LTN Discussion

[exdulwicher]

17 minutes ago, mr.chicken said:

The alternative, that actually there are quite a lot of people who do like them, seems to have not occurred to you, despite the local election results.

No no no Chicken! We all know that the local election results were nothing to do with LTNs, it said so on here!

That's in spite of 40 pages of forum thread in advance of the council elections about how the socialist dictators in Tooley Street would be sent running for the hills once the silent majority rose up and voted against the undemocratic LTNs and how the council elections would be a referendum on all things LTN, the final voice, the nail in the coffin for the likes of Cllr Rose. They and their ridiculous ideas would be expelled from Dulwich forever.

And then the results came in and oh... erm... quick, spin it as anti-Tory votes, people still hate LTNs and want them ripped out but they voted Labour because of Partygate and Boris and Brexit and some other things.

So yeah, nothing to do with LTNs at all, those elections. Honest.  😉

 

[heartblock]

 Why would I vote Tory in a Council election, it’s about more than LTNs. I actually voted for two Green Party and one Labour.. but all Green next election.

Some people believe that LTNs are green-washing and a diversion from real policies to tackle climate change and pollution - why do you think it was a Conservative policy? Do you really think a Boris policy has rigour and is thoroughly thought out.

From all published and observed evidence I have seen, LTNs may even increase pollution due to causing idling traffic and making journeys longer. ULEZ is great, but does need a better  scheme for people needing to buy new cars and/or some more thought on local cheap public transport in areas of low PTAL.

 

[malumbu]

I've lost the plot.  So some simple questions

(a) do you agree that there needs to be some restrictions on roads? 

(b) if so how will this be done?

(c) some people always 'lose out'  how would you decide which roads to close?

(d)  If not what alternatives should be implemented nationally or locally?

(e) Or are you for no changes

I've lived, cycled, walked, driven, motorcycled and used public transport in London since the late 80s.  From cycling I learned the rat runs, and as an occasional driver would use them from time to time.  Until they closed them down, introduced more controlled parking, the congestion charge and the like.  This all encouraged me to reduce car journeys.  So this worked on me,  I may be the only one out of 40 million drivers but my survey of me is 100% change in behaviour.

I find the argument of One Dulwich - oh we believe in timed closures but kick this into the long grass waiting for communities to decide to be rather hypocritical.

If I was going to choose two roads to close the Court Lane junction would certainly be one.  Cycling passed stationary traffic every morning for 15 years (in those days I would say pay a million for a grand house in the village for a traffic jam three hours a day...)

Melbourne Grove?  Occasional cut through.  Only on my bike now.

Timed closures?  Seems to be sensible where there are schools.  So rarely drive in rush hour not an expert, beyond seeing the congestion, poor parking and engines running around some of the local schools when I am cycling.

As for my priorities?  They'd be for greater enforcement of speed controls (it would be so nice to eliminate traffic calming - there because the masses cannot be trusted) , enforcement of parking restrictions/parking on the pavement outside of the working day when it is a free for all, better information and training for all road users which would hopefully reduce the issues above, and make people use their cars smarter (including choice of vehicle and whether to own one in a first place).

Not naming names but for a number of you this really is the chance to say that you do want to change things, rather than just dismissing everything.

 

[Spartacus]

Mal 

Why close roads or have restictions ? 

Why not just make it them a safer shared space for all (cyclists, drivers, pedestrians) ? 

After all no one objects to safer shared spaces and in a few years internal combustion engines will be phased out so pollution won't be part of the equation. 

 

The reason why there is such strong anti ltn sentiment out there is because its a 20 tonne sledge hammer to crack a walnut.

If the council installed safe "shared" roads allowing free movement for all then it might well be a different story,  but we are where we are and the council are seen as  just not listening to the residents who voted them in concerns. 

 

 

 

[malumbu]

Ok so you are (e) in terms of (not) reducing motorised traffic.  Appreciate honesty on that 

As for sharing road space agree with you and detest these manufactured culture wars.  I've said all this on numerous times.  Worthy of another thread.

[Rockets]

The point has always been LTNs are not effective tool to combat vehicular use, they are a very blunt instrument that merely moves traffic from one road to another...they just pass the problem to someone else. They do nothing to reduce car use in numbers needed to impact climate change - and remember data from Aldred showed a 9% increase in vehicle ownership within LTNs since the measures went in.

 

What was interesting to me is that the BBC was saying that one of the things needed urgently to tackle climate change was to encourage more electric vehicles....something councils like Southwark have completely overlooked (this will likely trigger the usual nonsense retort about brake disc emissions etc which is just a BS distraction technique).  And much of that is down to the anti-car lobby who have manipulated the process from the outset.

 

Bottom-line is the LTN in Dulwich has failed. All it has done is created streets with many fewer cars at the expense of streets which now have many more. And for the record I live on a street with many fewer now.

[malumbu]

What are you (a) to (e) Rocks?  You so often avoid my perfectly valid questions.  Therefore I expect you are an (e). 

