LTN Discussion

[mr.chicken]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

 All I read was your attempt 

We both know that's not true. You read other things here too, some of which you're pointedly ignoring! Or maybe it's just that you're re-imagining past writing in the same way people re-imagine past local traffic.

[first mate]

7 minutes ago, mr.chicken said:

We both know that's not true. You read other things here too, some of which you're pointedly ignoring! Or maybe it's just that you're re-imagining past writing in the same way people re-imagine past local traffic.

Read again what you wrote and what I responded to below, though your bizarre point that I must read other things on a forum stands, obviously...

Mr Chicken said : "Yeah continuously dragging Lycra into the conversation is just "a bit of mockery" and not a peculiar obsession. Sure thing!

Though I'm a bit unclear as to what you want to mock a group based on their clothing. Do you extend that to other groups like Boris Johnson does?"

And, to be completely clear, the lycra comment you seem so hot under the collar about by was not even made by me. Your feathers seem truly ruffled today Mr C.

 

[mr.chicken]

@first mate hm yeah I don't think that was good. I didn't mean it like that, so I retract that. Sorry.

Edited June 21, 2023 by mr.chicken

[Rockets]

Mr Chicken - good on you. It shows a lot about someone if they are prepared to admit they got something wrong and retract something ….shame a few of your cohorts don’t have the emotional intelligence to take a leaf out of your book ;-).

[Earl Aelfheah]

Whilst some are railing against measures to reduce car use….

 

U.K. Climate Watchdog Urges Much Stronger Measures To Reduce Car Use
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2023/06/28/uk-climate-watchdog-urges-much-stronger-measures-to-reduce-car-use/amp/

[Spartacus]

9 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Whilst some are railing against measures to reduce car use….

 

U.K. Climate Watchdog Urges Much Stronger Measures To Reduce Car Use
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2023/06/28/uk-climate-watchdog-urges-much-stronger-measures-to-reduce-car-use/amp/

The local view is that the LTNs here have increased traffic on boundary roads and the south circular which seems to be increasing, not decreasing pollution. 

Without local data there's little proof to dispute these allegations.

Equally, local transport has been reduced (less frequent no 12s is a good example) so reducing credible alternative forms of transport for those who have issues cycling or walking (for what ever reason) doesn't encourage less usage of cars. 

It's a bit like smokers, the government tried to tax them out of existence yet "Fag Anne" would be so desperate for her 'tine hit that she (generic) would sacrifice other things to get a packet of Woodbines, however since vaping came around as an alternative, actual sales of cigarettes has dropped and more people use alternatives. 

Before we can achieve reductions in car use, a better alternative has to be in place as the current offering has so many gaps and problems caused by underfunding.

[first mate]

Great ciggie analogy Spartacus, perfectly illustrating unintended consequences of well intentioned interventions. As we know, vaping now under major scrutiny and possibly not the safe option it was meant to be.

[exdulwicher]

37 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Before we can achieve reductions in car use, a better alternative has to be in place as the current offering has so many gaps and problems caused by underfunding.

Other way around.

Reduce the cars first - you HAVE to do it that way around because if you have unrestricted car use, very few people are going to cycle because it's unpleasant and dangerous. Same with walking; it's unpleasant, dangerous and inconvenient to be walking along side heavy traffic, waiting for ages to cross at traffic lights etc.

If you try and add more buses into the existing network, you end up with more congestion because the buses are trying to compete for road space with the existing vehicle traffic.

You have to reduce traffic first and you start by doing it on the residential streets because that's the easiest option. Reduce that and you end up with fewer vehicles coming out of side roads (therefore less congestion at junctions) and once you've done that you can start on more interventions along main roads. There it usually has to be reallocation of road space towards bus lanes and cycle lanes rather than actual modal filters (although bus gates work well).

Remove (or at least significantly reduce) vehicles and cycling, walking, scooting, mobility scooting etc becomes easier, more pleasant and more convenient so more people do it. Reduce car usage on main roads and it becomes a lot easier to re-purpose parking spaces for bus lanes or to fit more buses in anyway and they can travel more quickly which makes bus travel more of an option. But none of that works if you haven't first removed/reduced private car use.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Yep. And taxing cigarettes was very effective in reducing smoking

[Spartacus]

So ex, you are advocating the stick method and not the carrot method.

Humans being human will buck and fight the stick but if you coerce them with incentives including better transport inferstructures they will start to leave their cars behind. 

This is especially true outside of London where public transport isn't as frequent or reliable.

