What is the Mayor doing for us?

[Sephiroth]

Sunak’s own report.  Which you can be sure would want to contradict  mayor 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/08/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-generally-popular-report-ordered-by-sunak-finds?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[Rockets]

Ha ha....another classic myopic Peter Walker exclusive....government report suggests that LTNs are popular.....with people living within the LTNs....well no s+++ Sherlock.....my goodness me...

 

 

 

[Sephiroth]

So you are adopting a tactic of what?
 

Disputing a report by posting like a hyperactive 17 year old who has read some Chomsky? m

should LTNs be popular with people in Sheffield? Chatham? 
 

If LTNs are popular why is it a bad thing? 
 

(and do try and be holistic in any argument. Clearly the age of endless car expansion is coming to an end. Just like many earlier industrial ages ended. It’s progression and not some woke agenda) 

[Rockets]

Err no. I actually read the article rather than just the headline (heed my advice, Peter Walker's articles often tell a different story to his/or his sub-editor's headlines).

The key is this paragraph here:

A copy of the report seen by the Guardian said that polling carried out inside four sample LTNs for the DfT found that overall, twice as many local people supported them as opposed them.

 

The key word phrases there being the polling carried out "inside" the LTNs.

Most hyper-active 17 year olds could work out the issue with that....maybe Peter Walker hopes Guardian readers can't 😉

Edited March 8, 2024 by Rockets

[Sephiroth]

And I did ask that question

 

you keep highlighting the point. So what’s the problem with people inside LTNs liking them ?

[Rockets]

Clearing citing the popularity of LTNs with people who live within them is no measure of their popularity nor does it warrant the misleading headline. The headline and stand first is slightly missing a key point don't you think and ever so slightly misleading...the editorial scrutiny process has always been weak at the Guardian but seems to be getting worse and worse.

 

If a hyperactive 17 year old cub reporter had taken that copy to an editor the editor would have sent them away asking them to report the story and not try to create the story.

As I said, another in a long-line of classic Peter Walker "exclusives". Whoever leaks these to him knows he will give them a very sympathetic myopic write-up.

Edited March 8, 2024 by Rockets

[Sephiroth]

So you have doubled down on your Peter walker obsession and have nothing to say on the value or popularity of LTNs

 

got it 

[Rockets]

Yes LTNs are popular with people who live inside LTNs (which is exactly what that article says)....but that is hardly a surprise is it? I am sure the residents of Melbourne Grove are very happy with their LTN......can you not see the issue with the headline and narrative of the article on the basis of that?

 

My goodness me...

[Sephiroth]

I can see why you have a problem with the narrative 

 

but I can’t see why LTNs are a problem per se

 

if you reduce traffic, most people are happier.  That doesn’t mean some traffic isn’t still necessary - clearly some traffic will remain necessary. But the people who complain the most.. well.. the are just complaining about their inconvenience in a world where cities have to find a way to deal with increased traffic in a finite space 

[Rockets]

Good, the article is designed to get the LTN fan-boys to cite it as proof of success (which people seem more than happy to do) when it is anything but. It's a distortion article.

 

If you reduce traffic within the LTNs is only good if you are reducing traffic outside the LTNs as well rather than just displacing traffic onto other roads.

 

As Cllr McAsh stated, if you're not decreasing traffic on all roads then they cannot be considered a success....take a look at the council's latest traffic monitoring dashboard to see how that is going...

 

The basic premise of an LTN is to close some roads and squeeze more traffic down the open ones in tne hope it dissuades people from driving.

[Sephiroth]

Or.  And hear me out 

 

those neighbouring boroughs could introduce LTNs as well, and make their populations happier 

reducing traffic. Makes. People. Happier 

Come on.  You’re so close.  You can do this 

[Rockets]

I refer my right honourable friend to the Streatham Wells LTN to see how thay went.......;-)

 

Your argument is way too simplistic.

You can't make London one huge LTN it would cease to function. So then you do what the council has done which is choose which residents get the benefit and which residents live with the fallout...that is not socially just and very un-socialist. Melbourne Grove are happy, East Dulwich Grove not - how is that fair?