[Rockets]

Have you just discovered the concept of the multiple choice question and are now trying to use it in everything you do? What on earth are you blathering on about now? Or is this just your latest bizarre attempt to distract from the topic of the thread?

Edited August 6, 2023 by Rockets

[Spartacus]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

A) Have you just discovered the concept of the multiple choice question

B) are now trying to use it in everything you do?

C) What on earth are you blathering on about now? 

D) is this just your latest bizarre attempt to distract from the topic of the thread?

Rocks, I've altered your response to be more mal 😅

Do you 

A) approve 

B) not give a damn 

[mr.chicken]

9 minutes ago, heartblock said:

 Why would I vote Tory in a Council election, it’s about more than LTNs. I actually voted for two Green Party and one Labour.. but all Green next election.

lib dem is an option too. Much more progressive than the Tories, but they threw their hat into the anti-LTN ring and did very badly. Can't really blame the vote collapse on people hating Johnson. In Dulwich Village and goose Green, labour increased their share and the strongly anti LTN parties (Tories and Lib Dems) decreased a lot.

The greens equivocated a lot along the lines of, well we support LTNs in general but it could be done better and they should talk to people more. Their vote share went up a bit.

 

12 minutes ago, heartblock said:

 From all published and observed evidence I have seen, LTNs may even increase pollution due to causing idling traffic and making journeys longer. 

"may" even increase pollution. In other words you don't know.

Thing is, we know that traffic overall has increased as people moved into their cars during covid and did not entirely move back. When it's been studied in detail, traffic levels are up away from LTNs, up by less on the controversial boundary roads and down inside. There's no actual evidence that LTNs have themselves caused more congestion, more idling and more pollution.

 

@Spartacus OK, so you want to make them a safer shared space. How?

@Rockets it looks like we can add "multiple choice" to the list of things you are deeply confused about. (b), (c) and (d) all invite thoughtful free-form answers, meaning it is not multiple choice.

[malumbu]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

Have you just discovered the concept of the multiple choice question and are now trying to use it in everything you do? What on earth are you blathering on about now? Or is this just your latest bizarre attempt to distract from the topic of the thread?

Just trying to simplify things Rocks.  Blithering?  Is that the same a long repetitive posts?  I keep mine short and repetitive.  That's humour 

[Rockets]

You're the thread killer Malumbu...the comedian in the comedy club who kills the momentum and vibe and people laugh nervously at because they wonder why they arent getting the joke! 😉

 

[first mate]

9 hours ago, heartblock said:

 Why would I vote Tory in a Council election, it’s about more than LTNs. I actually voted for two Green Party and one Labour.. but all Green next election.

Some people believe that LTNs are green-washing and a diversion from real policies to tackle climate change and pollution - why do you think it was a Conservative policy? Do you really think a Boris policy has rigour and is thoroughly thought out.

From all published and observed evidence I have seen, LTNs may even increase pollution due to causing idling traffic and making journeys longer. ULEZ is great, but does need a better  scheme for people needing to buy new cars and/or some more thought on local cheap public transport in areas of low PTAL.

 

Spot on Heartblock. I'd take your view over that of certain other posters any day. 

The idea that the masses voted for LTNs at the last council elections is nonsense. LTNs were not even mentioned in the manifesto. Post covid, not many could stomach the thought of voting Tory, that even trounced my own view of what the council were and have done with LTNs. Some things are more important, but the current incumbents have not covered themselves in glory and the lack of democratic process has certainly lessened my respect for them as well as trust. 

 

 

[mr.chicken]

55 minutes ago, first mate said:

 Post covid, not many could stomach the thought of voting Tory, that even trounced my own view of what the council were and have done with LTNs.

Lalala I can't hear you the lib dems do not exist lalala

People had a choice of two politically opposite anti LTN parties.

They chose neither.

But I look forward to more flagrant reality denial pretending Tory was the only viable anti LTN choice. Can you do it again? It's funny 😂

 

[Spartacus]

@mr.chicken you asked " OK, so you want to make them a safer shared space. How?"

thats what public consultations and debate are for, and not to impose the will of a few on the many, then tell them they are talking bullocks when they point out their scheme isn't working. 

Do you agree or do you support tell them und ze vill komply politics? 

[heartblock]

Maybe poultry only vote on one policy?

It's not a difficult concept - one considers all the policies and one votes for the candidate /party who aligns most favourably. I actually voted for McAsh .... as apart from his stance on LTNs I agreed with almost everything he expressed and at the time I held out some hope he would address the traffic issues and other neighbourhood problems on East Dulwich Grove - all promised at my door pre-local elections.

And yes LibDems and Greens far more progressive than Labour now, so it will be very easy to not vote for Kid Starver and the LPs dodgy NHS and fossil fuel policies in the main elections or LP in the Council election. Apart from LTNs I'm very much aligned to the Green Parties policies (I know of course us anti-LTNers are all raving right-wing, petrol guzzling, anti-vax, climate deniers according to some...)

As for my Road - even Southwark recorded a 20% increase in traffic on their dashboard and an increase in travel time for the 37 bus.... but that dashboard has now not been updated for over a year... so who knows? Traffic still terrible during school terms.

