC has been removed from the PLP.

At this specific rally, it does seem there were some people with some pretty extreme views on other topics present, mainly of a Libertarian bent and seeking to align those issues with the perceived anti-car agenda.

If my position was solely about the efficacy of a specific scheme near me, and I saw the likes of Fox, P Corbyn, Kurten et al jumping on board, I would be really concerned and more so about the coordination of those characters than a couple of well-known pro-cycling media figures commenting on it.

And Rockets, the use of quotation marks around the word journalist isn't really needed. They are actual journalists :)

[ab29]

Below a link to a petition asking parliament to carry out an independent review into Low Traffic Neighbourhoods:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/632748

[legalalien]

Can I politely ask in a nutshell what the objection to the LTNs is? Not intending to be at all inflammatory as I am conscious it appears to be an issue that generates huge upset locally. I have never really understood why….and I’m keen to. Isn’t reducing traffic and pollution by encouraging walking/cycling/public transport hugely beneficial to all? Not looking for any hostility, but genuinely keen to understand what it is am I missing?

 

I would just add that it's also possible to hold the view that while in principle LTNs are capable of working, the success of any particular LTN is a function of its design in its local conditions, taking into account any other LTNs that are being put in place; and that the closures in Dulwich Village have been a design fail, both for local businesses and in the way that they have shunted traffic onto other roads - in particular Croxted Road, which is a significant bus route and a key active travel route to one of the local schools. The closures were rushed in despite TfL's request for a pause to consider the implications, and TfL still have some concerns, which the local council seems to be doing nothing to address.

[Penguin68]

The big issue is how do you discourage car use and support alternatives.

This begs two questions. Car use, in and of itself, is not bad. Driving polluting vehicles may be - but the definition of 'polluting' is an interesting one. CO2 is not a 'pollutant', indeed without it we would all be dead, as it is the basis of food production. In so far as it is also a greenhouse gas (but by no means the only one - the largest contributor is water vapour, and methane on a volume basis is far more damaging) it may be contributing to global warming which will put pressure on human habitation until remedies are discovered - as they may well be.

The auto-pollutant which impacts immediate health is NOx2 (and particulates from some types of wood burning).

EVs in their use are not (to any great extent) polluting, so EV car use would actually fit the stated intent of LTNs, which is to address local air pollution (inter alia).

'Supporting alternatives' does not mean, in LTN speak, public transport, but walking and cycling - which again may be positive for individual health (for those young and fit enough to benefit) but do not contribute to general health, nor do they offer any mitigation in themselves to air quality. I also dislike the intrusion of not being able to decide for myself my own exercise regime, but have one forced on me by politicians.

So I would actually challenge the statement 'the big issue...' It isn't. The issue may be about individual health, and may be about air quality - but it's not about two proposed solutions to these 'issues'. You may just as well suggest that the 'big issue' is the availability of runners with cleft sticks when the actual problem may be about communication.

[Rockets]

Spartacus,

That analogy sort of works, but less so if you give it much thought. In as much as many in the Labour Party (including me) were deeply uncomfortable about the antisemitism issue. It was a long, difficult and quite possibly ongoing struggle to remedy it but action was taken, and rightly or wrongly, JC has been removed from the PLP.

At this specific rally, it does seem there were some people with some pretty extreme views on other topics present, mainly of a Libertarian bent and seeking to align those issues with the perceived anti-car agenda.

If my position was solely about the efficacy of a specific scheme near me, and I saw the likes of Fox, P Corbyn, Kurten et al jumping on board, I would be really concerned and more so about the coordination of those characters than a couple of well-known pro-cycling media figures commenting on it.

And Rockets, the use of quotation marks around the word journalist isn't really needed. They are actual journalists :)

 

Yes and my use of quote marks was because they would say they are posting in a personal capacity on social media and not in their capacity as a journalist - although those lines are very blurred nowadays anyway as their output in a journalistic capacity on the subject is far from impartial!

Of course, there were clearly undesirables who were part of the protest but by tarring everyone with the same brush creates more problems and I do wonder how much the Oxford counter-demo balaclava-wearing folks were in direct response to previous articles and comments made suggesting these demos were infiltrated by far-right extremists. No doubt Walker and Vine's comments (and their were plenty of others from the usual pro-LTN commentators) will have stoked the fire even more for the next protest.

[zerkalo]

The big issue is how do you discourage car use and support alternatives.

This begs two questions. Car use, in and of itself, is not bad. Driving polluting vehicles may be - but the definition of 'polluting' is an interesting one. CO2 is not a 'pollutant', indeed without it we would all be dead, as it is the basis of food production. In so far as it is also a greenhouse gas (but by no means the only one - the largest contributor is water vapour, and methane on a volume basis is far more damaging) it may be contributing to global warming which will put pressure on human habitation until remedies are discovered - as they may well be.

The auto-pollutant which impacts immediate health is NOx2 (and particulates from some types of wood burning).

EVs in their use are not (to any great extent) polluting, so EV car use would actually fit the stated intent of LTNs, which is to address local air pollution (inter alia).

'Supporting alternatives' does not mean, in LTN speak, public transport, but walking and cycling - which again may be positive for individual health (for those young and fit enough to benefit) but do not contribute to general health, nor do they offer any mitigation in themselves to air quality. I also dislike the intrusion of not being able to decide for myself my own exercise regime, but have one forced on me by politicians.

So I would actually challenge the statement 'the big issue...' It isn't. The issue may be about individual health, and may be about air quality - but it's not about two proposed solutions to these 'issues'. You may just as well suggest that the 'big issue' is the availability of runners with cleft sticks when the actual problem may be about communication.

 

I highly disagree with the essence of the arguments presented here.