Reducing traffic on my road may make me happier but that comes at the cost of someone else being unhappier. 

I do not want to live in a world where that is a trade off and nor should you.

[Sephiroth]

And why can’t you make all of London a LTN?

It’s clearly possible.  I’ll go further. It’s clearly necessary 

 

between where we are now and where will be in the future there are obviously going to be demarcations where people on either side of the line go “hey!!”   ( see also tax brackets) 

 

but lower traffic is the only future for successful cities (other things need to happen in tandem.  Public transport and local facilities.  Some cities will get this right.  And London, with its “no mate. No!!!” Attitude might not.   Or people might change their minds and London will lead the way) 

[Rockets]

What are you suggesting, maybe put planters along every road inside the A205 perhaps or go further and ban any cars within the M25...? 😉 Not sure many would agree with your assumption that turning London in a huge LTN would actually be that smart a move!

 

Seriously though, Lambeth put an LTN in in Streatham and look at the devastation it caused (the day after the LTN is removed and traffic is moving freely again). How do you rationalise/explain that? 

 

LTNs make congestion and pollution worse and will go down in history as one of mankinds most bluntest instrument and stupid idea, dreamt up and propped up by people who put ideology ahead of commonsense, logic and pragmatism (and were invariably linked to the cycle lobby. I do think people will look back and say, what on earth were they thinking....it was bleedingly obvious what was going to happen...traffic wouldn't evaporated it would merely take a different route (especially in areas where public transport is poor) this causing more congestion and pollution.

Let's go back to my issue with LTNs - that for someone to have quieter streets within an LTN someone else has to have busier streets...is that fair or do you think that is just luck of the draw, that if you live on a boundary road then you just have to accept more traffic and pollution so your neighbours can have less?

 

 

 

 

[Jules-and-Boo]

You could look at it differently and say the number of cars is the problem and people driving when there are other means of travel. 
I welcome fewer cars and less pollution and carbon impact. 

[Rockets]

I completely agree there are too many vehicles on the roads but LTNs don't solve that problem they just move them elsewhere  - LTNs are a classic example of treating the symptoms and not the cause and actually exacerbate the problem. Doubly so in areas where other transport options are not great, which is why you have to question why Southwark decided to ignore its own advice and put LTNs in an area with poor PTAL scores.

 

Exactly the same strange decision-making led to the Streatham LTN debacle. You really have to question who is making these decisions and whether they are fit for the job.

 

The govt report suggests each LTN costs £250,000 with some costing up to £1.5m (it will be very interesting to see whete Southwark comes on that league table given the ludicrous costs for the original DV junction project)...that's a lot of money wasted on what amounts to nothing more than botched local councillor vanity projects.

Edited March 9, 2024 by Rockets

[Jules-and-Boo]

We need a reduction in cars.

For that, we need better alternative options and ( not or) the public to grasp the problems that driving causes.

LTN May move traffic, but couple with lower cars this would work. 
ULEZ is a different approach, and works.

There is a real issue with people who think that driving everywhere is fine and is a right. Some people need to drive. Not everyone. 
The Mayoral Strategy in place has achieved London being the city with the lowest carbon emissions. That’s a fantastic achievement.

There is more to do and we are all responsible for doing our part.

[Spartacus]

Okay 

@Sephiroth you have convinced me.  Let's make London one huge LTN, block every street and stop traffic movements. 

But how will we all get deliveries I hear you cry, where are my amazon or ocardo goodies 🤔  well for the sake of humanity you can't have them. Okay so we can all shop local except shops can't get any goods and prices go up for getting the limited ones they do. 

What about the disabled, how will they get anywhere? Well let's be honest they can't so they can all live at home and enjoy a fantastic poor quality of life. 

