Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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) 

  • Thanks 1

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 by 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 by 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...

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 

  • Thanks 1

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.

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.

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) 

  • Thanks 1

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?

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

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 by Rockets

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.

  • Agree 1

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. 🤣

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 

  • Agree 1
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?

 

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 

 

 

 

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.

“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)

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 by Rockets

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 

 

 

  • Agree 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...