1. Car use in cities is inherently bad for the society as a whole as it has benefits only for the individuals using those cars and costs for everyone else (hours lost in traffic, increased health care costs, road space occupied etc). You may argue whether there is such a thing as a ‘society’ at all depending on your political inclinations (I certainly think there is) but driving around in an urban environment is a choice that comes with big costs for many, not just drivers.

2. Pollution from vehicles must not be downplayed. It’s been 10 years since the death of 9 year old Ella because of acute asthma caused by air pollution. We should all know better by now. Clean air should be a human right for everyone. Hopefully a future Labour government will take decisive action on this. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/17/labour-plans-to-make-clean-air-a-human-right-with-new-legislation

3. Active transport (walking and cycling) not only have clear health benefits for the individual but also for everyone else in the form of reduced healthcare costs during a time when NHS is crumbling under years of underinvestment.

4. You are free to decide your own exercise regime as you see fit, no politician is imposing anything on you about this.. But others still have to breath the pollution from your vehicle. I see that as an intrusion of my rights to clean air.

[Rockets]

Thanks for taking the time to explain the objections.

I can see how it would feel unfair if the result is to push traffic to other areas rather than reduce it. I thought the idea was to reduce traffic overall which I would find (personally) hard to argue against. How hard would it be to secure data re: pollution and traffic levels that people would trust?

I can see why public transport or walking may be difficult for people with mobility issues. For those mentioned who can’t walk/but can drive, does that just mean a longer journey time for them now or inability to use their car at all?

One last question; what is the purported reason the council is so keen to push this through/would be manipulating evidence? What does the LA gain from the LTN agenda?

Thanks for humouring my questions so late in the day; I have always been curious at the strong feeling this generates and as a result felt too nervous to ask for fear of offending. I assumed I probably just didn’t have the full picture because I’ve never quite understood the Vitriol.

 

Armand - the council's intentions were absolutely right - reduce traffic, congestion and pollution are the right thing to do and critical but they put all their eggs in the LTN basket (LTNs are proven to be a very blunt instrument to solve the problem at hand) and when it was clear they were not delivering as advertised (they only reduce traffic for those inside the LTNs and increase traffic for those outside) they doubled-down and began digging themselves an even bigger hole and manipulating the data (if you walk around Dulwich take look at how close the monitoring strips are located to junctions or traffic lights - an absolute no-no unless you want to record fewer cars than are actually using that road). Far/hard left politicians find it very difficult to admit they got something wrong and it has been interesting how more considered and moderate Southwark councillors like Radha Burgess, who acknowledged and opposed much of the LTNs negative impacts, have since left their seats.

Statements I see on here from pro-LTN supporters about "the vast majority of people" being able to walk or cycle just demonstrates how blinkered they are. It's the classic "well, if I can then why can't you" mantra and often seasoned with a huge dose of hypocrisy.

The discussion normally goes a little something like this:

"If I can live my live pottering around Dulwich buying my artisan groceries on my £5,000 cargo bike that I store in my back-garden which I access via my side-return then why can't everyone else do the same....?"

"But you still own a car don't you"

"Err yes, well I do because I need it to visit relatives in the country/visit my 2nd home in the country/transport furniture to my 2nd home in the country/transport my bikes/emergencies/get my kids to school when it's raining/get to the nearest railway station/drive my kids to their sports games"...and so the list goes on.

Dulwich has always had some of the highest levels of active travel for local journeys in Southwark with the large majority of such journeys being walked yet the council decided to target the area with LTNs - only they seem to know the reason why as they had said previously that areas like Dulwich don't make sense for LTNs due to the poor PTAL scores in the area. Granted the intention was probably to target the non-local residents who drive through Dulwich but by putting the LTNs in the council made things infinitely worse for many of the local residents by forcing more traffic down fewer roads - and it is being allowed to continue.

[Bic Basher]

2. Pollution from vehicles must not be downplayed. It’s been 10 years since the death of 9 year old Ella because of acute asthma caused by air pollution. We should all know better by now. Clean air should be a human right for everyone. Hopefully a future Labour government will take decisive action on this. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/17/labour-plans-to-make-clean-air-a-human-right-with-new-legislation

 

The mother of Ella has said she's against LTNs because they drive traffic onto main roads such as the South Circular which was the cause of her daughter's death.

Dulwich Common (and Lordship Lane at the junction of it) have seen increased traffic since the Dulwich Village LTN was introduced as cars which used to filter down Court Lane now get stuck in queues reaching to/from the Village.

[malumbu]

Rocks, how many more times do I have to say this "us vs them", "pro vs anti" does not help your cause one bit? Where on earth have I said that I am a 'pro LTN campainer?". I'm pro smarter use of vehicles and Zerkalo has given a great summary of why. You say that 'they' (the more extreme groups" demonise you as an "anti", and then you do exactly the same every time Jermemy Vine, Peter Walker or Rachel Aldred say something. Hardly a grown up argument is it?

Well at least some of you acknowledge that you consider that there should not be restrictions on cars. I don't agree but it's good that you are clear rather than pretend otherwise.

Armand, bet you wish you hadn't asked now!

[Rockets]

Take a deep breath Rocks and read the article again. I found it an interesting one.

The difficulty is that your tirade paints you out to be a right wing libertarian opposed to any interventions. My unscientific survey of one of my WhatsApp group is the two people angry about the concept are anti vaxers

I'm sure you are none of these but the knee jerk postings do not help your argument. It would be great if you stick to your usual script - incompetent corrupt local authority, guerilla cyclists etc as I won't be tempted to post.

 

Malumbu - leaving your old post here with no/little comment.....;-)

It's amazing how quickly this post has come back to haunt you and the position you are taking on said subject today...normally you get tripped up/exposed by much older posts ;-)