Telling people to give up their cars without a decent alternative frequent and reliable public transport system isn't going to work. We're partially lucky in London but even so the buses and trains don't have much more capacity as they stand and people will choose cars over them at the moment , especially on rainy days ⛈️

[exdulwicher]

3 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

So ex, you are advocating the stick method and not the carrot method.

It's both.

It's a stick to discourage car use but at the same time it is a carrot to enable and encourage active travel and P/T use.

5 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Telling people to give up their cars without a decent alternative frequent and reliable public transport system isn't going to work. 

1) no-one is being TOLD to give up anything. Streets remain accessible by car. 
2) people are being supplied with alternatives - it's now easier and more pleasant to walk and cycle and the buses and trains that were there before still exist now.

[Spartacus]

Again, the abelist response 

People can walk and cycle. There is a large swathe of local people who can't and with the reduction in train and bus frequency over the past few years your argument of alternatives doesn't work for everyone.

The cuts to services need to be reversed otherwise those that find walking and cycling impossible or difficult will feel further alienated as the current schemes are not disabled friendly (trust me I speak from experience) 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Spartacus

[exdulwicher]

31 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

People can walk and cycle. There is a large swathe of local people who can't

There's also a large swathe of people that can't drive. Anyone under the age of 17 for starters. Some elderly and disabled as well - "the disabled" covers a huge range of society and people so trying to use "what about the disabled?!" as some sort of catch-all justification for an anti-LTN stance is ridiculous.

Either way, everyone benefits from reductions in private vehicle usage. 

[Spartacus]

Again abelist ex lashes out.

What I said was that public transport needs to be improved, I don't say that as an anti ltn stance but that not everyone can walk or cycle  

The under 17 comment is a joke as whilst they can't drive, mum and dad taxis are prevalent so they are driven 🤔 and the same is true for elderly and disabled who can't physically drive themselves 

Unfortunately without great public transport a large swathe of the population are disadvantaged by the drive towards the walking and cycling agenda as it excludes them.

Please think before you dismiss comments by  people who live with issues. 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Spartacus

[Earl Aelfheah]

If you make it easier for those who can, to walk or cycle, then you also make it considerably easier for those who must drive, to do so.

Everyone is in favour of improved public transport. The cheapest, easiest and quickest way to improve public transport locally would be to remove street parking / free on-street storage, so that buses didn't have to constantly stop to pass each other. This would also make it possible to widen the pavements, which is better for those with restricted mobility. Many of the bus lanes locally have cars parked in them outside peak hours, slowing their transit, so extend their hours of operation.

In summary: if you want to make it easier for disabled people to get around, support LTNs, campaign for the removal of on street parking, wider pavements, and 24/7 bus lanes. 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[exdulwicher]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

The under 17 comment is a joke as whilst they can't drive, mum and dad taxis are prevalent so they are driven 🤔 and the same is true for elderly and disabled who can't physically drive themselves 

Unfortunately without great public transport a large swathe of the population are disadvantaged by the drive towards the walking and cycling agenda as it excludes them.

Please think before you dismiss comments by  people who live with issues. 

Exactly - you've answered your own point!

THEY ARE DRIVEN.

They are driven because the roads are too busy and dangerous to allow them free rein to walk and cycle - at least that is the major perception. And that adds to the congestion and then everyone looks at the traffic and goes "oh, it's far too dangerous to walk, we'll drive..."

Vast amounts of time and effort are tied up in "the school run" -it's been commented on these pages endlessly because it is well known that the sheer number of schools in the area is a major factor in the traffic. You can reduce that substantially if you have cycle lanes, LTNs, school streets etc providing a safe alternative to the car. It's not ableist at all, it's the exact opposite - it's enabling people who cannot drive to travel independently, saving parents money and time on "doing the school run".

Same applies to all non-drivers. My grandfather was cycling to and from the shops, church, Dr's etc long after he'd given up driving as his eyesight was too poor to drive. What allowed him to do that was a reasonable quality shared path from his house into the village where he lived (this was outside London). Without that provision, he'd have been utterly reliant on a neighbour driving him. With that provision, he remained independent right til the end. Now I know that not everyone is in that position but you at least provide the option for those that can.

It's the exact opposite of "ableist" and frankly that's just a lazy and dismissive insult.

