Anti Local Traffic Neighbourhood campaign in SE London

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: Anti Local Traffic Neighbourhood campaign in SE London

Post by Micro The Maniac »

FosseWay wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 12:50 This is true, but you have to ask what the point is, other than being seen to be doing something. If you make it harder (but not impossible) to use private cars in a given area, but you don't provide alternatives, people will just carry on using them, probably with a side order of moaning at the council when given the opportunity. This strikes me as something of a lose-lose scenario - people have their journeys lengthened in distance and time, but there isn't a huge change in how many people are driving on the road, so they don't get the benefits that - logically - LTNs should provide in terms of quieter and safer roads.

Once again, it strikes me that government has shot itself spectacularly in the foot. It could have provided the alternatives first, i.e. public transport, better provision for pedestrians and cyclists etc., and then said "We've provided realistic alternatives to a lot of the journeys people make round here, so now we are going to reduce the attractiveness of driving in this area in order to improve pollution/noise/safety/aesthetics." There'd still be people who complained, sure, but as it is, a large percentage of people in the area feel got at because there is no obvious alternative.
This...

The Government (at all levels) could start by making sure every new development has a sustainable travel policy - appropriate (joined-up, off-road) cycle routes and viable public-transport provision (with developer contributions ringfenced to pay for this into the future). If they want to be really bold, have no roads at all on the estate...

Mind you, they could also make sure that every new development includes appropriate services (shops, doctors, dentists, recreation etc) too.
User avatar
FosseWay
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 19621
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: Anti Local Traffic Neighbourhood campaign in SE London

Post by FosseWay »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 18:30 If they want to be really bold, have no roads at all on the estate...
It's not that bold - they were doing that here in the 80s.

Some friends of mine used to live in this estate near me. You can see the two car parks. Further access by motor vehicle is only possible if you unlock the barrier, and you can get the key in advance from the housing association if you have a good reason to need to drive right up to your front door, but otherwise, the barriers are shut. The roadways within the housing complex are wide enough for a fire engine, no more than that, and deliberately have kinks in them. Whenever I went to visit my friends and the weather was halfway decent, there was always a lot of life in the roadways between the houses, with kids playing, old folk sitting chatting on benches etc.

But the wider context of this estate is also important to this discussion. There are car parks with AFAIK enough parking for residents and visitors (on the odd occasion I wussed out and drove there rather than cycling, there was always visitor parking available). No-one says or implies that car ownership there is wrong. On the other hand, it is presumed you will use your vehicle in a sensible way. Between that estate and the main highway, the speed limit is 30 or 40 km/h. At the bottom of the hill to the west there is a bus stop with buses every 5 minutes in rush hour and every 15 in the evenings and at weekends. Parallel to the road with the bus stop on it is a cycle path that follows a disused railway and will take you directly into the city centre with no interaction with traffic except for small residential roads crossing and a handful of light-controlled crossings in the city.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
fras
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: Anti Local Traffic Neighbourhood campaign in SE London

Post by fras »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 18:25
Bryn666 wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 12:11 It's a prohibition of driving that you can take your metal box around via another route, it is hardly the Berlin Wall nor is it anything that creates victims other than those who live to be permanently offended by any effort to improve the world.
I'm sure we'd be marginally more sympathetic of the idea if those espousing LTNs had modal shifted themselves. As it is, the sense is that the politburo simply want the roads to themselves, and the proletariat should know their place.
The nomenklatura strike again !
User avatar
ravenbluemoon
Committee Member
Posts: 3042
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:32
Location: Between Mansfield and Göteborg

Re: Anti Local Traffic Neighbourhood campaign in SE London

Post by ravenbluemoon »

FosseWay wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 19:15
Micro The Maniac wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 18:30 If they want to be really bold, have no roads at all on the estate...
It's not that bold - they were doing that here in the 80s.

