LTN Discussion

[ab29]

Rockets,this is a lost cause (in many ways). Anyway.

I've just cancelled my years long subscription of The Guardian - courtesy of Peter Walker - enough is enough.

The Guardian think it is ok to advertise t-shirts for ?150, hotel stays for ?500 per night and plastic fruit bowls for ?200 just because they're 'designer' and yet they have no problem with trumpeting the LTNs as a solution to all that is wrong with the world (eco - wise), even though it is harming so many people!

The hypocrisy is astounding!

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> Eh?

I think it was a response to the concern trolling about how the Bromley-resident shopkeepers of Lordship Lane were going to commute without free parking.

The forum doesn't allow embedded images, but imagine a large photo of Jimmy Hill appearing here.

[ab29]

no idea who jmmywhathisname is and could not care less. The reality is that road cloures - so callled ltn or htn more like it - push traffic onto the already busy and polluted roads like Lordship Lane, poisoining people living and using these roads with even more pollution, dirt and noise.

How is this compatible with labour principles?

[CPR Dave]

It raises lots of tax, that?s how.

[legalalien]

Something that might be of interest to those concerned about air quality issues - Southwark is consulting on its Air Quality Action Plan - consultation closes on 3 July.

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/air-quality-action-plan/

Covers a wide range of council activities and includes plans for air quality monitoring, public awareness, improving air quality around schools and hospitals etc.

From a quick scan some interesting things that stood out were

- a proposed feasibility study into the introduction of a Workplace Parking Levy (about which more at https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/boroughs-and-communities/workplace-parking-levies - looks like something that could be used to target parking at local schools)

- temporary car free days and pedestrianisation schemes (seems to stem from a GLA strategy and involve a lot of ?reimagining? (plus some substantial payments to marketing companies I?m guessing https://www.tceg.com/work/world-car-free-day-public-event - someone put in an FOI about precisely that (see https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/mgla130721-8182_-_foi_response_redacted.pdf). I?d rather see ?800000 on public transport rather than a one day inspirational event in central London tbh.

- they?re trialling virtual loading bays in Walworth already, could be something interesting for LL? I had never heard of these, some info at https://park4sump.eu/sites/default/files/GoodPracticesExamplesCaseStudies/General_PM_and_Policy/Park4SUMP_Good_Practice_London_virtual_loading_bay.pdf

- the creation of school super zones https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/superzones-_final.pdf There?s one in Walworth apparently. Given they?re supposed to prioritise the 30% most-deprived areas I can?t see this coming to Dulwich (although never underestimate the power of social capital, as ex-Cllr Burgess would say).

They?re also going to implement the recommendations from the Southwark Schools Air Quality Audits. Not quite sure what these recommendations are or what the results of the audit look like. Some background here https://educationbusinessuk.net/news/27012020/london-schools-extend-air-quality-audit-programme, not all schools audited, Southwark funded some and others given the opportunity to opt in if they funded it themselves.

Anyway, bit of an indication of the direction of travel and if people have specific ideas I guess it?s a chance to submit your view.

[PeterW]

"And lo and behold looking at the original report makes you realise why they took it to Peter Walker as an exclusive?.because they knew he wouldn?t give it any proper scrutiny and basically write what the authors wanted him to write?? "

Hello, Peter Walker here, on my once-every-few-months scan of this forum to see if I've been borderline-defamed. I get some people have very strong views on modal filtering, but, your occasional reminder that it's not really on to publicly accuse a journalist of being biased or corrupt. As much as anything else, it's a bit juvenile and pretty rude.

[CPR Dave]

{Please can you demonstrate your balance by pointing out all the articles you have written about LTNs that don't work?

[CPR Dave]

Happy to wait, Peter.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> no idea who jmmywhathisname is

Chinny reckon

[heartblock]

Jimmy Hill.. I?m old enough to remember in the 70{S 80{S) maybe? it meant lying or at least over-egging a truth...something to do with his chin. One could also just rub one?s chin... don?t ask me why but this is a terrible explanation by the Urban Dic https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jimmy%20hill

[ab29]

he's got till end of June. wouldn't hold my breath

CPR Dave Wrote:

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

> Happy to wait, Peter.

[ab29]

impossible; not from someone who is detached from reality

CPR Dave Wrote:

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

> {Please can you demonstrate your balance by

> pointing out all the articles you have written

> about LTNs that don't work?

[Rockets]

PeterW Wrote:

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

> "And lo and behold looking at the original report

> makes you realise why they took it to Peter Walker

> as an exclusive?.because they knew he wouldn?t

> give it any proper scrutiny and basically write

> what the authors wanted him to write?? "

>

> Hello, Peter Walker here, on my

> once-every-few-months scan of this forum to see if

> I've been borderline-defamed. I get some people

> have very strong views on modal filtering, but,

> your occasional reminder that it's not really on

> to publicly accuse a journalist of being biased or

> corrupt. As much as anything else, it's a bit

> juvenile and pretty rude.