[malumbu]

Please will you do your research.  Vaping is the tobacco industry's cynical way of picking up lost revenue from the massive reduction in cigarette sales over recent decades.  A combination of price, banning cigarettes in indoor areas, death and diseases on non-sexy packaging, banning of advertising including some high profile sports, and general encouragement cut down the level of smoking (official figures)

"The proportion of adults who smoke has fallen, from 27% in 1993 to 16% in 2019. And smoking habits among those who smoke are changing, too, with the average (median) number of cigarettes smoked per day falling from 15 to 10. There has also been a clear decline in the proportion of children who have ever smoked, with a decrease of 15 percentage points since 1997."

So you need some pretty kick ass interventions to encourage behaviour change be it the evil weed (tobacco) or the entitlement to drive where you like, when you like, how you like and what you like.  As I have said ad infinitum on various forums for years on this site.

The attached gives more details, including any uncertainties so I expect the professional statisticians who trawl through Southwark's data and academic reports will have a field day dissing this!  http://healthsurvey.hscic.gov.uk/data-visualisation/data-visualisation/explore-the-trends/smoking.aspx

Edited to add to Ex's points - there is also much greater risk aversion from parents than perhaps even twenty years ago and certainly of my child hood - hi dad and mum, I've got myself a 125 motorbike.  Mum, "great, can I have a go on the back".

As for 'ableist', get yourself down to the velodrome to see the adapted bikes.  https://wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/cycling-sessions/

Forgot to mention increasing road duty, to say the 2004 levels when it was frozen (and now reduced, supposedly temporarily).  What do you all reckon?

Edited June 29, 2023 by malumbu

[first mate]

Well, if all those who are pro LTNs locally (and according to some you are in the majority) sells their car today that should make a big dent in local car use and ownership. I assume that Mal, Earl, Ex etc.. all gave their car use long ago. If more follow your example, which really they should if they are in favour of LTNs, we should very soon see a major reduction in car ownership and use. As you say, leaving the roads clearer for those that really do need to drive as well as for buses.

[Earl Aelfheah]

We are seeing reductions in car ownership and use. That is exactly the point.

[first mate]

I wonder how many who are pro LTN and who live in an LTN continue to own or use a car?

[Spartacus]

Mal, the adapted bikes at a velodrome is a far cry from practical use.

Yes, maybe I can use one but then what, I get to my destination and just sit there because I can't get off / leave the bike without aides ? 

Pretty bloody useless if I want to go shopping or to thewl pub as sitting on an adapted bike makes them inaccessible and saying "someone will help you" is not the answer 

You are right, patents are risk adverse concerning children so they drive them everywhere but equally they may have two kids at different schools so walking isn't practical  

Earl, how does removing parking from side roads help buses? 

Lordship Lane maybe, Barry Road possibly but side roads where buses don't run ? Besides main roads are actually wide enough for car parking and buses to pass.

As I said public transport needs to return to pre covid levels around here,if not better, before people will really consider leaving their cars at home.  It's not a case of clearer roads will speed up buses as tfl have a schedule that even if the bus runs faster (school hols for example) they will be forced by the schedule to wait here to regulate the route which is even more frustrating then getting stuck in traffic 

 

 

[heartblock]

I'm not sure anyone in Calton Ave has given up their 2 cars per household, and the cars on EDG every morning aren't 'local' they are travelling through to get onto the South Circ or driving SUVs and Range Rovers here  from leafy areas to drop of Dougal and Tasmin to the posh schools.

Us locals walk, bus, cycle and train.....and it's a 'mare every morning.

Edited June 29, 2023 by heartblock

[Bic Basher]

Remember the Congestion Charge?  Ken Livingstone's idea of reducing traffic in central London by charging drivers and companies a daily charge to enter the zone which is still in operation to this day.

Initially it was a success and reduced traffic, but drivers especially the self-employed and companies have factored in the price of the CC and still use those roads because they have to work in that area regardless of the charge.

So while the CC is a revenue stream for TfL, it hasn't achieved the aim of cutting vehicle use.

[Spartacus]

There's newspeak being used 

BBC News - ULEZ: Watchdog criticises mayor over data transparency
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66060758

"The Mayors office admitted he misspoke in March when he said 9 in 10 households complied" 

That's newspeak for lied through his teeth.

I wonder how many other officials have manipulated the truth to suit their narrative 🤔 

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Spartacus

[malumbu]

9 out of 10 cars driving on the road in the outer boroughs comply with ULEZ emission standards.  What's your problem?  It's hardly a major scandal that Mayor Khan confused cars driving with those owned.  Must have been a quiet news day.