Some friends of mine used to live in this estate near me. You can see the two car parks. Further access by motor vehicle is only possible if you unlock the barrier, and you can get the key in advance from the housing association if you have a good reason to need to drive right up to your front door, but otherwise, the barriers are shut. The roadways within the housing complex are wide enough for a fire engine, no more than that, and deliberately have kinks in them. Whenever I went to visit my friends and the weather was halfway decent, there was always a lot of life in the roadways between the houses, with kids playing, old folk sitting chatting on benches etc.
It's a similar thing with my girlfriend's estate over there. There is one main road up the hill, but you're expected to park in the car parking areas (though there is a bit of on street parking). Half the low rise apartments are on street (hers isn't, but there's a fire road), and most of the high rises are via paths. It's quite a cosy area, and given it is constrained on three sides by steep hills, there's no through traffic. Indeed it is easier to use the many paths to get around locally. If you're heading into town, there's a tram stop a few minutes walk either side, and a bus that has a turning circle part way up the hill. A car there is "nice to have", or a bonus. But it isn't a necessity.

Actually, I used to live on an estate here in Southampton. The only road makes a circuit of the housing, and you park in the car parks (which are sometimes gated). Curiously, the Swedish architect won awards for the design back in the 60s. Seems like it has improved a bit since I lived there in 2001, it was a bit of a dump. But yet it could be quite pleasant - the gardens in the houses all faced south, and there's plenty of open space for an inner city location. I never needed a car there, occasionally I'd borrow a pool car from work if it was an early start, and there was no issue getting parked.
Tony Alice (they,them)
~~~~~
Owner of a classic rust heap/money pit, and other unremarkable older vehicles.
Usually found with a head in an old map or road atlas.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Ask me if you want to get involved!

User avatar
trickstat
Member
Posts: 8738
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 14:06
Location: Letchworth Gdn City, Herts

Re: Anti Local Traffic Neighbourhood campaign in SE London

Post by trickstat »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 18:30
FosseWay wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 12:50 This is true, but you have to ask what the point is, other than being seen to be doing something. If you make it harder (but not impossible) to use private cars in a given area, but you don't provide alternatives, people will just carry on using them, probably with a side order of moaning at the council when given the opportunity. This strikes me as something of a lose-lose scenario - people have their journeys lengthened in distance and time, but there isn't a huge change in how many people are driving on the road, so they don't get the benefits that - logically - LTNs should provide in terms of quieter and safer roads.

Once again, it strikes me that government has shot itself spectacularly in the foot. It could have provided the alternatives first, i.e. public transport, better provision for pedestrians and cyclists etc., and then said "We've provided realistic alternatives to a lot of the journeys people make round here, so now we are going to reduce the attractiveness of driving in this area in order to improve pollution/noise/safety/aesthetics." There'd still be people who complained, sure, but as it is, a large percentage of people in the area feel got at because there is no obvious alternative.
This...

The Government (at all levels) could start by making sure every new development has a sustainable travel policy - appropriate (joined-up, off-road) cycle routes and viable public-transport provision (with developer contributions ringfenced to pay for this into the future). If they want to be really bold, have no roads at all on the estate...

Mind you, they could also make sure that every new development includes appropriate services (shops, doctors, dentists, recreation etc) too.
Yes I think there should be some rules like once you reach a certain number of dwellings (50?), you must have at least one shop and a play area, another higher number you must have a doctors' surgery and another number and you must have a dentist etc.
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9708
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: Anti Local Traffic Neighbourhood campaign in SE London

Post by WHBM »

I'm sure we'd be marginally more sympathetic of the idea if those espousing LTNs had modal shifted themselves. As it is, the sense is that the politburo simply want the roads to themselves, and the proletariat should know their place.
Too true. Newham council bought a new central offices by London City airport, with substantial underground parking, but then closed this off to most employees, who thus park scattered around residential side roads

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5098722 ... 312!8i6656

of course, the councillors are all allowed to park in the car park (all paid for ultimately by the proletariat, of course) ...

About the only person to eschew the official car of, first Mayor, and then PM, was Boris, who would go round London on his bike (seriously, I saw them all coming through Wapping one day headed for Canary Wharf, Boris in the lead and at speed), and thus the accompanying officials and, later, security staff had to follow. I bet they all breathed a sigh of relief when the security staff announced it was "too dangerous, for security reasons", and it was back to the Jag, accompanied by the Range Rover (none of the Met's Mitsubishi 4wds for the security team).
User avatar
ravenbluemoon
Committee Member
Posts: 3042
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:32
Location: Between Mansfield and Göteborg

Re: Anti Local Traffic Neighbourhood campaign in SE London

Post by ravenbluemoon »

trickstat wrote: Thu Apr 14, 2022 09:05 Yes I think there should be some rules like once you reach a certain number of dwellings (50?), you must have at least one shop and a play area, another higher number you must have a doctors' surgery and another number and you must have a dentist etc.
This is similar to the concept of "10 minute neighbourhoods" (I've heard it called different things, but same idea) where everything you need in day-to-day life is within a 10 minute walk or cycle ride from home.
Tony Alice (they,them)
~~~~~
Owner of a classic rust heap/money pit, and other unremarkable older vehicles.
Usually found with a head in an old map or road atlas.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Ask me if you want to get involved!