You don?t need to stoop to name calling Peter. Come on, you know the game, you get the exclusive because you will give the authors or PR agency that sent it to you a sympathetic article - you are after all a pro-cyclin,

pro-LTN campaigner. I very much suspect it is why you got the exclusive despite moving to a political beat on the Guardian.

Maybe you can explain my comment on your claim that the authors found no evidence of slowing emergency response times yet the report clearly says otherwise and I quote:

The London Fire Brigade reports that ?traffic calming measures? have been identified as the main reason for vehicle delay 3,035 times in 2021, up from 2,145 times in 2020.

The evidence is there in the report, the authors just chose to ignore it and you reported that they found no evidence. That is not correct is it, and actually very misleading? Is it not your job to challenge the authors should you find such inconsistencies?

[PeterW]

I'm generally loath to reply/debate on this forum, because if anyone has concerns about inaccuracy or bias in stories, they really need to be addressed via the paper's readers' editor office, rather than pored over here. But the emergency response times issue is an interesting one. No one says LTNs - or any other change to previous traffic procedures ? have *never* slowed a fire engine or ambulance, but there seems to be no evidence this is a particular or endemic problem with them, which was the conclusion of the report. Both the London Ambulance Service and London Fire Brigades also agree with this, and they should know. With full apologies for linking to one of my own articles, there's more detail here on what is a complex and nuanced issue, if you're interested: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2021/apr/23/opponents-of-ltns-claim-they-delay-emergency-services-but-look-at-the-facts

[Rockets]

Peter,

Firstly thanks for your response. Interestingly, you link to an article you wrote based on research by Anna Goodman and ex-London Cycling Campaign trustee and pro-LTN lobbyist Rachel Aldred - so I think you know my thoughts on the impartiality of that ;-)

The fact you link to that really does illustrate my point - that you take what is sent to you as the gospel and seem to be reluctant to dig a little deeper beyond the headlines in the reports you read/ are sent.

In fact in that article you say that opponents to LTNs "have failed to prove there is an issue [in relation to delays]" and you surmise by saying: There is no credible evidence of a systematic, routine problem. That is perhaps the one certainty in a debate which is considerably more complex and nuanced than the headlines would have you believe.

But when you dig a little deeper it is amazing what you find to completely contradict your statement.

Firstly, emergency services have been very consistent in their feedback to councils that physical barriers slow down response times.

Right at the outset of the LTN installation programme in this part of Southwark, in the consultation documents for the ill-fated LTN expansion to Peckham Rye (was it Phase 3 or 4?), the emergency services are quoted (in the council's own document) as saying that they do not want physical barriers as they delay response times.

In an FOI from December 2020 it is clear that all the emergency services were imploring Southwark to remove the physical barriers due to the delays they were causing:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/las_foi_request_streetspace_road

And then LAS joined a Southwark Council Scrutiny Committee in 2021, watch and hear what the LAS rep has to say around 1.05 into the programme about the fact those areas with camera controlled rather than physical barriers in terms of delays and response times.

And finally, take a look here where documents from both LAS and the police say there have been delays due to the LTNs:

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101521/Appendix%20F3%20-%20Emergency%20Service%20response.pdf

The LAS email states:

The proposed scheme to create a cycle and emergency access lane would improve

the emergency vehicle access/egress into the area and will be an improvement on the current hard

physical closures that the ambulance service have been unable to access since the implementation

of the scheme last summer, that has resulted in a number of incidents of delayed ambulances being

reported to Southwark Council.

Documentation obtained via FOI from the same person at the LAS who wrote stated that in September 2020 alone there were 10 incidents where LAS crews specifically called out the planters in Dulwich as causing delays to their responses times (the same document also listed similar delays at other LTN points across the borough but I want to keep this local to keep it relevant).

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101521/Appendix%20F3%20-%20Emergency%20Service%20response.pdf

So clearly there was an issue and it was an endemic problem - that many pro-LTN councils, researchers and media choose to ignore/gloss over.

BTW on a related note does the Guardian pay contributors for the number of clicks a story gets? A friend of mine writes for Forbes and they pay them on the basis of how well the article performs online and I just wondered whether the Guardian has integrated that into their salary/payment model?

[PeterW]

To reiterate my earlier point: if you think anything I've written is inaccurate seek a correction from the readers' editor. But two very quick, general points:

? It's pretty rude, not to mention legally dodgy, to argue on a public forum that academics must be biased because you don't like their research.

