LTN Discussion

[heartblock]

I think CPR Dave is somewhat correct in this - people have enjoyed their own private 'carriage', that used to be only accessible to the very wealthy when it was under real 'horse-power', there is no going back from the freedom of movement given by a private car as a choice. I do choose PT over car travel in London, but I also have enjoyed the freedom to travel by car across the UK. Making PT cheap, comfortable, accessible and efficient is needed, but people will not give up the private car and this freedom to travel. While train travel remains exorbitant and in many cases awful, people will choose the car every time.

[Bic Basher]

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think CPR Dave is somewhat correct in this -

> people have enjoyed their own private 'carriage',

> that used to be only accessible to the very

> wealthy when it was under real 'horse-power',

> there is no going back from the freedom of

> movement given by a private car as a choice. I do

> choose PT over car travel in London, but I also

> have enjoyed the freedom to travel by car across

> the UK. Making PT cheap, comfortable, accessible

> and efficient is needed, but people will not give

> up the private car and this freedom to travel.

> While train travel remains exorbitant and in many

> cases awful, people will choose the car every

> time.

Rail is the real scandal here. Neither the old New Labour government or the Tories have resolved the issues around pricing, which is so complex for long distance journeys.

They're bringing back a national brand for the railways called Great British Railways from next year, but are keeping private companies running the services on behalf of the DfT for the foreseeable future. It's similar to TfL's model for London Overground, DLR and the Elizabeth line where fares and services are planned by TfL, but a private company pays the staff and maintains the trains etc.

[Bic Basher]

The iPlayer copy of the LTN report will be deleted tomorrow, so have added a copy to YouTube for those who want to watch later.

[JohnL]

Bic Basher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The real solutions have to come from the motor

> industry by reducing emissions from petrol/diesel

> vehicles and speeding up the process of EV

> becoming the norm. Shell have converted some

> former petrol stations into EV charging stops.

Electric cars are very expensive - considering leasing or zipcar type use as an alternative as I hardly drive at all now.

[heartblock]

I think they will become cheaper..all cars will be EVs one day, the sooner the better.

[Spartacus]

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think they will become cheaper..all cars will be

> EVs one day, the sooner the better.

Will they or will hydrogen or other solutions be in the mix ?

[Rockets]

Bic Basher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The iPlayer copy of the LTN report will be deleted

> tomorrow, so have added a copy to YouTube for

> those who want to watch later.

>

>

Very balanced piece...I do love the bit where Cllr Williams says that LTNs are "one bit of the jigsaw" and then mentions ULEZ as another. He should have said that LTNs are, seemingly, the only bit of the jigsaw Southwark has! Anyway nice to see a Labour councillor admitting the existence of the LTNs (interesting they sent him to be interviewed) as it seems the DV incumbents are forgotten they exist - not a mention of them anywhere in their leaflets!

Someone should do some media training for Tristan - he should have asked to be filmed with the traffic behind him not the kids rolling out of school!!!

[kissthisguy]

I thought Cllr Williams seemed quite nervous. TBF it would've made more sense for local cllrs who (whatever you think of the LTNs) did design them and cheerlead for them all the way along, to front the Labour interview. Agree on Tristan! Sincere but could do with some savvy too. Ho hum.

[Bic Basher]

kissthisguy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I thought Cllr Williams seemed quite nervous. TBF

> it would've made more sense for local cllrs who

> (whatever you think of the LTNs) did design them

> and cheerlead for them all the way along, to front

> the Labour interview. Agree on Tristan! Sincere

> but could do with some savvy too. Ho hum.

I'm surprised Dickie didn't come out and represent Labour.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Just a reminder that latest data shows traffic is down at all monitored sites, compared with pre pandemic levels. The only exception is EDG East (between Melbourne Grove South and junction with LL, where traffic has been diverted away from a school entrance and now continues down the road before turning). Cycling and walking are up. Pollution has NOT increased. Despite the continual hyperbole, opinion and misinformation on this thread, the LTN has objectively succeeded in increasing active travel and reducing traffic and car use.

[Rockets]

Rah x3 - have you been drinking from the council Kool-Aid fountain again?

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/traffic-data-analysis

And the chart goes a lot more red if you include the 15%+ area-wide decrease in traffic when comparing pre- and post-Covid numbers.

[Bic Basher]

-3.5% in my part of Lordship Lane is nothing to brag about.

If the scheme was working properly, it'd be down across the board, but East Dulwich Grove is really feeling the pinch and I'd see how much it's working once Labour introduced their latest scheme in Herne Hill.

[johnie]

yes, I don't use those routes anymore. I bought an electric car, so I'm now on the south circular. Happy days.

[Bic Basher]

Note the times the traffic levels have peaked up to January 2022 in Lordship Lane S. I suspect it's now regularly peaking since then as well.