User avatar
Owain
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 26212
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 17:02
Location: Leodis

Re: Anti Local Traffic Neighbourhood campaign in SE London

Post by Owain »

jnty wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 10:37 I think it comes down to the fact that, yes, there will always be edge cases, but by definition edge cases are the exception and can't be allowed to dominate the debate. Much as I would love to believe that the SUVs lining up outside my local city centre primary school have all carried pupils ten miles over heath and moor, I'm quite sure that the vast majority live within a 15 minute walk and probably overtook their classmates cycling in.
Or, if the primary school near me is anything to go by, it's more likely that the SUVs will be stuck in the jam caused by all the parked cars, and that the kids walking will overtake them.

The school is probably about 400m from my house. The end of my road is probably about 300m away, and about 100m away there lives a family who drive their kids to the school. Or, to be more precise, they load their kids into the car and drive them to the bottom of the road, before unloading them, walking them the resit of the way to the school, and then driving back home.

So that's a load of faff loading them into the car, a drive of about 200m to drop them off, parking at the bottom of the street while they are walked the remaining 100m to the school, and a return drive of 200m back up the street to their house.

I'd bet my house it would be quicker to walk! I must try beating them one day...
Former President & F99 Driver

Viva la Repubblica!
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: Anti Local Traffic Neighbourhood campaign in SE London

Post by jnty »

Owain wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 08:45
jnty wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 10:37 I think it comes down to the fact that, yes, there will always be edge cases, but by definition edge cases are the exception and can't be allowed to dominate the debate. Much as I would love to believe that the SUVs lining up outside my local city centre primary school have all carried pupils ten miles over heath and moor, I'm quite sure that the vast majority live within a 15 minute walk and probably overtook their classmates cycling in.
Or, if the primary school near me is anything to go by, it's more likely that the SUVs will be stuck in the jam caused by all the parked cars, and that the kids walking will overtake them.

The school is probably about 400m from my house. The end of my road is probably about 300m away, and about 100m away there lives a family who drive their kids to the school. Or, to be more precise, they load their kids into the car and drive them to the bottom of the road, before unloading them, walking them the resit of the way to the school, and then driving back home.

So that's a load of faff loading them into the car, a drive of about 200m to drop them off, parking at the bottom of the street while they are walked the remaining 100m to the school, and a return drive of 200m back up the street to their house.

I'd bet my house it would be quicker to walk! I must try beating them one day...
Reminds me of the people who drive tiny distances into work then frequently complain that the traffic was so bad they "could have walked faster!" Well, try it!
User avatar
trickstat
Member
Posts: 8738
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 14:06
Location: Letchworth Gdn City, Herts

Re: Anti Local Traffic Neighbourhood campaign in SE London

Post by trickstat »

Owain wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 08:45
jnty wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 10:37 I think it comes down to the fact that, yes, there will always be edge cases, but by definition edge cases are the exception and can't be allowed to dominate the debate. Much as I would love to believe that the SUVs lining up outside my local city centre primary school have all carried pupils ten miles over heath and moor, I'm quite sure that the vast majority live within a 15 minute walk and probably overtook their classmates cycling in.
Or, if the primary school near me is anything to go by, it's more likely that the SUVs will be stuck in the jam caused by all the parked cars, and that the kids walking will overtake them.