? "does the Guardian pay contributors for the number of clicks a story gets?" - no, of course not. Writing about cycling/active travel isn't even part of my day job. I do it because I'm interested. Not everyone is as cynical or jaded as you appear.

That's it from me.

[Rockets]

PeterW Wrote:

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

> To reiterate my earlier point: if you think

> anything I've written is inaccurate seek a

> correction from the readers' editor. But two very

> quick, general points:

> ? It's pretty rude, not to mention legally dodgy,

> to argue on a public forum that academics must be

> biased because you don't like their research.

> ? "does the Guardian pay contributors for the

> number of clicks a story gets?" - no, of course

> not. Writing about cycling/active travel isn't

> even part of my day job. I do it because I'm

> interested. Not everyone is as cynical or jaded as

> you appear.

>

> That's it from me.

Peter,

That rests my case for the prosecution....;-) It's clear there was evidence that LTNs were causing delays and these were being communicated to the councils - the fact that the reports you cite failed to find them is probably not a surprise given the authors of said reports.

And to that point I am not arguing that academics must be biased because I don't like their research I am suggesting their research may not be as impartial as you would like us to believe given some of their clear, and glaringly obvious, conflicts of interest - I don't think that is unreasonable do you? Anyway that subject has been flogged to death on this forum and one no-one wants to revisit.

My question on how the Guardian pays for contributions is not born out of me being jaded or cynicism (not sure why you decided to take that tone) but out of my personal thoughts that the media is being divided on the basis of click-culture and that the growing number of publications adopting/integrating the click model is creating these divides and polarising articles - that journalists are being forced to follow the ? - it's certainly a concern my friend at Forbes (who has done very well from that model I hasten to add) holds as well,

[CPR Dave]

You've been completely pwnnd there Peter.

[Spartacus]

Saw this earlier about the Lambeth LTN, but also mentions Southwark LTN

BBC News - Lambeth: £22m in low-traffic fines an abuse of power, say campaigners

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62016690

[Rockets]

There is a growing campaign by Clean Air Dulwich to remove the emergency access at Calton - very interesting this tweet was edited this morning and the original video was replaced by a new one. It seems ludicrous to me, and utterly tone-deaf, that a lobby group is taking this position after all of the proof that the closures delayed response times - how blinkered and selfish are these groups?

The biggest danger at that junction now is not the occasional car that either, wilfully or accidentally, passes through the closures but fast moving bicycles coming down Calton at speed - everyday you see pedestrians taking evasive action to get out of their way.

[Jenijenjen]

This is what the tweet in question says:

“ Drivers are frequently ignoring the very clear signage, creating a risk of collision that didn’t exist with physical filters.

We urge @lb_southwark to resolve the safety problems with the interim layout urgently before someone is seriously injured or killed.”

I don’t see how that can be interpreted as a campaign “to remove the emergency access at Calton” but then Rockets is a master at reading meaning into messages that just isn’t there.

[Spartacus]

CAD have tweeted in the past on the subject

Physical barrier needed

Access for emergency services shouldn't come at a cost of putting people walking, wheeling or cycling at risk

Physicsl barrier (again)

It's a drum that CAD are beating regardless of the risk of delaying emergency services 😲

[Rockets]

Jennijenjen - the first post that went up yesterday was much more explicit in the call for a physical barrier - I didn't copy it but it did call on the council for the physical barrier to be replaced - it used a video of a car turning left from Calton to Court but then they edited it this morning to replace the original post and video....

It is clear what their agenda is and it is utterly blinkered and self-centred.

Edited to add:

This is the post I saw yesterday - I thought they had edited it but it is still up they are just bombarding the council with "evidence" of an issue. One must question when these videos were recorded as the one on July 11th was clearly not recently given the heavy jackets some are wearing. This looks like a concerted effort to lobby.

It's clear CAD wants the physical barriers to be replaced. I am afraid that is not acceptable - whose interests do they purport to represent exactly? The emergency services have been very clear in their objection to any physical barriers as it hinders response times and CAD are lobbying for something that puts response times at risk again - it's utterly tone deaf and I hope the council reject it immediately.

[Nigello]

Cyclists do barrel through the LTN, even the "nice" lady ones with silver helmets and all manner of day-glo sashes and cute kiddies on board. Very selfish but likely from a feeling of eco-powered entitlement that itself is fed by the anti-vehicle set up there.

[goldilocks]

Rockets - someone who has posted over 2000 times on this local forum pretty much on a single issue, making comments on 'lobbying' and attempting to frame it in a negative light.

This is the post I saw yesterday - I thought they had edited it but it is still up they are just bombarding the council with "evidence" of an issue. One must question when these videos were recorded as the one on July 11th was clearly not recently given the heavy jackets some are wearing. This looks like a concerted effort to lobby.[