What about uncle Pepe who's having a heart attack, don't worry he will be dead before the emergency services can negotiate all the planters so leave him in the middle of the street where the dustbin people can collect him except that even they can't get down all the planter festooned roads so the rubbish and bodies will build up 

So how does the city function ? 🤔  oh I know back to horses and the complaints of manure and horse p!ss everywhere but for the sake of cleaner air we can't have a single vehicle at all. You all know it makes sense. 🤣

[Sephiroth]

Have you deliberately ignored the bit where I said there will always be traffic? 

why are you painting a picture that no one is proposing? 

low traffic helps every single person in the scenarios you paint

disabled people, heart attack victims, delivery drivers - all will benefit with fewer vehicles on the road 

[Rockets]

55 minutes ago, Jules-and-Boo said:

LTN May move traffic, but couple with lower cars this would work. 

But LTNs, despite the claims of those who support them, do nothing to reduce the number of cars- so where is that impetus coming from (and remember research carried out in the Brixton LTNs showed car ownership had increased not decreased since the measures went it).

 

Without the trigger to reduce car usage all that LTNs do is make the problem of congestion and pollution worse (see Streatham for a very real example of that).

 

LTNs have always been a very blunt instrument that were destined to fail exactly because they were the only tool councils deployed (and they only did that due to the lobbying efforts of the cycle lobby who convinced them they were the cure all).

2 minutes ago, Sephiroth said:

Have you deliberately ignored the bit where I said there will always be traffic? 

why are you painting a picture that no one is proposing? 

low traffic helps every single person in the scenarios you paint

disabled people, heart attack victims, delivery drivers - all will benefit with fewer vehicles on the road 

So how do you create a London-wide LTN then (that was your suggestion after all) - current LTNs close roads to through traffic. What is your proposed solution that takes a different approach?

 

[Sephiroth]

Traffic hasn’t disappeared in LTN areas has it

and it wouldn’t in a more universal scheme 

LTN aren’t a silver bullet and should only be part of a wider approach   But you can’t wait for everything to be in place   If Streatham didn’t work out there were reasons (scheduled roadworks played a part) it doesn’t mean it can’t be tweaked and retried 

 

if people IN LTNs like them why would Streatham be different 

 

“where would that traffic go?”

 

well eventually drivers will get the message and not drive so regularly and save it for more necessary trips 

 

 

 

[Rockets]

24 minutes ago, Sephiroth said:

Traffic hasn’t disappeared in LTN areas has it

Huh...of course it has...most of it now goes a different way to avoid the closures, that's the point isn't it?

Trust me, Streatham not working had nothing to do with the roadworks, that's just the usual Labour "never admit you got something wrong, it wasn't our fault, someone else is always to blame"! If it was they would not have u-turned so quickly, you don't give up that quickly when you have spent lots of taxpayers money on cameras and signage - they knew the moment it went in that it was flawed.

Exactly the same thing happened at Loughborough Junction and the local MP had to intervene to get it fixed after LAS complained to them about the delays and the fact Lambeth were ignoring their pleas for them to fix the problem.

 

You still haven't answered how you implement a London-wide LTN as you suggested. How does that work?

What we are seeing here is a classic case of demonstrating that soundbiting is easy and that in the real world, real world challenges prevent the ideological utopia many imagine from actually materialising.

Unfortunately the councils and the various lobby groups catalysing these plans tend to live in a dream world that can't actually exist.

[Sephiroth]

“Traffic hasn’t disssapearwd”

 

”of course it has - most of it goes”

 

so no then.  Traffic has not disappeared.  If people in an LTN are happier, why has it worked there and not elsewhere? 

why has it not worked in Streatham specifically?

 

”trust me” - unlikely but let’s hear the real reasons (I didn’t say roadworks were only reason either)

[Rockets]

20 minutes ago, Sephiroth said:

 If people in an LTN are happier, why has it worked there and not elsewhere? 

Because the cars no longer go down their road, they go down someone else's instead and they, naturally, like that...goodness me why is that so difficult to comprehend....?

 

It hasn't worked in Streatham because the displaced traffic from the LTN caused gridlock along the Streatham High Road.

Edited March 9, 2024 by Rockets

[Sephiroth]

None of this is difficult to comprehend other than your fixation 

 

so the Streatham implementation can be tweaked and successfully introduced there 

 

because it still sounds like the sheer number of cars is the problem, not LTNs

 

And we can either let the number of cars increase or we can look at many different ways (including LTNs) that check their numbers