The school is probably about 400m from my house. The end of my road is probably about 300m away, and about 100m away there lives a family who drive their kids to the school. Or, to be more precise, they load their kids into the car and drive them to the bottom of the road, before unloading them, walking them the resit of the way to the school, and then driving back home.

So that's a load of faff loading them into the car, a drive of about 200m to drop them off, parking at the bottom of the street while they are walked the remaining 100m to the school, and a return drive of 200m back up the street to their house.

I'd bet my house it would be quicker to walk! I must try beating them one day...
That is utterly bonkers on every level! They don't even have the excuse that the school is on their route to work or whatever.
User avatar
Owain
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 26212
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 17:02
Location: Leodis

Re: Anti Local Traffic Neighbourhood campaign in SE London

Post by Owain »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Wed Apr 13, 2022 18:30 The Government (at all levels) could start by making sure every new development has a sustainable travel policy - appropriate (joined-up, off-road) cycle routes and viable public-transport provision (with developer contributions ringfenced to pay for this into the future). If they want to be really bold, have no roads at all on the estate...

Mind you, they could also make sure that every new development includes appropriate services (shops, doctors, dentists, recreation etc) too.
I'm not knocking your idea, but who would buy these new properties if there is no road access? Even if I didn't have a car, I wouldn't touch a property with no road access with a barge pole!

I remember my ex-wife wanting to buy a Georgian property in Bradford-on-Avon which was only accessible on foot. After I'd pointed out the obvious from a car-owner's POV, I asked her how the removal guys were supposed to get the furniture there? And what we'd do if we bought a new fridge or washing machine and had to get it delivered? Or needed a builder to do renovation work?

And that was in the days before online supermarket deliveries...
Former President & F99 Driver

Viva la Repubblica!
User avatar
Owain
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 26212
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 17:02
Location: Leodis

Re: Anti Local Traffic Neighbourhood campaign in SE London

Post by Owain »

trickstat wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 09:47
Owain wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 08:45
Or, if the primary school near me is anything to go by, it's more likely that the SUVs will be stuck in the jam caused by all the parked cars, and that the kids walking will overtake them.

The school is probably about 400m from my house. The end of my road is probably about 300m away, and about 100m away there lives a family who drive their kids to the school. Or, to be more precise, they load their kids into the car and drive them to the bottom of the road, before unloading them, walking them the resit of the way to the school, and then driving back home.

So that's a load of faff loading them into the car, a drive of about 200m to drop them off, parking at the bottom of the street while they are walked the remaining 100m to the school, and a return drive of 200m back up the street to their house.

I'd bet my house it would be quicker to walk! I must try beating them one day...
That is utterly bonkers on every level! They don't even have the excuse that the school is on their route to work or whatever.
It is on my route to work (a three-mile walk) which is why I'm tempted to try leaving the house at the same time and racing them... and my house is 100m further away from the school than theirs.

Trouble is, I prefer not to walk past the school at drop-off/pick-up time for fear of being swamped by the inevitable tsunami of five-year-olds!
Last edited by Owain on Fri Apr 15, 2022 09:58, edited 1 time in total.
Former President & F99 Driver

Viva la Repubblica!
User avatar
trickstat
Member
Posts: 8738
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 14:06
Location: Letchworth Gdn City, Herts

Re: Anti Local Traffic Neighbourhood campaign in SE London

Post by trickstat »

jnty wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 09:40
Owain wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 08:45
jnty wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 10:37 I think it comes down to the fact that, yes, there will always be edge cases, but by definition edge cases are the exception and can't be allowed to dominate the debate. Much as I would love to believe that the SUVs lining up outside my local city centre primary school have all carried pupils ten miles over heath and moor, I'm quite sure that the vast majority live within a 15 minute walk and probably overtook their classmates cycling in.
Or, if the primary school near me is anything to go by, it's more likely that the SUVs will be stuck in the jam caused by all the parked cars, and that the kids walking will overtake them.