It would be really nice for Southwark to turn its attention to the traffic issues on Croxted, ED Grove, Lordship Lane where people live, walk, cycle, go to school. 

But no - and this is the issue with LTNs and why they are Green-Washing, shove in an LTN, on some already reasonably traffic free roads (the excuse for LTNs being an 'increase' of traffic on minor roads - debunked by TFL itself as that 'increase' was due to a different counting exercise being introduced - traffic was actually reducing on minor roads before Covid!)  and then just ignore issues on roads that actually have high density housing, schools and bus routes and high NOx and PM levels... Job Done apparently - ridiculous policy.

Edited August 6, 2023 by heartblock

[mr.chicken]

@Spartacus right so you don't actually have any ideas. That's good to know.

I like how you went with the whole authoritarian German accent impersonation trope. Did you do that because I'm Jewish?

[first mate]

7 hours ago, heartblock said:

Maybe poultry only vote on one policy?

It's not a difficult concept - one considers all the policies and one votes for the candidate /party who aligns most favourably. I actually voted for McAsh .... as apart from his stance on LTNs I agreed with almost everything he expressed and at the time I held out some hope he would address the traffic issues and other neighbourhood problems on East Dulwich Grove - all promised at my door pre-local elections.

And yes LibDems and Greens far more progressive than Labour now, so it will be very easy to not vote for Kid Starver and the LPs dodgy NHS and fossil fuel policies in the main elections or LP in the Council election. Apart from LTNs I'm very much aligned to the Green Parties policies (I know of course us anti-LTNers are all raving right-wing, petrol guzzling, anti-vax, climate deniers according to some...)

As for my Road - even Southwark recorded a 20% increase in traffic on their dashboard and an increase in travel time for the 37 bus.... but that dashboard has now not been updated for over a year... so who knows? Traffic still terrible during school terms.

It would be really nice for Southwark to turn its attention to the traffic issues on Croxted, ED Grove, Lordship Lane where people live, walk, cycle, go to school. 

But no - and this is the issue with LTNs and why they are Green-Washing, shove in an LTN, on some already reasonably traffic free roads (the excuse for LTNs being an 'increase' of traffic on minor roads - debunked by TFL itself as that 'increase' was due to a different counting exercise being introduced - traffic was actually reducing on minor roads before Covid!)  and then just ignore issues on roads that actually have high density housing, schools and bus routes and high NOx and PM levels... Job Done apparently - ridiculous policy.

McAsh did seem promising and a much more switched on, political animal than Cllr Rose. We can only hope he finds a way to 'fix' the LTN nonsense. 
 

 

[Rockets]

I am wondering if the council have any carrots in their armoury of things to tackle the problem rather than a lot of (profitable...ahem) sticks...

 

What annoys me is they bleat on and on about not having funding to put bike hangers in (despite earning millions in LTN fines) yet can give up huge swathes of public pavement space to e-bike and scooter rental locations for companies who will make revenue from them (and pay the council for the privilege).

[mr.chicken]

They have a huge carrot @Rockets in the form of LTNs. They have made the streets much nicer and safer so for the first time in years I've got on a bike. An e bike from one of those self serve hire companies as it happens. No stick needed just delicious crunchy garden fresh LTNs.

And in terms of giving away space, the fire bikes take about 0.0000001% of the free space given to cars. Hey wait a minute! Isn't that weird that so much area is just given away? Someone ought to do something about that 🤣

[legalalien]

Sort of LTN related - proposed decision to make the temporary closure of Gilkes Place permanent:

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IssueId=50033021&OptionNum=0

[Rockets]

21 hours ago, mr.chicken said:

They have a huge carrot @Rockets in the form of LTNs. They have made the streets much nicer and safer so for the first time in years I've got on a bike. An e bike from one of those self serve hire companies as it happens. No stick needed just delicious crunchy garden fresh LTNs.

And in terms of giving away space, the fire bikes take about 0.0000001% of the free space given to cars. Hey wait a minute! Isn't that weird that so much area is just given away? Someone ought to do something about that 🤣

A carrot for those who live in them, less so for those outside them don't you think?

 

Are we to presume you live in one of them? 

 

P.S. what is a fire bike?

[first mate]

Yes, I'd also like to know what a fire bike is.

[heartblock]

On 07/08/2023 at 23:22, legalalien said:

Sort of LTN related - proposed decision to make the temporary closure of Gilkes Place permanent:

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IssueId=50033021&OptionNum=0

More money spent on those poor..poor people living in Dulwich Village, for another 'park' in Gilkes Place...well, it's a terrible life owning a 2-3 million pound house, with a garage, 3 cars, an enormous garden and a second home....with an additional car there of course.. 

[mr.chicken]

On 08/08/2023 at 20:04, Rockets said:

P.S. what is a fire bike?

A typo is what it is. Hire bike.

On 08/08/2023 at 20:04, Rockets said:

A carrot for those who live in them, less so for those outside them don't you think

Why would I think that? That would be pretty silly of me to do so.