The school run is still bad along LL. There was traffic from past the Picturehouse to the roundabout at 3.45pm today, one day before the election and we're still being told it's working, but if it's not working at peak times when this scheme was designed to reduce car usage, it's not working.

[march46]

Thanks for the reminder rahrahrah. I?m always amazed at the comments that there is increased pollution when there is zero evidence for it. People are entitled to their own opinions of course, but there is only one set of facts and as you say - active travel is up, vehicles journeys down.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just a reminder that latest data shows traffic is

> down at all monitored sites, compared with pre

> pandemic levels. The only exception is EDG East

> (between Melbourne Grove South and junction with

> LL, where traffic has been diverted away from a

> school entrance and now continues down the road

> before turning). Cycling and walking are up.

> Pollution has NOT increased. Despite the continual

> hyperbole, opinion and misinformation on this

> thread, the LTN has objectively succeeded in

> increasing active travel and reducing traffic and

> car use.

[alice]

Final night for such jokes.

[dulwichfolk]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just a reminder that latest data shows traffic is

> down at all monitored sites, compared with pre

> pandemic levels. The only exception is EDG East

> (between Melbourne Grove South and junction with

> LL, where traffic has been diverted away from a

> school entrance and now continues down the road

> before turning). Cycling and walking are up.

> Pollution has NOT increased. Despite the continual

> hyperbole, opinion and misinformation on this

> thread, the LTN has objectively succeeded in

> increasing active travel and reducing traffic and

> car use.

You would think with it being such a success labour would at least mention LTN in one of their seven or eight leaflets they keep delivering?..

Or maybe they do but only in the closed/restricted roads?maybe the cheerleaders for the scheme could confirm???

[Waseley]

It's good that Labour is trying to do something about reducing car journeys. The other two main parties seem to just talk about not doing things. At a national level the Tory/LD alliance were pretty useless on addressing increased pollution from road transport.

[Rockets]

dulwichfolk Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Just a reminder that latest data shows traffic

> is

> > down at all monitored sites, compared with pre

> > pandemic levels. The only exception is EDG East

> > (between Melbourne Grove South and junction

> with

> > LL, where traffic has been diverted away from a

> > school entrance and now continues down the road

> > before turning). Cycling and walking are up.

> > Pollution has NOT increased. Despite the

> continual

> > hyperbole, opinion and misinformation on this

> > thread, the LTN has objectively succeeded in

> > increasing active travel and reducing traffic

> and

> > car use.

>

> You would think with it being such a success

> labour would at least mention LTN in one of their

> seven or eight leaflets they keep delivering?..

>

> Or maybe they do but only in the closed/restricted

> roads?maybe the cheerleaders for the scheme could

> confirm???

No, even on our road, which is supposedly benefitting from the closures, not a peep about LTNs in any leaflet from Labour. It was such a strange decision - pretending the LTNs weren't an election issue.

[Bic Basher]

I wouldn't be surprised if Labour didn't use recycled paper for their many leaflets...

[Spartacus]

Bic Basher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wouldn't be surprised if Labour didn't use

> recycled paper for their many leaflets...

Toilet ?

[dulwichfolk]

Waseley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's good that Labour is trying to do something

> about reducing car journeys. The other two main

> parties seem to just talk about not doing things.

> At a national level the Tory/LD alliance were

> pretty useless on addressing increased pollution

> from road transport.

The data as it keeps getting stated on here showed the dulwich car number we?re reducing year on year (pre covid/LTNs) until they decide to use a count when their were temporary road works to try and push through this whole mess in the first place.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@dulwichfolk - that?s simply not true. All the data is on the website. Traffic is down on pre-covid levels. LTNs have reduced traffic, increased active travel and have not (despite claims on this thread), increased pollution. The data is clear. People can complain about the inconvenience to drivers, but it?s no longer sustainable to claim that the LTNs have not objectively succeeded against most of their objectives.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Labour win in Dulwich Village, in a contest widely touted by ?One? supporters as a referendum on LTNs. Hopefully we can now focus on making improvements to existing schemes rather than trying to scrap them in favour of more traffic, and look to make further improvements to local transport and environment.

[dulwichfolk]

Isn?t traffic down across the country even where LTN haven?t been forced upon the local community?

Where exactly is the pollution monitoring? Is it measured on the displacement roads or are you just talking about it being down on your closed road?..in which case I agree a closed road does show less pollution.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> @dulwichfolk - that?s simply not true. All the

> data is on the website. Traffic is down on

> pre-covid levels. LTNs have reduced traffic,

> increased active travel and have not (despite

> claims on this thread), increased pollution. The

> data is clear. People can complain about the

> inconvenience to drivers, but it?s no longer

> sustainable to claim that the LTNs have not

> objectively succeeded against most of their

> objectives.