The school is probably about 400m from my house. The end of my road is probably about 300m away, and about 100m away there lives a family who drive their kids to the school. Or, to be more precise, they load their kids into the car and drive them to the bottom of the road, before unloading them, walking them the resit of the way to the school, and then driving back home.

So that's a load of faff loading them into the car, a drive of about 200m to drop them off, parking at the bottom of the street while they are walked the remaining 100m to the school, and a return drive of 200m back up the street to their house.

I'd bet my house it would be quicker to walk! I must try beating them one day...
Reminds me of the people who drive tiny distances into work then frequently complain that the traffic was so bad they "could have walked faster!" Well, try it!
Or those who drive their children to school because the relatively minor roads between them and the school are felt to be too dangerous for them to cross. They would be a darned sight less dangerous if they weren't full of parents driving less than half a mile to school!

A couple of months ago my Mum read out a Facebook post where someone was expressing alarm about pupils crossing the road erratically at home time right outside the secondary school that my sister's children used to attend. I was quite pleased that the poster got a lot of criticism for insisting on driving right by the school gates at that time, especially as there is plenty of space to pull up between the main road and the school gates if you must pick your child up from school.

My sister's children always walked the mile and a half or so to and from the school. Fortunately, the most major road they needed to cross had a Pelican Crossing.
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: Anti Local Traffic Neighbourhood campaign in SE London

Post by jnty »

trickstat wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 09:57 Or those who drive their children to school because the relatively minor roads between them and the school are felt to be too dangerous for them to cross. They would be a darned sight less dangerous if they weren't full of parents driving less than half a mile to school!

A couple of months ago my Mum read out a Facebook post where someone was expressing alarm about pupils crossing the road erratically at home time right outside the secondary school that my sister's children used to attend. I was quite pleased that the poster got a lot of criticism for insisting on driving right by the school gates at that time, especially as there is plenty of space to pull up between the main road and the school gates if you must pick your child up from school.

My sister's children always walked the mile and a half or so to and from the school. Fortunately, the most major road they needed to cross had a Pelican Crossing.
Absolutely. I'm reminded of an angry post on some platform that children should be more aware when walking down the pavement because the poster almost hit someone while reversing out of their driveway. I don't know how you combat some of these ingrained, entitled attitudes and get people to show the same consideration they probably show to others in all other walks of life while behind the wheel.

Of course, a simple way to avoid conflict between the school drivers and walkers/cyclists is by keeping through traffic on main roads and ensuring that walking/cycling routes to school fall mostly on quiet access-only residential streets. I wonder if anyone's ever tried it...
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9708
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: Anti Local Traffic Neighbourhood campaign in SE London

Post by WHBM »

jnty wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 10:47 Of course, a simple way to avoid conflict between the school drivers and walkers/cyclists is by keeping through traffic on main roads and ensuring that walking/cycling routes to school fall mostly on quiet access-only residential streets. I wonder if anyone's ever tried it...
Though a good number of these situations are not about keeping through traffic on main roads, but stopping people from getting from one end of their residential road to the other, and thence onwards, as described in the original post, thus causing them a considerable and timewasting diversion by main roads. It's especially a nuisance where, again as in the original post, traffic management measures have already previously taken place on the main road that the LTN advocates seem not to have noticed, in this case a ban on right turns onto the A205 South Circular.

We walk home from the station, about three-quarters mile. But if I'm at home and it's raining/they have heavy parcels/children have thrown up etc, I'll drive over to pick them up. It's a straightforward journey. Are we saying, in a well-developed wealthy country, I should not ?
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: Anti Local Traffic Neighbourhood campaign in SE London

Post by jnty »

WHBM wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:26
jnty wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 10:47 Of course, a simple way to avoid conflict between the school drivers and walkers/cyclists is by keeping through traffic on main roads and ensuring that walking/cycling routes to school fall mostly on quiet access-only residential streets. I wonder if anyone's ever tried it...
Though a good number of these situations are not about keeping through traffic on main roads, but stopping people from getting from one end of their residential road to the other, and thence onwards, as described in the original post, thus causing them a considerable and timewasting diversion by main roads. It's especially a nuisance where, again as in the original post, traffic management measures have already previously taken place on the main road that the LTN advocates seem not to have noticed, in this case a ban on right turns onto the A205 South Circular.

We walk home from the station, about three-quarters mile. But if I'm at home and it's raining/they have heavy parcels/children have thrown up etc, I'll drive over to pick them up. It's a straightforward journey. Are we saying, in a well-developed wealthy country, I should not ?
Nobody is suggesting barbed wire and anti-tank mines - just that you think twice about doing it and, if you do (if it's on a rainy day, you won't be the only one) you do it using infrastructure designed for the purpose and don't make life more unpleasant for people who have made different choices. Cycling three quarters of a mile in the rain home is no big deal by itself, but made significantly more unpleasant if you have to do it alongside queues of traffic or speeding rat-runners, especially since a bit of rain and murk seems to make every second driver go mad these days. Nobody is saying you must to do the same, just that it might be nice if, on a network level, the people who are walking and cycling are cut a bit more slack - especially in inclement weather!
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: Anti Local Traffic Neighbourhood campaign in SE London

Post by Micro The Maniac »

Owain wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 09:52I'm not knocking your idea, but who would buy these new properties if there is no road access? Even if I didn't have a car, I wouldn't touch a property with no road access with a barge pole!
We're repeatedly being told by the great-and-the-good that all that is needed is good public transport and appropriate cycling and pedestrian infrastructure.

Build it and they will come...

Are you suggesting this is a fallacy?
User avatar
Owain
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 26212
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 17:02
Location: Leodis

Re: Anti Local Traffic Neighbourhood campaign in SE London

Post by Owain »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 17:43
Owain wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 09:52I'm not knocking your idea, but who would buy these new properties if there is no road access? Even if I didn't have a car, I wouldn't touch a property with no road access with a barge pole!
We're repeatedly being told by the great-and-the-good that all that is needed is good public transport and appropriate cycling and pedestrian infrastructure.

Build it and they will come...

Are you suggesting this is a fallacy?
It isn't necessarily a fallacy in large cities, but I'd imagine that most of the people who are attracted to such a development are likely to be people who aren't already wedded to their cars.

Public transport needs to be punctual, convenient, not too far from either origin or destination, and cheap (or even free). In the large city where I live, it doesn't tick any of those boxes.
Former President & F99 Driver

Viva la Repubblica!
aj444
Member
Posts: 1401
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 22:38
Location: Derbys

Re: Anti Local Traffic Neighbourhood campaign in SE London

Post by aj444 »

Owain wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 20:58 Public transport needs to be punctual, convenient, not too far from either origin or destination, and cheap (or even free). In the large city where I live, it doesn't tick any of those boxes.
Unless something changes quite rapidly, we're going to see huge cuts to bus services this autumn.

Ridership is 20% down on pre-pandemic levels, this is mostly due to to a fall of concessionary fare journeys (30%) - how do we attract them back when we can't even give the product away?

Costs are rising, fuel being the obvious one - plus we as an industry now have to pay drivers more (not that they don't deserve it) The big groups in the industry were struggling before all this (although largely due to problems of their own making) - big changes are coming when the government funding life source runs out in the autumn.

There won't be much provision of buses in an LTN at the rate we're going - so if you can't walk or cycle - then what?
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: Anti Local Traffic Neighbourhood campaign in SE London

Post by jnty »

aj444 wrote:
There won't be much provision of buses in an LTN at the rate we're going - so if you can't walk or cycle - then what?
Then you drive a few minutes longer, worst case. If there is currently, or is going to be, a boom in private motoring post pandemic, surely that strengthens the case for protecting residential streets, cycle routes and bus priority schemes from the effects of heavy traffic?
Post Reply